The reaction to colonialism and imperialism emerged in the imperial metropoles. 

This is the paradox. 

It is one because the native who had been colonized may not have had an idea that his or her freedom had been taken away. Or, more prosaically, he or she may not have had an idea of the nation. He or she belonged either to a tribe or to a grouping that had a loose and somewhat vague idea of itself. 

Obiter dictum, this affective and loose affiliative sense was encouraged by imperial powers by creating tribal groups and encouraging them. The premise was to pit these groupings against one another and/or create a balance of power that would accept imperial authority. 

But this is beside the point. The real issue and gravamen of the matter was that reaction and resistance to imperialism emerged in the Western imperial power centers.

This had two components. One was the conceptual underpinnings of nationalism and its practice. The other was the internalization of the same by the non-Western intellectuals and elite who studied or worked in the Western metropoles. 

Exposure to and understanding of nationalism, and maybe some unsavory experiences in the West, for example, Gandhi was thrown out of a first-class train compartment in South Africa, crafted the consciousness of most, if not all, non-Western elite. 

In the main, this set in motion nationalist struggles in most of the non-Western colonized world.

Consider the ideas and concepts of nationalism. Eminence grises like Benedict Anderson held that a nation was an imagined community. Others like Anthony Smith attributed nationalist consciousness to industrialization, labor, and the emergence of the modern workforce. 

More astute intellectuals and scholars like Herder held that nations were not mere........

© Kashmir Observer