5 ms·

In the mother of multicultural societies - Nationalism is the fine thread that holds the thing together. India without Indian-Nationalism is warring states invi

In the mother of multicultural societies - Nationalism is the fine thread that holds the thing together. India without Indian-Nationalism is warring states inviting new colonial powers for piece of action. This has been predicament of India since Alexander the Great. Strong borders externally and shallow border internally with rivers flowing in different directions created disparate cultures and population centers. India without Indian Nationalism is Syria on Steroids.. You do not want to go there.

sgift 6y ago
Funny, there is a state in Europe which had exactly the same position: We are all individual states, we fight with each other, we are weak, we should be together under strong nationalism, so we aren't victims of others anymore and so on. That country was Germany, which unified in 1871. Two world wars later and we've decided that maybe Nationalism isn't such a great thing. But you do you. Have fun.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sremani 6y ago
  Is Europe a country? Europe and India are different in many ways. Because Indian Nationalism dates back to 323 BC and with Mauryan Empire.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    > That country was Germany
  - orwin 6y ago
    Nationalism as in nation-state dates back to 323 BC? I would be surprised. I think historian debate if nationalism was born in the 17th or the 18th century, so maybe they are all wrong, but considering how many new, interesting debate are indroduced by Chinese historians (== academics), i doubt the debate wouldn't already have fired if this was a question. At the time, ruling over different culture and languages was a sign of power. Chandragupta's empire included Bengali and people from Deccan, and i think it extended beyond the hindus (Sorry if it the the english term, i'm not fluent enough to read history books in english). I would be VERY surprised if any of those considered themselves as Indian before anything else.
  - higerordermap 6y ago
    For what it's worth, Mauryan empire didn't rule the entire south India, which had different culture. India makes more sense as a subcontinent, not a unified culture. It's a spectrum of cultures.
- dextralt 6y ago
  >Two world wars later and we've decided that maybe Nationalism isn't such a great thing The states that brought Germany down in both world wars were just as nationalistic at the time. Even the commies brought it back when they needed it the most - and it worked. Also, since the country in question here is India - without nationalism, they would still be a colony.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  That was just a reaction to the imperialism of another...uhm...player on the field. Which now has brexited from it :-) We will see where that is going... Interesting times.
lordleft 6y ago
It is one thing to argue for an Indian National identity -- I think that's immensely useful and agree that it acts as a thread that can unify diverse polities and cultures. The problem is that the BJP is advancing a conception of Indian National Identity that flattens distinctions and is predicated on a caricature of Indian minorities. Hindutva sees Muslims, Christians and others as second-class citizens -- it is a nationalism that comes at the expense of diversity, and sometimes at the expense of the safety of Indian minority communities, free expression & speech, and democratic norms. Creating an identity from a subcontinent filled with dozens (if not thousands) of languages and ethnic groups is an immense challenge, but the project of Hindutva is an unbelievably blunt attempt to resolve this tension. I should add that I am an Indian American, and a St. Thomas Christian from Kerala. My community is ancient, thoroughly Indian, and yet is an affront to Indian Nationalism as conceived by the Hindu Nationalist right.
- sremani 6y ago
  I get what you are saying - but Hindutva in spite of a ham fisted approach is also effective at least in political sense that it is Simple and simplistic. India is layered with fragments like caste, region, etc. In some cases Hindutva replaces the more devious kinds of fragmentation. In spite of the rhetoric India under BJP has less communal strife than 80s or 90s. I hate to say it but I will say it anyway, you need to break eggs to make an omlet and I take no satisfaction in it, but there is going to be strife in some communities ending up being political losers. I am surprised to even hear Thomasites who are one of the socio-econmic mores facing persecution in a state where BJP has no footprint.
  - polar 6y ago
    > I am surprised to even hear Thomasites who are one of the socio-econmic mores facing persecution in a state where BJP has no footprint. Perhaps you are surprised because he didn't say that!
- naruvimama 6y ago
  Hindu is a label automatically applied to all Indian. Being a "Christian" is about actually accepting the bible, the first words that people hear from god is to kill the non-believers and idolators. I understand where you are coming from, but I am fairly certain 99% of the Hindutva groups would be fine as long as you do not hold such extreme views. So what is your take on the aggressive evangelism (mostly American) going on in India. And what do you think of the RSS definition of Hindu which includes all Christians & Muslims who consider India their cultural source.

sgift 6y ago

Funny, there is a state in Europe which had exactly the same position: We are all individual states, we fight with each other, we are weak, we should be together under strong nationalism, so we aren't victims of others anymore and so on. That country was Germany, which unified in 1871. Two world wars later and we've decided that maybe Nationalism isn't such a great thing. But you do you. Have fun.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sremani 6y ago
Is Europe a country? Europe and India are different in many ways. Because Indian Nationalism dates back to 323 BC and with Mauryan Empire.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  > That country was Germany
- orwin 6y ago
  Nationalism as in nation-state dates back to 323 BC? I would be surprised. I think historian debate if nationalism was born in the 17th or the 18th century, so maybe they are all wrong, but considering how many new, interesting debate are indroduced by Chinese historians (== academics), i doubt the debate wouldn't already have fired if this was a question. At the time, ruling over different culture and languages was a sign of power. Chandragupta's empire included Bengali and people from Deccan, and i think it extended beyond the hindus (Sorry if it the the english term, i'm not fluent enough to read history books in english). I would be VERY surprised if any of those considered themselves as Indian before anything else.
- higerordermap 6y ago
  For what it's worth, Mauryan empire didn't rule the entire south India, which had different culture. India makes more sense as a subcontinent, not a unified culture. It's a spectrum of cultures.
dextralt 6y ago
>Two world wars later and we've decided that maybe Nationalism isn't such a great thing The states that brought Germany down in both world wars were just as nationalistic at the time. Even the commies brought it back when they needed it the most - and it worked. Also, since the country in question here is India - without nationalism, they would still be a colony.
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
That was just a reaction to the imperialism of another...uhm...player on the field. Which now has brexited from it :-) We will see where that is going... Interesting times.

lordleft 6y ago

It is one thing to argue for an Indian National identity -- I think that's immensely useful and agree that it acts as a thread that can unify diverse polities and cultures. The problem is that the BJP is advancing a conception of Indian National Identity that flattens distinctions and is predicated on a caricature of Indian minorities. Hindutva sees Muslims, Christians and others as second-class citizens -- it is a nationalism that comes at the expense of diversity, and sometimes at the expense of the safety of Indian minority communities, free expression & speech, and democratic norms. Creating an identity from a subcontinent filled with dozens (if not thousands) of languages and ethnic groups is an immense challenge, but the project of Hindutva is an unbelievably blunt attempt to resolve this tension. I should add that I am an Indian American, and a St. Thomas Christian from Kerala. My community is ancient, thoroughly Indian, and yet is an affront to Indian Nationalism as conceived by the Hindu Nationalist right.

sremani 6y ago
I get what you are saying - but Hindutva in spite of a ham fisted approach is also effective at least in political sense that it is Simple and simplistic. India is layered with fragments like caste, region, etc. In some cases Hindutva replaces the more devious kinds of fragmentation. In spite of the rhetoric India under BJP has less communal strife than 80s or 90s. I hate to say it but I will say it anyway, you need to break eggs to make an omlet and I take no satisfaction in it, but there is going to be strife in some communities ending up being political losers. I am surprised to even hear Thomasites who are one of the socio-econmic mores facing persecution in a state where BJP has no footprint.
- polar 6y ago
  > I am surprised to even hear Thomasites who are one of the socio-econmic mores facing persecution in a state where BJP has no footprint. Perhaps you are surprised because he didn't say that!
naruvimama 6y ago
Hindu is a label automatically applied to all Indian. Being a "Christian" is about actually accepting the bible, the first words that people hear from god is to kill the non-believers and idolators. I understand where you are coming from, but I am fairly certain 99% of the Hindutva groups would be fine as long as you do not hold such extreme views. So what is your take on the aggressive evangelism (mostly American) going on in India. And what do you think of the RSS definition of Hindu which includes all Christians & Muslims who consider India their cultural source.