Sorry for the super long post in advance
Thanks for the answers – I’m not at all not trying to prove you wrong in any way or discredit India, just trying to flesh out my own personal thoughts on what nationalism means for India, so the questions I'm posing are in flux. We are entering a new era in human history (the nationalism/post globalism era) and we are trying to understand how India, given its unique historical circumstances and internal diversity, fits into this. I suppose my thesis is that rising nationalist sentiment will exacerbate divisions within India rather than lead to greater national unity. This is not a commonly held view, so I haven’t tested my arguments out and I’m open to having my mind changed so I look forward to your comments.
This I agree with – there will be rising anti-foreigner sentiment in India but primarily against Bangladeshi immigrants in the east. The difference though is that India, all in all, is still a source of immigration to the West, so Indians could very well get swept up in anti-immigration sentiment. How would this appear to nationalist Indians if they are lumped in with the other problem-causing migrants in Europe?
Hmmm, conflating two arguments here. Point one is that there are movements for regional separatism with rising nationalism, and India is not immune to these sentiments. Point two is that all of the above nations still have a core culture that has existed as contiguous political entities for hundreds of years, which India does not have. Especially China! If India, in its current state, or at least similar to its current borders, were to have the same contiguity that China had since 300 BC then I would have not bothered posting in this thread.
Fair point, but at some point don’t you think Indian nationalists will get frustrated with corruption and poor governance and eventually start pointing fingers, possibly leading to deep national divisions along regional and caste lines? After all, there are some provinces that are a drag on the country and others that are clearly contributing much more. Of course you can say that about many countries, but in India I think the answers could be cultural/genetic rather than due to resource disparities or favorable geography.
Well now that the can of worms has been opened I guess I can run with it. Let’s say that significant IQ differences could be proven to exist between castes or regional groups or religions. Would the high caste groups or regions seek to separate themselves to become more prosperous without the low caste groups dragging them down?
I’m talking more in an abstract sense whether India has enough of a coherent identity to maintain a strong nationalist movement without it getting hijacked by divisive regional/religious/caste based interests, leading to national breakdown. No time frame, god knows what the world will look like in 100 years assuming the robots haven’t taken over.
This is a fair point, and demographics aren’t guaranteed. I guess my main point is that if we’re going to create an Indian identity that is primarily based around Hinduism, then we’ll have to figure out whether Islam even has a role in India or whether we should just kick them out or have an Israeli type apartheid scheme. No fatalism here, just saying that we a) have to halt their growth and b) figure out to do with the ones already in India.
You bring up a good point, perhaps the lower emphasis on individualism will help Indians get along with each other. I’m not saying it’s guaranteed that they can’t work together, but it won’t be easy, and the question is whether do they have enough in common with each other for nationalism to unite them? Perhaps in the face of Chinese or Islamic aggression or anti-white sentiment it is possible.
Fair enough, I think I was conflating some arguments here. Hmmm, my point is rather that a) “Indian” ethnic groups encompass an extremely wide spectrum
b) Within the Indian ethnicity also includes populations that genetically match Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, and Bangladeshis.
So, Indians neither a) Have a common ethnicity nor are b) A separate ethnic group from their neighbors.
Even excluding the tribals, Asians, and Kashmiris, there is still a pretty wide spectrum among Indians in terms of skin color, temperament, and facial structure.
Pretty much all other nation states that are strongly united (except the US – though the U.S. is an immigrant nation and also going through a tramautic self reflection on national identity following the split in the alt-right so I don’t think you could point to the US as a model that India should replicate) have either a common ethnic group or are at least distinct. India doesn’t meet this criteria. I could well see an Indian nationalism exacerbating skin color discrimination.
Holi never seemed big in south India, but that could have just been the people I knew. Now that you mention it, the cultural resentment between the coast and flyover county in the US is actually quite severe – if you look at the Trump thread, people are throwing the term civil war all over the place, so I wouldn't discount cultural resentment so casually.
Now, for China and Russia, these places are empires with long histories and core identities – the rural areas, while perhaps resentful of the urban city slickers, still recognize them as their own. I don’t know if you can say that about India. Many south Indians I’ve spoken to tell me that they feel they are in a different country when they go to Delhi and Bihar, etc. That sentiment is not there in China and Russia – all the cities actually don’t look and feel that different.
Perhaps I’m out of the loop, but at least from what I read in the press, India has many other concerns rather than taking revenge on the British. Personally, I think British rule was on average a good thing for India, especially if Mughal rule was the alternative. Point is, though, is that India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan were ALL under the Raj but demanded to be separate – some deep identities can’t be erased due to having a temporary common enemy. If let’s say Indian nationalists start studying the UKIP for inspiration – are they then going to start saying “f^&* the British Empire” to gain adherents? Seems a bit out of date. The age of imperialism is long gone. It’s cultural Marxism that we’re fighting against, which, while also global in nature, is nearly completely opposite in its outlook from the imperialism that drove the British Empire rather than the fatalism and self hatred that is driving globalism now.
Nations are built from wars. India did not fight a war against Britain to gain independence, so was the anti-British movement really that much of a formative moment for Indian identity?
Well I think it’s still the best analogy to India – if let’s say the Chinese industrialized first and created a big ass colony out of Europe from 1750-1940 ish, then the Europeans gained independence and had a common flag, passport, ping pong team, currency, etc. But then, at some point, the national identity would reassert themselves and this Euro mega project would become ungovernable, just like India is today.
Very good points – like I said, since India is not a destination of mass immigration like Western countries I still think nationalism will take a very different form in India.
Multiculturalism creates empires, not nations. We are talking about all of humanity here, not just the West – there are few successful nations out there which don’t have one predominant cultural group. Now, we can argue whether or not the Indian identity you refer to above constitutes a culture, but I remain firm in my point that multiculturalism is a disaster and if India tries to push a “strength through diversity” type nationalism I doubt it will work.
That’s a good point, but let’s see what concrete pro-nationalist policies Modi implements. Eventually people are going to have their toes stepped on and these regional/caste/religious divisions can get exacerbated.
Don’t you think you are too quickly discounting the importance of a shared national language? Many other countries in which sizeable minorities speak a different language than the country overall are faced with regional separatist sentiments.
You make a good argument here and I shouldn’t have gone off this tangent of sports teams.
This is the core of the question we are getting to here – the alt right makes sense in the West but does it make sense in India since there is no mass low skilled immigration to India (but, like I said, India is sending immigrants out)?
The core Han territory in China has been under a united polity since the Qin dynasty. There is no analogous political contiguity in modern India. Also, you can speak Mandarin in every part of China. You absolutely can’t say the same w/ regard to Hindi in India.
And considering that Belgium is the home of the suicidal EU policies of mass immigration and has massive political dysfunction due to the Flemish and French speaking parts unable to get along, Belgium is a perfect example of how diversity hurts nations. Now, Belgians are civilized and get along with each other, but whether or not Belgium survives the breakup of the EU or not is an open question. Belgium’s existence doesn’t prove that India can work. And they have a king, which could at least be a national figure, while India doesn’t.
100% agree, which is why all I’m saying is that we don’t really know how India will respond to a surge in nationalism or right-wing thinking because its cultural background is so different from Western countries. Since you agree with me that India doesn’t fit the mold of a Western nation state I think we actually agree on a lot of points, I think your point is just that Indians have more in common than I’m giving them credit for.
Like I said, I’m just fleshing out my thoughts so not trying to be antagonistic here.
Quote: (12-13-2016 11:12 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:
What question do you want answered? I've gotten the impression you've moved the goal post a bit.
Your initial question: This to me implied you were asking if India could survive as a nation.
This implies a different question: Can India be successful/well-governed. Two different questions.
Thanks for the answers – I’m not at all not trying to prove you wrong in any way or discredit India, just trying to flesh out my own personal thoughts on what nationalism means for India, so the questions I'm posing are in flux. We are entering a new era in human history (the nationalism/post globalism era) and we are trying to understand how India, given its unique historical circumstances and internal diversity, fits into this. I suppose my thesis is that rising nationalist sentiment will exacerbate divisions within India rather than lead to greater national unity. This is not a commonly held view, so I haven’t tested my arguments out and I’m open to having my mind changed so I look forward to your comments.
Quote:Quote:
Also, the analogy is weak: 'diversity is our strength' mantra in the West is used to import foreignerswho have nothing in common with Europeans and do not assimilate at all. Nigel Farage himself said a big reason why Brexit succeeded was because they wanted to control their own borders and immigrations. Same with the United States - the US existed with 10-15% blacks for the longest time without really affecting the nation. It's only when you start importing hordes of immigrants who refuse to assimilate do you start having trouble.
This I agree with – there will be rising anti-foreigner sentiment in India but primarily against Bangladeshi immigrants in the east. The difference though is that India, all in all, is still a source of immigration to the West, so Indians could very well get swept up in anti-immigration sentiment. How would this appear to nationalist Indians if they are lumped in with the other problem-causing migrants in Europe?
Quote:Quote:
I also want to point out the flaw in your own argument: on one hand you argue India was never a nation like Spain or the UK, yet elsewhere you bring up the Catalonian, Scotish and North Ireland independence movement. Not to mention that China too for a long time consisted of warring nations. Your argument could've been used for China a long time ago too: 'China was always a bunch of kingdoms fighting with each other that the Qin Dynasty unified'. And note that China has fallen apart several times.
Hmmm, conflating two arguments here. Point one is that there are movements for regional separatism with rising nationalism, and India is not immune to these sentiments. Point two is that all of the above nations still have a core culture that has existed as contiguous political entities for hundreds of years, which India does not have. Especially China! If India, in its current state, or at least similar to its current borders, were to have the same contiguity that China had since 300 BC then I would have not bothered posting in this thread.
Quote:Quote:
As I said, whether India is well-governed and whether India remains as one nation are two separate questions. Let's not confound the two
Fair point, but at some point don’t you think Indian nationalists will get frustrated with corruption and poor governance and eventually start pointing fingers, possibly leading to deep national divisions along regional and caste lines? After all, there are some provinces that are a drag on the country and others that are clearly contributing much more. Of course you can say that about many countries, but in India I think the answers could be cultural/genetic rather than due to resource disparities or favorable geography.
Quote:Quote:
Also, I can't comment on the relationship between the quality of governance of India and issues regarding religion, culture, etc. The average IQ in India is 85 and that may imply poor governance even if the entire country was one monolithic cultural block. As long as that IQ number doesn't change for the better, it really doesn't matter what the ethnicities, religious and cultural breakdown of the nation is.
Well now that the can of worms has been opened I guess I can run with it. Let’s say that significant IQ differences could be proven to exist between castes or regional groups or religions. Would the high caste groups or regions seek to separate themselves to become more prosperous without the low caste groups dragging them down?
Quote:Quote:
So let's focus on your initial question of whether India can survive as a nation. Let's also clear up a second point: what time scale are we talking about? 10, 20, 50, 100, or 500 years?
I’m talking more in an abstract sense whether India has enough of a coherent identity to maintain a strong nationalist movement without it getting hijacked by divisive regional/religious/caste based interests, leading to national breakdown. No time frame, god knows what the world will look like in 100 years assuming the robots haven’t taken over.
Quote:Quote:
This assumes the Muslim birthrate remains ahead of the Hindu one for a very long time. I don't know if this will be case: the gap has been closing and may be completely shut as the economy increases job and socioeconomic mobility for all:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Mu...336665.ece
Besides the slowing down of the Muslim birth rate, who is to say the Muslim population won't be reduced. After all, Islam hasn't been in the subcontinent for that long and right-wing Hindu organizations are actively re-converting Muslims back to their ancestors' religion of Hinduism. The numbers are pretty small though:
This is a fair point, and demographics aren’t guaranteed. I guess my main point is that if we’re going to create an Indian identity that is primarily based around Hinduism, then we’ll have to figure out whether Islam even has a role in India or whether we should just kick them out or have an Israeli type apartheid scheme. No fatalism here, just saying that we a) have to halt their growth and b) figure out to do with the ones already in India.
Quote:Quote:
Maybe that's the problem - Christianity and European cultures. Western cultures have always been more result-oriented, more individualistic. The reason Europe had the Industrial Revolution and conquered the world is the same reason Europe could also not maintain unity. Be very careful to assume because European cultures couldn't co-exist in one nation, Indian cultures such as Gujaratis and Punjabis cannot either.
You bring up a good point, perhaps the lower emphasis on individualism will help Indians get along with each other. I’m not saying it’s guaranteed that they can’t work together, but it won’t be easy, and the question is whether do they have enough in common with each other for nationalism to unite them? Perhaps in the face of Chinese or Islamic aggression or anti-white sentiment it is possible.
Quote:Quote:
I never said the Indian physical types are sufficient for a national identity. Your argument was that there was too much diversity in ethnicity, religion, language etc for India to be a single nation. I said those weren't enough of a big deal to break apart the country. That is a different argument than whether ethnicity on its own is enough to sustain a national identity.
You mention the tribals, Kashmiris and orientals. However, this is similar to saying you cannot downplay the native Americans in the US. Well, the reality is these groups are a small minority. How many Nicobar Island tribals are there? Enough to resist the 250,000 numbering Border Security Force (BSF)? Highly doubt it. These small groups can agitate all they want, unless they have the physical force to break apart their feelings are irrelevant.
This is a vastly different scenario compared to Europe where any nation can leave the EU and the EU can't do shit about it. Tribals, orientals and Kashmiris with all due respect do not remotely have the military force to break out on their own. But for argument's sake, let's say they did. So what? That's a very small part of the country and the bulk of India would still remain. And the nation of India with its currency, flag, constitution etc would remain.
Fair enough, I think I was conflating some arguments here. Hmmm, my point is rather that a) “Indian” ethnic groups encompass an extremely wide spectrum
b) Within the Indian ethnicity also includes populations that genetically match Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, and Bangladeshis.
So, Indians neither a) Have a common ethnicity nor are b) A separate ethnic group from their neighbors.
Even excluding the tribals, Asians, and Kashmiris, there is still a pretty wide spectrum among Indians in terms of skin color, temperament, and facial structure.
Pretty much all other nation states that are strongly united (except the US – though the U.S. is an immigrant nation and also going through a tramautic self reflection on national identity following the split in the alt-right so I don’t think you could point to the US as a model that India should replicate) have either a common ethnic group or are at least distinct. India doesn’t meet this criteria. I could well see an Indian nationalism exacerbating skin color discrimination.
Quote:Quote:
I've addressed the muslim issue. Which parts of India don't celebrate Holi? Island tribals, orientals and Kashmiris? OK, anyone else?
The majority of the US has some level of resentment towards the East and West Coast elites. Does that mean the US is doomed to fail too? I don't know much about China or Russia, but I bet people in rural China and Siberia have resentment towards Beijing and Moscow. In every nation, you're gonna have some people feeling resentment towards others. That's not enough to break a nation apart.
Holi never seemed big in south India, but that could have just been the people I knew. Now that you mention it, the cultural resentment between the coast and flyover county in the US is actually quite severe – if you look at the Trump thread, people are throwing the term civil war all over the place, so I wouldn't discount cultural resentment so casually.
Now, for China and Russia, these places are empires with long histories and core identities – the rural areas, while perhaps resentful of the urban city slickers, still recognize them as their own. I don’t know if you can say that about India. Many south Indians I’ve spoken to tell me that they feel they are in a different country when they go to Delhi and Bihar, etc. That sentiment is not there in China and Russia – all the cities actually don’t look and feel that different.
Quote:Quote:
EVERYONE cares about the British Raj. India is not the United States which achieved its independence from the Brits 250 years ago. It barely happened 50 years ago and it's still fresh in the country's memory. The scars of the British Raj are still deeply ingrained into Indian culture - the weariness Indian diplomats have towards the West and its ideas come directly from it. The reason why India took such a long time to accept capitalism is because it reminded them too much of the British/western world. Politicians like Shashi Tharoor are still pining for reparations from the British and there's people still demanding the Koh-i-noor be returned to India. I remember a decade ago a movie called Mangal Pandey came out. It was about the 1857 mutiny in British India - the movie was a huge sensation (it didn't do well at the box office), it created such an uproar of nationalistic Indian pride.
Perhaps I’m out of the loop, but at least from what I read in the press, India has many other concerns rather than taking revenge on the British. Personally, I think British rule was on average a good thing for India, especially if Mughal rule was the alternative. Point is, though, is that India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan were ALL under the Raj but demanded to be separate – some deep identities can’t be erased due to having a temporary common enemy. If let’s say Indian nationalists start studying the UKIP for inspiration – are they then going to start saying “f^&* the British Empire” to gain adherents? Seems a bit out of date. The age of imperialism is long gone. It’s cultural Marxism that we’re fighting against, which, while also global in nature, is nearly completely opposite in its outlook from the imperialism that drove the British Empire rather than the fatalism and self hatred that is driving globalism now.
Nations are built from wars. India did not fight a war against Britain to gain independence, so was the anti-British movement really that much of a formative moment for Indian identity?
Quote:Quote:
You seem a bit too fixated on some analogy between the EU and India. As I've tried to explain they are vastly different scenarios. You keep trying to bring up that because in Europe the EU seems to be falling apart, and everyone is pining for a nation based on some ancient culture India must be facing the same situation or eventually will. As such, you seemed to have missed my point that because of the British Raj, we now have a common currency, flag, army, sports teams, passport and anthem. All things that contribute towards a certain common culture and nationalistic pride. And the EU has almost none of those - not even the currency since the Brits never gave up the Pound.
Well I think it’s still the best analogy to India – if let’s say the Chinese industrialized first and created a big ass colony out of Europe from 1750-1940 ish, then the Europeans gained independence and had a common flag, passport, ping pong team, currency, etc. But then, at some point, the national identity would reassert themselves and this Euro mega project would become ungovernable, just like India is today.
Quote:Quote:
Another weakness of 'the multiculturalism never works' argument is that it's always based on nations which import people who refuse to assimilate. The Roman Empire had that problem because it conquered a shit ton of land and then starting importing barbarians because it was struggling to maintain its own borders. I wonder if nationalism in Europe would be such a big deal right now if the economy was on the rise and migrant populations were minimal (you know, the way it is in India).
Bihar and Tamil Nadu - provinces and states in all nations argue. That's not enough of a reason to demand separation. Indian provinces have been fighting over all sorts of shit, I don't think I've ever heard of any of them demanding independence (barring Khalistan which was an anomaly). If anything, people tend to fight inside a province more often and demand their own province. Example of new provinces: Haryana, Telangana.
Very good points – like I said, since India is not a destination of mass immigration like Western countries I still think nationalism will take a very different form in India.
Multiculturalism creates empires, not nations. We are talking about all of humanity here, not just the West – there are few successful nations out there which don’t have one predominant cultural group. Now, we can argue whether or not the Indian identity you refer to above constitutes a culture, but I remain firm in my point that multiculturalism is a disaster and if India tries to push a “strength through diversity” type nationalism I doubt it will work.
Quote:Quote:
No idea, but they damn sure accept the Indian flag, army, anthem, public schooling system, currency, passport, national railway system, etc. Speaking of nationalist parties - one should note that BJP - an Indian nationalist Hindu party dominated the national and regional elections recently. The regional parties got whooped. The other national party, Congress Party, has traditionally done well. Let me know when a pan-European party can beat country-specific parties in European national elections and I'll take this Europe/India comparison seriously.
That’s a good point, but let’s see what concrete pro-nationalist policies Modi implements. Eventually people are going to have their toes stepped on and these regional/caste/religious divisions can get exacerbated.
Don’t you think you are too quickly discounting the importance of a shared national language? Many other countries in which sizeable minorities speak a different language than the country overall are faced with regional separatist sentiments.
Quote:Quote:
That people are inclined to support their own race (your example of Europeans supporting each other if they didn't win enough medals) does not negate my argument that Indians support each other for nationalistic reasons. I would be surprised if Chinese people didn't support other Chinese (race) people, but does that mean the Chinese don't have a national identity?
You haven't given a single piece of evidence that Indians only support Indians because of race. For your argument to stand you need to show me at least one example of Indians rejecting an Indian athlete based on race. I can give you an example of at least one Indian athlete being loved despite not looking anything like the majority of Indians: why do Indians love Baichung Bhutia, an oriental former football captain, so much?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaichung_Bhutia
You make a good argument here and I shouldn’t have gone off this tangent of sports teams.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:What other country in the world has succeeded without either a common language, ethnicity, or culture? None! That's why these are the main markers of a nation state and why the alt-right is booming in the West as these nations reject multiculturalism and why the nation state ultimately failed in the Middle East. You can't just invent national identities and expect them to succeed.
The alt-right is booming in the West because of mass import of low-skilled immigrants who refuse to assimilate, whether it's Muslims in Europe or Mexicans in the US. Had it not been for that type of mass import I doubt the alt-right would exist. India does not have this issue. I don't know enough about nation states in the Middle East to make a comment. Though it's hard for me to make a statement when Islam/Wahhabism is involved. I mean, I could look at the same nation-states in the Middle-East as you do and come to a different conclusion: what nation state can work when the majority of people follow Islam? It's unfair to say nations in the Middle East failed because of a lack of common language, ethnicity or culture when Islam is involved.
Define culture - see above, most Indians are Hindu and we have a common flag, currency, etc etc - all these things are part of culture. Again, Europe as the EU does not have anything like this.
This is the core of the question we are getting to here – the alt right makes sense in the West but does it make sense in India since there is no mass low skilled immigration to India (but, like I said, India is sending immigrants out)?
Quote:Quote:
Language - Belgium has existed as a nation for almost 200 years while having 2 languages. And unlike the Belgians, Indians don't fight over language continuously. China too has multiple languages, does it not?
The core Han territory in China has been under a united polity since the Qin dynasty. There is no analogous political contiguity in modern India. Also, you can speak Mandarin in every part of China. You absolutely can’t say the same w/ regard to Hindi in India.
And considering that Belgium is the home of the suicidal EU policies of mass immigration and has massive political dysfunction due to the Flemish and French speaking parts unable to get along, Belgium is a perfect example of how diversity hurts nations. Now, Belgians are civilized and get along with each other, but whether or not Belgium survives the breakup of the EU or not is an open question. Belgium’s existence doesn’t prove that India can work. And they have a king, which could at least be a national figure, while India doesn’t.
Quote:Quote:
One of the problems of putting a Western lens on Eastern nations is that the ensuing prophecies never pan out. I completely agree that if you use the strict Western definition of a nation-state, India makes absolutely no sense. It never made sense and should've collapsed 50 years ago. And yet as I've said, many Western commentators and political experts have predicted India's demise in its current state and always have they been hilariously wrong.
A lot of this ties into how people think. People in the West and India simply think differently about life, culture, politics, religion. Much of this has to do with the monotheistic religions that are prevalent in the West and how it influences your thinking. If you genuinely believe you must have one common tongue, ethnicity, and culture to survive (as we do in the West) and at the same time you invite barbarians into your home - no doubt it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of needing one common tongue, ethnicity, and culture to have a nation.
But that's not how Indian people think. Eastern philosophies have always been much better at dealing with seemingly extractible paradoxes like having a nation of 1.3 billion people with over a thousand languages and dialects, 4-6 religions and still somehow not collapse. India is not going anywhere.
100% agree, which is why all I’m saying is that we don’t really know how India will respond to a surge in nationalism or right-wing thinking because its cultural background is so different from Western countries. Since you agree with me that India doesn’t fit the mold of a Western nation state I think we actually agree on a lot of points, I think your point is just that Indians have more in common than I’m giving them credit for.
Like I said, I’m just fleshing out my thoughts so not trying to be antagonistic here.