What question do you want answered? I've gotten the impression you've moved the goal post a bit.
Your initial question:
Quote:Quote:
For starters, I'll throw out one question: would rising nationalism in the West solidify Indian identity or increase regional separatism? After all, you can see parallels between the EU and the "diversity is our strength" mantra that keeps India together, as a mishmash of languages, religions, and ethnicities with little in common with each other.
This to me implied you were asking if India could survive as a nation. Also, the analogy is weak: 'diversity is our strength' mantra in the West is used to import
foreigners who 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.
Then you said:
Quote:Quote:
But that's my point - how many successful nation states are out there with that level of language and cultural diversity? India was never a state in the sense that China, Japan, Russia, UK, France, Spain, Korea, Persia, etc were - India was always a bunch of kingdoms fighting with each other that the British united.
This implies a different question: Can India be successful/well-governed. Two different questions. 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.
Quote:Quote:
Would you say India is well governed? Perhaps compared to Pakistan, but not if you examine if India can actually exercise power and influence in a meaningful sense in the world. So I don't know if history has really proven people wrong - India hasn't collapsed, but it has absolutely not achieved success. The corruption and poverty are still on a mind-boggling scale, and India still lags far behind other Asian countries that were at a similar per capita GDP level in 1950.
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
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.
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 can't make any predictions about India for 2116 or beyond. India may or may not fall apart in another 100 years. But that's too far out to make any reasonable predictions. That said, I'm confident India will still be around (with approximately the same geographical boundaries) in 50 years.
Quote:Quote:
I would agree, but the simple fact remains that the Muslim birthrate is ahead of the Hindu rate. Basing a national identity on religion when over 20% of the population is of a different religion is not the recipe for stability. And there are other regions of the world (Europe, Latin America, SE Asia) where countries are the same religion but still have their own strong identity.
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:
http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/7-5-...43165.html
But my main point is: we really cannot predict what demographics will be like in 50-100 years. It's easy to think because the Muslim birth rate is higher right now it always will be higher and thus problems will come about. Maybe they will. But it'll take several decades for that to be a serious issue. And my prediction would be the opposite: the way you're starting to see Americans and Europeans push back against (Muslim) immigrants, you'll see the same in India. People don't just lie down and let a minority religion take over. Especially in India, which is much less 'cucked' than Europe.
The Mughal Empire existed for 300 years and even after that they couldn't subvert the entire subcontinent into Islam. You think 15% of the country population is going to bring down India in the next 50 years? Shit, I wouldn't put money on it for the next 100 years.
That innate IRTness this forum jokes about is what'll make Islamists heads explode if they ever try to convert the entire country.We'll troll the fuck out of them so hard they'll jump into the ocean for having lost their minds. That's assuming mass riots don't wipe out Muslims first.
Also, what basis do you have for your argument that you cannot base a national identity on religion when over 20% of the population is of a different religion. Why wouldn't it be possible?
Quote:Quote:
For now, they have the uniting factor of Hinduism as you mention the pro-BJP sentiment growing, but that isn't sustainable with high Muslim birthrate. And Europe is all Christian but they never converged into one nation states because the languages and cultures were too different. Can India really have the coherence to be successful in the future?
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.
Quote:Quote:
Eh, not really. Can you tell the difference between Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Sri Lankans? Not really. And even if you can, what's your point? Sure I can tell Europeans apart from Arabs and Africans but just because people can be told apart from the other doesn't mean they can form a coherent nation state. And within India there is tremendous differences, from Nicobar Island tribals to very fair skinned Kashmiris, to orientals in the East. That can't be downplayed. If Indians look the same as their main enemy, I really don't think that the wide spectrum of Indian physical types is sufficient for a national identity.
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.
Quote:Quote:
Tied in with religion - see above issue with a growing Islamic population. Many parts of India don't celebrate Holi. Southern Indians do have some level of resentment towards northern cultural domination.
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.
Quote:Quote:
Not sure what your point is here. Yes, perhaps the British were a uniting factor, but that was 50 years ago. Who cares about the British now? Our core question is what does Indian nationalism mean? The nationalist movements in Europe originate with cultures that are hundreds of years old. India barely has 60 years under its belt. If Tamil Nadu and Bihar have a dispute, will the fact that they resisted the British at some point mean anything?
Both India and Pakistan resisted the British together, but because Al Jinnah believed that Hindus and Muslims couldn't co exist, Pakistan was born. So this anti-British identity is quite hollow - ultimately, religion trumps historical commonality. No guarantee that a future generation of radicalized Muslims won't seek separation - at that point appealing to anti-British sentiment will go nowhere.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:Quote:
Right, but the eventual goal of the EU was to gradually subvert national borders and create one multicultural mass, and that's why nationalist parties do well. Perhaps Indians accept the Bengali anthem, but how willing are south Indians and Gujaratis to accept Hindi as their mother tongue?
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.
Quote:Quote:
That's a good point, but only because on a regional scale they don't have that many people winning competitions internationally. If let's say all of Europe got less than 10 medals combined per Olympics then they would probably start rooting for each other. Indians rooting for Indians is more just rooting for someone of your race rather than national identity - obviously they will root for an Indian over some white guy.
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
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.
Ethnicity - see above, most Indians have the same ethnicity.
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?
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.