Does Modi wants China as an Antagonist in Indian National Myth?

[Lure]

Recently I've started a thread in Far East section about India-China relations. The main thesis was, both nations has a lot of common struggles and cultural roots which makes any confrontation between two powers extremely superficial. However I've seen that even the topic's main theme was that both countries were economically exhausted in the last two centuries because both nations were colonized and lost their national sovereignty, the thread derailed and lot's of issues among Chinese and Indian society were discussed. Albeit hostile, it was a good read and I was able to see the main issues in the discussion regarding the relations of two Asian Giants.

The question in the header assumes one thing, India is not yet a nation. First of all, I want to start with proving that India is not finished it's nation building process. In order to understand if a country is a nation one needs to look for the common cultural trairts among the population. The most important common cultural trait in a nation is language. In the borders of a country, there should be a common form of communication in order to be able to identify this group of people as a nation. If we consider the language profile in India, there are 21 major languages which are spoken by at least 1 million natives. Hindi -the supposed unifying language of the entire country- is only spoken by 422 million people which accounts for 41% of the population. Meaning there are no majority in India(Source: List of languages by number of native speakers in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And the worst part ist not all languages in India belong to the same language family, meaning that assimilating people under Hindi language will be a lot more harder. (Source : Languages of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That might be the actual reason of English being spoken in a daily life in certain places. English might be a form of commonication among people from different ethnicities in India. This was discussed heavily in the previous discussion. (Source : The Problem With The English Language In India

Without a common language, what does India rely on for keeping the entire population togather? That's the main problem here. It's still not clear (For the ones who are more interested in the topic can read the section of the book.). That's a problem that Indian ruling elite and intelligentsia has not yet solved. What's the current situation now? Religion is the main form of unifying source among ethnicities of India. If people are classified based on religion; Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism becomes the main form of the unifying religions, whereas Islam, Christianity and Sikhism becomes the minorities. However that can't go on forever. It's the premodern form of citizenry. Ottoman Empire formed a similar form of ruling, a.k.a Millet System, which ended up pretty bad in modern era. Lot's of different ethnicities (even including the ones belong to majority religion like Arabs) revolted against Ottoman Empire and the whole empire eventually collapsed.

There are already lot's of seperation movements in India (like Kashmir, and Khalistan) and the amount of them will sadly increase as the urbanization and political participation increases. Turkey experienced a very similar situation with Kurds. When Kurds were predominanlty living in rural areas there were not much of a problem except for some feudal Kurdish landlords who wants the old privileges given in Ottoman era back, revolting against the state in 20's and 30's. However when Kurds started to urbanize, started to go to schools and become literate, they have started to notice that they have civil rights as minorities. Abdullah Öcalan -the founder of terrorist organization PKK-, was a drop out political science student at Ankara University which is among one of the most prestigious universities in social sciences in Turkey.

This actually works in two ways; as minorities go to cities they start to feel the preassure of being a minority more. Because when they were in rural areas, their encounter with the state or the people who are in majority group are very low and everybody lives in peace in it's own territory. However when urbanization start and the boundries that seperate ethnicities starts to become blur, then the strain in the societal fabric starts. And with the increasing rate of literacy, minority learns/invents ways of overcoming that strain as ways of protests and civil rights movements or it evolves into much more tragic and inhumane acts like terrorism.

As of 2013 only 32% of the population in India are urbanized (Source : Urban population (% of total) | Data | Table Literacy rate is around 75% (Source : Literacy in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and literacy rate among minorities are even lower (Source : http://sikhinstitute.org/oct_2012/5-divjot.pdf). This is a timebomb that India is currently sitting on and no one seems to know how this problem will be solved. Will India evolve into a multinational state? Will India become a civilization state, or will Hindi identity be able to assimilate remaining 59% percent of the population? (Source : Nation-Building in India: Issues, Challenges and Prospects - Events - Department of Political Science

So how can a very multicultural group of people were able to form India in the first place in 1940's, when modernism was very valid and multiculturalism weren't even invented like today? There was an antagonist, the UK, who managed to unify every ethnic group in Indian subcontinent against itself except for Muslims. UK promised a seperate country to Muslims in order to prevent them from joining to revolts and it was a successful strategy. Divide and conquer. But they ultimately failed anyway. After that India had a predominantly rural population with very very low literacy rates and a single party dictatorship which did not solve but "frozen" the entire problem.

Since 1990's India changed from dominant party to multi-party system, there is a rapid economic development and rapid urbanization and a rapid increase in literacy rate. So who will play the antagonist role to unify the whole ethnic groups of India until the problem is solved? Can Pakistan do that? Actually it was tried but as more and more India tries to seed hatret against Pakistanis, the more and more muslim minority (175 million population) starts to feel marginalized which is a more seperatist act rather than integrative. There should be an antagonist whom people should be able to hate without a societal seperation.

Of course the current ruling elite, Modi government, picked China. They aim for a mini cold war between China and India in order to unify the ethnicities against a common antagonist. Very same thing that happened naturally in 1940's. This time it's happening with some social engineering efforts since China doesn't seem to consider India as an adversary.

So what do you think about this? Let's discuss.

@TaiShang , @LeveragedBuyout , @Nihonjin1051 , @Chinese-Dragon , @+4vsgorillas-Apebane your inputs would be awesome. I'm really curios of what you guys think.

 

[21 Dec 2012]

Since 1990's India started to make elections, there is a rapid economic development and rapid urbanization and a rapid increase in literacy rate.

I won't comment on the rest. India's reforms were forced down it's throat by the IMF back in 1991. It has been a democracy since gaining independence from Britain back in 1947. If you couldn't get such a basic fact right, I doubt the rest of your post has any merit to be dignified with any response.

 

[Lure]

I won't comment on the rest. India's reforms were forced down it's throat by the IMF back in 1991. It has been a democracy since gaining independence from Britain back in 1947. If you couldn't get such a basic fact right, I doubt the rest of your post has any merit to be dignified with any response.

Thanks a lot for the input. I was refering to paradigm shift from dominant party system ( Indian National Congress) to a more balanced multiple party system. But I've written it wrong -I guess I'm sleepy-. Despite making elections, from 1946 to 1989 Indian National Congress ruled the country (source : Dominant-party system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) I've corrected the faulty part.

 

[Indika]

The most important common cultural trait in a nation is language. In the borders of a country, there should be a common form of communication in order to be able to identify this group of people as a nation.

Your assumption holds good only for small countries. Going by your definition USA,Canada and other countries get disqualified.

Have you ever heard of a language called "Sanskrit"? Other than tamil nearly every other language has its origin in it.
Your understanding of my country is mostly got by reading some articles not by being in the country. Being from a middle east area which is known for religious bigotry and near homogenous population you can hardly understand how things work.

India is nothing but advanced version of europe. As they have europeans, americans there are indians. You can break them down to british,french,german but for outsiders they are still europeans. When an indian goes outside his identity will be indian but inside the country his identity will be different. It might be based on language,religion,state,caste...etc. As the distance between places increases customs and rituals vary but religion is still the same. Varanasi and tirupathi (well i bet you wont even heard the names) are thousand kilometers apart but they are still revered holy places for hindus. A keralite muslim in UAE will identify himself as a indian then as keralite and finally as a muslim. He will be more at ease with his fellow keralite of different religion than with his so called arabic religious ummah.

Well i cant explain it to you in few words or in a volume of books. It has to be experienced just like a sky fall or roller coaster ride.

By the way as for your language theory is concerned I speak 5 languages excluding english.

 

[Lure]

Your assumption holds good only for small countries. Going by your definition USA,Canada and other countries get disqualified.

Have you ever heard of a language called "Sanskrit"? Other than tamil nearly every other language has its origin in it.
Your understanding of my country is mostly got by reading some articles not by being in the country. Being from a middle east area which is known for religious bigotry and near homogenous population you can hardly understand how things work.

India is nothing but advanced version of europe. As they have europeans, americans there are indians. You can break them down to british,french,german but for outsiders they are still europeans. When an indian goes outside he will his identity will be indian but inside the country his identity will be different. It might be based on language,religion,state,caste...etc. As the distance between places increases customs and rituals vary but religion is still the same. Varanasi and tirupathi (well i bet you want even heard the names) are thousand kilometers apart but they are still revered holy places for hindus. A keralite muslim in UAE will identify himself as a indian then as keralite and finally as a muslim. He will be more at ease with his fellow keralite of different religion than with his so called arabic religious ummah.

Well i cant explain it to you in few words or in a volume of books. It has to be experienced just like a sky fall or roller coaster ride.

By the way as for your language theory is concerned I speak 5 languages excluding english.

I didn't have a bad intention while writing this article. I've even compared the situation with Turkey so there was no bragging about anything. If your observation is like that, then that's fine my article will be proven wrong.

However you should be able to discuss in a civilized manner without ad hominem. I don't know which media or sources do you use in your daily life to gather knowledge. Because they seem biased.

Turkey is a secular country. Turkish people are more secular than that of India. Proof : Irreligion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 13% of Turkish population (including myself as a very proud one) are irreligious. Altough I'm very open about this, I didn't encounter any religious bigotry in Turkey. How about India? 9% of Indian population define themselves as irreligious. Meaning that you're living in a more religious country then I do.

Edit :

I feel bad about this. I don't have any sempathy to any seperatist movement in Earth. I don't support Uyghurs in China, I don't support any seperatist group in India, UK, Spain, Turkey etc. This article was written not to predict anything bad about India. It was written as a thought exercise. We are not in form of an Internet war. We are peace time trying to share information. I will be more than happy to learn your counter arguments. That's why I write my ideas in a forum and not keep them to myself. I do it to see counter arguments and to get feedback. That's the whole point. This article should not cause drama or agitation.

 

[Indika]

I didn't have a bad intention while writing this article. I've even compared the situation with Turkey so there was no bragging about anything. If your observation is like that, then that's fine my article will be proven wrong.

However you should be able to discuss in a civilized manner without ad hominem. I don't know which media or sources do you use in your daily life to gather knowledge. Because they seem biased.

Turkey is a secular country. Turkish people are more secular than that of India. Proof : Irreligion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 13% of Turkish population (including myself as a very proud one) are irreligious. Altough I'm very open about this, I didn't encounter any religious bigotry in Turkey. How about India? 9% of Indian population define themselves as irreligious. Meaning that you're living in a more religious country then I do.

Apologies, if you felt the words were directed personally against you. I dont have any thing against you, your are expressing your personal opinion. You in the sense here means non-indians not to be taken personally.

Yes, I live in a very religious country, for us secularism does not mean atheism or irreligion. It means each one have their own religion. Infact most of the hindus (or muslims or any other religion) have a lot of differences and dont hold similar viewpoints with respect to religious practices. A hindu practice in northern india might seem totally awkard to one in the southern part of the country. I dont believe what how my parents pray or my parents might think how the neighbours pray is correct.

Simply put "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

As for as religious bigotry is concerned it was directed at the middle east area as a whole not at your country. Just like you see india along with pakistan we see middle east not turkey. By the way secularism is modern concept introduced by colonial powers. We dont need that word in our constitution. Secularism was unknown concept in 18th or 17 th century or the past 1000 years but still in my country ppl following different religions co-existed barring minor incidents occasionally flaring up .

Only with the advent of british secularism got foot hold because of the communalism a.k.a "divide and rule policy" they followed.
Secularism is word more or less word defined wrt religious countries. Have you ever seen a japanese claiming that he is secular? They dont need it but if japanese visits Saudi arabia then it might be of use to him.

Simply put secularism is word required for and by bigots. People who can co-exist peacefully will not need them.

 

[Lure]

Apologies, if you felt the words were directed personally against you. I dont have any thing against you, your are expressing your personal opinion. You in the sense here means non-indians not to be taken personally.

Yes, I live in a very religious country, for us secularism does not mean atheism or irreligion. It means each one have their own religion. Infact most of the hindus (or muslims or any other religion) have a lot of differences and dont hold similar viewpoints with respect to religious practices. A hindu practice in northern india might seem totally awkard to one in the southern part of the country. I dont believe what how my parents pray or my parents might think how the neighbours pray is correct.

Simply put "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

As for as religious bigotry is concerned it was directed at the middle east area as a whole not at your country. Just like you see india along with pakistan we see middle east not turkey. By the way secularism is modern concept introduced by colonial powers. We dont need that word in our constitution. Secularism was unknown concept in 18th or 17 th century or the past 1000 years but still in my country ppl following different religions co-existed barring minor incidents occasionally flaring up .

Only with the advent of british secularism got foot hold because of the communalism a.k.a "divide and rule policy" they followed.
Secularism is word more or less word defined wrt religious countries. Have you ever seen a japanese claiming that he is secular? They dont need it but if japanese visits Saudi arabia then it might be of use to him.

Simply put secularism is word required for and by bigots. People who can co-exist peacefully will not need them.

I don't want to derail the thread, since the main subject is not secularism. However, maybe in future, in another thread about secularism we can discuss this issue further and in more depth. I've watched the movie PK. It was a remarkable Indian movie about the secularism issue. Let's discuss this some other time and stay in the topic on this one.

 

[P.K.]

The most important common cultural trait in a nation is language. In the borders of a country, there should be a common form of communication in order to be able to identify this group of people as a nation.

Since you are a Chinese therefore I presume that you have not tasted a Mumbai street food called "Bhel Puri"

Once you will go through the recipe of that dish and could figure out the main ingredient of that dish I bet all your skepticism about most important trait (ingredient) will be gone.

 

[Arya Desa]

Your thoughts and logic are correct given the information you have but the reality is we don't need an antagonist because our identity is made from looking inwards. We are Indians, from North to South, primarily because of the works Mahabharata and Ramayan which shape our image of us. These works introduce what we consider India and not India (they are particularly detailed on what kingdoms they consider Indian and what they consider mlecch). So my friend, we have a common macocultural identity in the place of a lingustic, ethnic, historical one.

 

[Lure]

Your thoughts and logic are correct given the information you have but the reality is we don't need an antagonist because our identity is made from looking inwards. We are Indians, from North to South, primarily because of the works Mahabharata and Ramayan which shape our image of us. These works introduce what we consider India and not India (they are particularly detailed on what kingdoms they consider Indian and what they consider mlecch). So my friend, we have a common macocultural identity in the place of a lingustic, ethnic, historical one.

Thanks a Lot my friend. Such replies are like a breath of fresh air. Kind and tactful. We spend so much time hating eachother and feeding our egos that we forgot to communicate.

So Your thesis is that, the nation building process in India is completed and it's not a valid problem anymore. Well I hope it's the case. In Turkey we have experienced this problem in the most unexpected time. I hope Your country and no other country for that Matter experience the things that we experienced.

In order to dispel any misunderstandings, my thesis also wasn't that India won't be able to form a national identity. It was that it's not yet a solved problem. A minority language can turn into a majority language. History has this examples. French is a very good example.

 

[Arya Desa]

Thanks a Lot my friend. Such replies are like a breath of fresh air. Kind and tactful. We spend so much time hating eachother and feeding our egos that we forgot to communicate.

Thank you! The problem is people love to criticize others but hate when that criticism comes back at them. Sorry for all these angry Indian responses to a very valid question of yours.

So Your thesis is that, the nation building process in India is completed and it's not a valid problem anymore. Well I hope it's the case. In Turkey we have experienced this problem in the most unexpected time. I hope Your country and no other country for that Merter experience the things that we experienced.

In order to dispel any misunderstandings, my thesis also wasn't that India won't be able to form a national identity. It was that it's not yet a solved problem. A minority language can turn into a majority language. History has this examples. French is a very good example.

Yes my friend, nation-building for the most part is complete. Of course you have a few separatist movements, this is common everywhere in the world. Even here in Canada we have some Francophones wanting Quebec to be separate. Does that mean Canada doesn't have a national identity? In regards to language, most literate Indians know Hindi and English, so if they encounter someone who doesn't speak their mother tongue they have two lingua francas so communication isn't a problem.

 

[Tiger Genie]

@Lure, I commend you on a well written or at least well intentioned thread. I do have a major disagreements with several things you say which if you are interested, I will detail later today or tomorrow.

But on a quick turn, why do you conclude that to be a nation, there has to be something, some factor such as language, that is common to all its people? I want to hear your reasoning.

Secondly, assuming you have very good reasons for such conclusion (about the need for a common factor), I would submit NATIONALITY is the common factor. I'd encourage you think of nationality (in this case Indian) as a means to other ends rather than thinking of Nationality as the end. The real ends that the common factor, Indian, leads to are - working towards eradication of poverty, accomplishment of fair and just treatment of all people etc etc.

But your starting premise is correct: Both China and India, like many other countries, have deep history but need time to recover from colonial enslavement and robbery.

 

[Prajapati]

Since you are a Chinese therefore I presume that you have not tasted a Mumbai street food called "Bhel Puri"

Once you will go through the recipe of that dish and could figure out the main ingredient of that dish I bet all your skepticism about most important trait (ingredient) will be gone.

Best answer so far,but I was thinking more like Sambar

`China should break India into 20-30 states` | Zee News

50 cents is trying to find out how

 

[Tractor]

Best answer so far,but I was thinking more like Sambar

`China should break India into 20-30 states` | Zee News

50 cents is trying to find out how

And we will be glad to see no Indian army man on Chinese territory southwestward automatically.

 

[Prajapati]

And we will be glad to see no Indian army man on Chinese territory southwestward automatically.

In which case it would be a good Idea to demarcate the territories clearly. Maybe you can go back and tell your govt. that ? ............ I guess not.