Debate: India, the nation that is not

Prelude

Imagine an empire whose individual kingdoms are not allowed to secede and whose representation in administrative affairs depends on their respective sizes and population. Now imagine further that these kingdoms can have their boundaries redrawn at will by the viceroys of that empire. It is only natural to expect that in such an empire the powers of the military, judiciary, foreign affairs and economic institutions are vested in the central leadership.

While each kingdom may administer its own people, educate them to a degree and even collect taxes on their produce it remains subject to the justice of the empire and if ever a kingdom were to rebel or thwart the authority of the central leadership retribution and a military clamp-down would be certain and justified.

However, one concession is made, that makes all this feel just. Once in five years all the kings of all the kingdoms attempt to renew the mandate of their people for their continued existence and the successful kings of the larger kingdoms eventually gain a say within the central leadership – one of them even becoming its ultimate emperor, hence continuing the cycle.

Substitute ‘nation’ for ‘empire’, ‘state’ for ‘kingdom’ and mandate for ‘democratic elections’ and you have a sovereign democratic republic in today’s world, like India.

The proposition here is that India is not a single, coherent nation.

I will present some arguments against this statement (i.e. that India is a coherent nation) with my counter-arguments for the proposition in italics. I believe that the older we become as a nation, the more we need to think about what unites us, and what we can do to strengthen this identity. I admire the efforts of the European Union in integrating the various nations of Europe and I strongly feel that India can and should learn lessons on strengthening our national identity from the EU.

India, the Nation that is Not: Arguments Against and For

1. The chief argument against the proposition that India is not a coherent nation is that we share a rich legacy of science, religion and philosophy that persisted even up until the end of the Mughal era (e.g. the zero, Chanakya, the Taj Mahal, Hindustani and Carnatic music, architecture, etc). This legacy of a shared cultural heritage and common ancestries is something that has often been invoked in nationalistic movements in India, during pre-Independence and post-Independence periods.

My argument for the proposition is as follows: This is a popular version of our history emphasized by freedom fighters to unite the people as a single nation. Yes, there was a free, constant and considerable economic, spiritual and philosophical trade, and even inter-marriage between different kingdoms in the sub-continent but these were still separate kingdoms even as portrayed in Hindu mythology. No invader until the British - and certainly no home-grown ruler - ever unilaterally ruled what is now known as India. The Mughals did not subjugate the south or the north-east, neither did the Mauryas, and the Chozhas at their greatest never ventured farther west than Telangana. It wasn’t just that India was a collection of different kingdoms, but the people of these kingdoms were inherently different in their culture, ethnicity and the languages they spoke. For instance, Tamil as a language family is recognized as being distinct in its origin from the Sanskrit family.

2. The second argument against my proposition is that it is precisely India’s enduring cohesion while preserving its cultural diversity in the face of several challenges, that defines it as a unique but coherent nation. India is currently an amalgamated mass of several peoples – this is widely recognized and often touted as one of the country’s greatest achievements as a nation – its unity in diversity.

My counter-argument goes thus: For better or worse, India was divided on a linguistic basis to preserve the various regional cultural identities. One result of this division, combined with a centralised federal government has been to entrench these identities and make them susceptible to politicisation by regional interests that highlight the differences and incompatibilities between different states. While movement between states is increasing, people in different regions of the country still possess greater cultural and ethnic affinities to neighbouring countries than to one another. The western provinces of Indian Punjab and the Punjab of Pakistan were a land of similar people not so long ago. The Tamils of south India are more similar to the Tamils of Sri Lanka, than to Bengalis or Rajasthanis, and similarly the Bengalis, in custom and language are closer brethren of the Bangladeshis than they are of the people of Karnataka. Meanwhile, regional un-rest is wide-spread and community-based racism is a part of the larger culture and sometimes even transcends religion (the caricature of a ‘Northie’ or a ‘Madrasi’ remains true irrespective of religious affiliation).

3. This brings me to the third argument against India as a non-nation, namely, religion. The majority of the country is Hindu and Hinduism and the Vedas are increasingly being touted as a unifying theme, recalling the past glory of a Hindustan. Historically, the term Hindustan, literally meaning ‘the land beyond the Indus (river)’ refers chiefly to the Mughal empire in North India.

My counter-argument is that, while Hinduism itself spread across the sub-continent, from Afghanistan to Cambodia, even today, Hindus in the North are very different from Hindus in the South, or the West or the North-east in almost every aspect of their day to day life. The argument for India as a pan-Hindu nation also ignores other considerable and over-riding differences between regions. Further, other religions such as Islam, Buddhism and Sikhism that have historically existed alongside Hinduism in different parts of the country belie the idea of a geographically contiguous Hindu nation.

4. The fourth argument against the notion that India is not a coherent nation, differs from the other arguments in that it recognises that “India” is a new concept. The  argument is that India was made by the British and as a result shares a common legacy, a common aspiration and common goals. Yes, India is a country made by the British and was united in its hatred for the invader and his excesses. This fuelled a nationalism which was focused on the nation-state formed by arbitrary divisions by the British of the country’s borders. The idea of India as a nation was crucial to the economic development and stability of all its regions in the post-colonial years and this was recognized as a considerable challenge by the first prime-ministers. Though there were a few problems during nation-forming, independent kingdoms and protectorates like Hyderabad, Kashmir, and Sikkim were either convinced or forced to join the new “India.”

My counter-argument is thus: India currently faces neither the unifying threat of an invader nor does it enjoy the euphoria of building a new nation. Increasingly, the cracks in a centralised development policy applied to a regionally diverse nation are showing. Almost all states remain highly homogeneous within themselves in their racial and ethnic composition, and as such, distinct from one another. Inequalities in representation at the centre and geographic factors combined with intrinsic differences in the different states are resulting in struggles between states for resources like water. States rebel against other states like European countries reacting to waves of unwanted immigration. Meanwhile divisions within states are now increasingly economic and driven by increasing inequality and the biased availability of resources to one group of people over another. Ironically, this is currently a strong argument against India being simply an amalgamation of different races: the poor are united across the nation in their poverty, and the rich in their isolation from this poverty.

5. The final argument against the proposition that India is not a nation is more a question: other countries exist now as nations that did not before, and with diverse populations – e.g. The US, so why is India any different?

I argue however, that India is different for three main reasons: a) The US was a self-made nation with a long process of secession and union – India as a new nation was made by an invader and left as such; b) The US, at least until recently spoke a language that was its own, after a fashion; and c) The US still remains – at least relative to India, homogenous in terms of its composition. Partly as a result of the linguistic division of India’s states a preservation of cultural differences is being seen that is making India remarkably more diverse than the US, UK or any other comparable nation.

Conclusions

India was created by the British who took away its wealth, gave it nation-hood and democracy among other things and left it to its own devices to survive and prosper as a nation. India was thus forced into an artificial “nation-hood” – a model on which the entire world is now defined. The newly-forged nation, in order to survive in the modern world, had to make use of the resources it had left – the English language, democratic institutions and infrastructure, among other things. In that respect, India has proved herself to be an incredibly resilient given that 66+ years on, she is still, to all appearances a remarkably coherent and cohesive nation and the world’s largest functioning democracy.

But beneath the surface, trouble brews. Regional protests flare up with increasing intensity and frequency; regional politics are increasingly getting tangled with national politics;  and the preservation and scholarly study of local and regional art forms, history and language still struggles to find a foothold amongst the more mainstream, standardised mediums of education modelled on the British format.

India is at best a tenuous nation. It is tempting to draw parallels to the European Union, an amalgam of “common but differentiated” (to borrow a phrase) regions that have come together economically – and increasingly, culturally – as an entity for mutual benefit and convenience. There are several lessons we could learn from the EU’s attempts at European integration, For instance here are my top 3:

1. Sending school-children from TN to Punjab, and vice-versa to learn and teach one another about our different cultures;

2. Actively promoting inter-state economic and cultural exchanges rather than letting this play out as a migration issue and reactively dealing with the consequences

3. Encouraging co-operation and exchange between state research, government and banking institutions (this kind of exchange exists within national institutions and should not be difficult to implement at state level).

As we become ever more disgruntled with our democratic and economic systems, and increasingly try and hold on to our regional heritage while asserting a national identity, it would do well for us to closely observe the model of the European Union and learn from their failures and successes. 

Please do comment and contribute – especially if you feel I have missed out any arguments for or against.

Technorati Tags: India,Nation,EU,Unity