Read on Twitter
What @dhume is hinting at here is -
India should& #39;ve opted for the British monarch as our ceremonial head of state in 1947
Instead of an indirectly elected Presidency we have today
(Contd..) https://twitter.com/dhume/status/1246933236258951172">https://twitter.com/dhume/sta...
India should& #39;ve opted for the British monarch as our ceremonial head of state in 1947
Instead of an indirectly elected Presidency we have today
(Contd..) https://twitter.com/dhume/status/1246933236258951172">https://twitter.com/dhume/sta...
Clearly that view stems from the massive chasm that exists between the Indian elites and the Indian masses
The old Anglophone elite has always retained an affinity towards Britain and the English speaking world
While the masses nurse deep ill-will towards Britain
The old Anglophone elite has always retained an affinity towards Britain and the English speaking world
While the masses nurse deep ill-will towards Britain
India is not quite Australia.
Race matters.
In countries like Aus, NZ, the population was predominantly Anglo-Saxon. Their struggle was one for self-governance.
Not cultural liberation
Race matters.
In countries like Aus, NZ, the population was predominantly Anglo-Saxon. Their struggle was one for self-governance.
Not cultural liberation
In India, the revolt against Britain was not merely one for political independence or representation
That angle was predominant among the Anglophone moderates. The Dadabhai Naorojis and Srinivasa Sastris of the world.
That angle was predominant among the Anglophone moderates. The Dadabhai Naorojis and Srinivasa Sastris of the world.
But once the movement involved the masses (starting with Tilak and Gandhi), the revolt was in large measure a cultural one.
A movement to rid India of the foreign yoke.
A movement to rid India of the foreign yoke.
To this day, I think the "elites" haven& #39;t quite understood this aspect of the "freedom struggle"
There is a tendency to regard the independence movement in purely political terms
Ignoring the racial, cultural element
There is a tendency to regard the independence movement in purely political terms
Ignoring the racial, cultural element
In my view, Gandhian struggle was as much about "cultural liberation" as it was about "political independence / representation"
But once Gandhi passed on, and the narrative moved to the Nehru-led Congress post independence, the emphasis changed
But once Gandhi passed on, and the narrative moved to the Nehru-led Congress post independence, the emphasis changed
Post independence, there was an attempt to underplay the "cultural independence" part - v much a part of Gandhi& #39;s movement.
Instead the "political freedom" angle was overplayed
The "cultural" conflict with British Raj became something that only the Jana Sangh/RSS picked on
Instead the "political freedom" angle was overplayed
The "cultural" conflict with British Raj became something that only the Jana Sangh/RSS picked on
So what was "mainstream" before 1947, became a right wing talking point post 1947
I think this hurt Indian politics
Instead of having a bi-partisan cultural consensus, and having the Right-Left division on policy issues, "Culture" became the bone of contention b/w Rght and Left
I think this hurt Indian politics
Instead of having a bi-partisan cultural consensus, and having the Right-Left division on policy issues, "Culture" became the bone of contention b/w Rght and Left
Now the retort to this would be -
Hey ...
Countries like Jamaica and Antigua have Queen Elizabeth as head of state
Why not India?
The answer is politically incorrect
Hey ...
Countries like Jamaica and Antigua have Queen Elizabeth as head of state
Why not India?
The answer is politically incorrect
The fact is -
India is not just a proud, and ancient civilization. But a world unto itself
Jamaica is not, with all due respect.
India is not just a proud, and ancient civilization. But a world unto itself
Jamaica is not, with all due respect.
