Read on Twitter
In a previous longform thread, I touched upon the various species of the Indian modernist movement, which I designated A1/A2/A3.
A1 = Nehruvian left; A2 = Traditional revivalists; A3 = Savarkarite reformers. The A1 deserves not that much space because the A1 party has lost whatever little modernist streak it had.
We will deal with these odious creatures in more detail but for now lets turn to two questions that define the A2/A3 split
What gives the Indian state its legitimacy?” A corollary to that question “What is the Indian nation?” and a further corollary is “Why should I follow Indian law?”
Consider some of these answers for other nations - “The US state is given its legitimacy by its equal treatment of all Americans and by the constitution, which ultimately derives its power from the American people”
Who are the American people? The American people are those who swear to abide by the constitution
Clean, specific and works for a completely new land governed by a code from the start. Now there will always be execrable characters but you will not get most Americans to admit that the US is, or ought to be an ethnostate. [Nor is it anywhere close to one now anyway]
What is the purpose of the American state? The purpose of the American state is to defend the fundamental rights that are the intrinsic birthright of all humans. This takes the form of a constitutional republic
This is in essence what pure civic nationalism looks like. It gives the US its tremendous flexibility. The pure anglo ethnic nation that was pre-civil war would be too puny to dominate the continental US and win a two ocean war with Germany and Japan.
Pure civic nationalism, as long as it is coherent, can accrete mass almost indefinitely. It is only sustainable if the popular and elite consensus both eschews petty ethnic and religious chauvinism which the US by and large achieves.
The A1 fantasy is to replace “America” with “India” and have an Indian nation that functions exactly like this. Laughably inaccurate but bullseye if you want to be featured in the Times or the New Yorker.
What does a pure ethnic nation’s answer to this look like? The Japanese nation is the nation state of the Japanese ethnic group and promotes and defends its interests and welfare.
The Japanese state is meant to direct this promotion and defense by the most effective methods available. The state can expand, but only at the cost of accreting new “nations” and thus putting its legitimacy into question
This breeds great social solidarity, but is extremely brittle. Many reams of paper have been written on Japan and Japanese exceptionalism. But ethnic states when they encounter success inevitably produce ethnic chauvinism.
Only an extremely silly ethnic chauvinist would have conducted Pearl Harbor and brought in a country with 10x the land area and 3x the population into opposition
So, what is India? What gives the Indian state its legitimacy? What is the Indian ‘nation’? I’m not going to take a position - only illuminate the stances
The A3 answer is - the Indian state is legitimate because it is an authentically Indian government, and because elections give it this legitimacy.
What is the purpose of the Indian state? The purpose to the Indian state is to look after the well being of those who are ‘authentically Indian’. So far we define ‘authentically Indian’ as by the majority of Indian citizens.
Under this ambit comes the demand of ‘better welfare for OBCs/STs via reservation’, repealing the Places of Worship Act, as well as, surprisingly RJB.
The A3 definition is powerful enough to arrest the slide of all left-leaning liberal democracies towards ‘anti majoritarianism’
However, this logic is a bit circular as can be clearly demonstrated. If the Indian state has legitimacy by popular mandate, and the Indian nation is just the majority of Indian citizens? Does anything constrain the state?
Is there any law or code or principle that is beyond the reach of popular demand? What does patriotism mean? Just worship of the government?
And why would anyone obey the law of such a state if the only force the law has is “popular demand”? In theory it is the same as refusing to watch a popular movie
Here is where the A2s actually have the more coherent answer, even though it is under construction.
The Indian state was created to defend Indian civilization, which no empire based in India has done for centuries. This is the logic of Zion
Thus, the principles of Dharma as they are defined are the bedrock of the Indian state. To the extent that the Indian state preserves and promotes them, it has popular legitimacy
This avoids the frankly depressing spectacle of modern day Indians confusing worship of the Indian state with love of the Indian nation. You may find people doing this today with a rabid defense of everything the state does
As well as in the accusation of “anti national”. Which is silly, when the state promotes Adharma it is right to be anti-national. Indian civilization has endured for millenia. The modern Indian republic not even a century
The A2 logic is strong on this point because the Indian state and its laws are mostly a colonial hangover, and if Indian culture is to endure, it can only do so with a LIVING FAITH, which requires some consideration for ritual and tradition
So where will the A2/A3 compromise lead? For one thing A3s want to reform Indian law to be truer to the spirit of western style secularism, and A2s want it done away with entirely. I actually believe the latter is more likely to happen
It’s an easily surmountable fiction to think of India as neutral ground among the civilizations. India is not a moon colony, it is not the new world. It is as old as a civilization can be
Secondly, on the issue of recompense for the caste system, I predict the A2/A3 compromise will move towards the A2 sphere as well. Reservations in perpetuity can only be reconciled with the notion that Hinduism was uniquely flawed
If it were so uniquely flawed, better jump on the A1 train and abandon it entirely.
Reservations will be primarily economic in nature at some point in the future, and will probably be a use once per 2 generations type deal now that record keeping has improved
On all other points, the A3s will win. Indians are not about to illegalize inter-varna marriage, nor is there going to be some Chakravartin monarch ruling over India.
Where the A2/A3 compromise has the most danger is what to do with India’s non Hindus?
The Indian state was created to defend Indian civilization, which no empire based in India has done for centuries. This is the logic of Zion
Thus, the principles of Dharma as they are defined are the bedrock of the Indian state. To the extent that the Indian state preserves and promotes them, it has popular legitimacy
This avoids the frankly depressing spectacle of modern day Indians confusing worship of the Indian state with love of the Indian nation. You may find people doing this today with a rabid defense of everything the state does
As well as in the accusation of “anti national”. Which is silly, when the state promotes Adharma it is right to be anti-national. Indian civilization has endured for millenia. The modern Indian republic not even a century
The A2 logic is strong on this point because the Indian state and its laws are mostly a colonial hangover, and if Indian culture is to endure, it can only do so with a LIVING FAITH, which requires some consideration for ritual and tradition
So where will the A2/A3 compromise lead? For one thing A3s want to reform Indian law to be truer to the spirit of western style secularism, and A2s want it done away with entirely. I actually believe the latter is more likely to happen
It’s an easily surmountable fiction to think of India as neutral ground among the civilizations. India is not a moon colony, it is not the new world. It is as old as a civilization can be
Secondly, on the issue of recompense for the caste system, I predict the A2/A3 compromise will move towards the A2 sphere as well. Reservations in perpetuity can only be reconciled with the notion that Hinduism was uniquely flawed
If it were so uniquely flawed, better jump on the A1 train and abandon it entirely.
Reservations will be primarily economic in nature at some point in the future, and will probably be a use once per 2 generations type deal now that record keeping has improved
On all other points, the A3s will win. Indians are not about to illegalize inter-varna marriage, nor is there going to be some Chakravartin monarch ruling over India.
Where the A2/A3 compromise has the most danger is what to do with India’s non Hindus?
The furthest wings of the A2 movement consider all non Hindus as unworthy (Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists included). However this is likely not going to get very far
The furthest wings of the A3 movement are almost US like in their religious tolerance, however it remains to be seen what the US would look like if it had India’s religious demography
Where I think A2s can make the best contribution to the success of India is to make Indians law abiding. Americans obey American law because they feel like it is the law of their people, their Dharma that they had a hand in making
Indians habitually dodge the law because of course Indian law is nonsensical, but also largely because they have no special attachment to it. It does not reflect the social consensus of values in any meaningful way
On the other hand, common everyday Indians do not mock religion because they hold it sacred in a very real way.
A true outlier success for A2/A3 fusion would create an Indian code of law that is conducive to running a modern nation, but that which Indians feel represents them both in the sense that they feel ownership
As well in the sense that they are creating a terrible sin and transgression by breaking the law. And that the law stands above mere mortal men.
Only the rule of law can create a modern nation. And in India, only Dharma can do this -imbue the law with a spirit of duty such that it is truly inviolate.
If this succeeds, India will become what it was in the time of the Mauryas. If this fails, India will forever be seen as a third rate nation.
