Arjun Srinivas challenges arguments that democracy exacerbates divisions in India. He writes that a crucial distinction needs to be made between the expression of cultural identities and secessionist tendencies

Srinivas, Arjun

LSE Research Online

2014-11-3“Disruptive lesser loyalties” in contemporary Indiablogs.lse.ac.uk /southasia/2014/11/03/disruptive-lesser-loyalties-in-contemporary-india/Arjun Srinivas challenges arguments that democracy exacerbates divisions in India. He writes that acrucial distinction needs to be made between the expression of cultural identities and secessionisttendencies.“The homeland is not an abstraction that sends people to be massacred on the war front.Rather, it is a sensibility, a certain taste for life that distinguishes you from the rest.” – A. CamusAlbert Camus, the French-Algerian philosopher was a strong proponent of a Mediterranean identity. According tohim, shared sensibility was the basis of nation-hood. All the sundry states along the Mediterranean including NorthAfrica, Iberia and the Levant could therefore, due to their cultural proximity, qualify as constituents of one greatnation.Thinking along these lines, a pertinent question would be: how does India fare in the light of this definition? Not well,some would argue. In A Million Mutinies Now  V.S Naipaul has celebrated the birth of the Indian nation during itsindependence from British colonial rule and its ensuing experiment with democracy. He says “Independence hadcome to India like a kind of revolution. However, now there were many revolutions within that revolution”. Hesuggests that competing cultural identities within the subcontinent render India a fractious, untenable entity thatwould eventually disintegrate into its “disruptive lesser loyalties of region, caste and clan”.So how significant are these “disruptive lesser loyalties” in contemporary India? Does democracy exacerbate theseinfluences? T.C.A Srinivasa-Raghavan has explored these themes in his article “Return of the Mansabdar“.Following the euphoria of India’s successful birth struggle, the Central Government consciously tried to accomplishthe homogenisation of India. The author argues that the objective was “to create a composite Indian identity toreplace the old regional and communal ones”. The success of these policies is debatable. So why pursue it? Whatare the benefits that accrue from homogenisation?Raghavan refers to a study by economists Alberto Alesina and Bryony Reich, titled “ Nation Building”, whichrigorously examines the costs and benefits of homogenisation. They conclude that for democracies in particular,homogenisation enables better participation in the democratic governance. The convergence of preferences is seento enhance social capital, and consequently positively influence the productivity of individuals and groups.Yet both Raghavan and Naipaul are of the opinion that democracy has exacerbated India’s “fissiparous tendencies.”This is manifest in the increasing relevance of regional parties in national politics. The demands for the creation ofnew states within the union seem to have more political resonance today. There are ramifications on India’s foreignpolicy as well. India’s relationship with Sri Lanka has been historically influenced by the politics of Tamil Nadu state,which has an ethnic Tamil population of close to 60 million. West Bengal, which shares a border and a heritage withBangladesh, has continually lobbied for the increased development along the River Teesta, adversely affectingIndia’s relationship with its eastern neighbour.Raghavan even quotes instances from popular culture to validate his argument. He observes that that Bollywoodfilms and television increasingly reflect themes and settings that are regional, rather than national in scope. Naipaulargues that regional chauvinistic interests have gained traction due to participatory democracy. Therefore, thenarrative is that Indian society is less homogeneous today and is increasingly veering towards several insularentities.1/2However, there are contemporary trends that contradict this narrative. For this, we need to acknowledge the crucialrole of mass media and technology, particularly television and the internet.  The generation that grew up in Indiaduring the 1990’s post-economic liberalisation was the first to have exposure to national television networks. Duringtheir inception, most of these networks produced output targeting a national, rather than a regional audience. Newsnetworks that were established in the early 1990’s persist to date and set the agenda for public discourse. It wouldn’tbe far-fetched to assume that these influences have led to shared sensibilities and opinions.  The proliferation ofmobile technology and other modern forms of communication has actually encouraged migration between thestates. Consequently, it is easier today than ever before for two individuals from disparate parts of the country tocommunicate and engage with each other.Furthermore, we need to consider the imperatives of economic development. The nature of development in Indiahas been highly unequal, with a few regions receiving the major share of the Foreign Direct Investment. Migration ismostly concentrated to the National Capital Region and the southern states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh,Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. This immigration has led to the emergence of cosmopolitan cities which may not beideals of multiculturalism but are melting pots of diversity.A crucial distinction needs to be made between the expression of cultural identities and secessionist tendencies.Homogeneity in terms of preferences needn’t necessarily manifest itself as cultural similarity. India’s strength as anation lies in its pluralistic society and liberal ethos. In a vivid and memorable description of India in The Moor’s LastSigh, Salman Rushdie likens India’s cultural tapestry to a ‘palimpsest’. A palimpsest represents a painting on acanvas, which is painted over several times. The eventual outcome may not be orderly, but it is nuanced andimmensely beautiful.Image credit: flickr/UN WomenAbout the AuthorArjun Srinivas holds a Masters degree in Economics from the Madras School of Economics, India. He currently works as a Consultant with Equifax Inc. and tweets @arjunsrinivas3.Copyright © 2016 London School of Economics2/2

“Disruptive lesser loyalties” in contemporary India

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online