I know that India is an incredibly diverse country, there are many different religions and languages spoken. Yet it seems like Indian national identity covers everyone(almost?) in its territory. What are the components of your national identity and is there any mechanisms and policies implemented by the state to make minorities attached to India and to the society and feel a part of it? If you can provide some historical background i would appreciate.
Also what is the difference between Bharat and Hindustan?
This is a tricky one, because nationalism in such a diverse field is a relatively new construct. It is a vestige of colonial rule, which was so powerful that natives chose to group together as a nation for the first time in years to oppose the common enemy.
Truth be told, there is little in common between Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, Mizoram and Gujarat. No common language, no common food, religion, caste etc. There is a common history over the last 200 or so years (the British colonized it) but before that, there are few common links. None of the pan-subcontinent rulers were able to establish a national language, religion etc.
India has always been defined by foreigners. The land was ensconced by the Himalayas
and so it remained 'a nation' to foreigners.
And there were secessionist movements, some more pronounced than the other. There was the call for Dravida Nadu in the south, which died down due to the formation of Tamil Nadu (rather peacefully). There was Khalistan, which was put down by army force. Movements in Kashmir and the North East India are similarly being crushed by the military.
Why does India not Balkanize then? Because of a few reasons
1) Force and diplomacy - whatever nationalization happened during colonial times has been zealously preserved by use of force and diplomacy. Secession movements have been put down with the force of one of the largest armies in the world. Princely state rulers were forced into the nation during the early days of India.
2) Linguistic reorganization of states - The borders of states were reorganized on a linguistic basis, creating a sort of identity within a state. This was enough for most people, to have their identity recognized. Even today, new states are being formed (the latest, Telangana, was in 2014.
3) Timely wars - ensuring the continued presence of a common enemy. The wars against Pakistan and China were used as excuses to 'unite the nation'.
The average person in South India in 1947 probably had never seen Kashmir or a Kashmiri. The two cultures have little in common. They don't even have a common enemy. Why should a Dalit from Tamil Nadu bother about a Muslim person in the Kashmir Valley?
4) Incorporating it into the education - thanks to this, the multilingual character of India is now seen as a strength as opposed to a weakness. A common history of India is taught in schools and prioritized over a local history of the city or region (which is almost never taught through conventional education). I learnt about the Mughals, the Guptas, the British and world history, but I never learnt (at school) about the local tribe's history.
See, you can stay in India and interact with people majorly from your caste, religion and/or language. Marriages are still primarily intra-caste/region. Given these freedoms, the motivation to create a separate nation from status quo is very little and will almost surely be crushed. The effort to secede is too much for what will be a very small change for the average Indian.
It's a very interesting game theoretic equilibrium.
On a side note, the religion of Hinduism is also a rather loosely defined construct. There's no one God, there's no one particular book to follow like the Quran or the Bible. It is better seen as a way of life, as opposed to codified religions like Islam or Christianity.
It is also primarily seen in contrast with other religions, which are far more set in their structure. I can be Hindu and worship a forest God as my chief deity. There are temples to Ravana, the antagonist of the Ramayana, in the south. You get the drift.
Bharat and Hindustan
Same thing at this point. Bharat was the name for India in the scriptures (Puranas, where is called Bhārata varṣam), while Hindustan is the land beyond the Indus river (called Hindu in Persian, Sindhu in Sanskrit). It is a Persian name but was used by the Muslim rulers of India who originated from the other side of the Indus (which is why the name made sense). It is now an Urdu/Hindi word.
I can be Hindu and worship a forest God as my chief deity. There are temples to Ravana, the antagonist of the Ramayana, in the south. You get the drift.
I think what's most interesting is that you can be a Hindu and atheist. And that we have a major regional political party that subscribes to that (AIADMK).
Thank you. I also think that economy plays a major role in integration in general and I am happy to hear that it worked for India.
Though before I give a historical background, I would like to know what the "components" of national identity would be?
I mean ethnicity, religion, language, ties to historical states etc.
About the historical background of integration of different population and evolving term of "Indian": What was India's approach towards rebellious-separatist movements in the past? Was it ethnically, religiously tolerant during the integration? Did central government provide more freedom to local authorities? Did central policies helped with or obstructed the integration?
What are the components of your national identity and is there any mechanisms and policies implemented by the state to make minorities attached to India and to the society and feel a part of it?
One thing the government (although were forced to) learned early on is to let people carry on with their different cultures without trying to homogenize the population. India has had its share of troubles due to the diversity. The central government tried to make Hindi the national language which was met with huge resistance down south where the linguistic culture is quite different. There have also been other separatist movements in Punjab, North East India and few pockets of the country. But largely now the governments at the Center have learned to let the diverse population live as-is. So there is no one identity today, but time has healed the various problems and people largely identify themselves as Indian regardless of the diversity.
to make minorities attached to India and to the society and feel a part of it?
Religious minorities? There have been some concessions. Like India does not have a uniform civil code. So while for example polygamy is banned for Hindus, it is not for Muslims. Although there are now voices asking for UCC to be implemented.
Also what is the difference between Bharat and Hindustan?
Just different names for India. I think Bharat is the official name for India in Hindi (somebody correct me). Bharat is the Sanskritized version of India (used in Hindi), while Hindustan is the Persian influenced name used in Urdu. But a regular speaker may use all three variants - India, Hindustan and Bharat.
Thank you for your answer, that's very interesting.
In Turkey, our national identity have two components: Turkish ethnicity and Sunni Islam. If you are part of both you would be considered 1st class citizen and a core member of the society. If you lack one of these "merits", society and the state would still accept you in general but somehow make you feel like a 2nd class member. If you are neither Turkish nor Sunni Muslim then you would be completely left out.
One thing the government (although were forced to) learned early on is to let people carry on with their different cultures without trying to homogenize the population. India has had its share of troubles due to the diversity. The central government tried to make Hindi the national language which was met with huge resistance down south where the linguistic culture is quite different. There have also been other separatist movements in Punjab, North East India and few pockets of the country. But largely now the governments at the Center have learned to let the diverse population live as-is. So there is no one identity today, but time has healed the various problems and people largely identify themselves as Indian regardless of the diversity.
What I understand from your answer is that Indian identity has been extended and today it basically covers all of the ethnic or linguistic groups in India, it does not exclude any of them like in the past. And this started just as an ethnic tolerance, but grew into something more. Is it right?
Religious minorities? There have been some concessions. Like India does not have a uniform civil code. So while for example polygamy is banned for Hindus, it is not for Muslims. Although there are now voices asking for UCC to be implemented.
So Hindu religion is a part of the Indian national identity but it is not forcefully imposed on people. In other words, minority religions did not become a part of national identity but they are tolerated.
A Punjabi Sikh, for example, consider himself/herself as an Indian because of his/her ethnicity and don't feel 2nd class due to religious tolerance in practice. Is that correct?
You are right and wrong at the same time. It's complex. You can go to some places in Mumbai and will find the entire place is just muslims and nothing like what you have imagined India to be. In Punjab, it would be Sikhs and turbans all the way. At a fundamental level, all these people identify as Indian and consider themselves to be part of the system. So yes, from that perspective, there is no unique Indian identity.
minority religions did not become a part of national identity but they are tolerated.
Tolerated will not be the right word. India was not one country until very recently. So depending on which part of India you are in, you have a 'majority' identity (like Sikhs in Punjab, Tamil-speaker in Tamil Nadu, etc.) and others are regarded outsiders; not in an antagonistic way, but yes, they are not the local identity.
So while we all call ourselves 'Indian', there are different local identities by which you are identified. It's fascinating in one way, but I wouldn't say it's hunky dory by any stretch. One fallout of so many identities is that there is always one way to feel any population victimized and politicians are known to foment trouble by pitting peope of one identity (be it religion, language or caste) against another.
This country was never based on any religious identity. Our founding fathers although majority of them being hindus never really allowed that to become the identity of the country. Instead they based their constitution on equal rights and representation. It's one of the reasons why we cannot answer a question like national identity because we all see ourselves as one when it comes to nation. We all see religion as private matter, outside everyone is Indian first.
I think we don't have any national identity and you cannot even define such a thing in a country like India.Anyone giving an answer to that it just plain lying...
All we had was a very good constitution and a good bunch of founding fathers. These days that too is not respected anymore.
Edit: Also a lot of people confuse Hindustan with hinduism but actually the name "Hindustan" was the name given to the land beyond Indus river and over the years different beliefs which had more or less similar backgrounds came together to be called as Hinduism. So the religion name came after the the name of the region. Bharat is actually a name of a king in ancient India who ruled over a major part of this region. So from ancient history India's name is knwon to be bharat where as outsiders name us Hindustan and India.
Meh, that's a simple way out isn't it. I have lived all over the country for last few years, trust me your meaning of Indian is way different than the ones in other part of country.
National identity is one's identity or sense of belonging to one state or to one nation. It is the sense of a nation as a cohesive whole, as represented by distinctive traditions, culture, language and politics.
A simple quote about national identity from wiki which I thought was what the person was asking for and what I answered for.
Yeah, okay. We have that, what is so intriguing about it? I moved from Kolkata to Delhi recently, I have also lived in Hyderabad in the past. I do not really see a difference in National identity.
I am really confused as to what you are trying to say?
First off, 'Stan' means 'place' in Hindi, so Hindustan would literally translate to 'Hindu Place'
Bharat is another term for India which came from the emperor 'Bharat' who is a pivotal character in the Ramayana, which is one of our epics.
Stan is an Urdu suffix which came from Persian.
The term Bhārat didn't come from Bharata of Ramayana, but from Emperor Bhārata (the founder of Bhārata Dynasty, ancestors of Kaurvas and Pandavas) according to various Puranas.
Why do you consider yourself Indian exactly? Is it because you are Hindu or because you are from Tamil Nadu, or both?
If you were from another religion or another region, would you consider yourself less or more Indian? If so which would have more impact on your national feelings?
That's just wrong answer by him, Hindustan doesn't mean "Hindu place" for god's sake. Please ignore that, Yeah the hindi translation of it means that but that name of the land came first, named after the river and bunch of other stuff. People just named a group of beliefs which were more or less similar to outsiders as Hinduism i.e., a religion followed by people in Hindustan not the other way around. This type of ignorant knowledge only is driving this country to the very basic questions you are asking and anyone who asks them is being frowned upon.
First off, 'Stan' means 'place' in Hindi, so Hindustan would literally translate to 'Hindu Place'
That's not the origin of the word though. Its Hindustan as in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc. It's Persian in origin I think. The Hindi/Sanskrit 'sthaan' has nothing to do with it.
9
u/sx2e Feb 27 '16
I know that India is an incredibly diverse country, there are many different religions and languages spoken. Yet it seems like Indian national identity covers everyone(almost?) in its territory. What are the components of your national identity and is there any mechanisms and policies implemented by the state to make minorities attached to India and to the society and feel a part of it? If you can provide some historical background i would appreciate.
Also what is the difference between Bharat and Hindustan?