China to Break Up India?

Posted 6:27 PM by JP in Labels: , , , , ,
An "unofficially" sanctioned article encouraging the fragmentation of India along ethnic lines for the geopolitical benefit of China has sparked debate on the nature and future of "India" as a whole:

"According to the article, if India today relies on any thing for unity, it is the Hindu religion. The partition of the country was based on religion. Stating that today nation states are the main current in the world, it has said that India could only be termed now as a 'Hindu religious state'. Adding that Hinduism is a decadent religion as it allows caste exploitation and is unhelpful to the country's modernisation, it described the Indian government as one in a dilemma with regard to eradication of the caste system as it realises that the process to do away with castes may shake the foundation of the consciousness of the Indian nation."

While divide and conquer is everyone's favorite classic military strategy, there may be something to the article's contention that fragmented, "post-Indian" ethnically/culturally-based nation-states on the subcontinent could provide greater material and social benefits to their respective peoples, than the larger pan-ethnic, pan-religious state with traditional Hindu beliefs functioning as the religious and cultural hegemon (as is the case with modern India). Then again, as most Indians know, the road to partition is often paved with blood...

(thanks, Naxalite Rage)

1 comment(s) to... “China to Break Up India?”


Michael said...

I would challenge people on the notion that India is a "Hindu religious state". While the vast majority of people could be called "Hindu", the very idea of a unified religion known as "Hinduism" is dubious and the state itself is quite secular. In fact the biggest complaint of Hindu Nationalists is that the state secularized the "Hindu Personal Code" while allowing(forcing?) muslims to be held accountable to religiously prescribed personal law.

Also, the idea that India is anywhere close to fragmenting is pretty absurd. That risk may have been plausible in the 1960s and maybe on Punjab and Kashmir (but even then, not really) in the 1980s/1990s.