neo-Orientalism (ii)

[RM. Krishnan]

At 06:59 PM 10/30/00 +0100, Prof. Zydenbos wrote:

>Apparently I angered LS when I wrote
>
> > India should be compared not with any single
> > European country, but with Europe as a whole.
>
>I know very well what I am talking about (see my qualifications, above).
>India is not a monolithic cultural unit (nation), just as the Soviet Union
>was not a monolithic cultural unit. India is more like the European Union, one
>big difference of course being that India already has some of the
>advantages of being a larger administrative unit. There are perfectly
>objective
>grounds for my statement, and I am rather surprised that anyone (an Indian?)
>should take offence when I say that India is culturally greater than any
>single
>Western country - because that is what I am saying.

It is precisely this (multinational question in a single country /existence
of many nationalities) which many hindutvadis are unable to comprehend. You
are absolutely right. India should be compared to Europe but with one
administrative federal unit. When India started in 1947, the founding
fathers were clear in calling it as  Indian Union. It was Indira Gandhi in
1969 who changed it as Republic of India. Confusion soon spread among the
elites.

There are many Hindutvadis who think that we are un-patriotic when we talk
about the multi-national question.

It is not surprising  that the present OIT theory and the Republic of India
concept go together.

With regards,
irAma.ki