Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Weldon Pemberton
May 19, 2012

OwlBot 2000 posted:

That's absolutely true, but I don't know that some form of colonialism can't be part of a solution in theory -- I don't trust America or anyone else to do it in reality. But suppose some invader came into a country, banned all discrimination against LGBT people, but didn't reap any financial reward for it or do anything else really. That would be some kind of colonialism, maybe, but I'd still support it if the end result were good.

In some ways colonialism was a "solution" to some of the problems you outlined in the OP- the British defined the borders of "India" (except for Pakistan and Bangladesh not being in it), they attempted to modernize and centralize the administrative system with some success, they introduced English as an executive language (it still has a lot of prestige there today), while Orientalist scholars developed an essentialist view of what the "nation of India" was, based on their understandings of ancient texts and the advice of elite natives. All of these things accompanied the side of imperial conquest that is more familiar to us today- the human rights violations, racism, repression of rebellions, economic domination etc. As you said, India is incredibly culturally diverse and it may not have made any sense as a single nation before these events.

Part of the difficulty for India has been in balancing attempts to assert itself as different from and independent of its colonial past with the necessity of adopting "Western" ideologies and strategies to become a global power. The two dominant parties in India take different approaches to this problem. The Congress Party has been in power for most of the post-independence period and traces its legacy to a lot of elite, upper-caste Nationalists who worked in the colonial government. They are often accused of being "Westernized" pawns by the BJP, a Hindu-chauvinist party with neo-conservative ideals and a much narrower idea of what "the nation" should be. Other political groups like the Shiv Sena have roughly similar ideas to them. The problem is that the BJP are better at defining the "ingroup" that constitutes the nation and projecting the idea that they alone represent true Indian culture and concerns. This doesn't really bear out in reality, because a lot of the cherished notions of the BJP don't make any sense as "ancient Indian beliefs", such as their homophobia and glee over the fact that India has nuclear weapons now. But it doesn't really matter, because they are able to present themselves as traditionalist.

There are LGBT and women's rights groups in India, and there are plenty of people who push for secularization and religious tolerance and relaxed notions of caste (caste is derived from a concept in Hindu theology, so notions of abolishing it are pretty complicated). The government doesn't just ignore these issues, although occasionally they rule in a disappointing direction (like with the recent ruling on Section 377). There are actually "affirmative action" type programs to help "backwards castes" and other systems to help disadvantaged groups, though they need to be expanded. The problem is really that these people are outnumbered by zealots and people who aren't really partisan but hold certain prejudices or beliefs that put them in opposition to these measures. Education is also generally poor in India, although some places (like Kerala) have a high literacy rate. My personal belief about this is that concentrating on public education and fostering a notion of the nation as a multicultural country would go a long way to helping progressive ideas become dominant. The diversity of India is a trait that lends itself well to a lot of the ideas we have in the West about multiculturalism and religious tolerance, but there is scope within the history and culture of the area for it as well. It doesn't have to be a "Western" form of government, and there is great danger of more communal rioting and hate crimes if the right is allowed to keep fostering hatred and division. The only alternative to this is to split up the place into more homogenous states, really. A Western power invading would just solidify the notion that tolerance is intrinsically Western, and cause mass unrest for other obvious reasons.

As for the poverty and poor health, it's a somewhat different issue from the above that I don't have an answer to. There is a huge difference between the rich and poor and the rural and urban, which I would guess is due to the rapid economic growth. Libertarian ideals are also becoming more popular, which is worrying. Health issues are partly a consequence of that and poor education/superstitious beliefs. It's somewhat strange that secularization seems to be selectively happening. People are no longer afraid of hijras cursing them, and won't give them any money, but they still want their corpse thrown in the Ganges.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Weldon Pemberton
May 19, 2012

THE AWESOME GHOST posted:

I work in Kuwait, if you're familiar with the region you should realize that means 90% of my coworkers are Indian :v:

From talking with the guys a lot of them are terrified that Modi was voted in, but a lot of these guys are Muslims who left because in their words there are no good careers in India if you are a Muslim. They're basically under the impression that with Modi in charge it's official that not being Hindu is a crime.

I really can't judge accurately because everything I've been told has a definite bias but it does seem like minorities are basically screwed?

What is interesting is that I have been told by Indians and historians of modern India that Hindu expats are more likely to be BJP supporters than Hindus in India. I think they were referring to expats who settled in the West, though. The explanations given are normally that the experience of racism and othering gives them a stronger belief in Hindu nationalism because it appears to defend their cultural heritage more stridently (in the same way that having your "different" characteristics highlighted by another group might make you prouder of those characteristics or even chauvinistic about them), or that they get mistaken for Muslims and feel the need to differentiate themselves from them.

I'm not sure if there is any way to actually confirm any of this, because the evidence given to me was that the BJP's biggest donors were wealthy expats, and that doesn't say anything about poor or middle class emigrants. Plus, rich people are more likely to be doing it to try and stimulate economic liberalization than anything else, I feel.

Weldon Pemberton fucked around with this message at 14:46 on May 18, 2014

Weldon Pemberton
May 19, 2012

feedmegin posted:

Expats everywhere tend to be more nationalistic than people in their home country, that's not just a Hindu/Indian thing. When you live somewhere it's just, you know, there; it's your day to day. When it's the Old Country that you probably sometimes feel homesick for but on the other hand don't spend much time in, it's easier to romanticise it.

Well yes, that's what I meant with the first bit in parentheses. The thing is that Congress is technically a "nationalist party" in the vaguest cultural sense, it grew out of THE main nationalist organization of the early 20th century and has a long pedigree. So some extra explanation is required as to why the expats are going for this exclusive, Hindu-chauvinist version of nationalism. Obviously, dissatisfaction with corruption in the Congress party is a factor, but it's probably not the only one.

shrike82 posted:

Yup, the Economist, neoliberal paper of note, refused to endorse Modi due to his involvement in the anti Muslim pogrom. I'm not sure Western media has been that fawning of him.

That article was really funny though. "We'd love to support Modi because of his gestures towards liberalization, but unfortunately there's all this religious conflict in his background. It really is a shame though because we would really love to endorse him, based on his economic policies!!! Also, the alternatives suck almost as much as him. But we regret that he is too chauvinist, and thus we cannot do that in good conscience. Just saying though, we would totally endorse him otherwise."

  • Locked thread