Re would Japan have produced human rights if they invented the scientific revolution & industrialisation...? No! Because the latter are intertwined with social progress since they depend on the same basic process - the scientific method. Free speech is basically a discovery process, and human rights/rule of law the social equivalent of laboratory conditions.
Scientific gains need controlled experimental conditions - as social advancement needs rule of law and independent judiciaries. They also need free communication with other discoverers - parallel to freedom of political communication & petition.
So no - the Enlightenment is a package deal, the social/political components come tied with the scientific and economic ones.
Excellent post. Many important ideas here. I hope whoever is Trump‘s Ambassador to India will read this article! Also struck by the notion that the Indians are the only people who can potentially create a post enlightenment, or anti-enlightenment nationalism. That project in the United States seems to be largely an online meme phenomenon and not anywhere near breaking through to politically actionable policies or programs. I personally practice Christianity and prefer a modern and liberal and even post enlightenment polity. In particular I am grateful that we still are governed by our founding documents. But the trend among younger people on the right is certainly against that. If they get what they think they want, they may not like it, but every generation has to have its own motivating vision.
I came across Ram Madhav's "India's Vision for World Conservatism" at the National Conservatism conference in Washington, D.C. in July 2024. It is illuminating:
It's very interesting you prefer to look at more populous countries as an inspiration for the American right; I prefer looking at actually developed countries such as Russia, Italy, or even Uruguay. I think India is simply too underdeveloped to serve as an inspiration to the American right. America is not a ~40% peasant country.
Some good journaling and interesting observations. I chuckled at the comparison of disease fears in India vs China given what the world endured for 3 years circa 2020 and beyond.
I really enjoyed this. I would make one suggestion -- do not compare different climates regarding disease. Beijing never had malaria, and neither did London or Stockholm. Chinese cities in northern areas have the blessing of winter. Now, the absence of Malaria in Hong Kong or Guangdong, that would be fair game. I lived in Taiwan and traveled widely in China. I love the Chinese people, but I think we were lied to about China. Taiwan is a wonderful democracy, and China is run by a modern Hitler. We need to fight them sooner rather than later, because that man wants to start WW3.
Indian reader here✋🏻. This is a rather good understanding of India and the Hindutva movement.
The fact that an American, in a single visit, can grasp the difference in worldview of, say the CPC, territorial nationalists around the world, and RSS, is surprising.
We must make advancements in biotech to ensure that the Bhagvat Gita is preserved. (Ik, the Indian biotech scene suck rn).
The books you mentioned are all good picks. Reading Savarkar in his own words is essential, and he did write a lot in English. I’d also recommend reading Vikram Sampath’s 2 volume biography on Savarkar, if you haven’t. Getting a flavour of the man, so to say, will help.
You can read Aurobindo, but he doesn’t really write clearly, so it can be a bit hard to go through his works.
One figure missing from your radar imv is Swami Vivekananda (who liked America a fair bit). All contemporary Hindu thinkers have been touched by him, at a deep level.
It is quite well known that the current PM was significantly influenced by him and wanted to join the order set up by him, to become a monk.
What isn’t that well known is that the 2nd head of RSS, MS Golwalkar, was himself a disciple of the order. Swami Akhandananda, (2nd or 3rd president of the order, I forget) was MS Golwalkar’s spiritual teacher. Swami Akhandananda was a close associate of Swami Vivekananda.
RSS decided that it needs pracharaks (the lifelong celibate members), after observing the order set up by Swami Vivekananda.
If I’m not mistaken, it is RSS volunteers who built a memorial dedicated to him, in the southern most tip of India, a place where he once meditated and a place of spiritual significance to Hindus. The Sangh parivar wasn’t in power back then, and raising money wasn’t easy. This often unsaid connection, of Hindutva to Hinduism, is important.
Lastly, if you want to go really deep and learn about the spiritual seed animating Hindutva (and Indian nationalism, more broadly) then I’d recommend reading the 16th century theologian, Madhusudan Saraswati’s commentary on the Bhagvat Gita - Gudharthadeepika (Lamp Illuminating the Profound Meaning). The most approachable text imv, which one can read, without knowing Sanskrit.
Territorial nationalism is actually very common - Americans are among the minority of cultures who don't naturally get it being a composite culture without any real exterior threat. Even modern Europe has plenty of irredentism and unfinished quarrels - see Hungarians vs Slovaks and many others eg Yugoslavia.
The problem for non-European nationalisms is that they must juggle two competing objectives - elevating ones own culture as special/better and justifying how not the native one but another (Western) provides the outcomes everyone wants for themselves like rule of law, prosperity and human rights. The cognitive dissonance is especially strong where the local culture holds colonial grievances toward the very same culture that actually brought the desired traits.
Well in India's case it's a bit different considering that before British imperialsim it was responsible for 25-35% of the world's total GDP. India's economy was larger than all of Europe's combined for, what was it, 15 centuries? The British Raj dwindled that down to 2%.
India's vision, or at least some Indian citizens' vision, is to revisit that era of their civilization's industry, innovation, technology, health, abundance and prosperity again.
One obviously glaring current challenge is population size. Back then there were far fewer people on the sub-continent than there are now.
"In India modernization is a means. In China it is an end." - Great observation!
"Perceptions will change in tandem with realities on the ground. Do not repeat our mistakes." - Gem
"is that you care too much about the headline of the month and too little about the trendline of the year." - Superb point. But what is the new government going to do? American citizens do not want to pay high prices to encourage made in USA. Heck, the USA does not have enough capacity to produce what it consumes. It has to import a lot of stuff. Do you want to handover yet again to other countries that could get bullied by China? The only country that stood up to Chinese aggression in the past few decades is India. Hopefully, the American's do not treat India like another market and treat it like an ally. We need technology and capital.
Also, did you guys ever think why China never faces any issues w.r.t. radical islamic terror? Every meaningful country has been hit in some way or the other, except China. May be they can educate all of us on how to deal with this.
I do not think any member of the delegation came away more sympathetic to the Indian perspective on this point. - Yes, it is difficult for you to be sympathetic to the Indian perspective as most of you believe that there is only one god and Jesus was his messenger and in monotheism. We have seen time and again that the strongest glue bonding India from the north to the south and from the east to the west is Hindu religion. If you take it out, in parts or in full, there is no India. Many of these missionaries are just creating a demographic change in these small states and areas that are vulnerable causing immense damage to the territorial integrity of India.
Keep your religious propaganda aside, allow us to live without killing our culture and civilization. I hope America ditches Europe and partners with India for the world to prosper. We have a lot to offer than what you can even imagine.
There are two reasons Americans tend to be unsympathetic. On the one hand, many Americans, especially conservative Americans, are Christian, and view attacks on Christianity as something evil.
On the other hand, Americans also deeply attached to religious liberty and freedom of speech. They view these fundamental bedrock political principles--almost sacred principles.
I think there are ways Indians can articulate their concerns, especially re: separatism, that will make sense to Americans. But it won't be easy, and must be done thoughtfully and dissspassionately to get a fair hearing.
"There are two reasons Americans tend to be unsympathetic. On the one hand, many Americans, especially conservative Americans, are Christian, and view attacks on Christianity as something evil.
On the other hand, Americans also deeply attached to religious liberty and freedom of speech. They view these fundamental bedrock political principles--almost sacred principles."
--- Free speech "attacks" on Christianity are "evil" yet those same Americans are "also deeply attached to religious liberty and freedom of speech" viewing these as "almost sacred principles".
"China could only be saved from imperialist encroachment by creating and sustaining the military power needed to protect Chinese sovereignty.... This would never fly with the Indians. For them the key issue was not political sovereignty but spiritual sovereignty. They had already lost political independence."
I wonder the impacts of the Mughal conquests prior to the British Raj on this social dynamic. The Mughals still seemed to loom large in the mindset of many commentaries I was provided by locals when I visited New Delhi, whereas the most immediate external conquest I can think of in China is the Khanate/Yuan Dynasty? This is a further 300 years back, perhaps providing more time to get over any "conquered" mindsets and be more survivalist about political sovereignty, as well as the different lasting cultural impacts of the conquerors - the Raj building on the Mughal administrative state, whereas the Ming dynasty created a clearer break from the Mongol conquest.
I'm far from an expert on either country, but nevertheless it is something to ponder in the realms of "deep roots".
The Manchus of Qing Dynasty were not-Han. But they had integrated more closely than the other foreigners, hairstyle notwithstanding. The success of the republic revolution rested in part on Han nationalism.
The Chinese reaction to the Western colonial invasions got rolled up into the general Han nationalism, for the Han. In part, this is because a large part of the Qing military and generals were Han by then.
It probably helped the Chinese that the West did not have siginicant native allies.
Great point, the differentiation between ethnic groups in China does make distinguishing a "foreign takeover" from an "internal rebalancing of power" a tricky piece. As I said, I'm no expert on either country (barely a novice) and I suppose I had taken for granted the proximity of Manchuria to Beijing without adequate consideration of ethnicity. Thanks!
Mughal rule was titular shortly after Aurangzeb's death, and the Mughal emperor served at the pleasure of the Maratha Empire / Confederacy.
That arrangement lasted for 110+ years after Aurangzeb's death, at which time the British defeated the confederacy after three bloody wars (Anglo-Maratha wars, during which Wellington fought his toughest battle ever, Assaye) and established the Raj.
Interesting! I was oblivious to the Maratha-rule-with-Mughal-figurehead period. Aside from the people doing the administrating, was there much change in the administrative apparatus in this time, or were the Maratha's building atop the Mughal framework?
I'm intrigued that every government is ultimately based on values, whether cultural, religious, or ideological in some other way. The question seems to be what can cultivate shared values. Or maintain them. The United States seems to be struggling to find its core values. Or how to live in a multi-values society.
I'm no historian so I'm asking questions from sparse bits and pieces I've read previously but:
1) Wasn't India's left-leaning previous hegemony much more openly communist? I think "post-liberalism" is an easier sell the more your country has suffered from far-left policy decaying your society so obviously badly and so the reason this has been delayed in the west is that, frankly, they've been better at downplaying socialist aspirations such that it's been a more gradual awakening to "oh it's these specific types of policy patterns [that we can encapsulate by calling stuff "woke"] that are causing widespread social problems".
2) Hasn't India's shift to a focus on rivalry with China been more of a direct result of actual border tensions versus that's who they want to emulate (or am I reversing the causation here)?
The idea of mimetic theory is that those you see as rivals start becoming those you want to emulate. The enemy sets the standard against which you judge yourself.
BJP also supports most of the socialist bureaucracy, but wants them more efficient and business-friendly (to build national power). The farmer protest shows that the population is nowhere close to "suffered from far-left policy decay".
Indians generally love to talk about their social justice values, even the Brahmins who want to overturn affirmative action. (The Brahmins just want to be in charge of lifting the masses out of poverty, in the correct way.)
Superb
Re would Japan have produced human rights if they invented the scientific revolution & industrialisation...? No! Because the latter are intertwined with social progress since they depend on the same basic process - the scientific method. Free speech is basically a discovery process, and human rights/rule of law the social equivalent of laboratory conditions.
Scientific gains need controlled experimental conditions - as social advancement needs rule of law and independent judiciaries. They also need free communication with other discoverers - parallel to freedom of political communication & petition.
So no - the Enlightenment is a package deal, the social/political components come tied with the scientific and economic ones.
Excellent post. Many important ideas here. I hope whoever is Trump‘s Ambassador to India will read this article! Also struck by the notion that the Indians are the only people who can potentially create a post enlightenment, or anti-enlightenment nationalism. That project in the United States seems to be largely an online meme phenomenon and not anywhere near breaking through to politically actionable policies or programs. I personally practice Christianity and prefer a modern and liberal and even post enlightenment polity. In particular I am grateful that we still are governed by our founding documents. But the trend among younger people on the right is certainly against that. If they get what they think they want, they may not like it, but every generation has to have its own motivating vision.
Well, the problem is they've never seen our system functioning anything like it's supposed to.
I came across Ram Madhav's "India's Vision for World Conservatism" at the National Conservatism conference in Washington, D.C. in July 2024. It is illuminating:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEUNh8HLluw
It's very interesting you prefer to look at more populous countries as an inspiration for the American right; I prefer looking at actually developed countries such as Russia, Italy, or even Uruguay. I think India is simply too underdeveloped to serve as an inspiration to the American right. America is not a ~40% peasant country.
Some good journaling and interesting observations. I chuckled at the comparison of disease fears in India vs China given what the world endured for 3 years circa 2020 and beyond.
I really enjoyed this. I would make one suggestion -- do not compare different climates regarding disease. Beijing never had malaria, and neither did London or Stockholm. Chinese cities in northern areas have the blessing of winter. Now, the absence of Malaria in Hong Kong or Guangdong, that would be fair game. I lived in Taiwan and traveled widely in China. I love the Chinese people, but I think we were lied to about China. Taiwan is a wonderful democracy, and China is run by a modern Hitler. We need to fight them sooner rather than later, because that man wants to start WW3.
This may be the best explainer post I’ve ever read about another country
Interesting and thoughtful read. Thanks.
Indian reader here✋🏻. This is a rather good understanding of India and the Hindutva movement.
The fact that an American, in a single visit, can grasp the difference in worldview of, say the CPC, territorial nationalists around the world, and RSS, is surprising.
We must make advancements in biotech to ensure that the Bhagvat Gita is preserved. (Ik, the Indian biotech scene suck rn).
The books you mentioned are all good picks. Reading Savarkar in his own words is essential, and he did write a lot in English. I’d also recommend reading Vikram Sampath’s 2 volume biography on Savarkar, if you haven’t. Getting a flavour of the man, so to say, will help.
You can read Aurobindo, but he doesn’t really write clearly, so it can be a bit hard to go through his works.
One figure missing from your radar imv is Swami Vivekananda (who liked America a fair bit). All contemporary Hindu thinkers have been touched by him, at a deep level.
It is quite well known that the current PM was significantly influenced by him and wanted to join the order set up by him, to become a monk.
What isn’t that well known is that the 2nd head of RSS, MS Golwalkar, was himself a disciple of the order. Swami Akhandananda, (2nd or 3rd president of the order, I forget) was MS Golwalkar’s spiritual teacher. Swami Akhandananda was a close associate of Swami Vivekananda.
RSS decided that it needs pracharaks (the lifelong celibate members), after observing the order set up by Swami Vivekananda.
If I’m not mistaken, it is RSS volunteers who built a memorial dedicated to him, in the southern most tip of India, a place where he once meditated and a place of spiritual significance to Hindus. The Sangh parivar wasn’t in power back then, and raising money wasn’t easy. This often unsaid connection, of Hindutva to Hinduism, is important.
Lastly, if you want to go really deep and learn about the spiritual seed animating Hindutva (and Indian nationalism, more broadly) then I’d recommend reading the 16th century theologian, Madhusudan Saraswati’s commentary on the Bhagvat Gita - Gudharthadeepika (Lamp Illuminating the Profound Meaning). The most approachable text imv, which one can read, without knowing Sanskrit.
Territorial nationalism is actually very common - Americans are among the minority of cultures who don't naturally get it being a composite culture without any real exterior threat. Even modern Europe has plenty of irredentism and unfinished quarrels - see Hungarians vs Slovaks and many others eg Yugoslavia.
The problem for non-European nationalisms is that they must juggle two competing objectives - elevating ones own culture as special/better and justifying how not the native one but another (Western) provides the outcomes everyone wants for themselves like rule of law, prosperity and human rights. The cognitive dissonance is especially strong where the local culture holds colonial grievances toward the very same culture that actually brought the desired traits.
Well in India's case it's a bit different considering that before British imperialsim it was responsible for 25-35% of the world's total GDP. India's economy was larger than all of Europe's combined for, what was it, 15 centuries? The British Raj dwindled that down to 2%.
India's vision, or at least some Indian citizens' vision, is to revisit that era of their civilization's industry, innovation, technology, health, abundance and prosperity again.
One obviously glaring current challenge is population size. Back then there were far fewer people on the sub-continent than there are now.
We wish them well.
"In India modernization is a means. In China it is an end." - Great observation!
"Perceptions will change in tandem with realities on the ground. Do not repeat our mistakes." - Gem
"is that you care too much about the headline of the month and too little about the trendline of the year." - Superb point. But what is the new government going to do? American citizens do not want to pay high prices to encourage made in USA. Heck, the USA does not have enough capacity to produce what it consumes. It has to import a lot of stuff. Do you want to handover yet again to other countries that could get bullied by China? The only country that stood up to Chinese aggression in the past few decades is India. Hopefully, the American's do not treat India like another market and treat it like an ally. We need technology and capital.
Also, did you guys ever think why China never faces any issues w.r.t. radical islamic terror? Every meaningful country has been hit in some way or the other, except China. May be they can educate all of us on how to deal with this.
I do not think any member of the delegation came away more sympathetic to the Indian perspective on this point. - Yes, it is difficult for you to be sympathetic to the Indian perspective as most of you believe that there is only one god and Jesus was his messenger and in monotheism. We have seen time and again that the strongest glue bonding India from the north to the south and from the east to the west is Hindu religion. If you take it out, in parts or in full, there is no India. Many of these missionaries are just creating a demographic change in these small states and areas that are vulnerable causing immense damage to the territorial integrity of India.
Keep your religious propaganda aside, allow us to live without killing our culture and civilization. I hope America ditches Europe and partners with India for the world to prosper. We have a lot to offer than what you can even imagine.
There are two reasons Americans tend to be unsympathetic. On the one hand, many Americans, especially conservative Americans, are Christian, and view attacks on Christianity as something evil.
On the other hand, Americans also deeply attached to religious liberty and freedom of speech. They view these fundamental bedrock political principles--almost sacred principles.
I think there are ways Indians can articulate their concerns, especially re: separatism, that will make sense to Americans. But it won't be easy, and must be done thoughtfully and dissspassionately to get a fair hearing.
"There are two reasons Americans tend to be unsympathetic. On the one hand, many Americans, especially conservative Americans, are Christian, and view attacks on Christianity as something evil.
On the other hand, Americans also deeply attached to religious liberty and freedom of speech. They view these fundamental bedrock political principles--almost sacred principles."
--- Free speech "attacks" on Christianity are "evil" yet those same Americans are "also deeply attached to religious liberty and freedom of speech" viewing these as "almost sacred principles".
The math isn't mathing.
"China could only be saved from imperialist encroachment by creating and sustaining the military power needed to protect Chinese sovereignty.... This would never fly with the Indians. For them the key issue was not political sovereignty but spiritual sovereignty. They had already lost political independence."
I wonder the impacts of the Mughal conquests prior to the British Raj on this social dynamic. The Mughals still seemed to loom large in the mindset of many commentaries I was provided by locals when I visited New Delhi, whereas the most immediate external conquest I can think of in China is the Khanate/Yuan Dynasty? This is a further 300 years back, perhaps providing more time to get over any "conquered" mindsets and be more survivalist about political sovereignty, as well as the different lasting cultural impacts of the conquerors - the Raj building on the Mughal administrative state, whereas the Ming dynasty created a clearer break from the Mongol conquest.
I'm far from an expert on either country, but nevertheless it is something to ponder in the realms of "deep roots".
The Manchus of Qing Dynasty were not-Han. But they had integrated more closely than the other foreigners, hairstyle notwithstanding. The success of the republic revolution rested in part on Han nationalism.
The Chinese reaction to the Western colonial invasions got rolled up into the general Han nationalism, for the Han. In part, this is because a large part of the Qing military and generals were Han by then.
It probably helped the Chinese that the West did not have siginicant native allies.
Great point, the differentiation between ethnic groups in China does make distinguishing a "foreign takeover" from an "internal rebalancing of power" a tricky piece. As I said, I'm no expert on either country (barely a novice) and I suppose I had taken for granted the proximity of Manchuria to Beijing without adequate consideration of ethnicity. Thanks!
Mughal rule was titular shortly after Aurangzeb's death, and the Mughal emperor served at the pleasure of the Maratha Empire / Confederacy.
That arrangement lasted for 110+ years after Aurangzeb's death, at which time the British defeated the confederacy after three bloody wars (Anglo-Maratha wars, during which Wellington fought his toughest battle ever, Assaye) and established the Raj.
Interesting! I was oblivious to the Maratha-rule-with-Mughal-figurehead period. Aside from the people doing the administrating, was there much change in the administrative apparatus in this time, or were the Maratha's building atop the Mughal framework?
I'm intrigued that every government is ultimately based on values, whether cultural, religious, or ideological in some other way. The question seems to be what can cultivate shared values. Or maintain them. The United States seems to be struggling to find its core values. Or how to live in a multi-values society.
"The United States seems to be struggling to find its core values. Or how to live in a multi-values society."
We're doing ok. Individuals can live freely by whatever personal values they like as long as they don't break the law.
Thank you! Interesting comparison to Caldwell on India and Stephen Hsu on China
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/indias-uprising/
https://www.manifold1.com/episodes/letter-from-shanghai-reflections-on-china-in-2024-73
I'm no historian so I'm asking questions from sparse bits and pieces I've read previously but:
1) Wasn't India's left-leaning previous hegemony much more openly communist? I think "post-liberalism" is an easier sell the more your country has suffered from far-left policy decaying your society so obviously badly and so the reason this has been delayed in the west is that, frankly, they've been better at downplaying socialist aspirations such that it's been a more gradual awakening to "oh it's these specific types of policy patterns [that we can encapsulate by calling stuff "woke"] that are causing widespread social problems".
2) Hasn't India's shift to a focus on rivalry with China been more of a direct result of actual border tensions versus that's who they want to emulate (or am I reversing the causation here)?
The idea of mimetic theory is that those you see as rivals start becoming those you want to emulate. The enemy sets the standard against which you judge yourself.
BJP also supports most of the socialist bureaucracy, but wants them more efficient and business-friendly (to build national power). The farmer protest shows that the population is nowhere close to "suffered from far-left policy decay".
Indians generally love to talk about their social justice values, even the Brahmins who want to overturn affirmative action. (The Brahmins just want to be in charge of lifting the masses out of poverty, in the correct way.)
What "woke stuff" is "causing widespread social problems"exactly?
"They've hesitated, for example, to make the reforms that would make agriculture more effecient."
--- Such as?
You should read Hind Swaraj