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:
"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.
"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.)
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.
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
Superb
"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.
"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.
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.)
You should read Hind Swaraj
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.
What is going on Western India?