Actually those three gentlemen have been struck by Modernity. It is the Modern world view that afflicts their vision. Every action of theirs can be explained by Modernism theory. Modernism essentially tries to uproot old society and bring about a revolutionary change. Unfortunately this urge for revolutionary change is hidden and couched in soothing terms. Modernism is not averse to using hudbhaya techinque. That is why the three worthies find support from their clansmen who cant see beyond their tribe and support them despite the harm that will be wreaked on the clansmen.
What I mean is that the clansmen support these three Modernists who are working to change the very clansmen life.
Also Mudy instead of closing the thread which has many new ideas one should use the administrative baton.
If I may interject, we should welcome all Hindus even if they have differences of opinion.
I don't see any harm in arguing.
If you look at this forum we do not have people from all the various Jatis of India participating here. How are we to learn what the various people of India are thinking if we don't have a broad representation here?
Sorry havent read all the posts on this thread, only the last few. A thread on martial-race-theory would be interesting.
Can you all go thru my posts # 95 and # 132. Have tried to make sense of this debate from two entirely different points of view our Indian philosophy and materialistic view point.
The discussion with Digvijay was useful to the extent that his question of why India remained Hindu during the medieval period was interesting one brought some new ideas. I have made some points of why Zoroastrianism succumbed while comparing with the situation in India and the strength and conviction of us in our religious beliefs.
Why India remained Hindu throughout the ancient and medeival ages down till now or in other words how the Vedic philosophy was able to assimilate all philosophies and ethnic strands into itself is a very interesting question. It is important issue bcos it has influenced the way we have embraced change in the past 200 years. How exactly it has influenced we have to discover and discuss but it has brought another dimension to change than just the colonial agency. Britishers were just a change agent, but how we changed depended on what we were. So it has important bearing to "India becoming modern" question and even in current times. I read the Balagangadhara article. Ramana or was it kram, thanks for it. It was very interesting. Its slightly long but its worth going through it. On a broader level it makes us understand, that we all view the same facts and interpret history through our cultural spectacles, which colors what we see.
http://s-n-balagangadhara.sulekha.com/blog...renaissance.htm
My original idea behind delving into this "India becoming modern" question was to understand how we have shaped, become different in the immediate past century or two of our history, for this will give us pointers to where we as a culture and nation are headed in the future. But lets for now not jump into the future. Lets fully understand the past first. This "India remaining Hindu" perspective has given food for thought and I have one or two (maybe controversial) ideas that I wish to share. But more of that later.
To start off again on a particular track, here is some bone to chew. Following is a discussion on cultural vis-a-vis political unity. This is post 63 or 64.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 2 2006, 12:01 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 2 2006, 12:01 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Nov 30 2006, 07:54 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(k.ram @ Nov 30 2006, 07:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The fundamental, and perhaps a truer basis of unity (identity) than any modern definitions such as a national, political, linguistic, race/ethnicity based sentiment was always there In India. It is to be found in a common intellectual heritage, having ebbs and flows, yet persisting through an unbroken tradition thats moulds even when modified, permeating India's whole social life to the minutest detail. It is the sanatana dharma which lies at the root of all the various forms of expressions of Indians and it is all inclusive.
For thousands of years India has been one, not merely in a geographical sense, but in religion, civilization, and customs. India has always felt herself to be an integral whole from the Himalayas to Lanka. The sentiment of unity, consciouness and identity has found expression in ancient songs and traditions - vedas to unpanishads to darsanas to panchatantra to aagamas to bhajans to what not and you get the drift. That has always been the national consciousness, and identity, if one can call that.
As for the modern awakening out of slumber and intellectual & social corruption, and when at the verge of perishing, and I quote Ashok's message
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Modernity" in the truest sense of the word, in India's affairs, starts when hindus awoke after a centuries long slumber. This should properly be identified with the so called "Hindu Renaissance of the late 19th century and early 20th century. All other definitions of modernity are non-Indian definitions and to their view of what they consider modern.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The modern defintions of nation-state and forms of nationalism, ramana and acharya have spoken quite eloquently to those. As far the interpretation and study of Indian history, HH's posting warns of the dangers in it. Hence the framework for such interpretive studies. Otherwise the comparative studies will slide into something else. For ancient democratic traditions of India, I will defer you to read shantiparva of mahabharatha (for example, and off the top of my head about duties of rajan, ganatantra, etc). All in Bhisma's teaching to Yudhishtara. Someone I know may write an article on just that.
[right][snapback]61551[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There were so many posts each with different strands of the discussion topic, that it took me some time to decide how to go forward.
kram, at present I'll not be commenting on the cultural unity and a national sense throughout the ages for it will be an altogether important discussion on its own. Also I have to better understand and think on the above.
Lets look at political unity, for that is clearly one thing we have had as a "modern" nation that maybe we have had only at certain times our history. It has only been sporadic. So maybe one part of discussing how or when India became modern is to study this political unity aspect.
As I see this political unity thing or a political center etc. has been cited in postings of different authors as a part of this disccusion. So what is political unity, or more clearly when can we say that we are politically united and what is its link to present day modern India. In other words to what extent has political unity gone to shape the form and fortunes of modern India.
I think at this point of time we need to get a consensus on our terminology.
Regards terminology, let me put an idea of modern, which can be a starting point and will agree to all of us. For as Hauma Hamidha has righlty said that can be a source of confusion and miscommunication. Let us not add any connotations to modern presently.
At present let modern mean just that it is a different India we see today and live in today than what was there during the medieval times. I think that is a safe starting point. All regions of the world have changed enormously in the past one or two centuries. Even a country like China, which also has an old culture and an ancient sense of national consiousness has changed. So this very basic definition for present I think will be agreeable to all of us. In this sense modern is just a term, we can even replace it with A or 1 or (i). It has simply no connotations to it. In fact this also leaves it open to discussion whether any major change happened at all or not. So you need not necessarily agree with the change theory.
Now the questions such as what is different in today's India, whether its progress or regress i.e. change for the better or worse, more importantly what are the factors can help us determine what makes modern all of these are subjects of discussion.
Coming back to political unity aspect, I think what definitely marks a difference is the extent of political unity that we see in present day India. But again let us be clear what political unity means. I believe instead of looking at "political unity" in black and white (i.e to say that either it is there or not there), <b>let us consider a continuum of the condition of political unity in a state</b>. At one end of this continuum a state is totally disunited for e.g. with disparate states, no centralization whatsoever etc. at the other end it is highly politically united. The reason I make this input is so that we can differentiate between the political unity during Mauryan or Guptan times or during the Mughal time with the political unity of present day India. I believe that modern day India is far highly politically united compared to any of these previous instances. Now in this case, we have to deliberate on the following points:
1. What exactly politcal unity means. What are its effects. What are the parameters to decide and judge the extent of political unity. This will help us determine the two ends of the political unity continuum
2. What factors cause or encourage political unity or disunity or in other words the centirfugal or centripetal forces
I think we have come back a full circle to the beginning of the discussion, maybe this all will end up with a question "Is India really modern" <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]61620[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please move the clan discussion to a new thread.
We want discussion on moderism in this thread
kartiksri
You need to change your style of argument and posting.
Need to give more links an explanations and control the argumen properly
so that there is clarity. History has to be basis of analysis and religion plays an important part of the history.
Admin hat on
Digivijay (or anyone else):
Any discussions or issues from other forums being dragged in here will be removed/edited.
This IF policy is not up for discussion or debate.
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Dec 10 2006, 07:14 PM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Dec 10 2006, 07:14 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Admin hat on
Digivijay (or anyone else):
Any discussions or issues from other forums being dragged in here will be removed/edited.
This IF policy is not up for discussion or debate.
[right][snapback]61965[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I am trying to understand what is it that Raman not understand about the connection of India's modernism in the debate between kartik and myself.
And the second question was purely a spur of the moment.
-Digvijay
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 10 2006, 09:53 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 10 2006, 09:53 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Dec 10 2006, 07:14 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Viren @ Dec 10 2006, 07:14 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Admin hat on
Digivijay (or anyone else):
Any discussions or issues from other forums being dragged in here will be removed/edited.
This IF policy is not up for discussion or debate.
[right][snapback]61965[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I am trying to understand what is it that Raman not understand about the connection of India's modernism in the debate between kartik and myself.
And the second question was purely a spur of the moment.
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61974[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its fine...admin decision respected. Lets move on. There's so much to discuss. This discussion is seemingly so vast in scope and when I think of it is also so important and significant, besides being interesting. I've put in some ideas on political unity and also referred to the alternate viewpoints in which we view this entire debate, Indian or Western.
To the extent possible, I've tried to give links, but a lot of it is from books I have read or come across, its very difficult to remember which part came from where. If anybody has a counterview point on any of my opinions, it is very much invited and I'm ready to learn from it.
Pls do care to look at my last few posts. I've tried to make sense of the debate till now by giving it some structure.
I give some pointers to the way forward is
1. Does it make sense to look at the "India becoming modern" question from the Indian philosophy point of view because what has happened in the past two centuries is mainly progress on the material front. Some may even say regress citing loss of economy during British rule. But whatever it may be it is changes in the material condition and since Indian philosophy considers the world as just "maya", this materially progressive modern nation becomes a meaningless concept. If anybody feels we can discuss in the ambit of Indian philosophy also besides Western please tell me your ideas. Otherwise we can have a consensus of looking at modernity in the sense of material progress.
2. Also interesting aspect is looking at how we have changed in terms of our philosophy or outlook. This is inspired by the Balagangadhara article, the link for which has been given in my last post. British were change agents, but how we changed depended on what we were. <b>How has our initial outlook affected the way the changes have happened. Secondly how has our outlook changed. </b>If it seems confusing, I'll request you to go through that article. Just presenting a small excerpt
"The European culture mapped on to itself aspects from the Indian culture so as to understand the latter. These mappings, in the form of explanations, have taken the status of frameworks to us. Liberalism, Marxism, secularism, etc. have become our mantras: we chant these without understanding them in the hope that if we do so long enough and sufficiently loud, the fruits will be ours to enjoy. However, in this process, <b>we have assumed (without quite realising what we are doing) that the European cultural experience is the 'scientific' framework for us to understand our own culture. However, this very assumption prevents us from accessing our own culture and experience. </b>We are busy denying our experiences while futilely busy trying to make alien experiences our own. "
I understand this bcos in my academic life I'd once taken a course on "Indian Philosophy" and as people who have been brought up their entire life with a Western outlook, we all students had a shock to see that Indian philosophy was so different and the way we were looking at most issues of life was actually from a Western point of view, while we are Indians.
3. One of the ways of looking how we have materially changed is initially not to ascribe any characteristics to the word "modern". Let it be just a figure or a category without any connotations. Then one by one we will add characteristics to it based on our discussions and see how we have changed. I started by the aspect of "political unity". One of the important parts of our today's identity is the political unity. How united are we today compared to the 18th century say? Rather than looking at the question in black and white, lets consider a continuum of political unity. At one end of this continuum you are totally separate, disparate, disunited at the other end you are politically united. At various periods of our history we would have been politically united to different degrees. There are two questions out here
a. What is political unity? How exactly can we determine to what extent we are politcally united. In other words if political unity is a construct, how do we define it, what are its effects which will help us determine the degree of political unity.
b. What are the factors that encourage political unity and what the factors which encourage political disunity i.e what the centrifugal and centripetal forces.
point (a) looks at the effects of political unity in order to define it, point (b) looks at the causes of political unity and its antithesis.
Another request, anybody responding to each other posts, pls try to look and respond to the post in its entirety rather than just a sentence here or there. It would actually help if you go thru a particular post entirely before responding to it.
While we should be all careful with the particular words or terminologies we use, this is just a discussion forum, not a paper review and most of us are amateurs not professionals in this field.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 10 2006, 11:58 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 10 2006, 11:58 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Another .....
[right][snapback]61979[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kartik,
India historically was an advanced nation which produced luminary mathematicians, astronomers, metallurgists, philosophers, medicine man, scientists, political commentators, music theoreticians, architects, builders, authors, dramatists, poets etc.
This learning took place in our universities and at the courts of various Hindu kings throughout India.
With the advent of islam all this learning stopped and India's contribution to the fields mentioned above and other fields literally faded away because we went from a largely peaceful society having plenty, to a society which had to defend itself for its survival and its way of life which includes the religion.
So from early 13th century to pretty much the time of independence we lost our place in the world to other countries in terms of intellectual output. Not only quantitative losses (i.e the ones that are easily visible like lack of mathematical advancement after 13 th century) but India lost qualitatively too.
A large part of our population got infected with "slave mentality" which is quite evident even today in India. People do not have the guts to speak there mind, are basically "yes men" no matter in what field they are in. This was a bigger loss.
What does it mean to be modern? A modern society/country is one in which the society is largely well taken care of by an economy which percolates down to masses so that they have a good living standard, education, earning power, spending power and the ability to have fun.
When did India become modern? The process of modernism started only after 1947, i.e after independence. We are not truly modern yet but we are getting there.
-Digvijay
Amartya Sen on Tagore
Please read and understand Tagore's world view.
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 11 2006, 11:41 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 11 2006, 11:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 10 2006, 11:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 10 2006, 11:58 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Another .....
[right][snapback]61979[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does it mean to be modern? A modern society/country is one in which the society is largely well taken care of by an economy which percolates down to masses so that they have a good living standard, education, earning power, spending power and the ability to have fun.
When did India become modern? The process of modernism started only after 1947, i.e after independence. We are not truly modern yet but we are getting there.
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]62000[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By your definition which is the most modern state in the world today?
Second question - as per your definition of modern, which country in the world first became truly modern and what were the indicators of it having become modern?
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 16 2006, 01:48 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 16 2006, 01:48 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 11 2006, 11:41 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 11 2006, 11:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 10 2006, 11:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 10 2006, 11:58 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Another .....
[right][snapback]61979[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does it mean to be modern? A modern society/country is one in which the society is largely well taken care of by an economy which percolates down to masses so that they have a good living standard, education, earning power, spending power and the ability to have fun.
When did India become modern? The process of modernism started only after 1947, i.e after independence. We are not truly modern yet but we are getting there.
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]62000[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By your definition which is the most modern state in the world today?
Second question - as per your definition of modern, which country in the world first became truly modern and what were the indicators of it having become modern?
[right][snapback]62172[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BTW, there is one more thing to add in describing a modern state and that is the ability of its population to choose/change its rulers.
So most modern states on the planet would be :
US/Japan/Britain/Canada etc.
-Digvijay
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 17 2006, 02:19 AM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 17 2006, 02:19 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 16 2006, 01:48 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 16 2006, 01:48 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 11 2006, 11:41 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 11 2006, 11:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 10 2006, 11:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 10 2006, 11:58 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Another .....
[right][snapback]61979[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does it mean to be modern? A modern society/country is one in which the society is largely well taken care of by an economy which percolates down to masses so that they have a good living standard, education, earning power, spending power and the ability to have fun.
When did India become modern? The process of modernism started only after 1947, i.e after independence. We are not truly modern yet but we are getting there.
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]62000[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By your definition which is the most modern state in the world today?
Second question - as per your definition of modern, which country in the world first became truly modern and what were the indicators of it having become modern?
[right][snapback]62172[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BTW, there is one more thing to add in describing a modern state and that is the ability of its population to choose/change its rulers.
So most modern states on the planet would be :
US/Japan/Britain/Canada etc.
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]62180[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You essentially are saying that the developed nations are the most modern
What about the second question? - as per your definition of modern, which country in the world first became truly modern and what were the indicators of it having become modern?
Why is it that some states are able to develop a society where - to use your words, it "is largely well taken care of by an economy which percolates down to masses so that they have a good living standard, education, earning power, spending power and the ability to have fun." while others like Somalia, Congo, North Korea etc are not able to develop as much. What do you think are the factors that encourage development of economy improving the living conditions of all classes, a democratic polity where people have a say in the governance, high standard of education and earning power. Once we understand what these underlying factors are and trace when and how they appeared in Indian history we will finally have answer to our question "When did India become modern"
It would be useful to go through the existing thread in Indian Culture Forum and merge it as necessary.
link: India and Modernism
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 17 2006, 10:15 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 17 2006, 10:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 17 2006, 02:19 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 17 2006, 02:19 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 16 2006, 01:48 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 16 2006, 01:48 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 11 2006, 11:41 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 11 2006, 11:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 10 2006, 11:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 10 2006, 11:58 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Another .....
[right][snapback]61979[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does it mean to be modern? A modern society/country is one in which the society is largely well taken care of by an economy which percolates down to masses so that they have a good living standard, education, earning power, spending power and the ability to have fun.
When did India become modern? The process of modernism started only after 1947, i.e after independence. We are not truly modern yet but we are getting there.
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]62000[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By your definition which is the most modern state in the world today?
Second question - as per your definition of modern, which country in the world first became truly modern and what were the indicators of it having become modern?
[right][snapback]62172[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BTW, there is one more thing to add in describing a modern state and that is the ability of its population to choose/change its rulers.
So most modern states on the planet would be :
US/Japan/Britain/Canada etc.
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]62180[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You essentially are saying that the developed nations are the most modern
What about the second question? - as per your definition of modern, which country in the world first became truly modern and what were the indicators of it having become modern?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pace was sought of even, give or take a few years here and there amongst these nations. So you can call it a dead heat. Though America was late entrant after it became independent from Britain.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 17 2006, 10:15 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 17 2006, 10:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why is it that some states are able to develop a society where - to use your words, it "is largely well taken care of by an economy which percolates down to masses so that they have a good living standard, education, earning power, spending power and the ability to have fun." while others like Somalia, Congo, North Korea etc are not able to develop as much. What do you think are the factors that encourage development of economy improving the living conditions of all classes, a democratic polity where people have a say in the governance, high standard of education and earning power.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need either a benevolent dictator as it happened in modern Singapore (or in pre islamic India) or a democratic setup in which people have some say in what needs to be done. Basic level of education in masses is a must for democracy to succeed else you have a situation like India where few screw the rest.
Banana republics of Africa/South America do not succeed becuase of reasons mentioned above.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 17 2006, 10:15 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 17 2006, 10:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Once we understand what these underlying factors are and trace when and how they appeared in Indian history we will finally have answer to our question "When did India become modern"
[right][snapback]62207[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reasons are quite obvious. What it your ultimate in discussing this?
-Digvijay
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 20 2006, 04:54 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 20 2006, 04:54 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->You need either a benevolent dictator as it happened in modern Singapore (or in pre islamic India) or a democratic setup in which people have some say in what needs to be done. Basic level of education in masses is a must for democracy to succeed else you have a situation like India where few screw the rest.
Banana republics of Africa/South America do not succeed becuase of reasons mentioned above.
Reasons are quite obvious. What it your ultimate in discussing this?
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]62284[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is it that some countries are able to develop democratic set up, decent literacy rate, strong economy etc. while others cannot. It may seem very general, but this will have clue to our answer.
Now you have mentioned some factors like:
1. Strong democratic set up
2. High Education levels
3. Developed economy with benefits percolating to masses which results in high material living conditions
I would add some others to this list (please note this is in addition to the above and not on their own)
4. Advances in science and technology: For only a country which has achieved highly developed economy can put in funds in these areas without its population starving
5. Cultural and civilizational advancement: In terms of arts, literature, philosophy etc.
These are what makes a modern nation evident. Now lets go one level deeper and understand what encourages all these factors. I'm not going to make an exhaustive list, just want to give a starting point
1. Cultural unity
2. Political unity
3. Emergence of power held by various classes who find it best to work with each other rather than against each other. So hence we are a more stable democracy than Pakistan. When we became independant we had a strong political class with grassroots linkage, a bureaucracy and civil service which was capable and the army and all these shared the power. In Pakistan however the political class dis not have strong grassroots, rather it was elitist plus their civil service was not to our class and hence the army becme dominant.
4. An enterprising trader and business class
5. Vast resources, otherwise how could we have survived numerous sanctions and wars and still survive. Sanctions only affect small countries with limited resources like Iraq
|
