11-17-2006, 02:21 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Nov 16 2006, 10:08 PM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Nov 16 2006, 10:08 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If nationalism has negative consequences, that is only because of its "exclusive" nature and/or interpretations in application/implemetnation of this "consciousness". National identity or consciousness on its own, will not do it. will it? Or as you say it, it but inevitable. The question wil be - was it natural or manufactured. If latter, who did it for what purpose etc (but that is another thread)
Also, what bound people together before the eurpean version of nationalism (tied to european history and experience in developed nations) and modernity set in, was "Dharma" or something of that nature which was all "inclusive".
Let's humor ourselves, and go with this for now, now how do we draw and dilineate epochs, events and define what modern is and not? What exactly is nationalism in a developing nation? Btw..
[right][snapback]60890[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You ask a lot of questions assuming I have the answers, well I'm not a history professor just an ordinary guy interested in history. I don't really get the term "nationalism in a developing nation". According to my logic, which I have put across earlier, consolidation of power in a region helps to improve the economy by reducing the threat of anarchy and war. Imperialism is one way to bring about this consolidation and we saw the same over various epochs of Indian history like Maurya, Gupta, partially during Harsha's time, then during Mughal rule under Akbar. You see progress in many spheres of human activity durign these times unless a monarchy has some dogmatism against this for e.g. Chinese imperial set up destroyed their own naval power just at the turn of the 15th century.
During the nineteenth century a slightly newer way of bringing about this consolidation came about through emerging consciousness among disparate states in various potential nation states be it Italy, Germany or India. In these countries particularly, nationalism helped beget a consolidation of power which put them on the road to development. In India, though we may rightly curse the British for a hundred odd reasons, we do need to thank them in their contribution to Indian nationalism.
A little earlier countries like Britian, Spain became modern due to them already being consolidated due to imperial initiatives. France is an example where people united together to overthrow monarchy, but still it brought about a unity, which is consolidaiton. Japan was already a "consolidated" state due to uninterrupted dominance of the Samurais for over two centuries, hence when that Perry shock came about in 1853, it didnt take it long to go on the path to development.
Thus in various countries different forms of consolidation be it imperialism or nationalism or a mixture of this to varying degrees helped to industrialize and develop. So I believe nationalism or some other form of consolidation makes a developing nation. Hence I cannot agree with your contention that development bring about nationalism. And nationalism whether it be of european origin or not was the dominant and successful form of consolidation in our era for a modern state to get established. I believe the Indian nation is quite unlike any of the European nations.
Also, what bound people together before the eurpean version of nationalism (tied to european history and experience in developed nations) and modernity set in, was "Dharma" or something of that nature which was all "inclusive".
Let's humor ourselves, and go with this for now, now how do we draw and dilineate epochs, events and define what modern is and not? What exactly is nationalism in a developing nation? Btw..
[right][snapback]60890[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You ask a lot of questions assuming I have the answers, well I'm not a history professor just an ordinary guy interested in history. I don't really get the term "nationalism in a developing nation". According to my logic, which I have put across earlier, consolidation of power in a region helps to improve the economy by reducing the threat of anarchy and war. Imperialism is one way to bring about this consolidation and we saw the same over various epochs of Indian history like Maurya, Gupta, partially during Harsha's time, then during Mughal rule under Akbar. You see progress in many spheres of human activity durign these times unless a monarchy has some dogmatism against this for e.g. Chinese imperial set up destroyed their own naval power just at the turn of the 15th century.
During the nineteenth century a slightly newer way of bringing about this consolidation came about through emerging consciousness among disparate states in various potential nation states be it Italy, Germany or India. In these countries particularly, nationalism helped beget a consolidation of power which put them on the road to development. In India, though we may rightly curse the British for a hundred odd reasons, we do need to thank them in their contribution to Indian nationalism.
A little earlier countries like Britian, Spain became modern due to them already being consolidated due to imperial initiatives. France is an example where people united together to overthrow monarchy, but still it brought about a unity, which is consolidaiton. Japan was already a "consolidated" state due to uninterrupted dominance of the Samurais for over two centuries, hence when that Perry shock came about in 1853, it didnt take it long to go on the path to development.
Thus in various countries different forms of consolidation be it imperialism or nationalism or a mixture of this to varying degrees helped to industrialize and develop. So I believe nationalism or some other form of consolidation makes a developing nation. Hence I cannot agree with your contention that development bring about nationalism. And nationalism whether it be of european origin or not was the dominant and successful form of consolidation in our era for a modern state to get established. I believe the Indian nation is quite unlike any of the European nations.