Thread by @shrikanth_krish

As I transited through Serbia, a country of 7MM people in central Europe, on my way to Karnataka - a province of nearly 70MM, I wondered -

Why is Serbia an independent nation? But Karnataka is not...

It is an interesting question that helps us understand what makes India tick

It is not as though Serbia has a distinct culture that Karnataka lacks. Karnataka has had its own regional empires for a couple of millennia (Chalukyas, Hoysalas and several others).

It has a very distinct language. With a distinct body of literature

Yet it is not a nation

Now a quick answer would be - it is the H word.

Karnataka is unified with the rest of India through Hinduism. But then Sebia too has its own Slavic form of Orthodox Christianity.

To me it is not so much the fact that Karnataka is Hindu that is important, but the nature of Hinduism

Hinduism is a "national" religion, in the sense that it is not merely a "faith" unlike Christianity (esp Protestant Christianity)

"Christendom" never had much of a chance as a political bloc in post Reformation Europe. Because Protestant Christianity has v little bearing on the life led by people.

It is faith. Pure and simple. It does not influence culture or ways of living

In contrast, a Hindu's whole outlook and his ways of living, and his ideas of right and wrong are not to be disentangled from his faith. They are a whole package.

That's what cements inter-provincial unity to a far greater extent in India, than in Europe

This includes the taboos that people follow, the food people eat, the rituals they undertake, the pilgrimages they visit, the expressions they use, the attitude they nurse towards death and afterlife...several things..

The second important reason that prevents "regional nationalisms" from breaking India is Varna Vyavastha, or in modern parlance "Caste".

Caste ensures a non-geographic axis of diversity, which makes the geographic axis less critical

While in Europe, Geography is the key source of diversity, in India, diversity exists in ample measure within each geography through caste, which again is closely linked to religion, and lifestyle

Eg - As a Kannada speaking Lingayat in Belgaum Karnataka, would you be more comfortable marrying a Marathi Lingayat? Or a Mysore based Gowda?

As a Tamil Brahmin living in Bangalore, would you prefer to marry a Kannada Brahmin? Or a Tamil Vanniyar?

The answers are obvious. And they tell us why the "tukde tukde tendencies" don't take off in India.

Because caste provides a counterpoint to regional chauvinism and prejudice

So one reason you never see the "Kannada" identity getting too strong because it is also up against Gowda identity, Lingayat identity, Brahmin identity.

Each of which are perhaps more influential than the Kannada identity

These are some of the reasons why Serbia is a nation. While Karnataka is an integral part of a much larger "Bharatavarsha" though the latter may seem too unwieldy to be a "nation" to casual observers

Its regional diversity is overrated. While its intrinsic ideological unity achieved through religion is underrated

This also helps us articulate a case for a very genuine Indian "exceptionalism"

Much of the world is comfortable with the idea of "geographic diversity" - and also comfortable with geographic diversity being the raison d'etre for the formation of "nation states"

India presents this alternative where geographic diversity and its excesses are minimized by non-geographic sources of diversity like caste.

This is something much of the world is not comfortable with.

Eg - There is nothing odd at all in a Frenchman not marrying a German. After all their "cultures" are different. And the axis for this diversity is "geographic"

But people do baulk at the Indian caste system

Thats in my view because we are conditioned to think of "geographic diversity" as natural.

In fact the modern nation state is predicated on the idea of cultural nationalism concentrated in a certain geographic space.

But Indian exceptionalism lies in downplaying this geographic angle and creating a model for nationhood that can accommodate geographic faultlines that are apparently very deep, though not as deep as many outsiders may think

The Indian view does not see culture as being "tied" to a piece of land. But as something preserved through hereditary linkages.

Eg - A Brahmin in Kerala may sing hymns of the Rig Veda composed by v remote, possible ancestors in the Punjab region, that an Ezhava may not.

So the culture here stems from a population group held together by links of endogamy and is not linked to the geographic situation of that group

One can think of Indian culture (or cultures) itself as an intellectual revolt against "geographic limits" on culture.

It is a very real exceptionalism.

Whether this exceptionalism remains strong, or whether it withers away and the Indian subcontinent falls prey to geographic faultlines of culture that characterize the rest of the world remains to be seen in the next 100 years

Post-script : One point raised so far is that -

Hey...Serbs are an ethnic group as well. Not linked to a territory necessarily.

Fair point. Nikolo Tesla was born in modern Croatia in the Austro Hungarian empire, but was an ethnic Serb.

But then in most cases across the world (with Jews being a fine exception), a culture sustains itself only when linked to a geography....

When people of that culture venture to other geographies, they intermingle with other cultures. And lose their ethnic distinctiveness

India is a remarkable exception

Eg : North Indian migrants to Southern India circa 500CE still retain their ethnic distinctiveness vis-a-vis other groups

(Contd..)

Similarly "Sankethis" - a group of Tamil Smartha brahmins who migrated to present Karnataka from Southern TN some 1000 yrs ago still remain a distinct group. To this day!

They are not quite the same as Tamil Smarthas or Kannada Smarthas. They are distinct