Thread by @shrikanth_krish

Was browsing through Fukuyama's Origins of Political Order in a bookstore

A key thesis of his -

China has traditionally had a strong state, but a weak society

India the opposite

"It was the tyranny of cousins that allowed Indians to resist the tyranny of tyrants"

I found this a tad problematic

It is true that "social actors" have reined in the state more effectively in India relative to China

And that society has a certain resilience in India that is no doubt lacking in China

But I dont think it is right to call this the "tyranny of cousins"

Sure. jAti / caste is a big part of Indian society

But Indian society is hardly tribal in the same sense as say Pakistan

Cousin marriage rates are pretty low in large parts of India, except pockets in the South

Unlike in Pakistan where it is rife and was always high

So it is a mistake to think of caste as something similar to "tribe"

The varNa system that characterized Indian society was not exactly tribalistic

Even traditional texts abhor cousin marriage, and it was strictly taboo particularly in Northern India

So while it is true that society is resilient, this resilience does not stem from clan-ties

Rather it stems from the varNa system where there clearly was a religious rationalization for a social order that valued stability and social obligations,

Which isn't quite the same as plain old tribalism - where all that matters is ties of blood

In fact I am inclined to credit Indian stability not so much to caste endogamy but to the influence of brAhmaNas

By placing the brAhmaNas at the top of the social hierarchy, India was an exception to much of the rest of the world, where the royalty reined supreme

It is true that even in India, the king was viewed as divine representative on earth

But the fact that brahmins as a class were placed above kshatriyas made, in my view, a big difference

The king was obliged to be deferential to a brAhmaNa, however impecunious he might be

What this meant was -

The source of social power and influence was not political or mercantile

It was religious virtue

This naturally meant that actions of aggression and aggrandizement that were antagonistic to the spirit of religion or more broadly "Dharma" were viewed unfavorably

This is sort of true to this day...

In India, the notion of "privacy" is always under challenge

A good life is one that is meant to be an "open book"

If you have nothing to conceal, you dont need privacy

This implies - even the most powerful of men are seldom idolized if their "private" life and virtue does not measure up to brahmanical standards

Now whether those standards are desirable or hypocritical is a different matter

But that's how the society functions

So it is not a surprise that the individuals who have been immensely popular even in 20th century India are those whose source of power is not political or military

But private virtue

E.g. Mahatma Gandhi, Narendra Modi

So I suspect that's what keeps the Indian state weak

The primacy of religion. And the subordination of political power to the power of religion

And if you want to "crack" the Indian code and become powerful in India, you need to strike a moral chord

Gandhi did that well

A Hindi phrase that sort of sums up this moral policing from the ground up is -

"Log kya kahenge" (What will the neighbors say)

With the total disregard for privacy and legitimization of gossip, India arms society with the tools to rein in the ambitious!

And the "brahmanic order" provides the theoretical justification for this set-up where society polices itself

Fukuyama calls it "tyranny of cousins" - to me that's wrong

I merely would call it the tyranny of society for lack of a better phrase

Post-script : Spelt "reigned" as reined in one of the middle tweets - bad typo

https://twitter.com/shrikanth_krish/status/1187866457662726144