Thread by @shrikanth_krish

What @dhume is hinting at here is -

India should've opted for the British monarch as our ceremonial head of state in 1947

Instead of an indirectly elected Presidency we have today

(Contd..)

https://twitter.com/dhume/status/1246933236258951172

Clearly that view stems from the massive chasm that exists between the Indian elites and the Indian masses

The old Anglophone elite has always retained an affinity towards Britain and the English speaking world

While the masses nurse deep ill-will towards Britain

India is not quite Australia.

Race matters.

In countries like Aus, NZ, the population was predominantly Anglo-Saxon. Their struggle was one for self-governance.

Not cultural liberation

In India, the revolt against Britain was not merely one for political independence or representation

That angle was predominant among the Anglophone moderates. The Dadabhai Naorojis and Srinivasa Sastris of the world.

But once the movement involved the masses (starting with Tilak and Gandhi), the revolt was in large measure a cultural one.

A movement to rid India of the foreign yoke.

To this day, I think the "elites" haven't quite understood this aspect of the "freedom struggle"

There is a tendency to regard the independence movement in purely political terms

Ignoring the racial, cultural element

In my view, Gandhian struggle was as much about "cultural liberation" as it was about "political independence / representation"

But once Gandhi passed on, and the narrative moved to the Nehru-led Congress post independence, the emphasis changed

Post independence, there was an attempt to underplay the "cultural independence" part - v much a part of Gandhi's movement.

Instead the "political freedom" angle was overplayed

The "cultural" conflict with British Raj became something that only the Jana Sangh/RSS picked on

So what was "mainstream" before 1947, became a right wing talking point post 1947

I think this hurt Indian politics

Instead of having a bi-partisan cultural consensus, and having the Right-Left division on policy issues, "Culture" became the bone of contention b/w Rght and Left

Now the retort to this would be -

Hey ...

Countries like Jamaica and Antigua have Queen Elizabeth as head of state

Why not India?

The answer is politically incorrect

The fact is -

India is not just a proud, and ancient civilization. But a world unto itself

Jamaica is not, with all due respect.

Deep down Indians do not believe the "Enlightenment" has all the answers to humanity's problems

They have a distinct religious and moral world view that is antagonistic to that of the West

The Caribbean nations lack such an intellectual counter-view. They're part of the West