4 thoughts on ““Shaping Identity: Nationalism, Secularism and Democracy” by Romila Thapar

  1. the speech delivered by honourable prof.thapar is most significant and relivant for modi bhakt they must watch it.they will be realy able to understand the meaning of nationalism

  2. Around 24th minute there is an comment / assertion that (paraphrasing) "with the birth of modern India earlier identities , ethnic, linguistic , religious will have to be subordinated to a new identity of indian citizenship and almost by logic will have to be secular in the sense of religion neutral". That is the core , fundamental disagreement with Hindutva / hindu nationalism.

  3. I am neither nationalist nor secular & not even in favor of any ideology instead i am a non-conformist & a critique of everything & observer of nilhilist human life.

    Looking at all these topics in much more nuanced readings completely changes the whole picture.

    Caste becomes an descriptive entity but had different degrees of applicability & different ways of applicability based upon the regions & social norms which applied differently among different groups yet the literature was given more importance since it links it to Hindu literature.

    In the extreme diversity the need to preserve your identity may cause you to function in ways which can then be termed as caste. Africa does not have any caste laws in religious texts but various communities in different regions follow the similar pattern that are termed as caste in India ? Then we need to ask did such observance comes from religious order or does religions accept such social institutions to broaden their reach {One of the reasons for caste observance in various religious identities of India}.

    I was hearing lie after lie but felt the need to address this line – // Islam & Christianity does not observe 'avarnas' or untouchability outside India. // Just take a look at the history of race & slavery and you will find all these things being observed even more extreme ways throughout Abrahamic history.

    Try to look at the history as period where 'indifference' was the norm & if we consider that then we have the possibility to define the 'civility of indifference' & the ways to deal with indifference. Similarly we can remove caste & look at the ways of 'discrimination' & then try to deal with discrimination.

    Social structure of Ottomans to feudal system restrictions everything was more or less along class lines just like castes but to her mind that's not the case because we find these things only in India because of Hinduism. Great scholarship indeed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *