> Indian identity was split right in the middle and was done on religious lines
Religion is only one factor. People also derive their group identity along cultural, caste and social lines.
This is not specific to India. Although religion is less emphasized in America, other factors (cultural, social, racial, economical, etc.) still continue play its role in forming the identity of its denizens.
--
Response to below comment inline, due to moderator comment limit:
> When was Indian identity split on cultural, caste or social lines?
And not everything has to be seen from the exclusive lens of politics and religion.
--
> I am talking about splitting Indian identity on religious lines.
What do you think the word "identity" refers to?
> Last I checked, Tamil Nadu is still a part of India. Karnataka is still a part of India. Kerala is still a part of India. They haven't "split" out of India. Makes sense?
Although Kerala for instance is still politically situated in India, that is besides the point, as the word "identity" does not exclusively refer to one's political identity.
Generally, the political distinction of states, as you repeatedly bring here, has no relevance whatsover to the subject of identity which, as stated above, can be based on several factors (not just religion). Just to state a few (in general terms, for the benefit of non-Indian readers):
1. A vocational identity as ‘employee’/‘employer’, ‘worker’/‘pensioner’, ‘junior/‘senior’ and so on.
2. A national identity as ‘English’, ‘American’, ‘Australian’ and etcetera.
3. A racial identity as ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘brown’ or whatever.
4. A religious/spiritual identity as a ‘Hindu’, a ‘Muslim’, a ‘Christian’, a ‘Buddhist’ ad infinitum.
5. A ideological identity as a ‘Capitalist’, a ‘Communist’, a ‘Monarchist’, a ‘Fascist’ and etcetera.
6. A political identity as a ‘Democrat’, a ‘Tory’, a ‘Republican’, a ‘Liberal’ and all the rest.
7. A family identity as ‘son’/‘daughter’, ‘brother’/‘sister’, ‘father’/‘mother’ and the whole raft of relatives.
8. A gender identity as ‘boy’/‘girl’, ‘man’/‘woman’.
--
> Sigh! I can't believe someone will have such a big problem understanding such a simple thing. [...] I spoke about Indian identity being divided on religious lines.
You keep bringing this up as if division/ splitting is the central issue, when I acknowledged no such thing. Really, my comment is exclusively to do with identity itself. I'd suggest a re-read of my comment, from top to the bottom.
> What was once a homogenous Indian identity was split into a Pakistani identity, a Bangladeshi identity and a smaller Indian identity.
There was never a "homogenous" Indian identity in the first place. People think this because they do not fully acknowledge the various identities they themselves personally harbour. It is one thing to talk about something in abstract, and another thing entirely to intuitively feel it out for themselves.
> You are so wrong here. The creation of States was done on linguistic/ethnic/regional lines.
As I never said anything about creation of states -- only that the the political distinction of (Indian) states has no relevance whatsoever to the (general) subject of identity -- you might just as well go for a re-read of my comment?
> People also derive their group identity along cultural, caste and social lines.
You are missing the point I made. I said Indian identity was split on religious lines. When was Indian identity split on cultural, caste or social lines? Last I checked, Tamil Nadu is still a part of India. Karnataka is still a part of India. Kerala is still a part of India. They haven't "split" out of India. Makes sense?
Sigh! I can't believe someone will have such a big problem understanding such a simple thing. I have a feeling you are deliberately nitpicking my comments just to prove some non-existent point. I don't understand why you think I have no idea about what "identity" means. That is besides the point mate. I never spoke about "identity" by itself or the definition of "identity". I spoke about Indian identity being divided on religious lines.
Since you are finding it so difficult to understand, I'll make it even simpler for you. Let me take your own definition of identity and explain my statement:
You stated a few factors for "identity" right? Namely: Vocational Identity, National Identity, Racial Identity, Religious Identity, Ideological Identity, Political Identity, Family Identity, Gender Identity etc etc.
Now can we just say that all the above identities reasonably define the Indian identity? If yes, then out of all those identities, only the "religious identity" was used as a tool to split Indian identity. What was once a homogenous Indian identity was split into a Pakistani identity, a Bangladeshi identity and a smaller Indian identity. Each of these are now independent identities.
> Generally, the political distinction of states, as you repeatedly bring here, has no relevance whatsover to the subject of identity which, as stated above, can be based on several factors (not just religion). Just to state a few (in general terms, for the benefit of non-Indian readers)
You are so wrong here. The creation of States was done on linguistic/ethnic/regional lines. It is not "political distinction" but a "linguistic/ethnic/regional distinction". If you do not understand that basic thing about India then you are doing a big disservice to not just yourself but to also those who will be reading your comment mate.
Here you crossed into breaking the site guidelines by becoming personally abrasive if not abusive. Please don't do that. "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
Gosh this is getting ridiculous! You do not seem to have a good understanding of what I wrote in the first place. I am talking about splitting Indian identity on religious lines. I never said Indian identity is only based on "religion". How hard is it for you to understand that? Pakistan was created on religious lines. Pakistan did not take language, caste or social issues with it! Those remained in India. Makes sense?
I never understood the sensibility of the notion of imposing Hindi to others in the country. It is like say Germany imposing German to be the de facto language all across Europe!
And I do appreciate that we have one common language, English, which is tremendously useful in practical sense (not even including politics in here).
--
I'm going to post my response here as HN moderators have put a limit on my account (I think it is silly but whatever):
It is a bad analogy only in political sense. Not everything has to be seen in political light.
And my appreciation of being able to converse in English, as a neutral common language, has naught to do with the capability of people of the Indian origin in learning other languages, and more to do with not having to learn the native language(s) of fellow Indians. I'm more than happy, for instance, to merrily be able to converse with people from Karnataka or Kerala in English, instead of having to learn their languages (or them having to learn Tamil) first.
And I have no baggage whatsoever with English, as one another commenter indicated in this thread.
--
> Then don't give such analogies.
Given that not everyone sees the issue of, for instance, being forced to learn a language in political sense like you, then telling them not to give their perspective on this matter is rather myopic.
> It talks about third-language being made compulsory.
I'd not even care to have a second-language being made compulsory. And this is not an exclusive issue of politics; my parents made me learn Hindi (I passed till Praveen Uttarardh) for economics reasons; yet because I wasn't enthusiastic about speaking Hindi, my fate became that of Canadians who learned French during that 4 years or so in school.
> I don't think you have actually encountered ground reality [...] an agitation against Tamilians in Bangalore in the 90s
What has that got to do with not having to learn another language when both parties can understand and speak English?
--
> If I can accept Hindi and enjoy the language without any sort of prejudice anyone can. There is no justification for the hatred being shown to Hindi apart from regional linguistic pride. Nothing you say will change my opinion on that.
It seems you are making a big issue out of language learning, which is more of a practical matter, such as taking not being able to fully comprehend a local's driving directions (from your other comment) to be discrimination/ hatred. It might pay you to explore this issue (a commenter here called it "baggage") within you.
> You have an ego that is coming in the way of learning/appreciating the language that is all.
If anything my ego -- and I'm using the word in its psychological sense -- actually has aided me in learning a new language (French), moving to a part of the world with over 90% locals speaking it, and being successful in interacting with them in their language.
> It has a tinge of racism
Everybody is racist/classist/casteist/etc. to an extent. Do you see that in yourself as well (in regards to your driver not being able to comprehend the driving directions given by a local)? If so you might well be on your way to understanding what the word "identity" means ... B-)
--
> You know when you start saying stuff like 'a commenter here called it "baggage"' it sounds like those fascist dictators who couldn't say "me" or "I" but would in a convoluted manner refer to themselves in third-person.
Ha, given that you easily see discrimination in the simple event of being given wrong instructions (for whatever reasons), it doesn't surprise me that you see me as some "fascist dictator" now (before "racist"). Be that as it may, there is in fact a commenter (not me) who did use that word. You can use the search function of your browser to find it.
> You can throw away that ego you have in the bin where it belongs and just say "I said I have no baggage".
As I have far more intimate knowledge of the word "identity" and the word "ego" than you, I know very well that it is impossible to throw away ego (as if there is an disembodied entity throwing another entity out), be it in the bin or elsewhere. And it does not require the presence or absence of ego to be able to acknowledge, as I've done before (which apparently have eluded your attention), that I have no baggage whatsoever with English (and it is a simple matter of fact acknowledgement involving no egoistic feelings; it is just a delight to be virtually freed of one's nationalistic identity)
> You have a huge difficulty in comprehending the simple English that I am speaking. Where did I say we had difficulty comprehending local's driving directions? We caught the locals giving wrong directions because I understand and speak Tamil. So I knew that they were fooling us and when I spoke in Tamil their giggled and gave the right directions.
I see, okay. Yes, it was my error that I had overlooked your reporting of knowing Tamil. Regardless, there is no evidence (in your story) that their "giggling" automatically meant hatred and discrimination.
> I see you have absolutely zero comprehension skills because you thought my driver could not comprehend when I clearly mentioned that the local gave the wrong directions and he was caught red-handed.
Given that there are more than a few people who would rather impute malice in place of ignorance, it is not unreasonable to make that assumption. However, my overlooking your speaking Tamil still does not invalidate that assumption (as stated above).
> You are prejudiced, a racist and couple that with ego and we now have a recipe for disaster.
Everybody is racist/classist/casteist/prejudiced/etc. to an extent. And everybody harbours egoistic feelings to whatever extent. Do you see that in yourself as well (in regards to your imputing group-wide hatred and discrimination without clear evidence)? If so you might well be on your way to understanding what the word "identity" means ... B-)
> It seems you are making a big issue out of language learning, which is more of a practical matter, such as taking not being able to fully comprehend a local's driving directions to be discrimination. It might pay you to explore this issue (a commenter here called it "baggage") within you.
You know when you start saying stuff like 'a commenter here called it "baggage"' it sounds like those fascist dictators who couldn't say "me" or "I" but would in a convoluted manner refer to themselves in third-person. You can throw away that ego you have in the bin where it belongs and just say "I said I have no baggage".
> not being able to fully comprehend a local's driving directions to be discrimination.
You have a huge difficulty in comprehending the simple English that I am speaking. Where did I say we had difficulty comprehending local's driving directions? We caught the locals giving wrong directions because I understand and speak Tamil. So I knew that they were fooling us and when I spoke in Tamil they giggled and gave the right directions. If you are going to justify this sort of maliciousness with your logics then go ahead. You are only doing a great disservice to your people.
> Everybody is racist/classist/casteist/etc. to an extent. Do you see that in yourself as well (in regards to your driver not being able to comprehend the driving directions given by a local)? If so you might well be on your way to understanding what the word "identity" means ... B-)
I see you have absolutely zero comprehension skills because you thought my driver could not comprehend when I clearly mentioned that the local gave the wrong directions and he was caught red-handed. You are prejudiced, a racist and couple that with ego and we now have a recipe for disaster.
> It is a bad analogy only in political sense. Not everything has to be seen in political light.
Then don't give such analogies. Analogies are made to shed light on your argument. Not to convolute it further. And analogies have to have some sense to the topic at hand. The analogy you gave doesn't make sense even if you take it non-politically.
> instead of having to learn their languages (or them having to learn Tamil) first.
I don't think you have actually encountered ground reality. In Bangalore's private companies it was a trend for Tamilians to only hire Tamilians. It got to a point where if a Kannadiga spoke to a Tamilian in Kannada the colleague would reply back in Tamil. This led to an agitation against Tamilians in Bangalore in the 90s especially after the Kaveri verdict which was the tipping point. So when you say stuff like this I just can't take it seriously.
That is a really bad analogy. Germany is a country. Europe is a continent. Germany is part of Europe not the other way round.
India is a country. Tamil Nadu is a state inside the country called India. Tamil Nadu is not greater than India. No state in India is greater than India. Tamilians cannot dictate to India what is and what is not allowed just like Germany cannot dictate to Europe what is and what is not allowed.
Legally, India has all rights to impose a single language on all states in India. Deal with it! The founding fathers of Modern India empowered the Centre to make sweeping changes to the Constitution. All it requires is an Amendment to the Constitution and the Centre has all powers to do so. Yet it is not imposing any language. It is not making Hindi the only language for all states. It has not moved any such Amendment. To insinuate it is doing so when it is not showing any such intentions is ignorance at best and malicious at worst!
Germany does not have any legal jurisdiction over rest of Europe. Hence, even if it wants to impose it can't impose German on the rest of Europe. Makes sense?
You are comparing Apples to Oranges.
Now, can we just appreciate the simple fact that the Centre, even with all its powers (now that it has near absolute majority), is not imposing Hindi on all states? The proposal is pretty clear. It talks about third-language being made compulsory. I don't understand what the fuss is all about! Are you saying we Indians have the capacity to learn Maths, Science and all the complicated topics in the World but are incapable of learning one extra Indian language? Are we that weak?
> And I do appreciate that we have one common language, English, which is tremendously useful in practical sense (not even including politics in here).
I don't understand why would you need to compare Indian languages with English? Are you saying that we Indians are incapable of learning more languages? What are you hinting at?
That's amusing. It does however take some time to get used another person's accent. I sure had difficulty in the beginning with the English accent of my Scottish coworker (not to mention American/Canadian accent itself when I was a new immigrant).
I write Haskell currently, but have used Clojure in the past. I find Haskell to be superior (static typing being one reason) however it takes more persistence and effort in the beginning to get used to Haskell.
I'd recommend that people start with something "easy" like Elm, and then transition to Haskell via frameworks like Miso or Reflex. That's exactly what I did.
I'm surprised to see your comment in good health. Everytime I link to Georgia Ede or meatheals I get downvoted to oblivion lol, just as this comment too will (as if there is a vegan bot on HN targeting my comments?).
Religion is only one factor. People also derive their group identity along cultural, caste and social lines.
This is not specific to India. Although religion is less emphasized in America, other factors (cultural, social, racial, economical, etc.) still continue play its role in forming the identity of its denizens.
--
Response to below comment inline, due to moderator comment limit:
> When was Indian identity split on cultural, caste or social lines?
You do not seem to have a good understanding of the word "identity". I'd consult this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(social_science)
And not everything has to be seen from the exclusive lens of politics and religion.
--
> I am talking about splitting Indian identity on religious lines.
What do you think the word "identity" refers to?
> Last I checked, Tamil Nadu is still a part of India. Karnataka is still a part of India. Kerala is still a part of India. They haven't "split" out of India. Makes sense?
Although Kerala for instance is still politically situated in India, that is besides the point, as the word "identity" does not exclusively refer to one's political identity.
Generally, the political distinction of states, as you repeatedly bring here, has no relevance whatsover to the subject of identity which, as stated above, can be based on several factors (not just religion). Just to state a few (in general terms, for the benefit of non-Indian readers):
1. A vocational identity as ‘employee’/‘employer’, ‘worker’/‘pensioner’, ‘junior/‘senior’ and so on.
2. A national identity as ‘English’, ‘American’, ‘Australian’ and etcetera.
3. A racial identity as ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘brown’ or whatever.
4. A religious/spiritual identity as a ‘Hindu’, a ‘Muslim’, a ‘Christian’, a ‘Buddhist’ ad infinitum.
5. A ideological identity as a ‘Capitalist’, a ‘Communist’, a ‘Monarchist’, a ‘Fascist’ and etcetera.
6. A political identity as a ‘Democrat’, a ‘Tory’, a ‘Republican’, a ‘Liberal’ and all the rest.
7. A family identity as ‘son’/‘daughter’, ‘brother’/‘sister’, ‘father’/‘mother’ and the whole raft of relatives.
8. A gender identity as ‘boy’/‘girl’, ‘man’/‘woman’.
--
> Sigh! I can't believe someone will have such a big problem understanding such a simple thing. [...] I spoke about Indian identity being divided on religious lines.
You keep bringing this up as if division/ splitting is the central issue, when I acknowledged no such thing. Really, my comment is exclusively to do with identity itself. I'd suggest a re-read of my comment, from top to the bottom.
> What was once a homogenous Indian identity was split into a Pakistani identity, a Bangladeshi identity and a smaller Indian identity.
There was never a "homogenous" Indian identity in the first place. People think this because they do not fully acknowledge the various identities they themselves personally harbour. It is one thing to talk about something in abstract, and another thing entirely to intuitively feel it out for themselves.
> You are so wrong here. The creation of States was done on linguistic/ethnic/regional lines.
As I never said anything about creation of states -- only that the the political distinction of (Indian) states has no relevance whatsoever to the (general) subject of identity -- you might just as well go for a re-read of my comment?