Brown PunditsA Deccani miniature of a dancing girl tying her hair, Golconda, about 1700

The Indian Subcontinent Argues with Itself

Why 2014 happened in 2014

Nachiketa27 November 20251 min read2 comments

I just read a comment by Kabir about how 2014 changed Nehru’s India drastically ( I do not agree but that’s not for now). But this poses another question.

As XTM’s post pointed out/alluded Hindutva was inevitable and the natural outcome of Pakistan. But why did it take 67 years of Hindutva to assert itself.

In my mind the answer is pretty straightforward and two fold.

1. Gandhi’s murder at hands of a Hindutvavadi.

2. Sluggish economical growth of the socialist era (also called wrongly the Hindu rate of growth).

I would love to hear comments on the question posed above.

Why 2014 happened in 2014?

The argument continues

2 commentslast comment
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
girmit
girmit
10 months ago

Mass media. The urban middle class, which was already soft Hindutva, had the means to market their consensus. Also, the tenor of discourse on Pakistan and terrorism changed irreversibly after 26/11. Had it happened a decade earlier, it wouldn’t have been experienced the same way because of television penetration. Likewise, had the Gujarat pogroms happened a decade later, we would possibly be less willing to glide over it. Too much footage and individual testimony in real time. I don’t think a coherent idea of India existed among the masses, even until the late 90s. India as liberal democracy was mostly pretense, and smartly as it cultivated a lot of global legitimacy. To this day, upholding that pretense, has tremendous utility in suppressing would be radicals.

X.T.M
Admin
10 months ago
Reply to  girmit

Very interesting

Brown Pundits
2
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x