India: A Nation between East and West. The Rise of a New Global Power?

“The objective of India is to avoid the global competition between Washington and Beijing,” states Dr. Krzysztof Iwanek, a historian and Indologist who heads the Asia Research Center at the War Studies Academy in Warsaw. Interview by Wojciech Harpula.

W.H: UN estimates indicate that India has surpassed China in terms of population size. This fact prompts a question: Who are the people of India? Does the immensely diverse Indian society, in terms of social, religious, and linguistic backgrounds, constitute one unified nation?

K.I.: It really depends on how one defines a nation. If we adopt the definition of a civic nation, then we’d speak of an ‘Indian nation’ comprising all the residents of the Republic of India. This would be a nation not defined by a specific language or culture. Historically, one could argue that in a political, civic sense, such a nation never existed, as there was never a unified Indian state in South Asia before 1947. Presently, this unified concept doesn’t exist either, given that countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka function independently. However, for the first time in history, we have a political entity that encompasses a large portion of South Asia.

In India, much like in Europe, debates about national identity have been and continue to be prevalent. The idea of an Indian nation is often contrasted with the notion of a Hindu nation, defined by the Hindu religion and its associated culture. One of the proponents and theorists of Hindu nationalist thought was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who remains influential in India today. In 1923, he penned ‘Hindutva. Who is a Hindu?’, asserting that Indian identity is expressed through Hinduism. For Savarkar, Indian Muslims and Christians were ‘suspect’ in terms of their identity, because he regarded the religions they practiced as foreign to India. He advocated that they could be citizens of India, but to truly be part of the nation, they would have to acknowledge the supremacy of Hindu culture. Politically, Savarkar might not have been very prominent, but as an ideologue, he influenced generations of Hindu nationalists. This includes the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Union), of which the current Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, is a member, as well as the ruling party since 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party or Indian People’s Party. If we were to adopt the Hindu nationalist perspective that a shared culture is a prerequisite for the existence of a nation, it would lead to the conclusion that there are multiple nations within India, given the significant Muslim minority and substantial Christian community.

Do nationalists also exclude followers of Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism from the Hindu nation?

No. Savarkar provided a rather broad definition of ‘Hindutva’, or Hindu nationalism. He stated that Hinduness is indicated by culture. But what exactly does that mean? There are dozens of definitions of culture. According to him, an integral component of culture is ‘rashtra’, which can be understood as a nation or a state. If we consider it in the context of a state, it aligns with the definition of a civic nation. On the other hand, if ‘rashtra’ represents nationality, then we encounter a tautological definition: I belong to the Hindu nation because I belong to the Hindu nation. Therefore, Savarkar didn’t really propose anything specific. He never asserted that members of the Hindu nation should believe in a particular god or speak a specific language. While he was a proponent of the Hindi language, he didn’t claim it to be an essential condition for Hinduness. Hindu nationalists don’t rigidly define which elements of Hinduism one should follow or which Hindu traditions one should adhere to in order to be part of the nation. This approach is quite understandable. If they were more stringent, they’d demonstrate political naivety, given that Hinduism is a religion without a hierarchical clergy, a single holy book, or a crystallized doctrine. It’s not dogmatically orthodox; there’s no central theological authority that safeguards rituals and dictates to followers how to interpret the holy texts. In Hinduism, there are many gods, various interpretations of sacred scriptures, and a plethora of traditions. If nationalists claimed that the nation should rally around a specific god, they would automatically alienate a large segment of Hindus. They did try to point out a desired ‘canon of Hinduness’ to tribal members and lower castes, but they soon realized that such an approach alienates many groups. Therefore, they include within the Hindu nation not just all potential Hindu religious communities but also all indigenous tribal traditions as well as Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. They believe these religions sprouted from the same civilizational root as Hindu traditions. Hindus see them as branches of the same tree. As one can observe – the concepts of Hinduness and the Hindu nation are incredibly inclusive.

Given the many elements that constitute the concept of Hinduism, what are the components that allow us to say a common Hindu culture or civilization exists?

Even though numerous Indian states have existed over the millennia, they were largely connected by a higher culture. This is because there was an elite of Brahmins, or priests, who often knew Sanskrit, the language of the elites in ancient, medieval, and early modern India. Its role was akin to that of Latin in European history. It was the language of rituals, sacred texts, and theological literature. Today, few in India are versed in Sanskrit, but the culture of the priestly elites – albeit with evident regional variations – represents a unifying whole. If Brahmins from Kerala, Bengal, and Punjab were to meet and knew Sanskrit, they could engage in a debate on a sacred text, employing the same terms, concepts, and cultural contexts.

Such an opportunity is available to only a few Hindus.

Indeed. However, the vast majority of Hindus operate within specific social structures that make up the caste system. This is a pan-Indian phenomenon, found in every corner of historical India: from Afghanistan to the Bay of Bengal, from the Himalayas to the southern shores of Sri Lanka. It binds all Hindus. The caste system is genetically tied to Hinduism, and the religion serves as its justification. It postulates the existence of four ‘varnas’, or social strata, reminiscent of medieval European societal concepts: the Brahmins or priests, the Kshatriyas – warriors, later identified as landowners, the Vaishyas – merchants and craftsmen, and the Shudras – peasants and manual laborers. However, more pivotal than the varna division is the concept of caste – termed ‘jati’, meaning ‘birth’ literally. Legally, the caste system was abolished after India gained independence in 1947, but caste remains a fundamental social category in India to this day, as does the caste hierarchy, which assumes a division into ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ castes. If someone is born into a ‘lower’ varna or caste, priests explain it’s because they did wrong in their past life and now bear the punishment. Conversely, if one is born ‘high’, they’re reaping the rewards of their past good deeds. Any attempt to change this order would be defying the gods and going against the nature of the world.

What exactly is a caste?

A caste can be described as a closed, locally defined professional group. There are several thousand of them in India. A person born into such a community is expected to remain in it, which means inheriting the profession of their parents or their father. They must also marry within their caste. Moreover, they are obliged to maintain ritualistic behaviors concerning interactions and relations with members of other castes. Local traditions, for instance, dictate whether members of a particular caste can drink, eat, or smoke with those from other castes. One cannot gain caste membership either through marriage (since, as I mentioned, partners are chosen within one’s own group) or through merit or wealth accumulation. The distinction between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ castes is based on the deeply rooted Hindu concept of purity and impurity. This could be a subjective perception of one’s own caste being ‘cleaner’ than others. Often, the feeling of ‘impurity’ is associated with the nature of the profession, which might involve breaking various taboos. Contact with human and animal remains, blood, excrement, or even the sweat of other individuals is deemed ‘impure’.

In India, do children still inherit their father’s profession? That seems rather unlikely.

You are correct; it is now almost impossible. This aspect of the caste system is undergoing significant transformation. In today’s society, given the rapid technological and economic shifts, it’s unfeasible to force all members of a particular caste to practice the same profession. A profession can vanish or emerge within a single generation. A case in point is the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. He hails from a relatively lower caste, traditionally engaged in oil pressing. This profession is now becoming obsolete as machines have taken over oil extraction. Consequently, Modi’s father and later Modi himself sold tea at a railway station. While the caste system remains profoundly significant in India, inheriting professions is becoming a thing of the past. This practice is still found in remote areas, where technological changes are slower. However, in cities, people still identify with their caste primarily in the realm of family ‘matrimonial politics’. The majority of marriages in India are arranged. Parents decide whom their children will marry. In Hindi, the essence of the caste system is captured by the phrase ‘roti-beti ka rishta’, which translates to ‘the bond of a daughter and bread’. It means the caste dictates whom I marry and with whom I share meals. If I am interacting with a caste lower than mine, considered polluting or impure, I won’t dine with them. At the same time, I understand that members of a higher caste may not wish for my presence at their table. Local traditions governing inter-caste relationships form the backbone of this system.

Has Indian society ever contested the caste system?

On the contrary, the society acts as its guardian, even though the Indian state tries to limit caste divisions. This system has evolved over thousands of years and today it is a social norm that goes largely unquestioned. However, one must remember that rules stemming from the caste hierarchy are often enforced by violence. Crimes based on caste distinctions are not uncommon. If someone from a lower caste breaks the norms, they face violence from those of higher castes. Not too long ago in Gujarat, an individual from a lower caste was beaten merely for sporting a mustache. While this example might seem anecdotal and even comical, it isn’t amusing in the Indian context. Caste affiliation can be identified by wearing a mustache, beard, turban, or clothing of a particular color. If someone conspicuously rejects these norms, for instance by dressing inappropriately for their caste, they become susceptible to repression from higher castes keen on preserving their ‘purity’ symbols.

It’s undeniable that the caste system plays a detrimental role in India, as it drastically reduces social mobility, hinders the development of large population groups from lower castes, and restricts their access to various resources. The founders of independent India were well aware of this. Progressive Indian politicians of the time argued: what’s the point of treating everyone equally under the law, and allowing everyone to study and work in companies and government offices? After all, those from lower castes often couldn’t read, write, do arithmetic, didn’t know English, and lacked formal education. This led to the introduction of affirmative action, reserving a certain quota of spots in universities and government entities for those from lower castes. This was intended as a temporary measure, but it persists to this day. Through such policies, India hoped to somewhat level the playing field between castes.

Has it been successful?

To a limited extent. The majority of Indian politicians and business leaders belong to the upper castes. The Brahmin caste, regarded as the ‘purest,’ is significantly overrepresented in politics relative to its population. Even though the state has been trying to mitigate the impacts of the caste system, the political and economic life of India is still predominantly controlled by the former landowners and the ancient priestly elites.

Amartya Sen, an Indian Nobel Prize laureate in economics, described his country as a ‘stagnation that gives birth to movement.’ Would you say that mental inertia is one of India’s defining characteristics?

Indian society is undeniably conservative and often resistant to rapid changes. India has never seen a revolution, a massive uprising of the lower strata, or a takeover of power by them. However, I wouldn’t characterize India’s social landscape as stagnation, but rather as a very gradual change. The religiously sanctioned caste system plays a pivotal role in the slow pace of this change, but that doesn’t mean transformations don’t happen. Some of these changes span millennia. Ancient Hindu texts reference a division into four varnas. Only over time did a fifth social group emerge—the Dalits, previously referred to as ‘untouchables.’ These individuals were seen as ritually tainted or ‘impure.’ They were generally ostracized, living on the fringes of society.

The evolution of the varnas took thousands of years, and the formation of castes took similarly long. As new professions emerged, they were mapped to one of the varnas, although this classification might vary by region. The caste system has shown adaptability over the centuries, but now it seems to be straining at the seams. For instance, one might ask, to which varna does a doctor belong?

Or a software developer…

A software developer doesn’t fit into the varna classification at all. In India, no one even tries to define IT specialists as a caste. However, the case of doctors is intriguing because, in Hinduism, contact with bodily fluids or corpses is considered polluting. Theoretically, all medical professions should be ‘impure,’ and those practicing them should be ostracized by the higher castes. Yet, many Indian parents aspire for their children to become doctors, given it’s a prestigious and well-paying profession. This illustrates that traditional, ritualistic beliefs aren’t keeping pace with societal changes. While the caste system unifies India, it simultaneously slows down its development. But with each generation, new elites emerge in India who, engaging in modern professions, align less and less with caste divisions.

You mentioned the caste system as a limiting factor in India’s development. Are there other factors?

Absolutely. About ten years ago, Adam Burakowski and I wrote a book titled ‘India: From Colony to Powerhouse.’ The title emphasizes the vast journey India has undergone, but there’s no doubt that India wasn’t a global powerhouse a decade ago and still isn’t. The country is relatively weak, especially in terms of law enforcement. Many legislative solutions in India look excellent on paper. However, just because a law is well-formulated doesn’t mean it will be effectively implemented. The government can make insightful decisions, but they often go unexecuted. Various initiatives or reforms get bogged down in the bureaucratic machinery. As a result of this governmental paralysis, there’s rampant corruption, a high crime rate, inadequate public policy implementation, and a frail transportation infrastructure. It’s challenging to be a global power when the average speed of a truck inside India is about 40 km/h due to poor road conditions. Successive governments are aware of these primary issues and are trying to cut back on bureaucracy and invest in roads and railways. Still, there’s a long journey ahead.

What leads to such weak state structures?

There’s a certain paradox at play here. For a long time, from the 1950s to the 1980s, India was governed by socialists. The state had excessive control in many sectors. On the one hand, this resulted in low efficiency in various areas, and on the other, it hindered the development of private enterprises.

Let me give two examples that the Indian government hailed as success stories. During the pandemic, it was revealed that the Serum Institute of India would produce the AstraZeneca vaccine under license. The government narrative was that India was rescuing the global south with its vaccine. While India did develop its vaccine, a significant majority of the vaccines produced in the country were AstraZeneca’s, manufactured by a private company. The Serum Institute, having the world’s largest processing capabilities, was chosen as a partner by the pharmaceutical giant. To complete the picture: the Serum Institute struggled to grow in India for a long time, primarily because of corruption and state intervention. It only prospered in the 1990s when it secured foreign contracts and began large-scale exports.

Here’s another story. Due to imposed sanctions, Russia increased its oil sales to China and India. Some of this oil is refined and sold as fuel to Europe. The private Indian company, Reliance, with the largest refinery in India, handles this. They process Russian crude oil because they uniquely have the capability. Yet the Indian government claims it’s a national achievement, crediting the state for swiftly and adequately responding to the changing international situation.

India’s most significant successes are primarily the achievements of private companies, not state-owned ones. The prolonged governance by the left-leaning Indian National Congress meant that Indian businesses entered global competition at a disadvantage compared to companies operating in more economically liberal countries.

China embarked on its global competition with an expansive state sector and yet achieved significant economic success. It’s often said that India is today where China was 30 years ago, aiming to assume the title of the ‘world’s factory.’ Can India tread the same path China did?

China constructed its economic powerhouse based on what we call the ‘demographic dividend’ – a large proportion of the population being young and of working age. This enabled them to become the ‘world’s factory’. Undoubtedly, India, now the most populous country in the world with cheaper labor than China, wishes to follow suit. Indian policymakers recognize that the country doesn’t possess ample financial and technological capital to independently expand its industries. Hence, they encourage investors to set up factories and shift production to India. A compelling reason to pursue industrialization, as China did, is the vast number of impoverished, unskilled rural inhabitants. The 2011 census revealed that 60% of India’s population resides in rural areas, with nearly 70% of the workforce either directly or indirectly engaged in agriculture. Jobs in rural areas are scarce for such a large segment of the population. These agricultural workers must find employment elsewhere, and they aren’t specialized professionals equipped for technically demanding sectors. China faced a similar situation three decades ago. However, the world isn’t as it was 30 years ago. Today, education and worker skills are more crucial. The demand for unskilled manual labor is decreasing, and indications suggest it’ll diminish further with the rise of automation in factories. Hence, it’s not a given that India can emulate China’s success. For now, India gains more from exporting services than goods. Corporations from the US and Europe eagerly establish their service centers in India. The country earns more from this activity than from exporting low-level processed products like tea or spices. But not everyone can become a programmer, financier, or even a call center employee. The government needs to offer something to the impoverished rural population. Hence, the attempt to replicate China’s journey.

Do India and China compete in the global South?

One could argue that, but India significantly lags behind China. Political influence largely stems from economic capabilities, and in this realm, India doesn’t offer much. They are still developing their infrastructure, lack firms capable of international expansion, and don’t have influential banks to provide loans to developing countries. India maintains political influence over its immediate neighbors: Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Mauritius. With Nepal, India benefits simply due to geography – almost all of Nepal’s trade transits through its southern neighbor. Sri Lanka, mired in crisis, needs assistance, and India offers it in great measure. Mauritius has a significant Indian-origin population, sharing an intriguing security policy relationship with India. The Delhi government equipped Mauritius’ armed forces with helicopters and patrol boats, but in exchange, Indian military officers direct the local police and coast guard. Since 1949, India and Bhutan have been bound by a friendship treaty, under which Delhi undertook the defense and foreign policies of the kingdom. Outside of these countries, India essentially has no influence in Asia. They’re far behind China, which has a strong economic and political presence in both Asia and Africa.

How does India envision its role in the world?

India aspires to be a leader of the global South and a nation that takes over the ‘world’s factory’ mantle from China. To achieve the former, India would need to expand its influence in the Pacific region and Africa, and there’s a long road ahead to realize that vision. Another objective for India is to maintain an equidistant stance from both political blocs: the Western and the Sino-Russian. They aim to stay outside the global rivalry between Washington and Beijing, hoping to reap benefits from collaborating with all parties. So far, they’ve managed to do that. Only time will tell if such a partnership beyond divisions will be sustainable in the long run.