India is a modern state. It is a republic, constitutional democracy and a welfare state. It is not an autocracy or dictatorship. India is a melting pot which has seen several cultures to prosper, mutually co-exist and influence each other and assimilate. It is a secular state and not a theological state. It is not a ‘majoritarian’ but a ‘pluralist state’. It has ‘rule of law’ and every citizen of the country is equal before the law. Indian constitution aims to promote a ‘rainbow culture’ and constitutes the finest example of unity in diversity as most of the modern states do. This is the idea of India known through generations in free India.
A debate is being generated around the idea of India. Some of the new proponents of the idea of India state that India is not a ‘nation state’ but a ‘civilizational state’. The so called new idea of India seems to have been crafted under a particular political vision. There is nothing wrong in it till it makes the country stronger, united, prosperous, progressive, happy and modern?
The notion of civilizational state refers to a country that represents not just a historical territory, ethno- linguistic, or body of governance, but a unique civilization in its own right. It is distinguished from the concept of a nation state by describing a country’s dominant sociopolitical modes as constituting a category larger than a single nation. When classifying states as civilization states, emphasis is often placed on a country’s historical continuity and cultural unity across a large geographic region. The term was first coined in the 1990s as a way to describe China, but has also been used to describe nations such as Egypt, Russia, India, Turkey, and the United States.
There is no doubt that from this definition India is a civilizational state like all other modern nations with ancient civilizations. But the current debate seems to be more about a political tug of war between different notions of the idea of India. While one notion of the idea of India is more pluralist evolutionary and assimilative one, the other Idea of India seems to base its notion of India in ancient Indian civilizational identity and its domination by one ethnic identity, i.e. Hinduism. The latter notion may fit under a particular vision of idea of India, but it gives a more static framework of the idea of India . But India civilization has evolved through ages and had been a witness to birth and growth of several religions and cultures and assimilation among them.
The concept of nation state, although a modern concept, is a narrower concept. A nation state is a political unit where the state and nation are congruent. It is a more precise concept than “country”, since a country does not need to have a predominant ethnic group. A nation, in the sense of a common ethnicity, may include a diaspora or refugees who live outside the nation state; some nations of this sense do not have a state where that ethnicity predominates. In a more general sense, a nation state is simply a large, politically sovereign country or administrative territory. A nation state could be contrasted with a multinational state a city-state and a federated state, which may or may not be a nation-state.
India could be seen more as country or a multinational state, which is one where no one ethnic group dominates (such a state may also be considered a multicultural state depending on the degree of cultural assimilation of various groups). There is often an allurement to compare India’s development with city states. But the size and variety of a big country like India has its own variety. A city-state is both smaller than a “nation” in the sense of “large sovereign country.” None the less there may be one similarity in city state with multinational state. A city state may or may not be dominated by all or part of a single “nation” in the sense of a common ethnicity. A federated state may or may not be a nation-state, and which is only partially self-governing within a larger federation (for example, the state boundaries of Bosnia and Herzegovina are drawn along ethnic lines, but those of the United States are not). A federal arrangement within a state with multiple ethnic linguistic and other dissimilarities is a remarkable feature of most of the advanced nations and modern democracies.
The idea of India should not be relegated to the political vested interests. We should desist from anything that is regressive and that divides India and leads to acrimony among different religions, cultures and identities. Assimilation has been one of the reasons of greatness of Indian civilization.
Describing India as a civilizational state reminds us about the idea of mutual coexistence of different religions and cultures since ages and assimilation between them. The greatness of Indian civilization flows from this receptiveness and blending.
The more suitable definition of India could be a multicultural and secular state. The idea of India as envisaged by the Indian constitution is more akin to it. A secular state is not a state which does not respect or allow religious groups to practice their faith but the state does not differentiate between the citizens on the basis of caste, creed, religion and language when it comes to fundamental rights. State administration and governance would not differentiate among citizens on the basis of their ethnic identities but for special provisions mandated by the constitution such as positive discrimination. In the state affairs ethnic identity would not interfere. That is the meaning of secularism. It does not mean anything against citizen’s personal faith and belief. Secularism does not mean “lack of religion”.
If civilization is seen in a dynamic and evolutionary framework, India is certainly a civilizational state. But if we define it in a static framework to suit a particular political vision it would not serve any great purpose except winning and losing elections based on divisive premises. The idea of India is inclusive, egalitarian and evolutionary. It is about mutual co-existence and love, assimilation and evolution. Unity in diversity is the basic premise of the idea of India. Pluralism and multiculralism remain essential part of the Idea of India. Describing India as a civilizational state would give a full picture of India only when it is also described as a multicultural nation state.
Your idea, my Idea or other’s idea of India deserve respect till they unite India and strengthen it as “we the people”. If the competing notions of idea of India represent division, acrimony and exclusion, it should be resisted. Think: “if India lives who dies, if India dies who lives?”
The real India is an emerging economy, a thriving democracy and a multi-cultural and pluralist society with the largest young population in the world. It is being described as a bright spot by the IMF amid global uncertainty and recession for its sustained and high growth. Many observers describe India today as an engine of global growth and recovery despite a huge population of the country still needs equality of opportunity in terms of livelihood, health, education and other minimum basic needs. Today India needs to fight more against poverty and deprivation and inequality and unemployment rather than fighting on the idea of India. The idea of India has been articulated well by the preamble of the Indian constitution and in other details given in the constitution. The idea of India must safeguard unity and integrity of the country represent the values of freedom struggle as well as aspirations of all the Indians. It cannot be exclusive.