Quote:
| Is Hindu nationalism really dependent on Devi in any meaningful way? |
As with any historical question, opinions vary. I think she was a tremendous influence, even a decisive one. Modern Indian opinions will say she was neglible, but then, they'd have to, because association with her will weaken their case against Muslims and Christian missionaries - it opens them to the accusation: "Nazi!"
To my mind, Dev's private opinions are simply not relevant. She thought nationhood for India important, and dedicated an enormous effort to providing what is essentially a foreign idea (the modern nation state) into the heart of Indian thought, more often at home in the Kosmos than on Earth. I would say that the way had been cleared for her by the British, who by the establishement of law codes and a common language, really did all the heavy lifting.
But law codes and a common language do not a nation make, as the United States and Britian are now learning. (I exempt France and Canada, who have not attempted significant assimilative pressure on immigrants until recently. They are now switching to an 'assimilate' mode, but evidence from the US and the UK indicates that this, too, is not helpful) Dev provided the missing element: the idea of the nation as a supreme value, second only to God.
In my opinion, that idea is roughtly on a par, as a contribution to nationhood, with the British roads, laws, and language. She introduced the notion into gentle Hindu hearts, your nation is worth fighting and dying for.
Whatever one's final estimate of Dev's contribution to Hindu nationalism, it is obvious from the article you posted that it is significant enough to be both embarrasing to the Hindus and a potent political weapon for the opposition.
Add to that the fact that I was aware of the politcal realities described in the article, which you thought might be new to me, and you can infer that Dev's contribution is pretty significant.
Wintermute
[url]http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=142877&postcount=10[/url]
