I mentioned the European model off the top of my head in connection with Max Mueller. I understand Isalm used the same approach.

This isn’t necessarily or exclusively a “European” model. For example, Aurangzeb engaged in a decades-long effort targetting both Kashmiri Pandits and the Sikh Gurus, in the hope that converting them to Islam would result in the rest of the Hindu and Sikh population throughout the subcontinent falling into line. He failed on both counts.

If we’re going to discuss all-out attempts at forcible, bribed, or coerced conversion within India, the intentions and actions of some of the Mughals and their senior officers (supported by many quarters of the orthodox Islamic clergy) were far worse than anything similar attempted by the British during their rule of India.

Having said that, the only reason why Christian “onslaught” was largely contained to Goa and the South was because the Portugese were unable to colonize larger parts of India. However, within the areas of their occupation, they were brutally effective in converting the native population, as can be seen in the change in religious demography under their rule. This may have had something to do with them being representatives of the Portugese government that was on a Christianizing mission as opposed to the British East India Company whose primary interest was commercial exploitation and profiteering.

East India Company (later British Raj) was an economic undertaking. British colonization never indulged in conversions, like Spanish. It went against their style of functioning.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/features/east_india_company/

On East India Company and Warren Hastings.

“Despite his views that British sovereignty should not be challenged, Hastings had a profound respect for Indian culture. He encouraged British officials to study the languages and customs of the Indian people. He believed that Indians should be ruled according to the ways that they were accustomed to and he admired aspects of Hindu and Islamic law. But his attempts at getting Europeans to judge on the bases of these religions were unsuccessful.”

That shows up again and again, with a different twist by Rudyard Kipling (white man’s burden but no evangelizing).

That does not mean English were altruistic and did not practise in “divide and rule”

Divya, as far as i know, the britishers didn’t give a damn about conversion and their main concern was economic control. Whereas the Portuguese and the Spanish were all about converting non-believers to christianity. Most of the conversions to christianity happened in South india, where the Spanish and portuguese had more control…and in small pockets. I wouldn’t exactly term it as an onslaught of christianity…

Yes. They had a full-fledged agenda to convert all of India and Max Mueller even wrote to his wife that he believed the matter would be accomplished in a very short time. I suppose they were used to the European model where you just have to convert the king and all the subjects are simultaneously converted.

Never heard of an onslaught of Christianity! When did that happen? Do you mean the British presence?

Vive La Difference!! The only way you can have complete unity is through totalitarianism. India has never been a totalitarian society and therefore has not been able to achieve the level of unity found elsewhere – whether this unity has been achieved through religious tyranny or through ideologies like communism. So it’s a trade-off. And although India has taken a beating, the remarkable thing is that Indian culture has managed to survive through the ages. Exiquiste ancient cultures in pagan Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, and the native traditions in Australia and the Americas, as well as the Chinese culture have all been wiped out. Indian culture still exists (even if it is in a sorry state these days). Surely the culture has (had?) some inherent strength that permitted it to survive vicious onslaughts by Islam, Christianity, Communism and Fascism? It is this strength, this particular uniqueness that sets Indian culture from other cultures and this was the common culture through the length and breadth of India way before the British came into the picture.

The author missed the whole point. India was never a nation because; 1. In the past, adventurers could come to present day nation state India and establish the kingdoms entirely employing natives as soldiers. I’m not talking about invaders. 2. The 250,000,000 could be subjugated because those people never realized their Indian identity was being compromized. 3. It doesn’t give you much confidence about your identity if beef and pork were the triggers for the realization of your distict identity. And I don’t believe that was Indian identity. 4. As V.S.Naipaul put it clearly, one of the subtle problems Gandhi encountered in South Africa was lack of ‘Indian’ identity among Indians. Probably, Gandhi’s greatest contribution to India might be identification of faceless masses who formed around 90% of the Indian population with India. And Gandhi was a product of Western education who once wanted to be a thouroghhbred Western.

The caste Indian who wrote the article describing the cultural unity of India has conveniently forgotten about the divisiveness of that heritage. The so-called cultural unity was irrelevent because of lack of nationalist identity to go with that. The words unsaid about this cultural heritage, the words overlooked about the cultural change in certain regions of the subcontinent are the best descriptions why Indian identity is the product of colonialism.

Anyway, my Indian identity is as a citizen of nation-state India with borders defined(in most of the regions) in 1947. I donot carry the legacy of Mauryans, Guptas, Cholas, Mughals etc. for all their greatness they were all so narrow when it comes to my sense of Indianness. Unfortunately, this identity is still in the making. There are too many differences with my fellow country men with shared religious identity but differ linguistically, there are too many differences with my fellow country men with shared linguistic identity but differ religiously, there are so many differences with my country men differ both religiously and linguistically, there are so many differences with my country men with shared religious identity but differ by caste. These differences show up so greatly in many exclusive relationships. So at best I can describe my Indianness as a response to other national identities. Perhaps, I’m at best Indian when I’m not in India. Depressingly it’s so negative.

D’Souza is an ugly mofo, Arundhati Roy is a nice piece of a…