>> Nationalism is no longer a progressive force in Indian
> >politics.
> I'm interested in the subject of nationalism due to the phenomenon as it
> exists in the fSH, where you can in Russia, e.g., have "Rossiskyi"
> nationalism (which would be identification with the Russian Federation),
> which I think is positive, or, on the other hands, nationalist
> particularisms, Russian or Tatar or Bashkir or Chechen etc. nationalism,
> which is very dangerous.
Yes, I agree with you. Just as Tamil or other similar nationalisms would be a grave danger in India.
>Do you mean to say that the "Indian" nationalism
> that characterized, as far as I know, the Indian independence movement has
> been replaced by and large by Hindu, Muslin, Sikh etc. nationalisms that
are
> centrifugal rather than unificatory?
Hindu nationalism has not completely replaced secular Indian nationalism.Though that can happen. Despite all the battering that Indian secularism has received from Hindu nationalism, the former remains a formidable force. But what can sustain the ideology of secular Indian nationalism? So long as the colonialism and imperialism were the principal enemies, the secular Indian nationalism was a progressive and rational force. However, once the Indian state was constituted, the role of that nationalism would be restricted to defense and consolidation of freedom and independence. The argument that imperialism is exploiting India and the growth of Indian capitalism is thwarted by imperialism is not a convincing argument. Consequently there are no irreconcilable contradictions between imperialism and Indian state. It seems to me that nationalism can therefore only take irrational forms (like hindu nationalism), since its erstwhile rational basis has disintegrated.
Ulhas