Can anybody explain what "Traditional India meets aspirational India" means
i have to talk 4-5minutes about this topic.
Answers
Answered by
0
Some time ago, I was talking to a well-known political commentator about “Modi magic”. Both of us felt that to a large extent, Modi’s appeal could be attributed to his success in fusing Traditional India with Aspirational India. I call this an unholy alliance, not because it is undesirable or untenable but because it has been forged without paying adequate attention to the inherent conflict between the two. An effective alliance requires engagement with both synergies and divergences between the two entities. When the divergences and inherent conflicts are put aside, because they are inconvenient to look at, they end up degenerating into opportunistic unholy alliances with disastrous consequences which neither party had bargained for.
Historically, there has been an uncomfortable relationship between Traditional India and Aspirational India. The tension between Gandhi and Nehru/Ambedkar is a classical example of this. Inspite of Gandhi’s critical views about several aspects of the Indian tradition, his anchorage in Indian tradition remained strong and hence it was easy for Traditional India to resonate with him. On the other hand, his stances on technology, modernity, economics, social arrangements etc. made him unpalatable to the Aspirational India. Nehru and Ambekar could find some traction with the Aspirational India but remained largely alienated from the Traditional India. With his charismatic personality, Nehru managed to create huge mass following, but his connection with Traditional India was largely through regional satraps . At various points, he had to make several compromise to accommodate the compulsions of identity politics, but by and large he regarded Indian ways as more of a handicap than an asset.
Historically, there has been an uncomfortable relationship between Traditional India and Aspirational India. The tension between Gandhi and Nehru/Ambedkar is a classical example of this. Inspite of Gandhi’s critical views about several aspects of the Indian tradition, his anchorage in Indian tradition remained strong and hence it was easy for Traditional India to resonate with him. On the other hand, his stances on technology, modernity, economics, social arrangements etc. made him unpalatable to the Aspirational India. Nehru and Ambekar could find some traction with the Aspirational India but remained largely alienated from the Traditional India. With his charismatic personality, Nehru managed to create huge mass following, but his connection with Traditional India was largely through regional satraps . At various points, he had to make several compromise to accommodate the compulsions of identity politics, but by and large he regarded Indian ways as more of a handicap than an asset.
Similar questions