What is the "Indian National Identity" ?

Many a times we are hit with the question of what constitutes the Indian National Identity. In movies, political speeches, school assemblies, social media interactions and other such avenues we are perennially forced to hear "I am Indian" or "Indian is my only identity, it is my religion".

I wish to argue that it is probably the most retarded of ideas that have been introduced. At a very low intelligence scale, "Indian" is NOT your religion but your nationality and in case one believes otherwise then he is a semi-literate fellow. 

On a higher plane of thinking, it is a deep question indeed. When it comes to Western State or even our neighbours or the countries that form part of the Far East, those nations have a common rallying point around which they mobilise the citizens. For instance, for the United States it is a mixture of Protestant Americanism i.e., national spirit dipped in Protestant Christianity, for states like France or Germany it is linguistic basis that forms the bonds of unity, for our neighbours Pakistan & China it is religion (Islam) & race (Han) respectively whereas for those like Japan, South Korea it is a potent mix of race & culture. 

However, what can you say for India? Is the answer again a very ill-thought of and retarded shout of "INDIANISM"? Which then further begs the question of what Indianism actually is. What is at the core of Indianism? It is only then that one realises the shallowness of the word. A made-up word without any thoughtprocess from our "Founding Fathers" that serves aptly to slavish mind of Indian citizens. There is no religious, linguistic, racial or cultural basis to Indianism. What are the bonds of unity then, in our nation's case?

The answer to the question doesn't exist so far because nobody in the nation is smart or to be precise, dedicated enough to 'think' about such stuff. Granted that we do spend some of our time thinking about it we come to the conclusion that there are two such factors that fit the bill for a rallying point/core of Indianism as a guiding principle. Those two are a cultural and a racial basis. 

The first one is the cultural basis i.e., a basis where Indian Culture and customs native to this land and to this land alone serve as the shining light for Indianism. People and thankless creatures who still bear Indian Passport love to counter this by bringing in the point that India is a multifaith society and you cannot advocate primacy blah blah blah. I cannot be more explicit on how wrong an assertion this is! 

India today sits on the place where Saraswati Sindhu & Indus Valley-Harappa Civilisation existed once. People of all creed and religions are literally the sons and daughters of these civilisations and so is India. If you deny that this Indian culture which is essentially a derivative of the above-mentioned civilisations then you are doing nothing but even denying the agency of existence to your own motherland and validating British/Western propaganda that there was no India before the British Raj or before external invaders stitched up empires running across the subcontinent. In short, you render the territorial integrity of this already sensitive nation in tatters. 

Having urged the reader about the cultural basis for Indianism in a lucid and hopefully convincing manner, we now move on to the second basis which is racial. Here, the academicians and social scientists of the country play a big role (one they don't clearly in the present context) in creating a "imagined racial unity" akin to the Chinese creation of the "Han Race". Let me explain what is this Chinese creation in the first place. 

China of old is not the same as China of today. The Chinese Empire that existed in the past was mostly situated at the Western Sides and not unlike today's China whose borders stretch from modern day Turkmenistan-Afghanistan in the West and include the entirety of Tibetan State. After the Cultural Revolution in China under the iron man Mao Zedong, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aggressively pursued the policy of unifying the country under the racial basis of the "glorious Hans" irrespective of whether the persons were originally Han or not in the first place. A person whose origins are in Shanghai is actually a Han but say a person of Turk-Mongolic Descent hailing from areas of China touching Mongolia or the individuals hailing from Tibet are in effect Hans too under this constructed racial identity. This is what is meant by creating an imagined racial unity to bind your nation and a policy that China carries till date in its economic colonies by having their men marry the womenfolk (Case in Study are several women of African & Pakistani descent often sold into slavery, bonded into Prostitution & Chinese Brothels or as Brides for Chinese Men). 

It is in this sense that one can similarly create an imagined racial unity among the Indians (a mix of fact & fiction) that despite our distinct religious & ethnic backgrounds, nearly all of us have the same racial & genetic composition and are byproduct of the same ancestors that roamed the subcontinent. All of us in essence are Blood Brothers. While some may doubt at the prospect, that the idea is invalid or very hard to distribute to our massive population I disagree at all the naysayers. 75 years is a long time and had our "Founding Fathers" enough farsightedness then it is convenient to imagine a future where an "Indian" Racial Basis/ Same Ancestor Theory drilled enough into mind of every Indian giving a tight competition to the "Glorious Chinese Han". 

Alas, you and I both know reality is more crooked than it seems. Indianism is a phrase worthy of mocking for its abject shallowness, and we are the only idiotic citizenry to shout a supposed "rallying point" whose basis itself is unknown! 

Long live India!