The Rise of Majorities and Emerging Existential Threats to India and China

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
J. Castellino
{"title":"The Rise of Majorities and Emerging Existential Threats to India and China","authors":"J. Castellino","doi":"10.1093/cjcl/cxaa018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"China and India are comparable in size, complexity, and their relatively recent State-building histories Commencing in 1947 and 1949 respectively, the relatively recent foundations of India and China highlighted a ‘unity in diversity’ message The significance of this lay as much in ideology as in a pragmatism that was both central and relatively successful in bringing what could be argued as many civilizations into singular modern States While the messages about diversity have always been contested in some quarters by rival ethno-nationalists, they remained significant in laying the foundations for a strong ‘national’ identity To the majority populations, Hindu in India and Han in China this called for restraint to any triumphalism or chauvinism;to the minorities, they called for unshakeable loyalty in return for full citizenship rights In both cases, these messages were backed by constructive affirmative action measures that, irrespective of their efficacy, served to emphasize the ‘unity in diversity’ message, sowing a degree of fealty towards the State over what may have been more prominent and compelling ethno-religious or ethno-linguistic cleavages In recent years, however, this message has been significantly altered, as political majoritarianism has begun to oust legally or administratively determined minority protections This article seeks to offer an assessment of the potential impact on this phenomenon on each country, arguing that it has contributed to instability, sowing seeds for the rise of opposing sub-national identities that the founding parents of each State actively sought to counter in their statecraft","PeriodicalId":42366,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/cjcl/cxaa018","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxaa018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

China and India are comparable in size, complexity, and their relatively recent State-building histories Commencing in 1947 and 1949 respectively, the relatively recent foundations of India and China highlighted a ‘unity in diversity’ message The significance of this lay as much in ideology as in a pragmatism that was both central and relatively successful in bringing what could be argued as many civilizations into singular modern States While the messages about diversity have always been contested in some quarters by rival ethno-nationalists, they remained significant in laying the foundations for a strong ‘national’ identity To the majority populations, Hindu in India and Han in China this called for restraint to any triumphalism or chauvinism;to the minorities, they called for unshakeable loyalty in return for full citizenship rights In both cases, these messages were backed by constructive affirmative action measures that, irrespective of their efficacy, served to emphasize the ‘unity in diversity’ message, sowing a degree of fealty towards the State over what may have been more prominent and compelling ethno-religious or ethno-linguistic cleavages In recent years, however, this message has been significantly altered, as political majoritarianism has begun to oust legally or administratively determined minority protections This article seeks to offer an assessment of the potential impact on this phenomenon on each country, arguing that it has contributed to instability, sowing seeds for the rise of opposing sub-national identities that the founding parents of each State actively sought to counter in their statecraft
大国崛起与印度和中国面临的生存威胁
中国和印度在规模、复杂性和相对较新的建国历史上都是可比的,分别始于1947年和1949年,印度和中国相对较新的成立突显了“多样性中的团结”的信息。这一信息的重要性不仅在于意识形态,还在于实用主义,这种实用主义既具有核心意义,又相对成功地将可以说是众多文明带进了独特的现代国家。而关于多样性的信息在某些方面一直受到竞争对手的质疑民族主义者,他们在为强大的“民族”身份奠定基础方面仍然发挥着重要作用。对于大多数人口,印度的印度教和中国的汉族,这要求克制任何必胜主义或沙文主义;对于少数群体,他们呼吁坚定不移的忠诚,以换取充分的公民权利。在这两种情况下,这些信息都得到了建设性平权行动措施的支持,无论其效果如何,这些措施都强调了“多样性中的团结”信息,在可能更突出和更引人注目的民族-宗教或民族-语言分歧上对国家播下一定程度的忠诚。然而,近年来,这一信息发生了重大变化,由于政治多数主义已经开始推翻法律或行政上确定的少数群体保护。本文试图评估这一现象对每个国家的潜在影响,认为它助长了不稳定,为对立的亚民族身份的兴起播下种子,而每个国家的建国之父都在其治国方略中积极寻求对抗这种身份
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law (CJCL) is an independent, peer-reviewed, general comparative law journal published under the auspices of the International Academy of Comparative Law (IACL) and in association with the Silk Road Institute for International and Comparative Law (SRIICL) at Xi’an Jiaotong University, PR China. CJCL aims to provide a leading international forum for comparative studies on all disciplines of law, including cross-disciplinary legal studies. It gives preference to articles addressing issues of fundamental and lasting importance in the field of comparative law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信