Sam Crane notes that ‘a clear difference between India and China is the historical experience and persistence of caste in the former, something that was palpable in my recent travels’:

To explain: the Indian independence movement was, at base, politically conservative. It was not aimed at fundamental transformation of Indian society but, rather, the removal of foreign power. Gandhi was a political genius in forging a mass-based nationalist movement that promised participation for all levels of Indian society, Dalits included. But when independence was gained, Nehru and other Congress leaders kept their eye on national modernization, not radical egalitarian promises. They were thoroughly democratic in their politics and outlook, as opposed to the Leninists in the Chinese Communist Party, but their brand of democracy was procedural and conservative, allowing high caste power-brokers to maintain their social and economic standing in the new order. Caste was rejected in the constitution but was hard-wired into the political system.

This is the second post in the blogger’s highly perceptive series on India/China and the insights offered on both societies are very interesting. Here is the first post in which he argues that modernity may not be able to ‘overwhelm’ tradition in India.