Even though Bhikhu Parekh has written extensively on the theory and practice of multi-ethnic societies, he is yet to articulate the clear critical typography of contemporary forms of national unity that some think necessary to complete his position. The paper will explore his claim that “the nation” is dangerous myth. To achieve this goal, Parekh’s writings on Indian nationalism will be analysed against the background of the social and political thought of Rabindranath Tagore and others. Parekh’s position will be shown to invoke a conception of political order that is founded upon a surprisingly pluralistic conception of the common good. The paper will assess the extent to which Parekh’s conception of political order could address key structural problems that he identifies within Indian democracy.

All of the Asian States that emerged from British control in varying degrees took key substantial elements of the British Westminster system. This system was more commonly associated with the British settler countries like Australia, Canada and New Zealand where “kith and kin” links with Britain seemed to make this appropriate. However, the British and the Asian indigenous elites saw advantages in applying this very British system to the very different context of the East. These Asian nations did not have centuries to interpret and adjust in order to develop their constitution as the British had. Instead within months they needed to formulate and design a constitution and therefore invariably drew upon the system of their imperial master. The local elites with the involvement of external actors like Sir Ivor Jennings determined that Westminster could work in the East. Since the Westminster system is based on convention and ambiguity and not rigid rules and clarity the same Westminster system could be adopted and manipulated to produce diverse results and reactions that would shape their countries forever. These states therefore became Eastminsters that had clear institutional and political resemblances to Britain’s system, but with cultural and constitutional divergences from Westminster. This talk broadly examines the concept of Eastminster in the eventful context of Asian decolonisation and need for rapid constitutional settlement. It explores five key deviations that Eastminster possesses from the Settler variety of Westminster. This constitution making period and the adoption of Eastminster had far reaching consequences for all of Asia.

Avishek Ray will explore how the dichotomy between the ‘good’ wanderer and the ‘bad’ wanderer in the ‘Indian tradition’ was premised upon a highly contingent process of religio-political partisanship and struggles over territorialisation. He will argue that the impulse to assume that nomadicity as a ‘radical’ practice articulating political dissidence and the figure of the ‘nomad’ as the prototype of a non-conformist, affective subject have perpetually existed in the ‘Indian’ cultural repertoire – for example, think of the nineteenth-century Orientalist claims on the origin of the Romani community, or for that matter, the Beats’ obsession with ‘India’ – is symbolic of an essentialist notion of ‘India’.

Untouchability in India has been widely understood as the practice of excluding, from social or religious life, people who are believed to be permanently impure. Yet, this vision neglects the different emotions and feelings that untouchability produces in the subjects involved with it. This perspective also fails to grasp how untouchability is played through different bodies and diverse spaces at specific historical contexts. This type of understanding often results in an anachronistic portrayal of untouchability as a pan-Indian millenary phenomenon. To avoid this problematic, this paper analyses the complex nature of untouchability by examining its connections to concepts such as space, emotions and the body. In order to do so, this essay looks at the autobiographical notes of B.R. Ambedkar and his dealings with untouchability. It will be shown that Ambedkar’s remembrances of untouchability were linked through specific spaces, such as hotels or train stations, where people could not determine at first hand his place in the caste hierarchy. Such spatial and emotional indeterminacy, allowed Ambedkar to do three things. First, it allowed him to question how untouchables should feel or behave in spaces where they are not identified as an untouchable. Second, analysing the relationship between untouchability and the spaces associated with this practice, Ambedkar became aware that places like the village facilitated the observance of untouchability as bodies marked as touchable or untouchable. Finally, his dealings with untouchability facilitated Ambedkar’s view of untouchability not only as ritual or religious phenomenon but as a practice aimed at excluding untouchables from specific places associated with power.