Fair enough... Though we don't really know how to define it. For example, a lot of people are inclined to call Greece a Western country, because a lot of the things we consider to be integral to modern Western identity are deeply rooted in ancient Greek civilization. European history begins in Greece. Without ancient Greek philosophy, there is no Renaissance, and there is no Enlightenment as we know it.
Yet, if you look at Huntington's map, Greece is not a Western country but part of his proposed "Orthodox" civilization along with Russia and Serbia, despite being closer alligned to Western countries through the EU and NATO in modern times.
If you ask me, Greece belongs to neither of these civilizations. It's a civilization all on its own. Maybe it could be described as "proto-Western" due to the pivotal role its thinkers had on the development of Western philosophy, science, mathematics, academia, and spirituality, but it drifted down its own path seperate from Western Europe after the Great Schism and the Dark Ages. Likewise, the Byzantines played an important role in bringing Christianity and literacy to the Slavs, but it clearly isn't in the same sphere as Russia.
Greece is something unique. It uses a unique alphabet. It speaks a unique language. It follows a unique form of Christianity. It has a unique history, a unique culture, and a unique identity, not quite Western, not quite Eastern.
The question of how to properly define any supposed "macro-culture" or (potential?) "civilisation" can be very tricky. That being said, this of course doesn't invalidate the concept. Some people do leap to invalidate it, but that strikes me as silly. Something being fuzzy at the edges doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Then there's the matter of Greece. That illustrates the problem quite acutely. To me, Greece is not somehow magically unique. I would define "the West", in its broadest possible form, as essentially being the old concept of "Christendom". Notably including the cultural back-drop that both shaped Christianity (historically) and was shaped
by it. (So not everything that is now Christian is Westerns. Rather, the West/Christendom has exported its religion outside its own borders... but often without simultaneously exporting its cultural context. Which is why there are Christian countries in Africa, which nonetheless shouldn't be called Western, and certainly don't identify as such.)
But back in the day, Christendom did get all schism'd up. And on a macro-level, there is little doubt to me that this dividing line is the important one. I can imagine a future where the Great Schism is healed, becoming quite irrelevant, and the Orthodox Christian world is basically dragged into a "Greater West" (which wouldn't call itself that, to be sure!), forming one civilisation. I can also see a future where the rift isn't healed, and the Orthodox world drifts away from the West (which
would call itself that!), and becomes a "macro-culture" unto itself. This is not yet settled. But I'm pretty sure that if it goes that way, Greece will be part of the Orthodox culture/civilisation. It will not be some kind of isolate, unless things go
really funny.
That's my take, but then, I have been observed to read Spengler too thoroughly. Time will tell, as it always does. (Huntington avidly read Spengler, too, but he had a different take-away than I did in many cases. For that matter, both Henry Kissinger and Carroll Quigley can be mentioned as noted Spenglerians. Shows how much room there is to "read into it".)
I think that's where the weakness of trying to box countries into neat little "civilization" boxes falls apart.
I agree that if you go with boxes, it all falls apart. Certainly. Anyone who tries to draw clear lines like that is dooming his efforts. Things always blend at the edges, and the map is never quite the territory. But that being said: as long as you
know that, maps are still pretty damn useful.
Islam, while certainly a huge part of Pakistani and Bangladeshi culture, is not the only part. It may be very significant that a Pakistani Muslim can go anywhere from Senegal to Mindanao and be greeted with "as-salamu alaikum," but it's also significant that a Punjabi Muslim from Pakistan can communicate fluently with a Punjabi Hindu from India, and a Bengali Muslim from Bangladesh can communicate with a Bengali Hindu from India. Punjabi or Bengali cuisine on either side of the border are more similar than they are different. I'd guess that the cultural commonalities go a lot deeper than that in terms of things like folk wisdom, agricultural techniques, superstitions, traditional medicine, etc.
In addition, there are huge Muslim communities in India that are just as proud to be Indian as the Hindus are. I talked to a Muslim taxi driver in India who told me he was very proud of his country. He has visited many Hindu, Sikh, Christian, and Jain temples and told me many non-Muslim Indians visit mosques as well. He had a very roseate view of Indian society and told me most people get along and live in harmony despite their differences. This was different from a few Hindu people I met later on who had some rather prejudiced opinions about the Muslim community.
Still, Islam is a huge part of Indian society and its history. The Delhi Sultanate? The Mughals? The Taj Mahal? Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, and Aamir Khan? Muslims are 14% of India's population, were very active in its independence movement, and have been there for over a thousand years.
So, despite the fact that the taxi driver was probably being a bit too optimistic, I'd be inclined to believe that if there *is* an Indian Civilization, its defining feature is not as narrow as simply Hindu or Dharmic religions... It's the complex tapestry of diverse peoples, languages, and religions all woven together.
I actually quite agree, although it must be noted that Islam is certainly a macro-culture itself. It even has its own explicit goal and definition for the universal empire: the Caliphate. And it is a culture that is built up around a shared religious context (perhaps even moreso than the West/Christendom, although that's debatable). So keeping the reality of "fuzzy edges" in mind, I'm pretty sure that the people of Pakistan and Bangladesh would -- if it comes to a choice -- would opt into "Islamic civilisation" before they opt into "Indian civilisation". (That doesn't mean each
individual would do that, of course.)
How matters in India resolve themselves remains to be seen, but should a choice eventually become more than a hypothetical, I suspect that it'll get bloody for a bit. It usually does. And that could end in three ways that I can see. Either the Muslims win (presumably with outside help from many, many other Muslims) and India gets absorbed into the Islamic world; or the Hindus (and Buddhists) win and Islam more or less gets driven out of India; or Islam in India gets sufficiently absorbed into Indian culture that most Muslims in India feel distinct enough from the rest of Islam that they subscribe to a notion of exceptionalism (being more part of Indian culture than of any united Islamic culture).
I suspect the taxi driver you spoke to saw that third option as being either the reality or at least the likely future. I don't think that's an accurate view, although it
is an option.
Whichever of the three scenarios it is, though, one ends with the termination(-by-absorbtion) of Indian culture, and the other two solidify India as a clearly distinct culture. But I don't see a scenario where Pakistan and Bangladesh get absorbed into the Indian cultural sphere again. At least not one that doesn't involve monstrosities on a scale I'd prefer
not to think about. And that brings me back to the point. While there is certainly possibility for an Indian culture (and civilisation) that includes a distintly Indian strain of Islam, and there is likewise possibility for a grand and cosmopolitan Caliphate that includes India and has plenty of room for Hinduism and Buddhism, I don't think there is much possibility for an India that absorbs Pakistan and Bangladesh into itself.
On the other hand, Nepal has more speakers of Indo-Aryan languages than Sino-Tibetan, its national language is an Indo-Aryan language, and its population is mostly Hindu rather than Buddhist.
I have often gotten the sense that Nepal doesn't identify as part of India by any means, but then, I'm no expert on Nepal. I may have been off the mark there.
