My question is were they being dhimmi while deluding themsleves that they were Modern Macaulayites who were beyond all this dhimmitude?
Exactly.
In the view that was propogated, religion was an artificial fancy..used by fuddy duddies to spread discord, superstition...all our books were full of references to caste system, bride burning, "andh vishwaas"...but funnily enough, Islam was never criticized. Not one social practise, not one reference to bigotry...never.
Even hindi books were full of stories from authors around above..history was also carefully sanitised...there is/was no overarching meta narrative..hindus are like accidental visitors to india...shivaji/ rana pratap et al are insurgents...i am not kidding you...i read amar chitra katha and was shocked to know that these guys were actually kings in their own right...the books state it with so many mea culpas...that you regard them as inconsequential...it also causes muslim revanchism..i remember some muslim kids who used to routinely declare we ruled india for x hundred years...and so the books said..
Class 8 IM guys used to remark that "we never burnt our women"...
Could they have concsiously sanctioned dhimmitude to avoid the immediate strains on Indian society?
Yes, that was one reason...plus IMHO, Indian academia was hijacked by the deracinated elite post independence.
It has taken me a decade to evaluate my experiences and analyze my own "gut reaction" to certain thoughts and where this "gut reaction" comes from...then see how my peers were..
I & my peers were big fans of "discovery of india" and "my experiences with truth"...i still think the latter is remarkable...but today, I think it depicts Gandhijis struggle to find a POV and it is not a Bible...as kids we didnt have that sense..
DOI is frankly....an attempt to manufacture an idealistic history where everyone lived in harmony and while laudable in one way, it is unfortunately, dismaying in how Nehru is critical of hindu society and culture repeatedly, albeit couched in euphemisms...while refusing to take a stand on Islam..and many of his critiques of Hindu society and culture dont hold up to either logic or historical record...they are quite idealogical..
And frankly, shiv is right...the hawks have been bred out of India...to a very large extent...at least in the upper class/ elite...as a very basic example: if you plot communal violence...its often the OBCs/SC-STs et al who go for the fight, this is not to justify violence but to point out that...the elite just watch and tut tut and exacerbate the situation by pushing a david vs goliath scenario...its a very conscious byproduct of survival imho...if you wished to survive...you had to be dhimmi...and erect rigid barriers of "caste taboos" et al around you to retain your culture..
That way you dont offend the "overlord" whether he be white or turkish..but muddle along.
They leave you alone as long as you dont cross the "boundaries"..
At several MNCs, you can see open posters for "prayer meetings" conducted by evangelical churches..they are not regarded as impolite..even though they market themself as "youth meets" with "music"...now please imagine if that was a RSS poster..and therein lies the difference. One is acceptable...the other isnt. And that has been inculcated in many "studious boys and girls" who aspire to be modern...and the funny part is that India had no huge power grab by the Hindu spiritual/social orgs which invited such a backlash...say for eg in the UK where the Church provoked a secular backlash..
In India, this instinctive contempt is manufactured, from our education, from what we are told (how to be modern..) and so on.
We are manufactured pacifists. I and my peers were ...but I think my interest in military stuff made me escape full conversion..Several of my peers regarded Hinduism as an unfashionable, artificial construct and those who swore by it as fanatics and fundamentalists...