A question of Indian history

[Syed TALHA SHAH]

what us happening here..?

 

[Coltsfan]

I often come across materials regarding Indian culture and political history in Canada. I have a few questions that have been bothering me for a while. Given that everyone here is Indian, I'd like to ask the descendents of their history directly!

Thanks in advance! And please correct my views if they are mistaken.

I can see why your questions that follow the assumption are flawed. Pakistanis over here would take a serious affront to that assumption

 

[Ras]

I often come across materials regarding Indian culture and political history in Canada. I have a few questions that have been bothering me for a while. Given that everyone here is Indian, I'd like to ask the descendents of their history directly!

1) Are Hindi, Persian languages influenced by European and Indian dialects? If not, why do Hindi and Persian scripts look so similar?

2) Why has the Indian subcontinent been unified under foreign powers longer than indigenous rulers? I recognize that for most of its history, India has been ruled by myriad of kingdoms or Northwestern/Northeastern/Central/Southern empires but the duration of Mauryan (140~ years) is too shortlived compared to Mughal (330~) and Company/British Raj (100-200~).

3) The Hindus valley civilization encompasses precisely Pakistan. How do Indian people feel about this? Do they consider Pakistan a defecting Indian territory awaiting reunification and hence Hindus is still Indian culture and not Pakistan's alone? Or are they angered by the fact that their ancestors are living in some other country?

4) If Persian attire and technology, and Islam is any evidence of Arab influence on Indian culture, do Indians ostracize muslims because of nationalist factors -- that Islam is not an Indian-made religion? Or is it because of terrorism and hate for Pakistan itself?

5) Lastly, it appears that English pervades through both people and government in India. Do English speakers in India pride themselves on speaking our language or are they ashamed of the fact that it's a remanent of Raj?

Thanks in advance! And please correct my views if they are mistaken.

Comparing China with India is a wrong analogy if you want to compare nations in a historical sense..you should compare India with Europe. Has Europe ever been under one nation?..Once under ancient Rome but other than that never. It is really a feat of strength that the Mauryas,Mughals,Marathas,British managed that for a period of time. Just for the fact that India is made up of distinctive nations and has been been for time immemorial just like Europe..different parts of India have different language,culture, cuisine etc.They are different..just saying that they all follow Hinduism and are racially same(even that is not exactly true) does not make them a nation same as how Christianity and the white race does not make Europe one nation.

The entire Indian subcontinent today has 3 nations..but 2(India and Pakistan) of the three are artificial nations in the true sense of the word. Bangladesh is the only nation among the 3 which is a nation in the true historical sense.

As for using English..I should again hark back to the European example.If Europe was a nation then English would be less palatable to the non-English than an outsider language like Chinese or Hindi.

Edit: Just wanted to amend my post..the Mauryas,Guptas,Mughals,Marathas never actually ruled over ALL of modern India..only the British and the Republic of India have done that.

 

[kalya]

>ao333
I assume you're sincerely asking these very simple questions...much can be found on wikipedia and an another member has already given a short & correct answer.

Here are my 50c...

1...European and Indian languages are considered to have been developed from a same language , that's why one sees many similarities

2.In our known history of more than 2500 ~3000 years we were ruled by various rulers....many rulers accepted India as their home country and assimilated with the society.

3.Indus ( not Hindus ) valley civilization exploration sites are situated in present day Pakistan...we do not think it as a loss....partition of 1947 was a political compulsion and a great tragic event in our history and we have moved on.

4.We ..Indians (all religions ) do not ostracize anyone because of the faith....on the other hand caste system is a very big issue still present in our society ( in all religions ). On the other hand we have many muslim heroes ...actors,soldiers,politicians,poets..

5.India is not a United states like entity but Union of States....Many states are based...formed on the basis of their own language as mine is state of Maharashtra and its language is Marathi.

English has been accepted for work and business but much day today work is done in the local languages.English is a good language and has taken an Indian flavor in India...I am not at all ashamed to use English where it is needed...and though it may be a due to British Raj , English has become a Global language,I accept it.

India is one amazing phenomenon...you cannot and should not try to view Her like any other nation states...please read about my country for its culture,religions,languages etc and you will know more.

Hi to all members...this is my first post ..I have been reading this forum for quite a lot of time.

 

[twoplustwoisfour]

The entire Indian subcontinent today has 3 nations..but 2(India and Pakistan) of the three are artificial nations in the true sense of the word. Bangladesh is the only nation among the 3 which is a nation in the true historical sense.

Interesting. Care to elaborate?

AFAIK Bangladesh was never an independent nation before 1947. Bangladeshi history is intertwined with West Bengal, Bihar and North-Eastern States of India.

 

[CardSharp]

They were in Durham and migrated to Ontario afterwards. A few decades later, they moved West to BC. I'm not sure you understand my reference though. You guys are too hostile; I feel for the Aussies.

For some people to process and nullify negative information/criticism, they have to ascribe it to a ready framework of friends and foes. Apparently you fit under the Chinese tent.

 

[Ras]

Interesting. Care to elaborate?

AFAIK Bangladesh was never an independent nation before 1947. Bangladeshi history is intertwined with West Bengal, Bihar and North-Eastern States of India.

In a historical sense when nations were defined as a group of people with the same ethnicity/culture.

 

[CardSharp]

Comparing China with India is a wrong analogy if you want to compare nations in a historical sense..you should compare India with Europe. Has Europe ever been under one nation?..Once under ancient Rome but other than that never. It is really a feat of strength that the Mauryas,Mughals,Marathas,British managed that for a period of time. Just for the fact that India is made up of distinctive nations and has been been for time immemorial just like Europe..different parts of India have different language,culture, cuisine etc.They are different..just saying that they all follow Hinduism and are racially same(even that is not exactly true) does not make them a nation same as how Christianity and the white race does not make Europe one nation.

The entire Indian subcontinent today has 3 nations..but 2(India and Pakistan) of the three are artificial nations in the true sense of the word. Bangladesh is the only nation among the 3 which is a nation in the true historical sense.

As for using English..I should again hark back to the European example.If Europe was a nation then English would be less palatable to the non-English than an outsider language like Chinese or Hindi.

Yes I do wish people here would stop using that animated GIF from wikipedia of Chinese dynasties to prove that China was as fragmented as the South Asian subcontinent was and therefore circularly India must have been as centralized and cohesive as China was.

 

[Ras]

Yes I do wish people here would stop using that animated GIF from wikipedia of Chinese dynasties to prove that China was as fragmented as the South Asian subcontinent was and therefore circularly India must have been as centralized and cohesive as China was.

Yup..dynasties come and go and should not be used as a basis for nationhood.

 

[CardSharp]

Yup..dynasties come and go and should not be used as a basis for nationhood.

Precisely!!

 

[twoplustwoisfour]

In a historical sense when nations were defined as a group of people with the same ethnicity/culture.

Then I'm afraid you need to know about the multi-ethnic society of Bangladesh. Bengalis in Bangladesh have more in common with Bengalis in West Bengal as compared to their Bihari Countrymen.

 

[Ras]

Then I'm afraid you need to know about the multi-ethnic society of Bangladesh. Bengalis in Bangladesh have more in common with Bengalis in West Bengal as compared to their Bihari Countrymen.

The Bihari's in Bangladesh are there due to an accident of history..if there was no partition they would be where they have been for centuries, in Bihar. However even accounting for them.. Bangladesh is a homogeneous society more or less.

 

[Coltsfan]

The Bihari's in Bangladesh are there due to an accident of history..if there was no partition they would be where they have been for centuries, in Bihar. However even accounting for them.. Bangladesh is a homogeneous society more or less.

Since when societal homogeneity a basis for qualification as a nation, going by your premise US would not be a nation

 

[twoplustwoisfour]

The Bihari's in Bangladesh are there due to an accident of history..if there was no partition they would be where they have been for centuries, in Bihar. However even accounting for them.. Bangladesh is a homogeneous society more or less.

I still don't understand exactly what, according to you, is a 'country in true historical sense'.

Is it a mono ethnic society? Because then no first world nation can be called a country because of their immigrants.

Is it historical statehood? Then I'm afraid Bangladesh doesn't qualify.

 

[CardSharp]

Since when societal homogeneity a basis for qualification as a nation, going by your premise US would not be a nation

They have more or less a homogeneity of values and ideals, as set out the by the US constitution and exemplified by "American values". As long as you take part in these shared beliefs, you are generally accepted as an American.

America is unique in this way.