A serious question about India

[Śakra]

India doesn't even exist. If you look at a map the pakistan ocean touches Nepal, bgndsh, and pakistan to the North.

 

[Sharpshooter12]

Is India a nation or just an administrative body?

If the Austro-Hungarian empire or Ottoman empire(they were not) was a nation then sure India is too.

The thing is there has never been a united India ever, not even during the peak of Mughal rule i.e Aurangzeb's days. There are stark cultural differences between different regions of India. A south Indian is as different from a Punjabi as he would be to say an Arab.

But very similarly what makes us a nation, well all four ethnic groups of Pakistan are as different to each other as they can possibly be. Two of them belong to Indus civilization while the other two belong to Central Asian or Persian civilization. And there has never been a Pakistan too ever, so does that mean we are not a nation. Barring a few liberal fascists and few ethno-nationalists, no Pakistani would like to believe so.

We are a nation and so is India. But we are a new nation but so is India, whatever historical proof some Indian friends here pull out of their err wherever, India has never been a nation in the past. It was always was a geographical entity.

But today most of them like to call themselves Indians, so that is what makes India a nation. No matter how nascent this phenomenon is, if the people believe that they belong to a single nation, well then they are a nation.

But here is the thing, the only everlasting bond between a people is ethnicity, yes religion, ideology, aspirations all matter but to much lesser extents.

As long as a state is doing Ok on economic, military and social fronts, most ethnic groups will like to co-exist with each other. But as soon as things start going wrong on these fronts, ethnic tensions will prevail and if things get real bad most people will start thinking about interests of their own ethnic groups.

Austro-Hungarian empire lasted for centuries, they had Austrians, Hungarians, Croats, Serbians, Chezcs, Slovaks, Polish and Ukrainian living together. When the empire start lagging behind rest of the Europe on economic fronts most ethnic groups started thinking about their own interests and it all came to head when empire lost WW1 and fractured completely.

Well why think of distant past, Bangladesh was created only 25 years after our Independence for which BTW the Bengalis deserved the most credit for of all the ethnic groups making Pakistan. But all that ideology could not keep us together for more than quarter of a century.

So as long as India is doing fine on economic, military and social fronts, they are a nation, have no doubt about it. But if an economic meltdown happen somehow, you'll see most ethnic groups starting to look to save their own skin, and who knows how many nations can spring out of India. You think Khalistan movement died because of one operation Blue Star or Benazir gave up that list. No, it died because Indian Punjabis can see their ethnic group prospering in India, they see much more opportunities by staying within the union. How would they behave after the meltdown, thats a question only future can answer.

Same is BTW true for Pakistan. Pushtunistan movement died because Pushtuns can see a much better future for their people by staying with Pakistan than creating an independent state or by merging with Afghanistan. Does the Baluch feel the same way, well they will do much better economically if they secede so we do hear such voices coming from that province. But with Iran on their border would they survive militarily? and hence majority wants to stick with Pakistan.

So different ethnic groups can come together to form nation states. So no matter how many ethnic groups are there in India, they are one nation, well at-least for the time being.

 

[third eye]

Is India a nation or just an administrative body?​

Have you carried out any research or reading before you made this troll thread whose OP consists of a uneducated question ?

 

[manlion]

Before the British Raj, did the people of Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Bengal and Punjab consider themselves to have a shared identity, i.e. as people of the same nation?

Even today they still have to use a foreign language (English) in order to communicate with each other, not to mention the fact that the Indian constitution and system of law are all written in English. And their "national" border lines were drawn by and named after British people, like Henry MacMahon. Unless someone thinks that is an Indian name.

Indian propagandist will brag about shared culture blah blah, but can never explain why they are bound by the caste system, a system that oppress low caste Hindus as out caste based on color (varna) ?

Why is there diverse linguistic groups - derived from Dravidian Tamil or Aryan Sanskrit or an admixture ? Hinduism is not a religion, it is an ideology that upholds the institution of socio – economic oppression of Dravidian Tamils, Tribals and outcaste

BTW Tamils religion is not Hinduism .. they follow the Siddha Tradition which has similarity to Chinese Taoism

 

[prashantazazel]

Is India a nation or just an administrative body?​

It is like an alliance of like minded(mostly) folks.

 

[RISING SUN]

Is India a nation or just an administrative body?​

India is a great flow of shared culture, co-existence, faith, colors. It maybe anarchic on surface, bit dustier in first impression, it might be over populated, but when we look deeper, we find consistent force of life, spiritual, all sorts of color and tones projecting deep within a solid, stable, peaceful and dynamic soul of India. People from all across the world find refuge here with peaceful intention and believers of its way of flow. It's amalgamation of various religion, sanctuary for many religion. In religion India is the only millionaire.

 

[SMASTER]

Same is BTW true for Pakistan. Pushtunistan movement died because Pushtuns can see a much better future for their people by staying with Pakistan than creating an independent state or by merging with Afghanistan.

Well,An Indian can say the some thing for Kashmris that they would be better off economically with India rather than becoming independent or joining Pakistan.

 

[WreckingBall]

Same question and points can be said about any large nation-state. What does a person in Maine have in common with a Texan in the United States?

India is a Union of States. It is more diverse than most nation-states are - and that is a double-edged sword. But there is a strong sense of nationhood. Most people see themselves as Indians before they see themselves as belonging to any particular ethnicity. And the credit for that must go to two men - the much maligned Nehru and Sardar Patel. They did instill a sense of nationhood when it was needed the most.

 

[Mage]

Present day India is a nation. Historically many empires ruled in this subcontinent. Mourya empire ruled most part of the subcontinent including most parts Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Then most of the subcontinent were also under the same rule in Mughal period, Delhi Sultanate, Gupta Empire. So yeah most part of the subcontinent were binded together during various empire's reign. So there are similarity in customs and culture.

Looking at the last 800 years, the subcontinent were ruled by Delhi Sultanate they, ruled over most of the territory of present day India. Then Mughals they ruled over most of India and more. Then British empire and they ruled all of it (except some places like Goa?)

So it can be easily seen that the most part of the subcontinent had stayed together most of the time for last 800 years.

Check these empires:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Sultanate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire
And then this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires_in_India

Finally this:

 

[Tamil_Manithan]

Indian propagandist will brag about shared culture blah blah, but can never explain why they are bound by the caste system, a system that oppress low caste Hindus as out caste based on color (varna) ?

Why is there diverse linguistic groups - derived from Dravidian Tamil or Aryan Sanskrit or an admixture ? Hinduism is not a religion, it is an ideology that upholds the institution of socio – economic oppression of Dravidian Tamils, Tribals and outcaste

BTW Tamils religion is not Hinduism .. they follow the Siddha Tradition which has similarity to Chinese Taoism

LOL you have no idea about Tamils and Tamil Nadu.

 

[Cool Calm Collected]

Learning to live with diversity really builds your character. If you are brought up amongst people of different values and behaviours, you'd probably do better in a boardroom with differing opinions.

 

[Peshwa]

Before the British Raj, did the people of Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Bengal and Punjab consider themselves to have a shared identity, i.e. as people of the same nation?

Even today they still have to use a foreign language (English) in order to communicate with each other, not to mention the fact that the Indian constitution and system of law are all written in English. And their "national" border lines were drawn by and named after British people, like Henry MacMahon. Unless someone thinks that is an Indian name.

The concept of nation states is a modern construct. So for someone to say that did a concept of India as a single monolithic nation state exist? The answer would be NO.
But the same can be said for a lot of other geographical regions around the globe.

Were the people that call themselves Indians today and their ancestors, live as one under different rulers during the course of history? The answer would be YES.

The point is, the past is the past. We are one now. Bound by whatever commonality one chooses to endorse, whether it be religion, ethnicity, language, shared culture, values..or a plethora of other reasons.
There is no set formula for a "successful" nation state. Diversity builds character, but also causes friction. We see this exist in India. The point is, we find more in common with each other than the differences. And that's what matters at the end of the day.
A nation state is the conglomeration of like minded people that have a common vision for a future. We fit that bill and that's why India has been united even through the most turbulent of times.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Is India a nation or just an administrative body?​

I can understand why you get this question.

First let me breakdown the question into two parts

Part 1: why India seems to look like an "administrative body"?

Given how Indian Govt administration functions being that of de-centralized federal republic.

Where each Indian state has immense power over its own affairs and function with limited involvement of central Govt.

This causes to give a look of Indian states functioning as independent political entities, hence makes India as whole look more like an "administrative body" than a nation.

One wonders why Indian Govt made such compromises with its states.

This can be understood analyzing the unsuccessful cases of nation building in India's neighborhood.

The unsuccessful cases being Pakistan and China.

Pakistan and China are chosen here because Pakistan is culturally close to India in terms of diversity and China is close to India in terms of size and population.

Case 1: Pakistan.

In 1971, Bangladesh was born by break up of Pakistan.
This is do with West Pakistan imposing Urdu as a nation language all over Pakistan without acknowledging the deep linguistic tradition of East Pakistan.
To make things worse despite East Pakistani leader democratically winning elections, was not allowed to assume leadership.

The rest is history.

Case 2: China

China on the other hand has remained a dismembered state right from its creation.

At climax of Chinese civil war, CCP chose to exterminate the nationalists rather than reaching for a compromise where both Communists and nationalist can contest in elections and jointly rule China.

This led to nationalists escaping to Taiwan and today Taiwan despite recognized among several nations as Chinese territory functions as independent nation with its own currency, economy, military and diplomatic ties.

This has made China a lone unique pariah state in world which has no control of its province while being considered it territory.

Not learning from failure of Taiwan, China seems to be repeating the same with Hong Kong, where Hong Kongers wish go back to being a British colony:

Had Indian Govt not made compromises with its states it would have met the fate of Pakistan and China


Part 2: why India is a nation despite these compromises?

Common history, Common culture and non existence of conflict between these states throughout history. Unlike case of say Europe who have centuries of brutal wars and fighting amongst eachother and cannot fathom the idea of unity without something like EU.

 

[cloud_9]

Is India a nation or just an administrative body?​

This book might be helpful!