I am sitting here stunned.
If you expand your vision, do you realize what it implies?
Having said which, your point of view overlooks the whole question of identity. The Indian experience is that while the Two Nation Tneory was wrong and proven wrong, so is the One Nation Theory that Gandhi implicitly put forward. The proof is in the continuing struggle for identity which continues to convulse India from time to time. Some of these struggles have been realized by statesmanlike compromises, often by seeming surrender of part sovereignty, which has actually led to more resilient, less rigid bonding. Others continue, and have been co-opted by opportunistic and obsolete political movements, who continue to tap that struggle for violence for their own political purposes, leading to a kind of stasis where nobody ever wins, everybody loses.
Overall, India is strong to the extent that she is due to having resolved these identity issues partially. If India had come to a full understanding of the issue through proper political analysis, there would probably not be any need for the kind of sub-optimal and fear-based political aggregations you seem to be rejecting.
Not sure exactly what idea you find stunning in my post.
Actually I do not overlook identity, I believe in continuity of identity (according to my theory of historical continuity), whether that is religious, linguistic or ethnic. What I believe also is that collective self-interest should not be secondary to these identities, rather we should make rational decisions as a nation or people based on our collective self-interest, while preserving our many aspect of identities as much as possible.
For Muslims, the religious identity is non-negotiable, so regardless of where we go, whether it was Arab Muslims trading via sea and settling in coastal regions or Turkic nomads settling far away from his home regions in Central Asia, the religious identity remains a constant, while linguistic and ethnic identities are compromised and become something else, although detectable traces do remain. So when Muslims migrate to the West for economic reasons, the later generations loose their linguistic identity, try to retain the ethnic identity and almost always retain the religious identity, although in many cases they become liberal/progressive in their outlook. So changes in identity is taking place today, just like they did in the past, both out of practical necessity.
For India, it is a collection of many neighboring ethno-linguistic groups. So both two nation or one nation theory are incorrect. It is obviously multi-ethnic and multi-national, who happened to live together under many imperial dynasties in the past, but they did not mix and become one as in the case of Han Chinese. In addition to ethno-linguistic division, you have the religious divisions and there is caste. For India and China, both large viable states, territorial nationalism is the best unifying theme, while Hindutva and Han Nationalism can be back up alternatives, as they are unifying identity of the majority population which can hold the nation together in times of crisis. For all other nation states, I promote regionalism, as I consider these states too small to be viable in competition with the large states. You already know the rest of my ideas, which I have repeatedly mentioned in many posts and in many threads.
!! Anyway, Dutta haram "****"...eita ki nishidhdho shobdo naki?
