Do you think ancient India should have been like China?

[Uguduwa]

China that was unified under Qin Shi Huang introduced a standardized writing system which inevitably boosted the economy, innovation and laid foundation to what China is today. India on the other hand focused on diversity and the result was the empire fragmenting into many smaller states only to never recover again. Having a large population under a unified culture brings great benefits and the military power it provides would have been enough to repel invasions to India.

What do modern Indians think about this?

 

[vi-va]

Not possible.

 

[letsrock]

China that was unified under Qin Shi Huang introduced a standardized writing system which inevitably boosted the economy, innovation and laid foundation to what China is today. India on the other hand focused on diversity and the result was the empire fragmenting into many smaller states only to never recover again. Having a large population under a unified culture brings great benefits and the military power it provides would have been enough to repel invasions to India.

What do modern Indians think about this?

THere is really nothing called an ancient "indian" - there was never such national identity. And frankly there is no need of one. There are mutliple nationalities and they all deserve their own country.

 

[HttpError]

India was never a country before 1947 it was a geographical-expression of this region. Since time immemorial this region never had a single ruler, rather it had several different states which were all governed by different rulers.

 

[Uguduwa]

THere is really nothing called an ancient "indian" - there was never such national identity. And frankly there is no need of one. There are mutliple nationalities and they all deserve their own country.

There would be if the rulers in the Mayuryan dynasty had some vision and tried to homogenize the subjects in the empire. There also wouldn't be a China if this didn't happen there.

 

[Uguduwa]

Not possible.

expand your answer

 

[peagle]

China that was unified under Qin Shi Huang introduced a standardized writing system which inevitably boosted the economy, innovation and laid foundation to what China is today. India on the other hand focused on diversity and the result was the empire fragmenting into many smaller states only to never recover again. Having a large population under a unified culture brings great benefits and the military power it provides would have been enough to repel invasions to India.

What do modern Indians think about this?

You cant "focus on diversity", identify and culture is not manufactured. You are viewing history through purely a modern prism. That's an incorrect approach.
A cultural identity in all its manifestations of language, food, beliefs etc... is developed by a collective consciousness, it does not grow by design.

More then 90% of China is of Han ethnicity. Whereas the largest ethnic group in South Asia are the Punjabi (Pakistan 120 million, India 40 million) and Bengali (Bangladesh 160 million, India 80 million).
Population of South Asia is about 1.8 billion. So Punjabis are about 9% and Bengalis about 13% of South Asia. Both these groups are totally different to one another in every meaningful way.

A historical India is a moot point, because it has no basis in reality. just as a historical European nationhood is a logical fallacy. South Asians share cultural similarities among other things, just like the Europeans or an African but there are many distinct actual historical nations.

The Chinese decided to adopt a unified culture, of which language is a primary part, by recognising the need for it. If it was so simple to create an identity, the Jews would be no more, they have faced immense levels of persecution at the hands of the Europeans throughout history, but identity cannot be forced, if the recipient is not willing to adopt it.

So, China is a nation because you guys over time adopted a Chinese identity. South Asians are not a nation because there was no identifiable Indian identity to hold on to. A Punjabi, Marathi, Bengali, Tamil and so many other groups created their own identities because that was what they wanted. Even today, India does not have a national language because the south region of India refuses to accept Hindi. They have two official languages, Hindi and English and many scheduled languages, but no NATIONAL language. So, even today an Indian nationhood is a work in progress, how can there be a historical Indian-ness, when even today it is still being moulded.

There are so many facts negating the historical Indian nationhood, but I've tried to present the essential ones, I hope you will find it helpful.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Mangus Ortus Novem @masterchief_mirza @SecularNationalist

 

[SecularNationalist]

You cant "focus on diversity", identify and culture is not manufactured. You are viewing history through purely a modern prism. That's an incorrect approach.
A cultural identity in all its manifestations of language, food, beliefs etc... is developed by a collective consciousness, it does not grow by design.

More then 90% of China is of Han ethnicity. Whereas the largest ethnic group in South Asia are the Punjabi (Pakistan 120 million, India 40 million) and Bengali (Bangladesh 160 million, India 80 million).
Population of South Asia is about 1.8 billion. So Punjabis are about 9% and Bengalis about 13% of South Asia. Both these groups are totally different to one another in every meaningful way.

A historical India is a moot point, because it has no basis in reality. just as a historical European nationhood is a logical fallacy. South Asians share cultural similarities among other things, just like the Europeans or an African but there are many distinct actual historical nations.

The Chinese decided to adopt a unified culture, of which language is a primary part, by recognising the need for it. If it was so simple to create an identity, the Jews would be no more, they have faced immense levels of persecution at the hands of the Europeans throughout history, but identity cannot be forced, if the recipient is not willing to adopt it.

So, China is a nation because you guys over time adopted a Chinese identity. South Asians are not a nation because there was no identifiable Indian identity to hold on to. A Punjabi, Marathi, Bengali, Tamil and so many other groups created their own identities because that was what they wanted. Even today, India does not have a national language because the south region of India refuses to accept Hindi. They have two official languages, Hindi and English and many scheduled languages, but no NATIONAL language. So, even today an Indian nationhood is a work in progress, how can there be a historical Indian-ness, when even today it is still being moulded.

There are so many facts negating the historical Indian nationhood, but I've tried to present the essential ones, I hope you will find it helpful.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Mangus Ortus Novem @masterchief_mirza @SecularNationalist

Not even in the Ashoka the great times India was one country and in just 72 years the brainwashed bhartis are expecting a miracle and that too under the hindutva umbrella lol.
It's a artificial nation of 1.2 billion people facing identity crisis.

 

[Surya 1]

China that was unified under Qin Shi Huang introduced a standardized writing system which inevitably boosted the economy, innovation and laid foundation to what China is today. India on the other hand focused on diversity and the result was the empire fragmenting into many smaller states only to never recover again. Having a large population under a unified culture brings great benefits and the military power it provides would have been enough to repel invasions to India.

What do modern Indians think about this?

That is done in China by enslaving people of China. Sorry, that model is not acceptable. China can enjoy that.

 

[PeacefulWar]

There would be if the rulers in the Mayuryan dynasty had some vision and tried to homogenize the subjects in the empire. There also wouldn't be a China if this didn't happen there.

Qin Shi Huang standardize the official "font" for the writing and road/track's width.
But it's still the same language and character which is used by all Chinese.
Long long before Qin, all the kingdoms in China shared the same ID already.
All kingdoms recognize each other as same ethic as "华夏" to differentiate themselves from those nomads.


Don't know much about Indian history, but apparently very different case from what I know.
Before British coming, they don't think they are same ethic at all.
Unless we are talking about "colonize" whole India area by one of the powerful kingdom.
But then it's a different topic and TBH that will make no different than what British did to it anyway.

 

[faithfulguy]

Qin Shi Huang standardize the official "font" for the writing and road/track's width.
But it's still the same language and character which is used by all Chinese.
Long long before Qin, all the kingdoms in China shared the same ID already.
All kingdoms recognize each other as same ethic as "华夏" to differentiate themselves from those nomads.


Don't know much about Indian history, but apparently very different case from what I know.
Before British coming, they don't think they are same ethic at all.
Unless we are talking about "colonize" whole India area by one of the powerful kingdom.
But then it's a different topic and TBH that will make no different than what British did to it anyway.

China as a civilization started thousands of years ago but China as a nation started in 221 BC.The existing Indian civilization started by Aryan invasion displacing the existing people that I assumed turned to the lower casts. And British created India in 1947. So China is a 2200+ year old country, and India is a 73 year old country.Prior to British creation of India, India was a geographical expression.

 

[faithfulguy]

That is done in China by enslaving people of China. Sorry, that model is not acceptable. China can enjoy that.

So India was enslaved by the British to created India. And you had zero said to whether that was acceptable or not. So the only way to rectify this enslavement is to split India back to the pieces prior to the British arrival.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

Forget the past, can India become the new Chin? Evidence suggests not.

 

[Uguduwa]

You cant "focus on diversity", identify and culture is not manufactured. You are viewing history through purely a modern prism. That's an incorrect approach.
A cultural identity in all its manifestations of language, food, beliefs etc... is developed by a collective consciousness, it does not grow by design.

More then 90% of China is of Han ethnicity. Whereas the largest ethnic group in South Asia are the Punjabi (Pakistan 120 million, India 40 million) and Bengali (Bangladesh 160 million, India 80 million).
Population of South Asia is about 1.8 billion. So Punjabis are about 9% and Bengalis about 13% of South Asia. Both these groups are totally different to one another in every meaningful way.

A historical India is a moot point, because it has no basis in reality. just as a historical European nationhood is a logical fallacy. South Asians share cultural similarities among other things, just like the Europeans or an African but there are many distinct actual historical nations.

The Chinese decided to adopt a unified culture, of which language is a primary part, by recognising the need for it. If it was so simple to create an identity, the Jews would be no more, they have faced immense levels of persecution at the hands of the Europeans throughout history, but identity cannot be forced, if the recipient is not willing to adopt it.

So, China is a nation because you guys over time adopted a Chinese identity. South Asians are not a nation because there was no identifiable Indian identity to hold on to. A Punjabi, Marathi, Bengali, Tamil and so many other groups created their own identities because that was what they wanted. Even today, India does not have a national language because the south region of India refuses to accept Hindi. They have two official languages, Hindi and English and many scheduled languages, but no NATIONAL language. So, even today an Indian nationhood is a work in progress, how can there be a historical Indian-ness, when even today it is still being moulded.

There are so many facts negating the historical Indian nationhood, but I've tried to present the essential ones, I hope you will find it helpful.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Mangus Ortus Novem @masterchief_mirza @SecularNationalist

You made some really good points. I will add some points too.

I see China as an ever expansive empire. Since thousands of years, it has captured more territory and absorbed more people by cultural assimilation. There was never any specific need for this but it happened for the benefit of the state anyway. Modern China continue this practice to this day by pushing Mandarin as the state language and reducing cultural footprint of minorities in frontier regions. If you look at many other Asian countries, you would also notice that China is not exactly unique in this practice. There are many more that believe in assimilation and standardization. Country I was born Sri Lanka is one of those states that go by this practice which is the reason for recent tension between minorities and the majority.

Today's China also has a considerable amount of diversity within the Han ethnic group that for an outsider like me is hardly a monolithic people.

My point is exactly that modern India and Pakistan are entities that don't make so much sense. Why are completely different groups whose languages are not at all intelligible forced into one block? Why are Dravidians and Indics forced into one block that is India? Why are Iranics and Indics forced into one blcok that is Pakistan? I think these issues have made an identity vacuum that is now being filled by religion and open for outside interference. I think during the expansion of Mayuryan empire, the rulers should have pushed for homogenization, not in the lines of modern India but in its own natural course. In this way, you wouldn't have so many smaller states warring with each other but big countries whose borders are defined by natural barriers. Ideally I would rather have countries that make sense in South Asia.

 

[Uguduwa]

Qin Shi Huang standardize the official "font" for the writing and road/track's width.
But it's still the same language and character which is used by all Chinese.
Long long before Qin, all the kingdoms in China shared the same ID already.
All kingdoms recognize each other as same ethic as "华夏" to differentiate themselves from those nomads.


Don't know much about Indian history, but apparently very different case from what I know.
Before British coming, they don't think they are same ethic at all.
Unless we are talking about "colonize" whole India area by one of the powerful kingdom.
But then it's a different topic and TBH that will make no different than what British did to it anyway.

I do think it would have been better if one dominant Indian empire colonized the rest and pushed for one identity.