How to manage India

[prashantazazel]

Before the British. There isn't India. You need to get your facts straight.

This region has long been considered as a singular entity by outsiders like China , Arabs, Africans and Europeans. It has been called by different names.
Several rulers like the mughals, chandragupta maurya, ashoka had large empires and united most of the region.
When you try to argue against this, you are most certainly derailing the discussion.

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

India wasn't independent till 1948 British was running that union they had time and resources to run that land.
Pakistan can and still managing that country India is very sensitive about its independent movements imagin the way India is trying so much to destabilise blouchistan if we do 10%of that kind of effort in India. .

 

[jetray]

This region has long been considered as a singular entity by outsiders like China , Arabs, Africans and Europeans. It has been called by different names.
Several rulers like the mughals, chandragupta maurya, ashoka had large empires and united most of the region.
When you try to argue against this, you are most certainly derailing the discussion.

poor ppl their automatic muscle memory clicks in whenever they hear India.
Most of the middle eastern countries like lebanon,syria,jordan,iraq and pakistan is creation of western powers. Instead of acknowledging the fact they slander others. No wonder they are in perpetual ignorance.

 

[itachii]

Before the British. There isn't India. You need to get your facts straight.

Sub continent was always referred to as bharatvarsha/Jambu dweepa in our religious/ancient historical books. Even chinese called the present day India as Tianzhu. Doesn't matter if we were ruled by many small kingdoms.

India wasn't independent till 1948 British was running that union they had time and resources to run that land.
Pakistan can and still managing that country India is very sensitive about its independent movements imagin the way India is trying so much to destabilise blouchistan if we do 10%of that kind of effort in India. .

You did and yout policy of death by 1000 cuts failed miserably.

 

[seesonic]

This region has long been considered as a singular entity by outsiders like China , Arabs, Africans and Europeans. It has been called by different names.
Several rulers like the mughals, chandragupta maurya, ashoka had large empires and united most of the region.
When you try to argue against this, you are most certainly derailing the discussion.

Sub continent was always referred to as bharatvarsha/Jambu dweepa in our religious/ancient historical books. Even chinese called the present day India as Tianzhu. Doesn't matter if we were ruled by many small kingdoms.



You did and yout policy of death by 1000 cuts failed miserably.

blah blah blah

Just like the entire South China Sea, Taiwan should rightfully belong to modern day China right?

 

[prashantazazel]

blah blah blah

Just like the entire South China Sea, Taiwan should rightfully belong to modern day China right?

Depends. If they already have a functional government and better economy , they probably don't want to merge.
Why should the sea be exclusively Chinese? It is common territory for a lot of nations.

 

[seesonic]

Depends. If they already have a functional government and better economy , they probably don't want to merge.
Why should the sea be exclusively Chinese? It is common territory for a lot of nations.

It was the British that united the land. Stop claiming credit for those of higher caste than you.

Your so called prince or warlord are no match for the British with proven war strategy and firepower as evident by the term "British India".

If modern day indians can claim credit for the union dated by more than 200 years ago. Similarly the chinese definitely has all disputed islands in South China Sea dated back to the Qing dynasty and further back.

 

[Politico]

It was the British that united the land. Stop claiming credit for those of higher caste than you.

Your so called prince or warlord are no match for the British with proven war strategy and firepower as evident by the term "British India".

If modern day indians can claim credit for the union dated by more than 200 years ago. Similarly the chinese definitely has all disputed islands in South China Sea dated back to the Qing dynasty and further back.

You give Britain too much credit. Despite Britain creating Pakistan (and doing a miserable job of it by carving out territory which was designed to ensure maximum political and economical difficulty in governing), India as a nation was acknowledged as existing way before the British landed in the sub-continent.

 

[prashantazazel]

It was the British that united the land. Stop claiming credit for those of higher caste than you.

Your so called prince or warlord are no match for the British with proven war strategy and firepower as evident by the term "British India".

If modern day indians can claim credit for the union dated by more than 200 years ago. Similarly the chinese definitely has all disputed islands in South China Sea dated back to the Qing dynasty and further back.

Relax. The British knew they were colonising "India".

I would agree that the made the union stronger.

 

[seesonic]

You give Britain too much credit. Despite Britain creating Pakistan (and doing a miserable job of it by carving out territory which was designed to ensure maximum political and economical difficulty in governing), India as a nation was acknowledged as existing way before the British landed in the sub-continent.

 

[Salik]

Most of the middle eastern countries like lebanon,syria,jordan,iraq and pakistan is creation of western powers. Instead of acknowledging the fact they slander others. No wonder they are in perpetual ignorance.

Terminal decline of Mughal empire started with the Marathas military resurgence.

"By the mid-18th century, the Marathas had routed Mughal armies and won over several Mughal provinces from the Punjab to Bengal.[37]"

With the decline of British Raj, Pakistan movement started from there.

So there was no display of unusual behavior in 1947. Creation of Pakistan was really due to the true nature of the people of Subcontinent. I get the answer here. It also bursts the myth that Pakistan was created by Britishers or Western powers but the centuries old pattern of the region.

Coming to the current India, no doubt it's a big country, it will require solid center to be manageable.

 

[faithfulguy]

India and Pakistan both existed after British left. Either Hindu Indian or
Muslim Indians could have adopted the name "India". But Muslims adopted the name Pakistan. Adopting a name does not make the country of India centuries old. It's just as old as Pakistan.

 

[PurpleStone]

Terminal decline of Mughal empire started with the Marathas military resurgence.

"By the mid-18th century, the Marathas had routed Mughal armies and won over several Mughal provinces from the Punjab to Bengal.[37]"

With the decline of British Raj, Pakistan movement started from there.

So there was no display of unusual behavior in 1947. Creation of Pakistan was really due to the true nature of the people of Subcontinent. I get the answer here. It also bursts the myth that Pakistan was created by Britishers or Western powers but the centuries old pattern of the region.

Coming to the current India, no doubt it's a big country, it will require solid center to be manageable.

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan is the father of the Pakistan movement. He was very close to and worked for the British. British created the movement for Pakistan to weaken the war of 1857 which was last man standing effort by residual forces of the Mughals and other kings against the East India company before the complete domination of British came to India.