How many countries were fragmented? How many united? China, Germany, Italy - all were unified. By force.
Why not us?
Fine ; but what about the Circumstances of the Reunification
Germany and Italy were in Europe and those were the times of British and French Ascendancy
The whole programme of colonialism and imperialism had begun
And for Germany and Italy ; to become a United powerful country was the only way to survive
Otherwise Britain France and Russia would have eaten it up
Now coming to China
China suffered exactly like India ; even worse during colonialism
A small Japan made life impossible for them ; why ; because they were Fragmented
How and when did we Indians learnt the importance of Unity
When The British established a Government and the Wars stopped then
the intellectuals sat down and studied the History of India
The only common thread was DISUNITY
That is why after Independence there was as STRONG desire to make a BIG united India
And with Time it has only got better and stronger
Just see how violently we NOW react when a Rat called Kanhaiya calls
for Bharat ke Tukde
Well my contention is that if you have a strong position politically and economically, you can dictate terms..
India is neither in a position to demand or protest at this point...zero leverage.
BUT i agree with you that it doesnt mean we should give up claim..just means we gotta have patience and make such claims once we are stronger..in fact i would go as far to say that the british themselves might be inclined to hand it back over if and when India reaches such a point.
Nevertheless this is a government claim..and a new govt. can easily change its stance.
I would speculate that the current Government is making this waiver based on current situation where India stands to gain a lot (much more than the worth or symbolism of the kohinoor) from the west...so this stance makes sense so as not to stir up unnecessary shit.
I actually have to disagree with you on the point that nationalism did not exist before the british...
The term "swaraj" was first used by the marathas and was in essence the modern meaning of it..ie. nationalism before ethnic and religious divide.
Marathas had united most of India and had panipat not failed (for many reasons), India would have seen a united rule after many centuries and the british would have had a much harder time gaining foothold in India..
Nevertheless, there are a lot of could've, should've, would'ves in this line of argument...BUT def no 300 little afghanistans....no way!!
Even if the Marathas had won the Panipat battle what would have happened next
The Huge Maratha empire would have split in Fifty years
Already the Five principalities namely Peshwa ; Gaikwad ; Bhosle ; Scindia and Holkar
had emerged
Then Marathas would have got into fights with Sikhs ; Rajputs ; Pathans and Jats
Why would the fiercely independent Sikhs Rajputs and jats ever accept a Maratha
LED India
The Battle for the Throne of Delhi would have gone on and on
In time another Abdali or Nadir Shah would have emerged
Secondly what about the Deccan and East India
They were outside Delhi's influence anyway
This game of thrones would have continued with AK 47 and RPG s
Look at so many African countries ; Poverty and Civil war and Militias
In our case it was also about Caste ; Language and religion
We could have NEVER united on our Own