This is because the British ruled most of South Asia and it was in the common interest of some rulers to revolt to regain their states, not because there was a concept of a united Indian country.
No it was culmination of a lot of affairs, army corps mutunied, Enfield rifle scenario was one of the kickstarters. The main aim of the revolution was freedom from British rule. Just a hundred years back the Americans got their independence. In 1200 magna carta was signed in modern day England so that kings give limited political rights to citizens. In 1900s Montevideo declaration was signed which defines statehood under International law. Read about how states are formed before stating something. Beating around the same narrative but British created India 70 plus yrs after independence isn't gonna help.
Totally wrong. Russia existed long before the USSR, and the USSR was a united indigenous empire.
India was created and united entirely by the British empire.
Tsars existed before USSR, the Russian Empire rose under Catherine then fell again. USSR was a united indigenous Empire? Tf you on mate, it was an closed off Socialist Republic which was guided by the policies of Moscow. Have you read about the August coup? That was a major reason USSR failed, Gorbachev's liberal policies of Glasnost and Perestroika accelerated the fall of USSR, once the iron wall was down the marxists in USSR saw how bad their economy was and how little political freedom they had.
Also USSR was a culmination of semi automous Oblasts which had limited self governing capacity. The elites in Moscow retained all the power. Remove the Central authority and the house of cards fell. Most of post soviet republics fight between themselves due to religious, nationalism reasons. USSR held them due to a strong central authority for a limited time.
Current Russia is a democracy on paper but in reality it's an oligarchy.
India was created by the British Empire? British gave us the impetus to unite against a common enemy and in turn gave rise to Indian nationalism. The princely rulers understood their era was over, they had two choices either join India or Pakistan, popular vote and population played a factor here. Pakistan tried to influence Hindu majority junagadh but failed to take it and India got Kashmir by the then Hindu ruler.
India's post division leaders and the architect of our constitution were pragmatic individuals, the words secular and the thousands of hours that went into constitutent assembly debates is fascinating to read.
What are you rambling about? Just because the British gave you a huge part of South Asia doesn't mean you get to lay claim on the rest of it. You have nothing to do with the people of Gandhara or Sindh, and no right to steal their achievements and fraudulently claim them as your own.
Lying and stealing is a dishonorable act. But what else do you expect from shameless Indians who sold their daughters to invaders because they were too cowardly to fight.
Keep on rambling I'm not gonna bother talking about how almost all of current Pakistans laws are backwards, you guys still have blasphemy and zamindari laws active in this day and age. Read some history about nations before commenting.
Traced back to their lineages all monarchies are illegitimate, in this world all it matters is for people to believe in something. Populism, nationalism are the keywords here in modern times.
Your national security is compromised, Government is an non elected body running the whole apparatus, foreign diplomacy, economy and world prestige is in shambles, what else is left for a modern day nation state which Pakistan hasn't already defaulted on?
