India - An Unnatural Nation

Aug 2017
210
USA
India and China have always been unified political entities since thousands of years, India because of Hinduism and China because Taoism and later because of Buddhism. The cultures of these two countries were the binding forces. Indonesia is an artificial construction. USA, Australia are obviously artificial. Not Russia.
That's a gross oversimplification and almost entirely wrong in the case of your comments on China. India's political history is characterized by long periods of competing regional political entities punctuated by trans-subcontinental political ones. I hesitate to characterize the situation as "disunity punctuated briefly by unity" because this entire narrative is problematic and has been increasingly critiqued in academic circles of late.

India has never been politically unified on the basis of an overarching religious identity. Your injection of anachronisms into eras where they are particularly unwarranted shows an inaccurate understanding the processes that led to the formation of "Hinduism" as we now understand it. For now though, it suffices to say that its silly to speak of "Hinduism" as a concept or ideology cohesive and pervasive enough to have "united" India politically in its history.
 
Last edited:

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,981
India
The Hindu glue is apparently very strong, though. Of course, one could claim that the very classification of various Indian beliefs as Hinduism is itself a Western invention, no?
Hinduism considers 4 Vedas as supreme literature. But Eastern religions has different parameters to define "what's a religion" when compared to Abrahmic religions who are more sort of an organized religions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,981
India
India has never been politically unified on the basis of an overarching religious identity. Your injection of anachronisms into eras where they are particularly unwarranted shows an inaccurate understanding the processes that led to the formation of "Hinduism" as we now understand it. For now though, it suffices to say that its silly to speak of "Hinduism" as a concept or ideology cohesive and pervasive enough to have "united" India politically in its history.
Pan-Hinduism is one of the parameters of define a national identity. Hinduism is quite similar to Judaism, since its the indigenous religion of Indians its both a religion and a culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,327
SoCal
Pan-Hinduism is one of the parameters of define a national identity. Hinduism is quite similar to Judaism, since its the indigenous religion of Indians its both a religion and a culture.
Hinduism is also similar to Judaism in the sense that it discourages proselytization.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,981
India
Hinduism is also similar to Judaism in the sense that it discourages proselytization.
There had always been a historical homeland concept often referred as Bharatavarsha (realm of the descendants of Emperor Bharata) similar to land of Canaan/Israel forJews and Indian nationalism is based upon that. Concept of Bharatavarsha can both be a religious concept or cultural concept.

As per Hindu mythology, Bharata is the first emperor of India and epic poem Mahabharata is often seen as a itihas( history) of Indian people, although Mahabharata is a mythology but every region of India, eastern Pakistan and Bangladesh found mention the epic poem with their ancient names and many of such names still in use or some of such names were revived in modern times. like Gandhara, Madra, Kekeya, Sindhu are in Eastern Pakistan, Pundra in Bangladesh or Kuru, Panchala, Magadha, Mithila, Gaur, Kashmir, Gomantak(Goa) in North India or Karnata, Andhra, Dravida(Tamil Nadu), Kerala in South India.

Since nationalism is a modern concept. So, it don't make much difference if India had been united several times or wasn't united several times. Also, British uniting India for the first time is also a total lie. Mughals in 1707 and Marathas in 1760 were ruling most of the country, the Nizams of Hyderabad were paying tribute to Marathas before British came to their rescue.

British didn't conquer India from Muslims but most of it was ruled by Hindus and Sikhs.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,327
SoCal
That's a gross oversimplification and almost entirely wrong in the case of your comments on China. India's political history is characterized by long periods of competing regional political entities punctuated by trans-subcontinental political ones. I hesitate to characterize the situation as "disunity punctuated briefly by unity" because this entire narrative is problematic and has been increasingly critiqued in academic circles of late.

India has never been politically unified on the basis of an overarching religious identity. Your injection of anachronisms into eras where they are particularly unwarranted shows an inaccurate understanding the processes that led to the formation of "Hinduism" as we now understand it. For now though, it suffices to say that its silly to speak of "Hinduism" as a concept or ideology cohesive and pervasive enough to have "united" India politically in its history.
Do you believe that the concept of Hinduism (as in, as one religion) was the result of colonialism?
 
Mar 2019
1,749
KL
I think the most of the quotations are from colonial british politicians, and who shouldn't be taken seriously because obviously the british colonial politicians wanted to assert the role of british raj in the indian identity, they wanted people to believe that they had given birth to an artificial entity called india and if there was no british raj, there was simply no india.

This colonial statement that British raj gave birth to India otherwise their wouldn't have been any India is just an utter plain lie

India might have been divided into multiple kingdoms, but Indian identity was still recorded 2000 years ago by a foreign chinese historian in Hou Hanshu, i suggest people to read this statement which is pretty evident.

1573067433281.png

The kingdom of Tianzhu [Northwest India] is also called Juandu.
It is several thousand li southeast of the Yuezhi [Kushans]. Their way of life is similar to that of the Yuezhi [Kushans], but the country is low, humid, and hot. This kingdom is beside a great river [the Indus]. The people ride elephants into battle. They are weaker than the Yuezhi [Kushans]. They practice the Buddhist Way, not to kill, or wage war, which has become the custom.

From the Yuezhi [Kushan] and the kingdom of Gaofu [Kabul], heading southwest, you reach the Western Sea. To the east, you reach the kingdom of Panqi [Vanga in Bengal?], which is part of Juandu [India]. Juandu has several hundred other towns. A Chief is placed in each town.

There are several dozen other kingdoms. Each kingdom has its own king. Although the kingdoms differ slightly, they are all still called Juandu.

India was a political entity 1000s of years before there was any nation state called england or britain. Europe is just a modern day construct, comparing it to india is nothing but a big joke

The differences between the countries of Europe were much smaller than those between the ‘countries’ of India. ‘Scotland is more like Spain than Bengal is like the Punjab.’ In India the diversities of race, language and religion were far greater. Unlike in Europe, these ‘countries’ were not nations; they did not have a distinct political or social identity. This, Strachey told his Cambridge audience, ‘is the first and most essential thing to learn about India – that there is not, and never was an India, or even any country of India possessing, according to any European ideas, any sort of unity, physical, political, social or religious’. There was no Indian nation or country in the past; nor would there be one in the future. Strachey thought it "conceivable that national sympathies may arise in particular Indian countries", but "that they should ever extend to India generally, that men of the Punjab, Bengal, the North-western Provinces, and Madras, should ever feel that they belong to one Indian nation, is impossible. You might with as much reason and probability look forward to a time when a single nation will have taken the place of the various nations of Europe."
with the mention of buddhism in NW India, its also pretty evident that India was not even a religious concept but a geopolitical one.

regards
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,749
KL
This simply is not true, India was unified into a federation by the British only a couple centuries ago - it was just a region home to hundreds of different nations and religions and people with their own histories. Your flag, anthem, constitution all came into existence a little more than half a century ago, there was never no Indian nation nor a country called India prior to the arrival of the British.
there were 500+ princely states in india during the british raj, who exercised autonomy, the british raj itself left them choice to seek autonomy from either india or pakistan if they so desired.

regards
 
Last edited:

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,938
Australia
He announced his Make-in-India, Digital India, and Smart Cities policies during the last campaign and has done nothing to implement them in five years.
chowkidar chor hai ("the watchman is a thief"). India is still ranked the most corrupt of all Asian countries.
His demonetization program destroyed small businesses and stifled GDP growth.
His "industry-relevant" skill development program has been a disaster with a lousy 15% job placement rate.
He failed to push through "critical" reforms such as GST and the Land Bill.
His inability to reach a decision on gas pricing or cutting subsidies has destroyed business investment in the sector.
Electricity production has crashed to a 6-year low.
Food prices have deflated, causing many farmers to drown in debt. Last year there were over 60,000 suicides, just in Maharashtra alone.
Private consumption is falling.
Business confidence has slumped.
Unemployment has increased.
Pollution has increased.
Water reserves are being squandered more than ever.
Now for Modi's second term. As of this month:

Economic growth has fallen to its lowest level in 6 years.
Factory output has fallen to its lowest level in 8 years.
Electricity production has fallen to its lowest level in 12 years.
Infrastructure output has fallen to its lowest level in 14 years.
Automobile production and sales have crashed with 350,000 workers laid off and more to come.
Unemployment is at its highest level in 45 years.
National debt has just topped $US 2 trillion for the first time and is projected to rise indefinitely.