4 ms·
That's a shame. You didn't even read the link you were arguing the validity of until now? I still don't think you read it since you've just quoted the thesis bu
by weeksie 10y ago
That's a shame. You didn't even read the link you were arguing the validity of until now? I still don't think you read it since you've just quoted the thesis but not referenced the notion that the idea even of "Hindu" identity just didn't exist, even though the people in the region shared many of the same texts. That's not the same as claiming that the belief systems didn't exist, or that they weren't widely similar, but that they weren't a cohesive unit.
The blog post you linked me to just reinforces my point about nationhood if you'd have been paying much attention to my posts instead of getting defensive about "Indian identity" or whatever.
- eklavya 10y agoI am an Indian, do I need to read a foreign paper to know about my own nation? You are confusing two different topics, we are not discussing the concept "Hindu", we are discussing whether there was an entity "India". The paper you linked says nothing about that. I have told you how the concept of India is very old using the citations in your cited paper. The blog post I linked proves my point so I don't know what you are talking about. What do I have to be defensive about? Do you think I have identity crisis because some random person on the internet has some beliefs? lol