5 ms·
For recorded history, the subcontinent has been politically unified for -- at most -- 250 years. There are many different nations inside the "Republic of India.
by bshepard 6y ago
For recorded history, the subcontinent has been politically unified for -- at most -- 250 years. There are many different nations inside the "Republic of India." Some of these people are already seeking independence (https://referendum2020.org/ https://referendum2020.org/) and more will join them. In retrospect, "India" will perhaps seem akin to the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Ottoman empire: a cage of nations. One friend of mine in Kolkata has informed me that there is more and more consideration of the "Himalayan Reconfiguration" -- a peaceful liberation of the nations trapped inside of the "Republic of India."
- obiwanpallav1 6y agoThe website link doesn't work and the term "Himalayan Reconfiguration" doesn't provide any contextual search results. Kolkata is a pretty populous city. Along with "Himalayan Reconfiguration" the people there can come up with "Andes Reconfiguration" and "Rocky Reconfiguration" as well. Please don't add comments like this to market the divisive ideas enveloped inside the pseudo armchair philosophy.
- mschuster91 6y ago> In retrospect, "India" will perhaps seem akin to the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Ottoman empire: a cage of nations. As a half-Croat, this reminds me also of a more recent example: the Balkans. Let's just hope and pray to whatever gods we adhere to that, should the situation come to the worst, it won't end in Balkan-level bloodshed.
- bshepard 6y agoYes, very profound point, completely agree.
- 64bittechie 6y agoSure. Its been decades that people have been hoping India would disintegrate. Unity in diversity. One India. Jai Hind!
- peteretep 6y agoI think you can make a pretty compelling case that the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal empire were cases of politically unified India for several hundred years before that.
- varbhat 6y agoNo, South India was not ruled by these empires.
- vijaybritto 6y agoIt was, upto Andhra
- fakedang 6y agoActually upto Arcot in Tamil Nadu. The Nawabate of Arcot was a Mughal governorship that exists even today (in name).
- Apocryphon 6y agoWhat about the Maurya Empire?
- fakedang 6y agoThey didn't conquer the Tamil kings, who were merchants probably. And they had spices!
- peteretep 6y agoYou should probably update Wikipedia then
- majjgepolja 6y agoNot culturally very much. They were probably managed by sub-kings (I forgot the english word). Not a lot changed in South under Mughal rule, compared to north.
- naruvimama 6y agoISIS captured large territories in Syria and Iraq, that doesn't legitimise it as a politically unified nation. This definition works for countries like in Europe who have very little of their pagan roots left. Further more Europe is divided mostly on linguistic and on catholic/protestant divide (with exceptions and then there is Switzerland or Belgium). India is a civilisational state, it has long established cultural interoperability. Indian epics, temples and traditions are 1000s of years old and still maintain deep roots. For Indians, the recent notions of a nation state is irrelevant. If that is the case then perhaps like China you may find more than 60% of its territory held together by force, with Hanification and reeducation camps.
- kumarvvr 6y agoThe oneness of India goes back to thousands of years, as per ancient scriptures and records. Sure, there were different kingdoms and turfs, but the philosophical core of the cpuntry, was based on Sanatana Dharma, common to the sub continent. That is why it was easy to keep it as a coherent unit even after hundreds of ywars of muslim and british rule.
- ra7 6y agoIt's very interesting that there are regular questions about unity of India and subtle calls for breakup of the country on HN. Outside of the Kashmir issue, no one in India even mentions things like "Himalayan Reconfiguration" (first I've heard of the term). I mean, it's a non-existing thing in the country. But I somehow find a link to a fringe website and a "my friend in India told me" anecdote, which is pretty unbecoming of HN but more and more common these days. I’m surprised (and disappointed) dang is allowing this kind of blatant propaganda.
- mcny 6y ago> subtle calls for breakup of the country on HN I didn't read it as a call for breakup of India. There are genuine questions about the state of West Bengal and why it should continue to be a single state. If Telangana can be a state, why not Darjeeling?
- ra7 6y agoGranting statehood/breaking up a large state isn’t what the parent comment is talking about. It’s about “independence from India”.
- rramadass 6y agoThis is a very disingenuous comment and the intentions of "bshepard" are suspect. Nothing in the post is true. Nobody has ever heard of any "Himalayan Reconfiguration" project. What you have are actual seditious groups funded/helped/fanned by India's enemies to divide and break apart the country. The linked website "referendum2020 DOT org" is actually a frontend for a "Khalistani Seditious Group" banned by the Indian Govt. They were one of the groups behind politicizing and fanning the flames during the recent Farmers protest in India.
- dilawar 6y agoI don't think Khalistani has anything to do with Farmers protest. My father lives in Western UP and totally with protestors. And we are not Sikhs. But I also don't understand why government resort to calumny before dialogue? Remember not so long ago we all protested in Delhi against corruption and the "corrupt" government at that time actually had no issue with it. We were not called anti-national then? What changed?
- rramadass 6y agoI used the phrase They were one of the groups. The technique of hijacking a perfectly legitimate movement to push a particular agenda/propaganda is as old as Politics.