6 ms·

Fascinating story. This brings fourth how complex a country India is. Before (and even during) the British rule India was a ruled tens of of such princely stat

Fascinating story. This brings fourth how complex a country India is. Before (and even during) the British rule India was a ruled tens of of such princely states each in turn had hundreds of low level feudal lords. While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc., India truly became a single political entity only after those hundreds or so kings were forced to abdicate their rule. I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India and not to some princely state.

jangid 5y ago
True. And some states will still take another couple of generations. For example, no sense of Indian-ness was observed when killing Assam policemen by the fellow Indians on the other side fighting over state border. I remember a discussion a couple of years ago. Why Indian states are not as straight cut as US states? The above incident is an example why it is not possible as yet here. I am not saying it is good or bad.
- pranavdotexe 5y ago
  I think in every case around the world except North America, borders are associated with centuries of history. Since today's North American's aren't native - the borders weren't necessarily meant to follow any historical significance. This might be the reason of straight demarcations.
- chakkepolja 5y ago
  Indian states are often based on linguistic divisions.
thedravidian 5y ago
> I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India Most of the people in my state, and a lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India". India seems to expect us to fall to the ground and worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense, and we decline. We don't belong to anyone other than ourselves. Thank you.
- phekunde 5y ago
  Looks like the movie theaters are not yet open in Tamil Nadu!
  - sameerds 5y ago
    I wonder how many will catch on to that "ghati" username! Good one, though!
    - phekunde 5y ago
      So finally, someone did catch it ;)
- throwaway636536 5y ago
  > lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India" Speak for yourself/Tamil Nadu. I'm from Karnataka (a southern state) and majority of kannadigas love India and are patriotic. > worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense Why do you believe that north indian language and religion are nonsense? I've lived in New Delhi for more than half of my childhood and I don't think North Indians are backward relative to South Indians. Although they are relatively poor.
  - phekunde 5y ago
    > Why do you believe that north indian language are nonsense? Hindi language should first correct the pronunciation of words like "Baink" for Bank, "Baal" for Ball, "Daaktar" for Doctor etc. And then thinking of enforcing that language on rest of the country. I am curious, why Samskrut is not used as a common language for India, like how Hebrew resurrected as a language of Israel? With English as second language, and mother-tongue as the the third language. Samskrut has a treasure trove of important literature that not many in India understand!
    - foolinaround 5y ago
truth_ 5y ago
> While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc., This is only true for non-Presidency regions. This was not true for Calcutta and Bengal, Madras and Madras area, and Bombay and Bombay area. Not coincidentally, these regions were, and still are more progressive areas of India.
phekunde 5y ago
Some of what you said is not true. There were attempts made to unify "India" even before the British came to India. Infact the term "Hindu", "Hindi", "India", "Hindustan" is not Indian in the first place. The words "Hindu", "Hindi" and "Hindustan" were given to the people risiding east of the Indu/Sindhu river by the Persian/Arabic visitors and invaders. And the word "India" was derived from the word "Hindustan" by the European invaders and visitors as such: "Hindustan" became "Indostan", and then "Indostan" was further shortened to "India". So people visiting/invading the eastern parts of the Indu/Sindhu river were considering the people there as one civilisation if not one country. But there were attempts made before, as far back as Chanakya, to unify the people under one rule.
- vishnugupta 5y ago
  I am aware of the origin of the words India and Hindu which I find bemusing. > So people visiting/invading the eastern parts of the Indu/Sindhu river were considering the people there as one civilisation if not one country. I conjecture it is natural for foreigners at that time to refer to the land (and hence the people residing there) east of Sindhu river as India/Indians. For them it was just an alien/different region. For example, to refer Asoka as Indian ruler as in "king who belongs to India" and not "Ruler of India". I'm curious to know if the contemporary people living in different parts of Indian land felt as if they belonged to India as a whole. Though possible, it is highly unlikely IMO. I highly doubt if a farmer in a village in Kerala would consider a village in Punjab as belonging to his nation. > But there were attempts made before, as far back as Chanakya, to unify the people under one rule. I've read/seen this in popular stories (Chanakya serial from 1990s is decent) but I don't know how authentic they are. I'd love to read more on this topic, preferably by historians. My naive search was fruitless. One thing to note is that Indian historical records from that period are extremely rare making it all the more difficult. It's a pity that Indians of that didn't write as much as Romans did.
  - tsjq 5y ago
    > I highly doubt if a farmer in a village in Kerala would consider a village in Punjab as belonging to his nation haha, not even today
foolinaround 5y ago
> I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India The Indian govt continues to use the old British policy of different people groups in quelling dissidence still. Our armed forced divisions are still based on people groups, and if they want to put forces in Kashmir, then they deploy non-native forces, who have less affinity to the local population. This might also explain some of the excesses seen.
jhbadger 5y ago
A lot of countries (even Western ones) were like that. Both unified Germany and Italy were creations of the 19th century. Before that, both were just a collection of small kingdoms/principalities/republics that shared a similar dialect and culture.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  > shared a similar dialect and culture Culture is similar, but they are often not dialects but entirely different languages in many cases. the peoples in the different old German and Italian kingdom were not different peoples, they were just split because of different powers, thats not the case here...
rishav_sharan 5y ago
Ladies and gentlemen. Enjoy the Indian thread. Unity in diversity!
amriksohata 5y ago
unify india what? india was unified many times in history including Maratha rule, britain if anything divided india before it left into many states, they decided to unify themselves into the union of india despite britain breaking them down.
- throw13579 5y ago
  exactly. HN threads about india tend to take a warped eurocentric view. which makes sense.

jangid 5y ago

True. And some states will still take another couple of generations. For example, no sense of Indian-ness was observed when killing Assam policemen by the fellow Indians on the other side fighting over state border. I remember a discussion a couple of years ago. Why Indian states are not as straight cut as US states? The above incident is an example why it is not possible as yet here. I am not saying it is good or bad.

pranavdotexe 5y ago
I think in every case around the world except North America, borders are associated with centuries of history. Since today's North American's aren't native - the borders weren't necessarily meant to follow any historical significance. This might be the reason of straight demarcations.
chakkepolja 5y ago
Indian states are often based on linguistic divisions.

thedravidian 5y ago

> I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India Most of the people in my state, and a lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India". India seems to expect us to fall to the ground and worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense, and we decline. We don't belong to anyone other than ourselves. Thank you.

phekunde 5y ago
Looks like the movie theaters are not yet open in Tamil Nadu!
- sameerds 5y ago
  I wonder how many will catch on to that "ghati" username! Good one, though!
  - phekunde 5y ago
    So finally, someone did catch it ;)
throwaway636536 5y ago
> lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India" Speak for yourself/Tamil Nadu. I'm from Karnataka (a southern state) and majority of kannadigas love India and are patriotic. > worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense Why do you believe that north indian language and religion are nonsense? I've lived in New Delhi for more than half of my childhood and I don't think North Indians are backward relative to South Indians. Although they are relatively poor.
- phekunde 5y ago
  > Why do you believe that north indian language are nonsense? Hindi language should first correct the pronunciation of words like "Baink" for Bank, "Baal" for Ball, "Daaktar" for Doctor etc. And then thinking of enforcing that language on rest of the country. I am curious, why Samskrut is not used as a common language for India, like how Hebrew resurrected as a language of Israel? With English as second language, and mother-tongue as the the third language. Samskrut has a treasure trove of important literature that not many in India understand!
  - foolinaround 5y ago

truth_ 5y ago

> While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc., This is only true for non-Presidency regions. This was not true for Calcutta and Bengal, Madras and Madras area, and Bombay and Bombay area. Not coincidentally, these regions were, and still are more progressive areas of India.

phekunde 5y ago

Some of what you said is not true. There were attempts made to unify "India" even before the British came to India. Infact the term "Hindu", "Hindi", "India", "Hindustan" is not Indian in the first place. The words "Hindu", "Hindi" and "Hindustan" were given to the people risiding east of the Indu/Sindhu river by the Persian/Arabic visitors and invaders. And the word "India" was derived from the word "Hindustan" by the European invaders and visitors as such: "Hindustan" became "Indostan", and then "Indostan" was further shortened to "India". So people visiting/invading the eastern parts of the Indu/Sindhu river were considering the people there as one civilisation if not one country. But there were attempts made before, as far back as Chanakya, to unify the people under one rule.

vishnugupta 5y ago
I am aware of the origin of the words India and Hindu which I find bemusing. > So people visiting/invading the eastern parts of the Indu/Sindhu river were considering the people there as one civilisation if not one country. I conjecture it is natural for foreigners at that time to refer to the land (and hence the people residing there) east of Sindhu river as India/Indians. For them it was just an alien/different region. For example, to refer Asoka as Indian ruler as in "king who belongs to India" and not "Ruler of India". I'm curious to know if the contemporary people living in different parts of Indian land felt as if they belonged to India as a whole. Though possible, it is highly unlikely IMO. I highly doubt if a farmer in a village in Kerala would consider a village in Punjab as belonging to his nation. > But there were attempts made before, as far back as Chanakya, to unify the people under one rule. I've read/seen this in popular stories (Chanakya serial from 1990s is decent) but I don't know how authentic they are. I'd love to read more on this topic, preferably by historians. My naive search was fruitless. One thing to note is that Indian historical records from that period are extremely rare making it all the more difficult. It's a pity that Indians of that didn't write as much as Romans did.
- tsjq 5y ago
  > I highly doubt if a farmer in a village in Kerala would consider a village in Punjab as belonging to his nation haha, not even today

foolinaround 5y ago

> I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India The Indian govt continues to use the old British policy of different people groups in quelling dissidence still. Our armed forced divisions are still based on people groups, and if they want to put forces in Kashmir, then they deploy non-native forces, who have less affinity to the local population. This might also explain some of the excesses seen.

jhbadger 5y ago

A lot of countries (even Western ones) were like that. Both unified Germany and Italy were creations of the 19th century. Before that, both were just a collection of small kingdoms/principalities/republics that shared a similar dialect and culture.

foolinaround 5y ago
> shared a similar dialect and culture Culture is similar, but they are often not dialects but entirely different languages in many cases. the peoples in the different old German and Italian kingdom were not different peoples, they were just split because of different powers, thats not the case here...

rishav_sharan 5y ago

Ladies and gentlemen. Enjoy the Indian thread. Unity in diversity!

amriksohata 5y ago

unify india what? india was unified many times in history including Maratha rule, britain if anything divided india before it left into many states, they decided to unify themselves into the union of india despite britain breaking them down.

throw13579 5y ago
exactly. HN threads about india tend to take a warped eurocentric view. which makes sense.