5 ms·

> A nation is peoples, tribes and ethnic groups that, in spite of differences, have something in common that binds them. What is that then? Because it can't be

> A nation is peoples, tribes and ethnic groups that, in spite of differences, have something in common that binds them. What is that then? Because it can't be race, religion, language etc etc. Really the nation of "India" was created by Britain. It is perfectly easy to imagine an alternative history where the Raj never existed, states in the Indian subcontinent weren't united and so no modern Indian nation as we know it today was ever birthed. In this view, the Indian "nation" would be like the European "nation" - a fiction. Just because a bunch of people live there with some similar religion and some cultural similarities at a very high level, does not a nation make. I can imagine in 100 years European nationalists of some new EU state trying to invent a history of the European "nation" that predates their state all through history. But it is just stories with no basis in reality.

sinyug 5y ago
> What is that then? Because it can't be race, religion, language etc etc. It can be all of those or none of those. A tribe or ethnic group can be a nation by itself. They could join other similar peoples to form a nation if there is strong cultural commonality. A bunch of anime-loving randos living in the same apartment complex does not make them a nation. > Really the nation of "India" was created by Britain. The state or political entity that is India is a descendant of the Raj. To say that a people who have no sense of their own nation created the Indian nation is a joke. What you can say is that the political entity that represents the English Crown created the political entity that is the Republic of India. > the European "nation" - a fiction. The European "nation" IS a fiction. There is no shared ethnicity, language, religion or culture. That is why the project is doomed to fail. Pan-Africanism, Pan-Arabism, Pan-Europeanism etc will never work because there is no glue that can bind the different nations together.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > The European "nation" IS a fiction. Let's apply the same logic to India > There is no shared ethnicity, India has more than two thousand ethnic groups > language, There are 22 officially recognised languages in India. That's out of 122 major languages spoken in India. > religion 79.8% of the population of India practices Hinduism, 14.2% adheres to Islam, 2.3% adheres to Christianity, 1.7% adheres to Sikhism, 0.7% adheres to Buddhism, and 0.4% adheres to Jainism > or culture. Definition of culture is too complex, but I'd say it's as varied (or probably more varied than) European.
  - sinyug 5y ago
    > India has more than two thousand ethnic groups With strong cultural bonds. You put a guy from Karnataka in the same room as someone from Assam and they will have more in common with each other than someone from Ireland with someone from Turkey. > There are 22 officially recognized languages in India. You can roam most of India if you known two languages: English and Hindi. Can you say the same thing about Europe? > 79.8% of the population of India practices Hinduism, 14.2% adheres to Islam, 2.3% adheres to Christianity, 1.7% adheres to Sikhism, 0.7% adheres to Buddhism, and 0.4% adheres to Jainism If you know about the partition of India, you will also know that it was the result of the "two-nation" theory,[1] the idea that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations sharing the same political borders and that each nation should have its own state. While modern India is a predominantly Hindu country, the significant percentage of Muslims who continue to live here after the partition gave them their own country keeps the theory alive. The constant riots and political conflicts between Hindus and Muslims is proof of this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-nation_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-nation_theory
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > With strong cultural bonds. You put a guy from Karnataka in the same room as someone from Assam and they will have more in common with each other than someone from Ireland with someone from Turkey. Ah yes. But if you put someone from Ireland with someone from Italy, they will have as much in common as those to guys you mentioned. > You can roam most of India if you known two languages: English and Hindi. Ah yes. English. How did you put it? "To say that a people who have no sense of their own nation created the Indian nation is a joke." And now you mention English (before Hindi) as a "shared language". Additionally, "Although Widely Spoken, Around 56% of Indians Don't Identify Hindi as Their Mother Tongue" [1] > If you know about the partition of India, Doesn't matter what I think or two-nations theory. The fact is that India has as much "shared religion" as Europe. [1] https://www.news18.com/news/india/although-widely-spoken-hindi-is-not-the-mother-tongue-of-almost-6-out-of-10-indians-2308927.html https://www.news18.com/news/india/although-widely-spoken-hin...
      - 5y ago
- naruvimama 5y ago
  >> Let's apply the same logic to India A neighbouring country like Nepal or Sri Lanka can if they desire in the future merge with Bharat without having to "intergrate" or change themselves in any way. That is because they have a shared cultural and historical continuity as part of an ancient civilisation. And India is pluralistic in its very nature. European nations a too narrow in their idea of nation - linguistic, cultural. It would be impossible for them to expand beyond this narrow idea.
naruvimama 5y ago
The proof is in the pudding, India is the size of western Europe. In contrast with the EU, it is extremely diverse in terms of language, culture, food and the contrast in wealth distribution is very stark. Inspite of this it is still one nation, while the EU is constantly bickering about trivial things. It requires more than a thousand years to establish a civilisation, and India is a civilisation temporarily trapped in a weak western concept of a nation state. >> Really the nation of "India" was created by Britain. India has been recognised as a single entity for a long time before the British, for instance the Ancient Romans, Chinese, Arabs and Greeks.
- JetSetWilly 5y ago
  > India has been recognised as a single entity for a long time before the British, for instance the Ancient Romans, Chinese, Arabs and Greeks. So has "Europe" been recognised as a "single entity". Or "Christendom" or many other entities. The reason India is a single state is because of an accident of history - that Britain colonised it, built a ruling elite and civil service, and so constructed it as a state. If it weren't for that accident of history, India would most likely be as it was before - a collection of states "bickering about trivial things".
  - naruvimama 5y ago
    Britain at its peak had colonised about 80% of the world, do not see any other big country accidentally created by Britain. Britain has been known for divide and rule, especially for a region like India that has had a long history of massive Empires. Let us remember that the British did leave India as a collection of 600+ princely states. It was the Indians who convinced them to join the union. The EU was formed with trade as a carrot to prevent them from going at each others throats, we have had Brexit in spite of that. The Arabs are famously have a mostly homogeneous religion and language but have been at each others throats. India is an old and continuous civilisation, it takes a lot of trial, error and learning to have a long running civilisation.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago

sinyug 5y ago

> What is that then? Because it can't be race, religion, language etc etc. It can be all of those or none of those. A tribe or ethnic group can be a nation by itself. They could join other similar peoples to form a nation if there is strong cultural commonality. A bunch of anime-loving randos living in the same apartment complex does not make them a nation. > Really the nation of "India" was created by Britain. The state or political entity that is India is a descendant of the Raj. To say that a people who have no sense of their own nation created the Indian nation is a joke. What you can say is that the political entity that represents the English Crown created the political entity that is the Republic of India. > the European "nation" - a fiction. The European "nation" IS a fiction. There is no shared ethnicity, language, religion or culture. That is why the project is doomed to fail. Pan-Africanism, Pan-Arabism, Pan-Europeanism etc will never work because there is no glue that can bind the different nations together.

dmitriid 5y ago
> The European "nation" IS a fiction. Let's apply the same logic to India > There is no shared ethnicity, India has more than two thousand ethnic groups > language, There are 22 officially recognised languages in India. That's out of 122 major languages spoken in India. > religion 79.8% of the population of India practices Hinduism, 14.2% adheres to Islam, 2.3% adheres to Christianity, 1.7% adheres to Sikhism, 0.7% adheres to Buddhism, and 0.4% adheres to Jainism > or culture. Definition of culture is too complex, but I'd say it's as varied (or probably more varied than) European.
- sinyug 5y ago
  > India has more than two thousand ethnic groups With strong cultural bonds. You put a guy from Karnataka in the same room as someone from Assam and they will have more in common with each other than someone from Ireland with someone from Turkey. > There are 22 officially recognized languages in India. You can roam most of India if you known two languages: English and Hindi. Can you say the same thing about Europe? > 79.8% of the population of India practices Hinduism, 14.2% adheres to Islam, 2.3% adheres to Christianity, 1.7% adheres to Sikhism, 0.7% adheres to Buddhism, and 0.4% adheres to Jainism If you know about the partition of India, you will also know that it was the result of the "two-nation" theory,[1] the idea that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations sharing the same political borders and that each nation should have its own state. While modern India is a predominantly Hindu country, the significant percentage of Muslims who continue to live here after the partition gave them their own country keeps the theory alive. The constant riots and political conflicts between Hindus and Muslims is proof of this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-nation_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-nation_theory
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > With strong cultural bonds. You put a guy from Karnataka in the same room as someone from Assam and they will have more in common with each other than someone from Ireland with someone from Turkey. Ah yes. But if you put someone from Ireland with someone from Italy, they will have as much in common as those to guys you mentioned. > You can roam most of India if you known two languages: English and Hindi. Ah yes. English. How did you put it? "To say that a people who have no sense of their own nation created the Indian nation is a joke." And now you mention English (before Hindi) as a "shared language". Additionally, "Although Widely Spoken, Around 56% of Indians Don't Identify Hindi as Their Mother Tongue" [1] > If you know about the partition of India, Doesn't matter what I think or two-nations theory. The fact is that India has as much "shared religion" as Europe. [1] https://www.news18.com/news/india/although-widely-spoken-hindi-is-not-the-mother-tongue-of-almost-6-out-of-10-indians-2308927.html https://www.news18.com/news/india/although-widely-spoken-hin...
    - 5y ago
naruvimama 5y ago
>> Let's apply the same logic to India A neighbouring country like Nepal or Sri Lanka can if they desire in the future merge with Bharat without having to "intergrate" or change themselves in any way. That is because they have a shared cultural and historical continuity as part of an ancient civilisation. And India is pluralistic in its very nature. European nations a too narrow in their idea of nation - linguistic, cultural. It would be impossible for them to expand beyond this narrow idea.

naruvimama 5y ago

The proof is in the pudding, India is the size of western Europe. In contrast with the EU, it is extremely diverse in terms of language, culture, food and the contrast in wealth distribution is very stark. Inspite of this it is still one nation, while the EU is constantly bickering about trivial things. It requires more than a thousand years to establish a civilisation, and India is a civilisation temporarily trapped in a weak western concept of a nation state. >> Really the nation of "India" was created by Britain. India has been recognised as a single entity for a long time before the British, for instance the Ancient Romans, Chinese, Arabs and Greeks.

JetSetWilly 5y ago
> India has been recognised as a single entity for a long time before the British, for instance the Ancient Romans, Chinese, Arabs and Greeks. So has "Europe" been recognised as a "single entity". Or "Christendom" or many other entities. The reason India is a single state is because of an accident of history - that Britain colonised it, built a ruling elite and civil service, and so constructed it as a state. If it weren't for that accident of history, India would most likely be as it was before - a collection of states "bickering about trivial things".
- naruvimama 5y ago
  Britain at its peak had colonised about 80% of the world, do not see any other big country accidentally created by Britain. Britain has been known for divide and rule, especially for a region like India that has had a long history of massive Empires. Let us remember that the British did leave India as a collection of 600+ princely states. It was the Indians who convinced them to join the union. The EU was formed with trade as a carrot to prevent them from going at each others throats, we have had Brexit in spite of that. The Arabs are famously have a mostly homogeneous religion and language but have been at each others throats. India is an old and continuous civilisation, it takes a lot of trial, error and learning to have a long running civilisation.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago