4 ms·

> 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

by 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...
    - sinyug 5y ago
      > 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." You should get your timelines in order. English is used in modern India. However, like everywhere else, if you go back in time, the invaders imposed their language and customs on the local population. If the Chinese had conquered Central and South America instead of the Europeans, Mexico and Brazil would be speaking Chinese today instead of Spanish and Portuguese. That doesn't mean that American civilizations were ignorant or uncivilized or that they didn't have their own languages. > Additionally, "Although Widely Spoken, Around 56% of Indians Don't Identify Hindi as Their Mother Tongue" Doesn't matter. Most people understand the language as a lot of Indians are multilingual. > The fact is that India has as much "shared religion" as Europe. Only someone who doesn't understand Hindus and their religion can make such assertions. What is called Hinduism has been a way of life across the subcontinent for millennia. Even the name is irrelevant. People don't "become" Hindus. They simply "are." The characters and stories in our sacred texts are not about incidents that happened in Arabia and Africa that is then taught to children in Poland or Ireland or Turkey who have nothing to do with them. They are about our ancestors in this very place. While peoples within Europe might have something similar, Europe as a political entity will never have it.
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.

by sinyug 5y ago

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...
  - sinyug 5y ago
    > 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." You should get your timelines in order. English is used in modern India. However, like everywhere else, if you go back in time, the invaders imposed their language and customs on the local population. If the Chinese had conquered Central and South America instead of the Europeans, Mexico and Brazil would be speaking Chinese today instead of Spanish and Portuguese. That doesn't mean that American civilizations were ignorant or uncivilized or that they didn't have their own languages. > Additionally, "Although Widely Spoken, Around 56% of Indians Don't Identify Hindi as Their Mother Tongue" Doesn't matter. Most people understand the language as a lot of Indians are multilingual. > The fact is that India has as much "shared religion" as Europe. Only someone who doesn't understand Hindus and their religion can make such assertions. What is called Hinduism has been a way of life across the subcontinent for millennia. Even the name is irrelevant. People don't "become" Hindus. They simply "are." The characters and stories in our sacred texts are not about incidents that happened in Arabia and Africa that is then taught to children in Poland or Ireland or Turkey who have nothing to do with them. They are about our ancestors in this very place. While peoples within Europe might have something similar, Europe as a political entity will never have it.

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.