3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > You should get your timelines in order. English is used in modern India. It wasn't me who gave English as an example for a shared language. > Doesn't matter. Most people understand the language There are over a billion people in the world who understand English. By your logic they all "share a language" etc. > 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 They are as much your ancestors as Germanic tribes are ancestors to half the Europe. And as any heroic ancestors they would slit each other's throats if the other looked at them funny. > While peoples within Europe might have something similar, Europe as a political entity As a political entity India came to be because of the Brits. Prior to that it was an ever changing tapestry of various states (like literally everywhere else in the world) at near constant war with each other (again, like literally everywhere else in the world).
  - sinyug 5y ago
    > It wasn't me who gave English as an example for a shared language. "Shared language" in this context is your own phrasing. My examples refer to intelligibility. > By your logic they all "share a language" etc. That is your logic. A common language may not be sufficient to produce and hold a nation. > Germanic tribes are ancestors to half the Europe. The Cholas were in Tamil Nadu when Julius Caesar invaded Great Britain.[1] They were here during the Viking invasions. When the Normans invaded, the Cholas were still here in Tamil Nadu doing their thing. We have been here as a continuous civilization for millennia while maintaining our culture. The same cannot be said about Europe. > As a political entity India came to be because of the Brits. The modern Republic of India, yes. If it has not been obvious from my very first comment, I don't really care about political entities because they come and go through processes which may or may not be violent. What matters to me is the preservation of the language and culture of peoples: civilization. Which does not happen if they are assimilated, replaced or victims of genocide like in Britain, Palestine or the Americas. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_dynasty
naruvimama 5y ago
Linguistic nationalism is a limitation for Europeans. India does not have to impose uniformity on its population in the form of language or culture precisely because it is a civilisation.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  India was a number of different states and empires in near constant war with each other before modern times. Great uniformity, indeed. I'm trying and failing to see who is it that is imposing uniformity on Europeans in the form of language or culture.
  - naruvimama 5y ago
    > India was a number of different states and empires in near constant war with each other before modern times. At different times yes, but there have been Empires of significant size for several centuries. India is about the size of western Europe, and people have have a shared civilisational history in the form of epics. > I'm trying and failing to see who is it that is imposing uniformity on Europeans in the form of language or culture. Conflating linguistic or cultural homogeneity with nationhood is a European limitation, does not apply to India. The EU is constantly struggling with "Integration" and Brexit is a result of the inability to expand beyond language barriers. Civilization is a step above culture, but takes longer to establish.

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.

dmitriid 5y ago
> You should get your timelines in order. English is used in modern India. It wasn't me who gave English as an example for a shared language. > Doesn't matter. Most people understand the language There are over a billion people in the world who understand English. By your logic they all "share a language" etc. > 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 They are as much your ancestors as Germanic tribes are ancestors to half the Europe. And as any heroic ancestors they would slit each other's throats if the other looked at them funny. > While peoples within Europe might have something similar, Europe as a political entity As a political entity India came to be because of the Brits. Prior to that it was an ever changing tapestry of various states (like literally everywhere else in the world) at near constant war with each other (again, like literally everywhere else in the world).
- sinyug 5y ago
  > It wasn't me who gave English as an example for a shared language. "Shared language" in this context is your own phrasing. My examples refer to intelligibility. > By your logic they all "share a language" etc. That is your logic. A common language may not be sufficient to produce and hold a nation. > Germanic tribes are ancestors to half the Europe. The Cholas were in Tamil Nadu when Julius Caesar invaded Great Britain.[1] They were here during the Viking invasions. When the Normans invaded, the Cholas were still here in Tamil Nadu doing their thing. We have been here as a continuous civilization for millennia while maintaining our culture. The same cannot be said about Europe. > As a political entity India came to be because of the Brits. The modern Republic of India, yes. If it has not been obvious from my very first comment, I don't really care about political entities because they come and go through processes which may or may not be violent. What matters to me is the preservation of the language and culture of peoples: civilization. Which does not happen if they are assimilated, replaced or victims of genocide like in Britain, Palestine or the Americas. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_dynasty

naruvimama 5y ago

Linguistic nationalism is a limitation for Europeans. India does not have to impose uniformity on its population in the form of language or culture precisely because it is a civilisation.

dmitriid 5y ago
India was a number of different states and empires in near constant war with each other before modern times. Great uniformity, indeed. I'm trying and failing to see who is it that is imposing uniformity on Europeans in the form of language or culture.
- naruvimama 5y ago
  > India was a number of different states and empires in near constant war with each other before modern times. At different times yes, but there have been Empires of significant size for several centuries. India is about the size of western Europe, and people have have a shared civilisational history in the form of epics. > I'm trying and failing to see who is it that is imposing uniformity on Europeans in the form of language or culture. Conflating linguistic or cultural homogeneity with nationhood is a European limitation, does not apply to India. The EU is constantly struggling with "Integration" and Brexit is a result of the inability to expand beyond language barriers. Civilization is a step above culture, but takes longer to establish.