3 ms·

India has had those borders in the same way the 'greater Mediterranean' has had those borders. Mauryans were an empire which means that they ruled over dispara

India has had those borders in the same way the 'greater Mediterranean' has had those borders. Mauryans were an empire which means that they ruled over disparate nations No the country of India is in fact not at all united. The various jatis worship different gods, speak different languages, have distinct cultures. Just because they all celebrate a few holidays in common and have some shared cultural beliefs does not make them the same This is like saying every Roman Catholic is an Italian. Lastly, the Mauryans never ruled all the way to South India. This is the first time in history the entirety of 'Bharat' has been under one polity (although arguably with the exclusion of Pakistan and Bangladesh, even this is wrong).

dyauspitr 2y ago
Every place in the world was small disparate kingdoms until the rise of nation states. If anything India has been united longer than almost any other place in the world. Since when does a country mean a single cultural group? By that metric Switzerland, Russia, the UK, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Central Asia, most of SE Asia, any country in Africa, large parts of the Middle East and South America are not countries. For that matter, all of China isn’t Han Chinese, there are Tibetans, Mongolians, Uyghurs, Zhuang, Hui etc.
- anon291 2y ago
  > For that matter, all of China isn’t Han Chinese, there are Tibetans, Mongolians, Uyghurs, Zhuang, Hui etc. The difference is that no one clan in India comprises any majority. Again, imagine a country where the french lived next to the english and the italian (like literal next door neighbors), but kept their own languages, customs, etc and only intermarried people like them. That is India. There is ample evidence for this. The differences between the cultures can be extreme. It is relatively recently that any person in India would even claim to be 'Indian'. Most identify with the state / jati they belong to. Yes, they're 'Indian' in the same way that an Indian is 'Asian' or an Englishman is 'Eurasian', but it's not a coherent identity. The indian gov't is certainly trying to make that a reality (this is the source of their 'Hindu nationalism' -- which is really a particular kind of North Indian hegemony), but it's been a long time coming, and there are a lot of issues with it.

dyauspitr 2y ago

Every place in the world was small disparate kingdoms until the rise of nation states. If anything India has been united longer than almost any other place in the world. Since when does a country mean a single cultural group? By that metric Switzerland, Russia, the UK, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Central Asia, most of SE Asia, any country in Africa, large parts of the Middle East and South America are not countries. For that matter, all of China isn’t Han Chinese, there are Tibetans, Mongolians, Uyghurs, Zhuang, Hui etc.

anon291 2y ago
> For that matter, all of China isn’t Han Chinese, there are Tibetans, Mongolians, Uyghurs, Zhuang, Hui etc. The difference is that no one clan in India comprises any majority. Again, imagine a country where the french lived next to the english and the italian (like literal next door neighbors), but kept their own languages, customs, etc and only intermarried people like them. That is India. There is ample evidence for this. The differences between the cultures can be extreme. It is relatively recently that any person in India would even claim to be 'Indian'. Most identify with the state / jati they belong to. Yes, they're 'Indian' in the same way that an Indian is 'Asian' or an Englishman is 'Eurasian', but it's not a coherent identity. The indian gov't is certainly trying to make that a reality (this is the source of their 'Hindu nationalism' -- which is really a particular kind of North Indian hegemony), but it's been a long time coming, and there are a lot of issues with it.