British India

[VetLegion]

"Nation" is the wrong word to use, though. It's more like a cultural entity than anything else. More like, say, the concept of a subcontinent - the way Europe is now.

How many languages are there in India?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i think what EST is saying is but for britian, there would be no india.

i think this is for two main reasons. firstly; that the subcontinent was divided between mostly muslim states in the north, gujarat and bengal, and mostly hindu states in the south. it was a real patchwork quilt of states and foreign enclaves. secondly; following on from the first point, it's far easier for a people to forge themselves a national identity when they are living under one occupying power (i know that's a vast oversimplification, but what can you do ), as opposed to living in many competing states with differing religious, social and cultural values.

True. The political cohesiveness of ancient India is often hugely exaggerated. There never was a single political entity encompassing the borders of present-day India, even if you count tenuous tributary states as part of their contemporary hegemon.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i think what EST is saying is but for britian, there would be no india.

i think this is for two main reasons. firstly; that the subcontinent was divided between mostly muslim states in the north, gujarat and bengal, and mostly hindu states in the south. it was a real patchwork quilt of states and foreign enclaves. secondly; following on from the first point, it's far easier for a people to forge themselves a national identity when they are living under one occupying power (i know that's a vast oversimplification, but what can you do ), as opposed to living in many competing states with differing religious, social and cultural values.

It is true that without the British, India would not be a united political entity. It would, however, have remained a united cultural entity.

This, in fact, is a major plus - had there been numerous small states, they would have been much easier for Islam to victimise individually. Now, however, there is hope that we may, one day, be free of this millennium-old scourge. The signs of renewal are already there.

Originally posted by VetLegion

"Nation" is the wrong word to use, though. It's more like a cultural entity than anything else. More like, say, the concept of a subcontinent - the way Europe is now.

How many languages are there in India?

Hundreds.

Originally posted by LordShiva


True. The political cohesiveness of ancient India is often hugely exaggerated. There never was a single political entity encompassing the borders of present-day India, even if you count tenuous tributary states as part of their contemporary hegemon.

The cultural cohesiveness - which, alas, nobody seems even conscious of today - is neglected much more often. I was talking about that, and the cultural concept of an "us" as compared to the rest of the world, the world outside the borders of Bharat, the "them".

[Impaler[WrG]]

Well, as I said, the ancient concept of the Indian "nation" is what was one of the biggest motivating forces in driving the British out in the first place. "Nation" is the wrong word to use, though. It's more like a cultural entity than anything else. More like, say, the concept of a subcontinent - the way Europe is now.

Actually Nation might in fact be the proper word, Nations are essentially cultural groupings based typically on a common ethnicity, language, religion, sets of customs and self-identification with the group. Thus its accurate to refer to Native American Tribes as Nations or the Kurds of Norther Iraq as a Nation.

The inverse of a Nation is a State which is governmental entity. I think much of the confusion stems from the word "Nationalism" which would be better named "Nation-State-ism" and is the believe that every Nation should form a State encompassing the whole of its ancestral homeland and areas ware its people live and this State should exist a a vehicle for preservation of the Nation and its culture.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by aneeshm
It is true that without the British, India would not be a united political entity. It would, however, have remained a united cultural entity.

This, in fact, is a major plus - had there been numerous small states, they would have been much easier for Islam to victimise individually. Now, however, there is hope that we may, one day, be free of this millennium-old scourge. The signs of renewal are already there.

i would question how strong this ‘cultural unity’ ever was. however, leaving that aside, india was certainly not a 'united cultural entity' when the british arrived. the main fault line is obvious, but there were others too.

i also find your second paragraph to be faintly disturbing.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i would question how strong this ‘cultural unity’ ever was.

So would I. "Cultural unity" is a concept of teh elite. Teh common medieval Tamilian wouldn't have had any particular affinity to teh common Punjabi or Bengali or even Kannadiga. No more so than random subjects from different parts of Charlemagne's empire, for instance.

During and for a while after teh Greek, Kushan, Parthian, etc., invasions, NW India could be considered part of teh C. Asian sphere, and S India was doing its own thing. Teh North-East was off minding its own business for most of India's history.

[Riesstiu IV]

Punjab FTW.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by C0ckney

i would question how strong this ‘cultural unity’ ever was. however, leaving that aside, india was certainly not a 'united cultural entity' when the british arrived. the main fault line is obvious, but there were others too.

When the British arrived, India was in total shambles. No unity, no consolidation, no stability, no nothing.

That is why they got a foothold in the first place.

Originally posted by C0ckney

i also find your second paragraph to be faintly disturbing.

Don't worry, I'm not an advocate of any "extreme" measures.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva

So would I. "Cultural unity" is a concept of teh elite. Teh common medieval Tamilian wouldn't have had any particular affinity to teh common Punjabi or Bengali or even Kannadiga. No more so than random subjects from different parts of Charlemagne's empire, for instance.

I think you grossly underestimate the cultural unity of ancient India. At that time, before the split between the Northern and Southern Mahajanapadas, there was a lot of cultural unity.

During medieval times, too, there was an intuitive concept of "us" and "them". Everyone outside the borders of "Bharat" was "them". Everyone who did not follow the cultural institutions of the time, and was an outsider, was of "them". And so on.

As for cultural unity being a concept of the elite - I'd dispute that. Why is it that the common man of Varanasi and many places of the North adheres to the philosophy of a Keralite philosopher-reformer (Advaita Vedanta), whereas the only people by whom the original Vedic rituals are still carried out is the Namboothiri Brahmins of the South?

Originally posted by LordShiva

During and for a while after teh Greek, Kushan, Parthian, etc., invasions, NW India could be considered part of teh C. Asian sphere, and S India was doing its own thing. Teh North-East was off minding its own business for most of India's history.

Again, you totally underestimate the commonalities. The Vedas, and their attendant institutions, have provided a unifying force far stronger than you think.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm


I think you grossly underestimate the cultural unity of ancient India. At that time, before the split between the Northern and Southern Mahajanapadas, there was a lot of cultural unity.

During medieval times, too, there was an intuitive concept of "us" and "them". Everyone outside the borders of "Bharat" was "them". Everyone who did not follow the cultural institutions of the time, and was an outsider, was of "them". And so on.

As for cultural unity being a concept of the elite - I'd dispute that. Why is it that the common man of Varanasi and many places of the North adheres to the philosophy of a Keralite philosopher-reformer (Advaita Vedanta), whereas the only people by whom the original Vedic rituals are still carried out is the Namboothiri Brahmins of the South?



Again, you totally underestimate the commonalities. The Vedas, and their attendant institutions, have provided a unifying force far stronger than you think.

How is any of this different from, say, Europe? Christianity and teh Bible provided a unifying force, everyone outside the borders was a Turk or Moor, teh elite spoke Latin or French, etc.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva

How is any of this different from, say, Europe?

Did I say it was?

Originally posted by LordShiva

Christianity and teh Bible provided a unifying force, everyone outside the borders was a Turk or Moor, teh elite spoke Latin or French, etc.

The difference is in the mode of unification. Cultural unity was not brought about by one state (or states) forcing everyone to convert, and destroying the pre-existing culture, as happened in Europe.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by aneeshm

Cultural unity was not brought about by one state (or states) forcing everyone to convert, and destroying the pre-existing culture, as happened in Europe.

That's not what happened in Europe either.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by BeBro


That's not what happened in Europe either.

Weren't the Germanic tribes and many others forcibly Christianised?

[BeBMan]

Some were, some weren't.

In any way forceful conversion did certainly not affect "everyone", and I would doubt it was even the majority. Just to start with, christianity didn't win ground in the Roman Empire by the sword.

What later became "core europe", the Carolingian empire, wasn't just a result of forceful conversion as well. Franks (Germans) changed to christianity, but had no prob to use force to convert their Saxon (German) counterparts.

Force was used mainly at the periphery of Europe, in parts of Eastern Europe, in the North, and later in Spain. But even there conversion was rarely done by force exclusively, and it also wasn't always brought upon people from outside. A nice anecdote is the case of Iceland, where the people took over the christian religion by decision of the Althing (parliament).

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by BeBro
Some were, some weren't.

In any way forceful conversion did certainly not affect "everyone", and I would doubt it was even the majority. Just to start with, christianity didn't win ground in the Roman Empire by the sword.

What later became "core europe", the Carolingian empire, wasn't just a result of forceful conversion as well. Franks (Germans) changed to christianity, but had no prob to use force to convert their Saxon (German) counterparts.

Force was used mainly at the periphery of Europe, in parts of Eastern Europe, in the North, and later in Spain. But even there conversion was rarely done by force exclusively, and it also wasn't always brought upon people from outside. A nice anecdote is the case of Iceland, where the people took over the christian religion by decision of the Althing (parliament).

Very true, don't forget the Irish conversion.