In 1947 two muslim countries should have been created!

[Malang]

why should there have been a muslim nation at all???

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

why should there have been a muslim nation at all???

Why have nations at all?

 

[Niazi9]

Why have nations at all?

Touche, but judging by your S/N take out the fact that people worship different "invisible cloud beings"......a unified highly nationalistic successor state to the British Raj would've been the cats paw of geo politics the last 60yrs. I know its a proverbial wet dream now as sadly Divide and Conquer is a theory that's monumentally vindicated by South Asian history.

But I digress....

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Touche, but judging by your S/N take out the fact that people worship different "invisible cloud beings"......a unified highly nationalistic successor state to the British Raj would've been the cats paw of geo politics the last 60yrs.

gee... a large state filled with rotten-to-the-core, ignorant, and corrupt south asians with mob-mentality, i highly doubt that.

I know its a proverbial wet dream now as sadly Divide and Conquer is a theory that's monumentally vindicated by South Asian history. But I digress....

yeah... last time i checked, the british didn't exactly divide the sub-continent when they conquered it, rather they united a bunch of different peoples who had absolutely nothing to do with each other. oh yeah, i think you forgot to put your bharat's flag up, please do that.

 

[Malang]

Some points

1. India was never a nation!

The concept of Nation and Nationalism are relatively new ones.. Till a few centuries back there weren't any nations..

Though interestingly look at EU.. people of various nations are trying to unite under the banner of a united land..
Now think of India as a more advanced, socio-culturally more similar, historically more united and much more ancient version of EU..


2. What is the need for a nation?

Absolutely no need.. its due to effect of the "base" nature of Man that he seeks to form associations and divide himself..

IMO I am not an expert on Islam but Ummah to me is one of those concepts which seeks to uplift mankind though I feel most of the scholars on Islam are incompetent and many of the Muslims are too narrow minded; selective application of Islamic concepts in isolation too have led to the failure of this concept uptill now.... religions are meant to unite without being divisive.

I quite like the Pakistani Muslim concerns over Kashmir,Godhra and Babri Masjid but it would be nice if some tears were shed for Shias in Saudi Arabia, Tibetans in China, Uighur Muslims in China, Pakistani labourers in Gulf etc..


3. British united a bunch of people who had nothing to do with each other and gave them a nation.

Aren't France, UK, Russia, Brazil, Italy, US, Canada, Brazil, Spain, Nigeria, South Africa etc. a nation of bunch of different people too?? They are as fake a nation as India going by your definition..

British followed Divide and Rule Policy how do you expect them to unite the people? why? what for? In fact British have severely disunited Indians hint: Partition..

What united India/Indians was enlightenment, and allegiance to India aka Nationalism.

To my limited knowledge, Men have united (as per the zeitgeist of Nationalism) under the banner of land(and the various trait of that land) and this I believe to be nationalism.

... God's teachings, God's messengers, banners of religion, Ideologies etc. trying to break the above have largely failed to a large extent as well eg. compare Indians, India, Germany, with Muslims, Pakistan/Bangladesh, Khalistan...

May be in a few centuries from now, a concept that builds upon nationalism may be prevalent..

Please don't give so much credit to the British fer Allahsake and if you continue with this line of thought do give importance to Pakistan instead, in case of India and vice versa...

PS: Do read Ancient History, Modern History and Books on India.. these people had as much to do with each other in past as they do now..
search for Gothra btw.. most Indians claim descent from a select group of ascetics clad in just a dhoti .. practicing austerities in Himalayas and subsisting on alms.. the role of Hinduism too cannot be undermined here..

4. What is India then?

India, simply, is the name of the landmass(also called the Indian subcontinent).. and those who live in it are Indians, they speak Indian languages, follow Indian customs, etc. albeit like Hinduism, India cannot be entrapped in an all encompassing single defintion.(in the above Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. to come under India).

On a further classification there are various regions/states/subnations encompassed in India like Bengal, Punjab, Maharasthra, Gujarat etc. and people indigenous to them are called Bengalis, Punjabis, Marathis, Gujaratis etc.. the natives of these regions speak different languages, practice different customs, eat a different cuisine, right a different script though broadly all have similarities with one another and share a lot
of commonalities of culture, language, history, origin, beliefs etc.

now the question comes is how is a Punjabi and a Bengali united in India under the banner of India/Nationality and couldn't be united in Pakistan under the banner of Islam/Ideology?? For this you have to come to India and refer to the various points too..

 

[cactuslily58]

Some points

1. India was never a nation!

The concept of Nation and Nationalism are relatively new ones.. Till a few centuries back there weren't any nations..

Though interestingly look at EU.. people of various nations are trying to unite under the banner of a united land..
Now think of India as a more advanced, socio-culturally more similar, historically more united and much more ancient version of EU..


2. What is the need for a nation?

Absolutely no need.. its due to effect of the "base" nature of Man that he seeks to form associations and divide himself..

IMO I am not an expert on Islam but Ummah to me is one of those concepts which seeks to uplift mankind though I feel most of the scholars on Islam are incompetent and many of the Muslims are too narrow minded; selective application of Islamic concepts in isolation too have led to the failure of this concept uptill now.... religions are meant to unite without being divisive.

I quite like the Pakistani Muslim concerns over Kashmir,Godhra and Babri Masjid but it would be nice if some tears were shed for Shias in Saudi Arabia, Tibetans in China, Uighur Muslims in China, Pakistani labourers in Gulf etc..


3. British united a bunch of people who had nothing to do with each other and gave them a nation.

Aren't France, UK, Russia, Brazil, Italy, US, Canada, Brazil, Spain, Nigeria, South Africa etc. a nation of bunch of different people too?? They are as fake a nation as India going by your definition..

British followed Divide and Rule Policy how do you expect them to unite the people? why? what for? In fact British have severely disunited Indians hint: Partition..

What united India/Indians was enlightenment, and allegiance to India aka Nationalism.

To my limited knowledge, Men have united (as per the zeitgeist of Nationalism) under the banner of land(and the various trait of that land) and this I believe to be nationalism.

... God's teachings, God's messengers, banners of religion, Ideologies etc. trying to break the above have largely failed to a large extent as well eg. compare Indians, India, Germany, with Muslims, Pakistan/Bangladesh, Khalistan...

May be in a few centuries from now, a concept that builds upon nationalism may be prevalent..

Please don't give so much credit to the British fer Allahsake and if you continue with this line of thought do give importance to Pakistan instead, in case of India and vice versa...

PS: Do read Ancient History, Modern History and Books on India.. these people had as much to do with each other in past as they do now..
search for Gothra btw.. most Indians claim descent from a select group of ascetics clad in just a dhoti .. practicing austerities in Himalayas and subsisting on alms.. the role of Hinduism too cannot be undermined here..

4. What is India then?

India, simply, is the name of the landmass(also called the Indian subcontinent).. and those who live in it are Indians, they speak Indian languages, follow Indian customs, etc. albeit like Hinduism, India cannot be entrapped in an all encompassing single defintion.(in the above Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. to come under India).

On a further classification there are various regions/states/subnations encompassed in India like Bengal, Punjab, Maharasthra, Gujarat etc. and people indigenous to them are called Bengalis, Punjabis, Marathis, Gujaratis etc.. the natives of these regions speak different languages, practice different customs, eat a different cuisine, right a different script though broadly all have similarities with one another and share a lot
of commonalities of culture, language, history, origin, beliefs etc.

now the question comes is how is a Punjabi and a Bengali united in India under the banner of India/Nationality and couldn't be united in Pakistan under the banner of Islam/Ideology?? For this you have to come to India and refer to the various points too..

This is what I call a " doosra" !!

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Actually it is the concept of Akhand Bharat that I elaborated on in my book The India Doctrine.

 

[Vinod2070]

Some points

1. India was never a nation!

The concept of Nation and Nationalism are relatively new ones.. Till a few centuries back there weren't any nations..

Though interestingly look at EU.. people of various nations are trying to unite under the banner of a united land..
Now think of India as a more advanced, socio-culturally more similar, historically more united and much more ancient version of EU..


2. What is the need for a nation?

Absolutely no need.. its due to effect of the "base" nature of Man that he seeks to form associations and divide himself..

IMO I am not an expert on Islam but Ummah to me is one of those concepts which seeks to uplift mankind though I feel most of the scholars on Islam are incompetent and many of the Muslims are too narrow minded; selective application of Islamic concepts in isolation too have led to the failure of this concept uptill now.... religions are meant to unite without being divisive.

I quite like the Pakistani Muslim concerns over Kashmir,Godhra and Babri Masjid but it would be nice if some tears were shed for Shias in Saudi Arabia, Tibetans in China, Uighur Muslims in China, Pakistani labourers in Gulf etc..


3. British united a bunch of people who had nothing to do with each other and gave them a nation.

Aren't France, UK, Russia, Brazil, Italy, US, Canada, Brazil, Spain, Nigeria, South Africa etc. a nation of bunch of different people too?? They are as fake a nation as India going by your definition..

British followed Divide and Rule Policy how do you expect them to unite the people? why? what for? In fact British have severely disunited Indians hint: Partition..

What united India/Indians was enlightenment, and allegiance to India aka Nationalism.

To my limited knowledge, Men have united (as per the zeitgeist of Nationalism) under the banner of land(and the various trait of that land) and this I believe to be nationalism.

... God's teachings, God's messengers, banners of religion, Ideologies etc. trying to break the above have largely failed to a large extent as well eg. compare Indians, India, Germany, with Muslims, Pakistan/Bangladesh, Khalistan...

May be in a few centuries from now, a concept that builds upon nationalism may be prevalent..

Please don't give so much credit to the British fer Allahsake and if you continue with this line of thought do give importance to Pakistan instead, in case of India and vice versa...

PS: Do read Ancient History, Modern History and Books on India.. these people had as much to do with each other in past as they do now..
search for Gothra btw.. most Indians claim descent from a select group of ascetics clad in just a dhoti .. practicing austerities in Himalayas and subsisting on alms.. the role of Hinduism too cannot be undermined here..

4. What is India then?

India, simply, is the name of the landmass(also called the Indian subcontinent).. and those who live in it are Indians, they speak Indian languages, follow Indian customs, etc. albeit like Hinduism, India cannot be entrapped in an all encompassing single defintion.(in the above Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. to come under India).

On a further classification there are various regions/states/subnations encompassed in India like Bengal, Punjab, Maharasthra, Gujarat etc. and people indigenous to them are called Bengalis, Punjabis, Marathis, Gujaratis etc.. the natives of these regions speak different languages, practice different customs, eat a different cuisine, right a different script though broadly all have similarities with one another and share a lot
of commonalities of culture, language, history, origin, beliefs etc.

now the question comes is how is a Punjabi and a Bengali united in India under the banner of India/Nationality and couldn't be united in Pakistan under the banner of Islam/Ideology?? For this you have to come to India and refer to the various points too..

Excellent post, Malang.

One point is one would expect people who call themselves Arabs to rubbish the idea of India. But they don't matter.

They will always be invaders to this holy land, neither belonging to Arabia now, nor to this land.

Let them decide what they owe allegiance to. As for Indians, we don't need a certificate from foreign invaders to decide what constitutes India.

 

[Flintlock]

gee... a large state filled with rotten-to-the-core, ignorant, and corrupt south asians with mob-mentality, i highly doubt that. .

Unity...always better than a bunch of tiny countries fighting over meager resources.

Learn something from Europe.

 

[Vinod2070]

Actually it is the concept of Akhand Bharat that I elaborated on in my book The India Doctrine.

Munshi, Is this book going to be available in India?

Do you write your books on India only? Why not a Pakistan doctrine too, or better still "The Bangladesh Doctrine".

Would be a good read, I am sure.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Some points

1. India was never a nation!

The concept of Nation and Nationalism are relatively new ones.. Till a few centuries back there weren't any nations..

Though interestingly look at EU.. people of various nations are trying to unite under the banner of a united land..
Now think of India as a more advanced, socio-culturally more similar, historically more united and much more ancient version of EU..


2. What is the need for a nation?

Absolutely no need.. its due to effect of the "base" nature of Man that he seeks to form associations and divide himself..

IMO I am not an expert on Islam but Ummah to me is one of those concepts which seeks to uplift mankind though I feel most of the scholars on Islam are incompetent and many of the Muslims are too narrow minded; selective application of Islamic concepts in isolation too have led to the failure of this concept uptill now.... religions are meant to unite without being divisive.

I quite like the Pakistani Muslim concerns over Kashmir,Godhra and Babri Masjid but it would be nice if some tears were shed for Shias in Saudi Arabia, Tibetans in China, Uighur Muslims in China, Pakistani labourers in Gulf etc..


3. British united a bunch of people who had nothing to do with each other and gave them a nation.

Aren't France, UK, Russia, Brazil, Italy, US, Canada, Brazil, Spain, Nigeria, South Africa etc. a nation of bunch of different people too?? They are as fake a nation as India going by your definition..

British followed Divide and Rule Policy how do you expect them to unite the people? why? what for? In fact British have severely disunited Indians hint: Partition..

What united India/Indians was enlightenment, and allegiance to India aka Nationalism.

To my limited knowledge, Men have united (as per the zeitgeist of Nationalism) under the banner of land(and the various trait of that land) and this I believe to be nationalism.

... God's teachings, God's messengers, banners of religion, Ideologies etc. trying to break the above have largely failed to a large extent as well eg. compare Indians, India, Germany, with Muslims, Pakistan/Bangladesh, Khalistan...

May be in a few centuries from now, a concept that builds upon nationalism may be prevalent..

Please don't give so much credit to the British fer Allahsake and if you continue with this line of thought do give importance to Pakistan instead, in case of India and vice versa...

PS: Do read Ancient History, Modern History and Books on India.. these people had as much to do with each other in past as they do now..
search for Gothra btw.. most Indians claim descent from a select group of ascetics clad in just a dhoti .. practicing austerities in Himalayas and subsisting on alms.. the role of Hinduism too cannot be undermined here..

4. What is India then?

India, simply, is the name of the landmass(also called the Indian subcontinent).. and those who live in it are Indians, they speak Indian languages, follow Indian customs, etc. albeit like Hinduism, India cannot be entrapped in an all encompassing single defintion.(in the above Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. to come under India).

On a further classification there are various regions/states/subnations encompassed in India like Bengal, Punjab, Maharasthra, Gujarat etc. and people indigenous to them are called Bengalis, Punjabis, Marathis, Gujaratis etc.. the natives of these regions speak different languages, practice different customs, eat a different cuisine, right a different script though broadly all have similarities with one another and share a lot
of commonalities of culture, language, history, origin, beliefs etc.

now the question comes is how is a Punjabi and a Bengali united in India under the banner of India/Nationality and couldn't be united in Pakistan under the banner of Islam/Ideology?? For this you have to come to India and refer to the various points too..

Lets not makeup labels such as 'Indian languages' and 'India' to describe all of South Asia. The label 'India' is increasingly being replaced by 'South Asia' as the word 'India' increasingly becomes associated with the nation-state founded in 1947. Even in the sense that you use it, it is nothing but a general term used to reference a region, sort of like 'Asia'.

Nor has anyone here said anything about India being a 'fake nation', you merely set up a straw-man argument to advance your own points. What has been argued is that the subcontinent was a region that had various nations in it, and India was not a 'nation' until the political entity created in 1947.

And yes I state 'nations', because one definition of nation is; "A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.". By that definition the subcontinent the British came to, conquered and united into a large British Colony was indeed composed of various 'nations'.

In terms of some nations in Europe coming together under the banner of the EU, what you have is separate and distinct nations, proud of their individuality, joining in a union to further their interests. They are doing so not because of any shared sense of "European-hood' (though that is a part of the matrix due to the geographical proximity of various states), but because it makes economic sense to do so.

It is important to note that even under the EU, 'nationalism' and pride in ones nation (German, French etc.) continues to be strong, as does the demand that each group of people/nations retain their sovereignty. The EU is primarily a common market, though it is seeking to transform into a more comprehensive union, but that is a decision that the peoples of the nations making up the EU have to make.

In 1947 there was a similar union of peoples, albeit under the banner of two large entities, India and Pakistan. When there is need for uniting under the banner of some sort of economic union like the SAARC, that all nations believe advances their interests, we might see movement towards that end.

The central point here is that it is the people composing 'nations', who have to make that decision. In 1947 the peoples of Pakistan did indeed make that decision, as did those of the territories that formed India. In 1971 the people of Bangladesh made that decision as well. I fail to see why you continue to denigrate the creation of Pakistan - we made our choice, learn to respect it.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

I have no doubt that South Asians are far better than Arabs in all these parameters. Look at their condition. One tiny Israel is holding them all to ransom despite they enjoying massive superiority in all kinds of numbers (50-100 times).

Many Pakistanis claim that their PAF fighters killed the same IAF fighters whom the Arabs were running from. This also proves the superiority of South Asians over Arabs.

when did i compare south asians with arabs? i was pointing towards south asians and south asians only, welcome to the third world. it's where we belong.

India does not need a certificate from those who claim decent from foreign invaders. They never belonged to this holy land and will never do so.

why don't you make your point a little clearer. if it's insult you want to throw at me, do it in a more direct way, not in backstabbing manner.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Excellent post, Malang.

One point is one would expect people who call themselves Arabs to rubbish the idea of India. But they don't matter.

They will always be invaders to this holy land, neither belonging to Arabia now, nor to this land.

Let them decide what they owe allegiance to. As for Indians, we don't need a certificate from foreign invaders to decide what constitutes India.

First of all, as I pointed out to Malang, the only idea being rubbished is that of any united entity called India, or an Indian nation existing prior to 1947. You don't need a certificate, most international maps indicate clearly what constitutes India (sir Creek, Siachen and Kashmir notwithstanding).

What is this whole Arab thing you keep dragging in?

My own family has nothing to do with Arabs, yet I rubbish the idea of an India prior to 1947 just as vociferously as others - so please don't incorrectly characterize and generalize everyones sentiments.

Almost every part of the inhabited land of this planet was formed by humans migrating there, so lets not get into the 'invaders vs indigenous' rubbish. The people in the subcontinent did not sprout out of the ground at the call of Hanuman.

Trying to work in the 'migrant vs indigenous angle' reeks of xenophobia.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No more of the Arab vs South Asian BS.

It is nothing but racist nonsense. The arguments being raised have little to do with that line of thought.

Further posts will be deleted

 

[Flintlock]

Trying to work in the 'migrant vs indigenous angle' reeks of xenophobia.

There's a thin line between ethnic nationalism and xenophobia. Or maybe they are different degrees of the same emotion.