Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
why should there have been a muslim nation at all???
New Recruit
Why have nations at all?
gee... a large state filled with rotten-to-the-core, ignorant, and corrupt south asians with mob-mentality, i highly doubt that.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.
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.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....
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..
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..
gee... a large state filled with rotten-to-the-core, ignorant, and corrupt south asians with mob-mentality, i highly doubt that. .
Actually it is the concept of Akhand Bharat that I elaborated on in my book The India Doctrine.
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..
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Trying to work in the 'migrant vs indigenous angle' reeks of xenophobia.