Is India one people?

[Taimoor Khan]

India is called by different names by different peoples across the world...

it's also called Bharatiy Ganarajya officially

Indians did call thenselves Bharatiya and their land as Bharata Varsha..........I donot know what Pakistanis called their land before

No, India is ONLY called India, and identified as such by people around the world. Introduce yourself as a citizen of so called "Bharatiy Ganarajya" and people might laugh at your face, even introducing yourself as Martians might make sense, atleast people will know! Even I didnt know something called "Bharatiy Ganarajya" as the official name of your country! Introduce yourself as "Bharati" to outside world and see the response.

Your ancestors choosed a colonial name given to your lands by forigen colonial power and you gladly carried over and kept on identifying yourself as such. People can clearly see whoes name got fked up.

People of Indus choose the name Pakistan on their own prerogative.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

How exactly is our philosophy and culture foreign? Do our Vedas talk about the Nile in Egypt? Moscowa river in Russia or say dragon fruit that grows in China?

Instead, it talks about the Himalayas, valleys, rivers, holy basil that are historically grown in India or mangoes another fruit that are historically grown in parts of South Asia. Here we have religion that's intertwined with the history of the region. Then how exactly is it foreign? Hinduism originated here.
It's True Islam came from outside of the subcontinent, there is nothing wrong with that neither does it make Indic religion one-up the Abrahamic faiths in India.

Every other religion in India has suffered under Mughal rule. Nothing wrong with being Mughal phobic, they tried to destroy the culture of the region our ancestors resisted and survived, their expansion was stopped at the borders of India.

Oh dear, scraping the barrel of hindutva now looking for any scraps of a semi-consistent basis for an argument flawed on every single level.

Ok buddy old pal, let's assume Hinduism - particularly Vedic (post IVC era) Hinduism - is a local concern, with local funding and local manpower and designed to improve local lives, and let's further assume that only local concerns have any semblance of a "right" to influence people's lives, regardless of its merits or lack thereof. Likewise, let's assume any non-local concern has no right to influence people's lives, again regardless of its merits or lack thereof.

Ghazwa e Hind was and still is a locally beneficial project, using local resources and local recovered temple funds, local soldiers, with the explicit aim of improving the lives of downtrodden locals by overthrowing you brahminist-loving, foreigner worshipping cucks. I fully agree sir that local objectives take precedence. Ghazwa e Hind will satisfy all "make in India" requirements.
I mean.....when western authors and Queen Victoria and Benjamin Disraeli waxed lyrical over the wealth of Mughalistan, it wasn't like Aurangzeb held the wealth of friggin mughalistan in some Swiss bank account for fk sake. The mughals did wonders for you ungrateful and uncouth people. All you ever do is whine and whinge even though Muslims put your elephant riding backwater on the map.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

People of Indus choose the name Pakistan on their own prerogative.

What happened was the British arrived and conquered a huge area akin to how Germans conquered a huge area. The diffeance the British retained their control for centuries. They named their colony "India". The name already existed but it was like Scandanavia, Balkans, Magreb, Europe etc.

Being the superpower of their time India got recognition across the globe. Then the British wrote enormous amount of literature on trheir colony using "India". By 1947 the name India was known across the globe. Bharat chose to style itself as "Indian Republic" and this mean't it got to live of that identity and since 1947 has consolidated it further.

 

[magra]

No, India is ONLY called India, and identified as such by people around the world. Introduce yourself as a citizen of so called "Bharatiy Ganarajya" and people might laugh at your face, even introducing yourself as Martians might make sense, atleast people will know! Even I didnt know something called "Bharatiy Ganarajya" as the official name of your country! Introduce yourself as "Bharati" to outside world and see the response.

Your ancestors choosed a colonial name given to your lands by forigen colonial power and you gladly carried over and kept on identifying yourself as such. People can clearly see whoes name got fked up.

People of Indus choose the name Pakistan on their own prerogative.

At the end, the name is just a name. It does not change the underlying product.
By the time British was about to leave, entire world knew this area as 'India'. It was a smart decision to continue with this name and not invest in a new name and project it.

People instantly recall where India is on the map. Neighboring countries are remembered as North, East or West of India.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

What happened was the British arrived and conquered a huge area akin to how Germans conquered a huge area. The diffeance the British retained their control for centuries. They named their colony "India". The name already existed but it was like Scandanavia, Balkans, Magreb, Europe etc.

Being the superpower of their time India got recognition across the globe. Then the British wrote enormous amount of literature on trheir colony using "India". By 1947 the name India was known across the globe. Bharat chose to style itself as "Indian Republic" and this mean't it got to live of that identity and since 1947 has consolidated it further.

pretty accurate.............The word that I have found is closest to "India" in terms of its perceived meaning is the word "Christendom"

Just like Christendom inspite of warring with eachother came together for the Crusades...similiarly the 2-3 most powerful kingdoms of India came together to face off against the Arabs in modern day Rajasthan in the 8th century

 

[KedarT]

In the past people in online forums could argue for hours and days based on nothing but personal opinions and very subjective observation of phenotypes, but with recent advances in dna tests and analysis over the last couple of years, we can now measure genetic distance between different groups of people and put an end to this debate.

There's an online tool called Vahaduo which is used very commonly by both the academic and amateur genetics enthusiasts. Publicly available dna result data can be entered into this tool to calculate genetic distance between two different ethnicities.

I have used the data available here to find the distances posted below.

Here's just one example why Indians cannot be seen as one people and no amount of argument can change hard scientific data and results.

Here is the distance between an Englishman and a Dutch, below. This means nothing by itself, but compare this number with the comparison further below, between an UP Brahmin and an average person from UP.

View attachment 727977


Distance between UP Brahmin and average UP person:

View attachment 727980



So basically an average guy in UP (India) is 6 times further away from a Brahmin living just next to him, compared to genetic distance between Englishman and Dutch.


So it's really absurd when Indians talk about Akhand Bharat including Pakistan, Tibet and Malaysia, when India itself is really not a single race but a continent containing extremely genetically diverse people!

Koi shak
Khud ka desh sambhalo

An idea if believed by everyone is more powerful than any so-called reality.
Pakistanis should actually be in awe of how this powerful idea is uniting the seemingly disparate India. You can use this as example to unite your own multi-ethnic, multi-lingual nation instead of laughing off the model.

Great point sir!

 

[Chhatrapati]

Oh dear, scraping the barrel of hindutva now looking for any scraps of a semi-consistent basis for an argument flawed on every single level.

Ok buddy old pal, let's assume Hinduism - particularly Vedic (post IVC era) Hinduism - is a local concern, with local funding and local manpower and designed to improve local lives, and let's further assume that only local concerns have any semblance of a "right" to influence people's lives, regardless of its merits or lack thereof. Likewise, let's assume any non-local concern has no right to influence people's lives, again regardless of its merits or lack thereof.

Ghazwa e Hind was and still is a locally beneficial project, using local resources and local recovered temple funds, local soldiers, with the explicit aim of improving the lives of downtrodden locals by overthrowing you brahminist-loving, foreigner worshipping cucks. I fully agree sir that local objectives take precedence. Ghazwa e Hind will satisfy all "make in India" requirements.
I mean.....when western authors and Queen Victoria and Benjamin Disraeli waxed lyrical over the wealth of Mughalistan, it wasn't like Aurangzeb held the wealth of friggin mughalistan in some Swiss bank account for fk sake. The mughals did wonders for you ungrateful and uncouth people. All you ever do is whine and whinge even though Muslims put your elephant riding backwater on the map.

That was a nice rambling with no substance. Mirza it's embarrassing when you call your ancestors cucks, but hey, I'm not here to contest that. Even the Arabs are proud of their pagan ancestors, and they are sure what their identity is.

I said a very simple fact, religions like Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism originated in India. And religions like Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Islam came from outside the subcontinent which is part of history. I'm not here to compare Islam and Mughals to whoever there is. The merits and demerits of Mughals is a topic for an entirely different discussion that I am open to, get to the relevant thread. And Islam or Gazwa e Hind is a topic has nothing to do with topic at hand, such discussion, especially in PDF, is pointless. Get to a Neutral venue and I will deal with those there.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

At the end, the name is just a name. It does not change the underlying product.
By the time British was about to leave, entire world knew this area as 'India'. It was a smart decision to continue with this name and not invest in a new name and project it.

People instantly recall where India is on the map. Neighboring countries are remembered as North, East or West of India.

Its not "just" a name, its your identity as a nation. There is nothing indigenous about the name "India". You choose to be labelled with slavery era name, and kept on using it goes to show how fked up you people are. There is nothing smart about it, but shows lack of self esteem , confidence and degrading yourself as the torch bearer of colonial masters, colonial legacy even in post colonial era. Mental slavery one might say.

None of the country around post 15 August 1947 India is identified with India. All have them have got distinct identity despite some of them in past being part of British Raj. Hell, even tiny country like Myanmar got indigenous name.

What happened was the British arrived and conquered a huge area akin to how Germans conquered a huge area. The diffeance the British retained their control for centuries. They named their colony "India". The name already existed but it was like Scandanavia, Balkans, Magreb, Europe etc.

Being the superpower of their time India got recognition across the globe. Then the British wrote enormous amount of literature on trheir colony using "India". By 1947 the name India was known across the globe. Bharat chose to style itself as "Indian Republic" and this mean't it got to live of that identity and since 1947 has consolidated it further.

Whatever it is, the name is not indegenours, none of forefathers of the country now called India choose this name for themselves rather it was given to them. Come 15 August 1947, they kept on the torch of colonial legacy. Pathetic, low self esteem lot, with no shame.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Oh dear, scraping the barrel of hindutva now looking for any scraps of a semi-consistent basis for an argument flawed on every single level.

Ok buddy old pal, let's assume Hinduism - particularly Vedic (post IVC era) Hinduism - is a local concern, with local funding and local manpower and designed to improve local lives, and let's further assume that only local concerns have any semblance of a "right" to influence people's lives, regardless of its merits or lack thereof. Likewise, let's assume any non-local concern has no right to influence people's lives, again regardless of its merits or lack thereof.

Ghazwa e Hind was and still is a locally beneficial project, using local resources and local recovered temple funds, local soldiers, with the explicit aim of improving the lives of downtrodden locals by overthrowing you brahminist-loving, foreigner worshipping cucks. I fully agree sir that local objectives take precedence. Ghazwa e Hind will satisfy all "make in India" requirements.
I mean.....when western authors and Queen Victoria and Benjamin Disraeli waxed lyrical over the wealth of Mughalistan, it wasn't like Aurangzeb held the wealth of friggin mughalistan in some Swiss bank account for fk sake. The mughals did wonders for you ungrateful and uncouth people. All you ever do is whine and whinge even though Muslims put your elephant riding backwater on the map.

Man you fked poor Indian proper. LOL

You know the funny thing, their intellectuals like Sashi Tahoor are moaning and b|tching about British looting and plundering India, and how Indian GDP was the highest in the world before these foreign colonials came. So the question is, who was the ruler of India "before" British arrival, who made Indian GDP highest in the world!

 

[Srinivas]

Homogeneity. E.g. Germany is a true nation state. So is Korea, etc.



Much much more than between, say, Oriya and Kashmiri. STILL they are separate nations. As Indus_Pakistan mentioned, Pakistan has used Islam, British legacy and geography to glue several ethnicities together.

If language is the basis then Pakistan should be 5 countries. If Religion is the basis there should be no more than 1 muslim country in this world. You are getting confused about the rules here.

 

[KedarT]

Its not "just" a name, its your identity as a nation. There is nothing indigenous about the name "India". You choose to be labelled with slavery era name, and kept on using it goes to show how fked up you people are. There is nothing smart about it, but shows lack of self esteem , confidence and degrading yourself as the torch bearer of colonial masters, colonial legacy even in post colonial era. Mental slavery one might say.

Why are you frustrated though? India, Bharat, Hindustan we like all the names. Also, it's not a slavery era name. It's also smart because when you read history, you read a lot of 'Indian' history if you get what I mean

 

[magra]

Its not "just" a name, its your identity as a nation. There is nothing indigenous about the name "India". You choose to be labelled with slavery era name, and kept on using it goes to show how fked up you people are. There is nothing smart about it, but shows lack of self esteem , confidence and degrading yourself as the torch bearer of colonial masters, colonial legacy even in post colonial era. Mental slavery one might say.

None of the country around post 15 August 1947 India is identified with India. All have them have got distinct identity despite some of them in past being part of British Raj. Hell, even tiny country like Myanmar got indigenous name.

Our identity is built or destroyed based on our work and not merely by how fancy our name is. We decided to continue with 'India' for outsiders as that was the most convenient thing. It is not an abuse word that we necessarily had to change. British did many things. Some of them were undesirable, some ok, some desirable. The name comes in the 'ok' category.
We did not reject the indegenous name 'Bharat' or the one given to us by the Persians 'Hindustan'.. You may call us whatever pleases you - India, Bharat, Hindustan.

Other nations around us changed their name. Thats their choice. We are not bound to follow them.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Why are you frustrated though? India, Bharat, Hindustan we like all the names. Also, it's not a slavery era name. It's also smart because when you read history, you read a lot of 'Indian' history if you get what I mean

Frustrated? LOL , I am putting you rats in your place and showing your true worth.

You would have more respect if you called your country as Bharat and introduce yourself as bharatis all over the world. LOL.

You changed your cities names , called bombay "Mumbai" , Calcutta to "Kolkata" , yet your bloody country is still "India".

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Pakistanis should actually be in awe of how this powerful idea is uniting the seemingly disparate India. You can use this as example to unite your own multi-ethnic, multi-lingual nation instead of laughing off the model.

Yes, I agree with you. The myth of India has united Sino-Tibetans of Ladakh with Tamil Dravidians of the south to Punjabi Sikhs with Nagalanders to the east. This diversity is inspiring. In contrast Pakistan is just a boring mosaic of about 5 groups compared dozens and dozens of India.

However most impressive is Singapore which has been hasahed out of two migrants groups on top of the natives.

• Chinese migrants
• Indian migrants
• Malay natives

Turned into a solid Singaporan identity which as artificial as you can get but that does not matter. It has more panache across the globe than Pakistan.

 

[magra]

Frustrated? LOL , I am putting you rats in your place and showing your true worth.

You would have more respect if you called your country as Bharat and introduce yourself as bharatis all over the world. LOL.

You changed your cities names , called bombay "Mumbai" , Calcutta to "Kolkata" , yet your bloody country is still "India".

We get ample respect from the world. We are not hungry for respect from Pakistanis, who themselves dont get much respect anywhere.

Yes, I agree with you. The myth of India has united Sino-Tibetans of Ladakh with Tamil Dravidians of the south to Punjabi Sikhs with Nagalanders to the east. This diversity is inspiring. In contrast Pakistan is just a boring mosaic of about 5 groups compared dozens and dozens of India.

However most impressive is Singapore which has been hasahed out of two migrants groups on top of the natives.

• Chinese migrants
• Indian migrants
• Malay natives

Turned into a solid Singaporan identity which as artificial as you can get but that does not matter. It has more panache across the globe than Pakistan.

Singapore is a city-state. How much of it is replicable in medium or large sized nations is debatable.
I think American model is the most impressive as it is the most diverse country in any respect.