I am not much of a fan of history but I know of two things about India. (a) The Mughals had both Lahore and Delhi within their dominion. (b) I think, Tipu Sultan, with French assistance, wanted to gain governance of all of India, including what is today Pakistan.
Brother, with respect, the examples you gave have value of less then zero. I'll try and explain why.
To claim a historical nation, you have to have valid reasons, and those reasons have to apply across the world. You cannot have one logic for the rest of the world and another logic for a different area, for example, India. Historical nationhood has to be based on certain metrics, at the very least shared language, shared religion and shared cultural practices, I will leave other metrics for now.
China is actually over 90% Han ethnicity, they can actually claim historical nationhood despite being such a vast country, because ethnically and linguistically they can claim historical linkages.
India cannot make any such claims, India has no historical single language, only claim is made regarding Sanskrit, but it was only in use in north region of South Asia, nowhere else, and even there it was not a language of the masses, just for the higher castes and use in literature. There are many independent languages of South Asia, completely different from one another, even today Hindi is not accepted as a national language.
Historically, areas were ruled by Kingdoms or Empires, they always had a centre and conquered neighbouring areas, but that did not mean everyone in that area was the same, for example, when the Maratha went about conquering other parts of South Asia, the Gujratis did not become Maratha, nor did a Bengali become a Maratha. The Maratha actually killed 500,000 Bengalis and Beharis.
There is no unified Hindu religion, even today the southern areas have a totally different version of Hinduism then the north. My Bengali Hindu friends celebrate festivals, my other Hindu friends do not.
The claim of historical Indian nationhood has no basis in reality, no reasoning, no logic, but it is still used to spread hate.
In Europe, most Europeans claim philosophical heritage of Greek philosophy and democracy as shared ownership. The Roman empire actually ruled over most of Europe for a thousand years, nothing like that ever happened in India and during those times, Latin was the single most important language in Europe, and used widely, even today, most of the European languages have strong links to the Latin language.
The European royalty has always intermarried, the British royal family is actually German, they share music, cultural practices, and have a shared Christian heritage of over a thousand years old, non of these things can be claimed for India or not as strongly as they have happened in Europe.
And, yet no one cries in Europe about Europe MATA, and shouts hate against anyone for that reason. They recognise we are the same, but we are also different.
Look at the Arabs, it is a one big landmass, they all call themselves Arabs, they have a shared ethnicity, shared culture, language, history under single rule, and over 90% of Arabs have the same religion, but no one cries about Arab MATA or anything of the sort, or shouts hate for being in different countries.
In India they make it seem like a murder was committed in 1947, but where is the logic, reasoning, there is NONE.
It is a massive lie, a fabrication and a stupidity. It is good to be a proud Indian, but it is not good to create a false history and then use it to spread hate, that is what has been happening without question.
That is wrong. And people have started to question it. Be a proud India, but it has to be based on facts, not Hindu revisionism.
I agree. But Turkey is also at fault at rejecting a place within the Eastern bloc, I think before of historical Turk-Rus antagonism.
The point was that religion always plays a part in defining a sense of nationhood. So, the two-nation theory is not a theory, but a fact that has always existed and always will exist everywhere in the world, including India. Recognising a religious identity in your nationhood does not have to mean you oppress or give less rights to others. In Pakistan non-Muslims actually have more then one vote in elections according to the constitution, almost no-one knows it or they don't recognise it, but it is practiced without any issues.
Turkey did not reject anything, because it did not have to accept everything like a blank cheque. When the issue of Turkey's membership to European Union began, these European states were still communist babies, they were just coming out, they were all given a free pass and despite Turkey doing all that was required, it was still kept out. That is also the reason why turkey stopped looking to the West and started looking towards South and East.
www.reuters.com
