What happens if South India(Dravida Nadu) becomes a separate country ? (Hindi)

[U-571]

well I personall think the dravidian south and vedic north are “civilisations apart”. a separate statehood should be given, only if the people of south really demand it..but come on.. it should never become China's state policy to back a separatist movement like that.


lol..ok never mind

search for Sanxingdui

there is hard archaeological proof how south china is a different civilization than han north china which enslaved south china. this is hard evidence and there is not one for the south and north india divide.

 

[Jackdaws]

Goa and Maharashtra are definitely the south..no doubt about it.

Whoever clubs it with the north is in denial.
We are very much the south and proud of it.

I think it is neither - Mh, Goa, Gujarat - consider themselves distinct from North India as well as South India; so they more West Indians - same thing with Bengal and Orissa - these are firmly East India.

In Maharashtra in the 1960s and 1970s - there was angst against "South Indians" for stealing Marathi jobs and in the 30-40 years later, that angst was against "North Indians".

 

[padamchen]

I think it is neither - Mh, Goa, Gujarat - consider themselves distinct from North India as well as South India; so they more West Indians - same thing with Bengal and Orissa - these are firmly East India.

In Maharashtra in the 1960s and 1970s - there was angst against "South Indians" for stealing Marathi jobs and in the 30-40 years later, that angst was against "North Indians".

Correct.

We are Maha Rashtra. Period.

Cheers, Doc

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

there is not one for the south and north india divide.

lol..ok keep drinking the good stuff..

 

[Peshwa]

I think it is neither - Mh, Goa, Gujarat - consider themselves distinct from North India as well as South India; so they more West Indians - same thing with Bengal and Orissa - these are firmly East India.

In Maharashtra in the 1960s and 1970s - there was angst against "South Indians" for stealing Marathi jobs and in the 30-40 years later, that angst was against "North Indians".

Well in geographic terms I consider the peninsular part of India to be the south.

Also, there are major overlaps in culture and people between Maharashtra, Goa (Konkan coast in general) and what are “traditional” southern states such as Karnataka.

But yes, in theory, we can call MH, Goa and Guj as western India, a seperate entity if you will.

 

[DineshS]

@DineshS and any actual Tamil knows use of inga/ingu/ingey/ingia depend on specific conjugation and words being used in spoken colloquial sentence (which pro-tip for next forum you decide to play this game....is quite different from written Tamil). Like who says "ingey" daan oru ...irruku etc? Its always inga/ingu depending on your dialect...because of nature of noun versus adverb use of "here" in spoken context.

Problem with fakes who google language and pretend to be Tamil/Telugu is multi fold.

As an example, these people think that Tamil is a homogeneous language and is uniform. They are under the impression that the Tamil they listen to in films or in this case a cartoon is what EVERY one in TN speaks.
These guys have little idea that Tamil spoken in north is very different to the one spoken in South or west.

Same with Telugu, Go from Coastal to TG or Seema, the language and dialect changes.

Only a True Dravidian knows these facts.

But do not take that language insulting God too seriously my friend Dinesh, you posted another great TMS song earlier that says:

Paatum Naanae, Bhavavum Naanae....Paadum unnai naan... paduvaithanae

(I AM the song, I AM the meaning.....I AM the one that makes you sing in the first place)

**CLAP**
So many gems, wasn't born when this movie was released but WHAT A GEM.
Grew up on a steady diet of these gems. Both Tamil and Telugu movies of the old are filled with some of the best reflections of who and what we are.
The one by NTR, 'Shiva Shankari' is one of my all time favorites as well.

The fools pretending to be Tamils and Dravidians have no idea of what we are and what our culture.

That above is what the Tamilian culture is about.

 

[HeinzG]

Wait for @Gibbs @HeinzG @Godman to respond.

Well, he has a point though. There are no conclusive evidence to suggest that Vatican supported LTTE to create a christian heartland in South Asia. Though many prominent LTTE leaders were Catholics and there are many prominent Tamil catholic friars and bishops who supported LTTE both locally and internationally.

AFAIK, the LTTE phenomenon was merely a geo political issue rather than a religious one.

 

[Nilgiri]

Well, he has a point though. There are no conclusive evidence to suggest that Vatican supported LTTE to create a christian heartland in South Asia. Though many prominent LTTE leaders were Catholics and there are many prominent Tamil catholic friars and bishops who supported LTTE both locally and internationally.

AFAIK, the LTTE phenomenon was merely a geo political issue rather than a religious one.

I use the term "Vatican" pretty broadly.

 

[nang2]

search for Sanxingdui

there is hard archaeological proof how south china is a different civilization than han north china which enslaved south china. this is hard evidence and there is not one for the south and north india divide.

There is always such an evidence if you push the date further into the ancient history.

 

[HeinzG]

I use the term "Vatican" pretty broadly.

Mr. Nilgiri, I am doing kind of a research why India decided to remain as a single unified country instead of the warring kingdoms of the late Mughal times. Could you provide me with some information.

 

[padamchen]

Well in geographic terms I consider the peninsular part of India to be the south.

Also, there are major overlaps in culture and people between Maharashtra, Goa (Konkan coast in general) and what are “traditional” southern states such as Karnataka.

But yes, in theory, we can call MH, Goa and Guj as western India, a seperate entity if you will.

There will always be overlap across state lines.

Goa IS Maharashtra. Konkan is of course.

But aside from the border fadeouts (or ins) there is little similarity between Maharashtra and Karnataka or Andhra or MP or Gujarat.

Cheers, Doc

 

[kvpak]

I am doing kind of a research why India decided to remain as a single unified country instead of the warring kingdoms of the late Mughal times.

They were brought together by British guns. Then the british handed over to H-Indians on a silver platter on August 15, 1947. You know similar history in the island to our south.

 

[Nilgiri]

Mr. Nilgiri, I am doing kind of a research why India decided to remain as a single unified country instead of the warring kingdoms of the late Mughal times. Could you provide me with some information.

It an interesting subject. First I guess we are talking about the elite/landed given the masses didn't really have much say/decision on the political scenarios (till recently).

My take on it is the main factors are:

a) The turmoil created in the subcontinent caused by so many different competing political forces (that allowed the voids needed for foreign forces to break into and exploit for their political and economic gain etc)...so people inherently grabbed the opportunity (in early 20th century till its final fruition after WW2) to have as large envelope afforded to them politically as possible that fills in behind the larger cultural space/connections created over much longer time period.

b) The early rule of (Nehru) congress did accomplish some very core things at mass level (federally) that are often sidelined today. These are things like land reform, access to political vote (sustainably), good development oriented state leaders and promulgating strong and needed state institutions... i.e things could have turned out quite different in India political stability if 1st leader was a despot and did something like Indira Gandhi did (later) with emergency powers etc....from the get go.

Of course over time because of larger aegis of socialism/leftism, congress inevitably drifted from its realisation of the potential the country offered....but there is no escaping that the pragmatic optimism of the 50s till mid 60s etc were instrumental in ensuring a deep set nationalist thread in all parts of the country to the level needed to propagate long term....esp combined with the percetion of point a).

c) There were single unified country dynamics taking root post-Mughal prime (Maratha Empire is best example) that probably would have accomplished something quite large (as far as concept of united indigenous realm) had the British not arrived when they did and upset that....and substituted their own version of it. So the overall concept was not that foreign to India (probably given the larger cultural realm hewn out even with the different polities in existence)...but rather whoever plays the highest stakes game the best ultimately won the hand (politically).

Things like Marathas going very easy on British after their victory in the first anglo-maratha war for example....they definitely regretted that in the end....but its too late at that point....often how centuries of history turn out hinge on knife-edge single things like that.

@anant_s @Kashmiri Pandit @DarkPrince @Gibbs @Hell hound

 

[DarkPrince]

It an interesting subject. First I guess we are talking about the elite/landed given the masses didn't really have much say/decision on the political scenarios (till recently).

My take on it is the main factors are:

a) The turmoil created in the subcontinent caused by so many different competing political forces (that allowed the voids needed for foreign forces to break into and exploit for their political and economic gain etc)...so people inherently grabbed the opportunity (in early 20th century till its final fruition after WW2) to have as large envelope afforded to them politically as possible that fills in behind the larger cultural space/connections created over much longer time period.

b) The early rule of (Nehru) congress did accomplish some very core things at mass level (federally) that are often sidelined today. These are things like land reform, access to political vote (sustainably), good development oriented state leaders and promulgating strong and needed state institutions... i.e things could have turned out quite different in India political stability if 1st leader was a despot and did something like Indira Gandhi did (later) with emergency powers etc....from the get go.

Of course over time because of larger aegis of socialism/leftism, congress inevitably drifted from its realisation of the potential the country offered....but there is no escaping that the pragmatic optimism of the 50s till mid 60s etc were instrumental in ensuring a deep set nationalist thread in all parts of the country to the level needed to propagate long term....esp combined with the percetion of point a).

c) There were single unified country dynamics taking root post-Mughal prime (Maratha Empire is best example) that probably would have accomplished something quite large (as far as concept of united indigenous realm) had the British not arrived when they did and upset that....and substituted their own version of it. So the overall concept was not that foreign to India (probably given the larger cultural realm hewn out even with the different polities in existence)...but rather whoever plays the highest stakes game the best ultimately won the hand (politically).

Things like Marathas going very easy on British after their victory in the first anglo-maratha war for example....they definitely regretted that in the end....but its too late at that point....often how centuries of history turn out hinge on knife-edge single things like that.

It's truly amazing how India is existing as a country despite being racially and culturally so different. Not to mention so many languages and religions. India is far from perfection but it is truly incredible India.

 

[HeinzG]

They were brought together by British guns. Then the british handed over to H-Indians on a silver platter on August 15, 1947. You know similar history in the island to our south.

Well. I beg to differ. If you would like to argue about it, I am more than happy to do so.

It an interesting subject. First I guess we are talking about the elite/landed given the masses didn't really have much say/decision on the political scenarios (till recently).

My take on it is the main factors are:

a) The turmoil created in the subcontinent caused by so many different competing political forces (that allowed the voids needed for foreign forces to break into and exploit for their political and economic gain etc)...so people inherently grabbed the opportunity (in early 20th century till its final fruition after WW2) to have as large envelope afforded to them politically as possible that fills in behind the larger cultural space/connections created over much longer time period.

b) The early rule of (Nehru) congress did accomplish some very core things at mass level (federally) that are often sidelined today. These are things like land reform, access to political vote (sustainably), good development oriented state leaders and promulgating strong and needed state institutions... i.e things could have turned out quite different in India political stability if 1st leader was a despot and did something like Indira Gandhi did (later) with emergency powers etc....from the get go.

Of course over time because of larger aegis of socialism/leftism, congress inevitably drifted from its realisation of the potential the country offered....but there is no escaping that the pragmatic optimism of the 50s till mid 60s etc were instrumental in ensuring a deep set nationalist thread in all parts of the country to the level needed to propagate long term....esp combined with the percetion of point a).

c) There were single unified country dynamics taking root post-Mughal prime (Maratha Empire is best example) that probably would have accomplished something quite large (as far as concept of united indigenous realm) had the British not arrived when they did and upset that....and substituted their own version of it. So the overall concept was not that foreign to India (probably given the larger cultural realm hewn out even with the different polities in existence)...but rather whoever plays the highest stakes game the best ultimately won the hand (politically).

Things like Marathas going very easy on British after their victory in the first anglo-maratha war for example....they definitely regretted that in the end....but its too late at that point....often how centuries of history turn out hinge on knife-edge single things like that.

@anant_s @Kashmiri Pandit @DarkPrince @Gibbs @Hell hound

Thank you for the well detailed analysis. I also think that the independence movement had galvanized the idea of unified India in the hearts and minds of all Indians. Most probably the threat of Muslim invasion from Pakistan would have also played a part. Isn't it?

And also, could you enlighten me on what Indians specially Tamilnadu people thought about Sri Lanka before or during the British times. Why didn't Indians try to amalgamate Sri Lanka, during colonial period of course; into its fold?