What kept India united after the British left?

[Indus Pakistan]

It was fear of thje centralized enormous nanda power that scared the macedonian army

Can we stick to one point at a time please. For now let's leave this please. I will open a thread in seniors and we can have a proper discussion. Although I don't agree with you but your obviously well read person so I need to see the "other side" in case I have it wrong. Any idea should be exposed and recieve "blasting" to see if it holds up. So for now please hold your fire and I will tag you later. Thanks. We can invite @Joe Shearer @Mangus Ortus Novem @Talwar e Pakistan etc

 

[RowdyRathore]

Which part of my post are you disputing?
The British legal system or the British parliamentary system part?

@Peshwa @Joe Shearer
.
Yes Pakistan also started up with British system & Administrative structure same as India did.
But the fact Pakistan couldn't keep up half of the population & land are..
1- Forcing Urdu as their national & offical language, this ignited The Bengali Language Movement, also known as the Bhasha Andolan, was a political effort in Bangladesh (then known as East Pakistan), advocating the recognition of the Bengali language as an official language. Such recognition would allow Bengali to be used in government affairs.
2- West Pak Army did not respect Public Mandate After the Awami League won all the East Pakistan seats as well as a majority of the Pakistan's National Assembly in the 70-71 elections, West Pakistan opened talks with the East on constitutional questions about the division of power between the central government and the provinces, as well as the formation of a national government headed by the Awami League. The talks proved unsuccessful, however, and on 1 March 1971, Pakistani President YahYA Khan indefinitely postponed the pending National Assembly session, precipitating massive civil disobedience in East Pakistan & thrown Sheik Mujib into jail.
3- Genocide of their own people.
.
While many Indian members here saying it's Hinduism which kept India united not its not the religion which feed the population there is something more., had it been for religion Pakistan wouldn't have divided into two.
India though forcibly ceded some kingdoms into it but arranged the whole federal structure that was acceptable to all with their own language, identity & autonomy.

 

[faithfulguy]

Hinduism believes in Unity

Hinduism believes in Yoga ( to join )

Hinduism believes in God of every religion

Hinduism has kept the country together

It's Hinduism and what CD says, British language, legal system, government. And also train.

Also, its collective enmity against Islam and Pakistan.

 

[illusion8]

You are still and always be in delusions , Indian(British made Indian what was you before that?) . And Randi Rona country also have new name if you don't like Randi Rona , new name is #terrormatta .

Yeah..right, terror doesn't go well with India, but is a perfect acronym for one particular south Asian country.

 

[Peshwa]

@Peshwa @Joe Shearer
.
Yes Pakistan also started up with British system & Administrative structure same as India did.
But the fact Pakistan couldn't keep up half of the population & land are..
1- Forcing Urdu as their national & offical language, this ignited The Bengali Language Movement, also known as the Bhasha Andolan, was a political effort in Bangladesh (then known as East Pakistan), advocating the recognition of the Bengali language as an official language. Such recognition would allow Bengali to be used in government affairs.
2- West Pak Army did not respect Public Mandate After the Awami League won all the East Pakistan seats as well as a majority of the Pakistan's National Assembly in the 70-71 elections, West Pakistan opened talks with the East on constitutional questions about the division of power between the central government and the provinces, as well as the formation of a national government headed by the Awami League. The talks proved unsuccessful, however, and on 1 March 1971, Pakistani President YahYA Khan indefinitely postponed the pending National Assembly session, precipitating massive civil disobedience in East Pakistan & thrown Sheik Mujib into jail.
3- Genocide of their own people.
.
While many Indian members here saying it's Hinduism which kept India united not its not the religion which feed the population there is something more., had it been for religion Pakistan wouldn't have divided into two.
India though forcibly ceded some kingdoms into it but arranged the whole federal structure that was acceptable to all with their own language, identity & autonomy.

All that is fine...but you're yet to tell me how my post in response to @Chinese-Dragon was incorrect..
His contention was that the British legal system and British administrative system that kept india united.
I provided another example of a state (Pakistan) that failed even though it had the same fundamental base handed down from the British.
So clearly those weren't the unifying factors for the Indian union.

Now help me understand where I went wrong with my argument..

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

All that is fine...but you're yet to tell me how my post in response to @Chinese-Dragon was incorrect..
His contention was that the British legal system and British administrative system that kept india united.
I provided another example of a state (Pakistan) that failed even though it had the same fundamental base handed down from the British.
So clearly those weren't the unifying factors for the Indian union.

Now help me understand where I went wrong with my argument..

Well the entity was originally British India, which did indeed split several times, preceding the current partitions in the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Kurdistan, etc.) and in Africa (Sudan etc.) by almost half a century.

So clearly the British system can't keep it from splitting forever, but it can certainly delay it. By half a century in the above examples, half a century after India partitioned.

So clearly those weren't the unifying factors for the Indian union.

So what do you think the unifying factors were for the Indian Union? I'm assuming you're not going to say "Hinduism" like the other Indian members here.

So, what links together a Sikh Punjabi to a Muslim Bengali to a Hindu Tamil? When these separate Indian provinces send official communications to each other, what language do they use?

 

[Peshwa]

Well the entity was originally British India, which did indeed split several times, preceding the current partitions in the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Kurdistan, etc.) and in Africa (Sudan etc.) by almost half a century.

So clearly the British system can't keep it from splitting forever, but it can certainly delay it. By half a century in the above examples, half a century after India partitioned.

No one can predict the future.
So I'm not going to go ahead and be a prophet of doom.

But I certainly can say with confidence that British administration or legal system wont be the reason for Indian unity!

So what do you think the unifying factors were for the Indian Union? I'm assuming you're not going to say "Hinduism" like the other Indian members here.

Browine points for reading your audience.
Though Hinduism does have some unifying factors, that alone is not sufficient to hold a country together.

So, what links together a Sikh Punjabi to a Muslim Bengali to a Hindu Tamil? When these separate Indian provinces send official communications to each other, what language do they use?

Post #80 by @AUSTERLITZ does a great job at covering some of the answers you're looking for. quoting here so for you...

1.Long anti-colonial struggle at all-india level under one organization.
2.Common dharmic tradition in religion being a majority,and the only sizeable country in the world where these values were eminent.While many don't like to acknowledge this element due to this not being in tune with declared secular credentials,it is a powerful underlying force.
3.Long historical experience,further exposed by historical studies.The understanding that whenever united, india has resisted external threats be it greeks,huns or arabs and whenever divided overrun and the determination to learn from mistakes of history.Especially with 2 dangerous armed neighbours surrounding us.Divided we will fall.
4.Early leadership during formative period whom despite their faults believed in democracy and diversity and invested in them.
5.Modern communications technology and cultural unifiers(cinema,sports,language blocs)
6.Understanding union is for greater economic benefit of all.The states on their own would be small relatively powerless units helpless in the international stage and not self sufficient in raw materials,together they are a formidable force.
7.A definite geographic boundary,bounded by himalayas in north and indian ocean south.Combined with a historical understanding of bharatvarsha ,propounded from times of the ancient epics thousands of years ago and passed down.
8.Wars.
9.Pride in being indian as it increases in power and prosperity as a nation globally.Particularly amongst the diaspora and the elite .

Highlighted above according to me are the strongest of those reasons.

 

[Laozi]

It's Hinduism and what CD says, British language, legal system, government. And also train.

Also, its collective enmity against Islam and Pakistan.

In India nobody is against Islam

Muslims are the fastest growing in terms of polulation percentage.

No Indian Muslim has ever applied for asylum in Islamic state of Pakistan, besides Dawood Ibrahim

Hinduism is against all fanatics be it RSS, Khalistanis or ISIS

Hinduism never consider any religion above or beneath any other religion. Any Book or Stone or Statue can be worshipped or considered pious as per somebody beliefs. Crazy isn't it ?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Post #80 by @AUSTERLITZ does a great job at covering some of the answers you're looking for. quoting here so for you...

1.Long anti-colonial struggle at all-india level under one organization.
2.Common dharmic tradition in religion being a majority,and the only sizeable country in the world where these values were eminent.While many don't like to acknowledge this element due to this not being in tune with declared secular credentials,it is a powerful underlying force.
3.Long historical experience,further exposed by historical studies.The understanding that whenever united, india has resisted external threats be it greeks,huns or arabs and whenever divided overrun and the determination to learn from mistakes of history.Especially with 2 dangerous armed neighbours surrounding us.Divided we will fall.
4.Early leadership during formative period whom despite their faults believed in democracy and diversity and invested in them.
5.Modern communications technology and cultural unifiers(cinema,sports,language blocs)
6.Understanding union is for greater economic benefit of all.The states on their own would be small relatively powerless units helpless in the international stage and not self sufficient in raw materials,together they are a formidable force.
7.A definite geographic boundary,bounded by himalayas in north and indian ocean south.Combined with a historical understanding of bharatvarsha ,propounded from times of the ancient epics thousands of years ago and passed down.
8.Wars.
9.Pride in being indian as it increases in power and prosperity as a nation globally.Particularly amongst the diaspora and the elite .

Highlighted above according to me are the strongest of those reasons.

The problem with a lot of these points, in my opinion, is that they also technically apply to other parts of the former British India, such as Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, as well as other countries in South Asia such as Sri Lanka and Nepal.

But still partition happened?

I mean technically you could point to more commonalities between Uttar Pradesh and Bhutan/Nepal/Myanmar/Sri Lanka than with Indian-administered Kashmir? Or Indian Punjab and Pakistani Punjab, or Bangladesh and West Bengal? The line that goes through all these places seems more political than cultural.

 

[Peshwa]

The problem with a lot of these points, in my opinion, is that they also technically apply to other parts of the former British India, such as Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, as well as other countries in South Asia such as Sri Lanka and Nepal.

But still partition happened?

I thought we are discussing why India is united post-partition, no?


If you're wondering why partition itself happened? two reasons:

1. Divide and Rule
2. Political power struggle where muslim insecurity played into creation of muslim homeland vs. a secular republic of India.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I thought we are discussing why India is united post-partition, no?


If you're wondering why partition itself happened? two reasons:

1. Divide and Rule
2. Political power struggle where muslim insecurity played into creation of muslim homeland vs. a secular republic of India.

Yes, but the thing is that many (actually every point apart from the last one) of the things that Austerlitz listed can also apply to the other countries of former British India as well as other South Asian countries such as Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Where are the factors that apply specifically to India?

I mean the national boundary lines that cut between East/West Punjab and East/West Bengal seems more political than anything else? Or between Northeast India and Myanmar, Nepal and Bhutan?

If the British had decided to include Bhutan in the Indian Union after partition, wouldn't the current borders of India be different (to include Bhutan)? Or West Punjab or East Bengal?

 

[Peshwa]

Yes, but the thing is that many (actually every point apart from the last one) of the things that Austerlitz listed can also apply to the other countries of former British India as well as other South Asian countries such as Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Absolutely. and if you notice that the weakest of those links/unifying factors is religion.
Which is why, the failed experiment of two nation theory resulted in Pak and BD proving that religion alone cannot sustain the unity of a nation. Those countries focused on Religion as the foundation stone of their existence while we focused on the shared history of the geographical entity that was India.

Pakistan and BD are only now coming to terms with the concept of shared history as the binding factor.

Fact is that point #1 is the most underrated of the list but to me the most important.
Coming together to fight a common enemy, the British was the most unifying thing that happened in South Asia which feeds into #3.
So it isn't our hatred of Pakistan or Islam or whatever other reason that unified us, it was actually the fight against the British that created Indian nationalism and common struggle where every Indian understood the importance of unity over differences in language, caste, ethnicity etc.
Overtime, those differences continue to exist, but Indian nationalism has take precedence over the rest which leads to the last point.

Where are the factors that apply specifically to India?

Those are the factors that apply specifically to India.

But as mentioned in my response above, different countries in that group focused on different fundamentals to create their state.

I mean the national boundary lines that cut between East/West Punjab and East/West Bengal seems more political than anything else? Or between Northeast India and Myanmar, Nepal and Bhutan?

Yep. I think they are purely political.
Now that they exist, many on PDF retroactively try to create artificial differences to suggest that the chasm always existed. Which is far from the truth.

In someway, religion was the curse to a united India.

If the British had decided to include Bhutan in the Indian Union after partition, wouldn't the current borders of India be different (to include Bhutan)? Or West Punjab or East Bengal?

Sorry didn't quite understand this point. Can you explain further please?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Sorry didn't quite understand this point. Can you explain further please?

I'm saying that the border lines that define modern nations are arbitrary things, accidents of history even. A person born in West Bengal or Bangladesh, only a few kilometres of distance would change them from an Indian to a Bangladeshi (or vice versa).

Some lines were just drawn more poorly than others, looking at a map I don't think anyone really believed that East and West Pakistan would be a nation forever, considering the colossal 1000-2000+ km geographical gap in between them.

Whereas China's control on an area like Xinjiang persisted not because of the cultural similarities (of which there are very few) but rather because of raw power and historical conquest.

The same could be said of Britain, after the Romans left, the native Celtic people were overrun by Anglo-Saxon Germanic invaders who now control all of the UK. They lost Ireland but kept Northern Ireland, not because of significant cultural similarities or differences but rather hard power. Same reason why East and West Pakistan split.

 

[Peshwa]

I'm saying that the border lines that define modern nations are arbitrary things, accidents of history even. A person born in West Bengal or Bangladesh, only a few kilometres of distance would change them from an Indian to a Bangladeshi (or vice versa).

Some lines were just drawn more poorly than others, looking at a map I don't think anyone really believed that East and West Pakistan would be a nation forever, considering the colossal 1000+ km geographical gap in between them.

Whereas China's control on an area like Xinjiang persisted not because of the cultural similarities (of which there are very few) but rather because of raw power and historical conquest.

The same could be said of Britain, after the Romans left, the native Celtic people were overrun by Anglo-Saxon Germanic invaders who now control all of the UK. They lost Ireland but kept Northern Ireland, not because of significant cultural similarities or differences but rather hard power.

Very well said.

Which is why I always find it amusing that many on PDF go to such great lengths to find DNA, ethnicity analysis etc etc to create artificial boundaries when we already have those in the name of the international boundary.

I mean think about it, one stroke and all of Punjab or Bengal could have gone to Pakistan or vice versa and those that curse us and bay for our blood would be singing our tune!
I mean India has as many muslims as Pakistan. and majority of them are hardcore nationalist.
Clearly Religion as a foundation for a state is a failure before it even begins. (Israel being the exception because similar to India, they focus on their shared history more than religion which is a necessity for them to band together)

What you speak of hard power is also true. That can be a unifying factors, but will not be the most peaceful of endeavors. For you is Xingjian, for us its Kashmir.
No one can wrest it from us, but we have to keep our eyes on it 24/7 to make keep the unity alive.
Lets just say hard power gives one geographical unity, not integration.

 

[Chichago_bulls]

How is the country that has historically been divided into so many small states has been so united and stable since 1947?

The answer perhaps is in technology and modern means of communication and transportation - telephones, print media, railways, airplanes, television, radio etc. Perhaps these are the things which kept India united for 70 years and consolidated the unity. Technology wasn't there in the past when 'India' consisted of many distinct small countries.

To put it simple it's our CONSTITUTION, one which is accepted since it was introduced and never changed as per convenience, but only amended as per law after serious discussions. This has by and large preserved democracy till date.