What's new

Why is South India paying for North India

The caste is strong, more so because it's tied to resources but Indian identity is nevertheless present in nearly all groups, simply because of being drilled into the heads since at least 1900s.

yea but its a frivoulous identity given by bureacracy and propoganda. Does not derive its meaning from lived reality. Wont take long for it to melt away.

1900s? Its been ingrained since 3000 BC.

Hardly. Even in 1947 one third of india was in princeley states. Barely anyone even heard of india let alone know they are supposed to be indians. India is just a bureacratic state passed on by brits.
 
.
At my company's office in North India, we recently hired a bunch of Keralites, because they were the most qualified. All were Hindu.

Now we are being unofficially requested that we should not be hiring "Mallus" (actual word used) for that office because they all cluster in a corner and talk in Malayalam and eat beef. Lol!!!

Eating beef in cow-mutra territory requires balls of steel
 
. . .
I said brahminical. And yes you are a liar to claim north south indian intermarry or south languages are respected. Actually you are delusional who doesnt understand the meaning of respect and has the capacity to interpret basic social phenomenon with any sense of honesty. Its a common thing about brahmins and brahmin affiliated people.

Looks like you Pakistanis are stuck with your caste nonsense. No one in current day modern India cares. We are all Indians.
 
.
Hardly. Even in 1947 one third of india was in princeley states. Barely anyone even heard of india let alone know they are supposed to be indians. India is just a bureacratic state passed on by brits.

A centralized state that controls the revenue will never dissolve easily.
 
.
And yes you are a liar to claim north south indian intermarry or south languages are respected. Actually you are delusional who doesnt understand the meaning of respect and has the capacity to interpret basic social phenomenon with any sense of honesty. Its a common thing about brahmins and brahmin affiliated people.
I know what I am talking about I was born in the South of India and have studied in the North and worked for 2 years in Delhi- Yes I know what I am talking about- Now back under the rock you came from- Who cares what you think about Brahmins-You are just insignificant- Thats all!
 
. .
yea but its a frivoulous identity given by bureacracy and propoganda. Does not derive its meaning from lived reality. Wont take long for it to melt away.



Hardly. Even in 1947 one third of india was in princeley states. Barely anyone even heard of india let alone know they are supposed to be indians. India is just a bureacratic state passed on by brits.
Yeah right- East India Company/British India was unheard off- You are correct though-the concept of the nation on out west was unheard off before 1947.
 
.
1900s? Its been ingrained since 3000 BC.

Hardly. Even in 1947 one third of india was in princeley states. Barely anyone even heard of india let alone know they are supposed to be indians. India is just a bureacratic state passed on by brits.
India as a civilisation existed since at least 500 BC, the modern Pan-Indian identity is modelled after the European idea of nation-state starting from the 1900s.

The "Bharat Mata" was first drawn in 1905.

Even older arguments can be made like when Marathas declared that "This is Hindu Shahi, we will capture and rule all lands till Constantinople".

Edit : I don't agree with this kind of exclusionary historical interpretation.

@Joe Shearer
 
Last edited:
.
Secular lifestyle failed in Pakistan. Secular political parties led to divisions on racial lines and provincial politics destroyed our nation. 1971 saw the loss of our Eastern wing, which was the result of secularism and rising Bengali nationalism. To top it all off, two liberal governments freely looted our wealth and left us with a horrendous amount of debt, which we have still not clawed our way out of.

Our number one and greatest ally and role model for our life as a nation, the US, deeply backstabbed us again and again. The final nail in the coffin of our friendship came when they set up Indian terrorists in Afghanistan to murder 75,000 of our people.

Yes, Pakistanis had to search inwards and find the solutions to these problems and why these terrible things kept happening to us.

The solution was simple. We had left the onus of our state and adopted secularism, it was destroying us left and right. So then Islam came back in full focus, and then we saw the nation coalesce back together into a monolithic nation on the base of Islam and the frame of a shared heritage (IVC, Iranic.)



Bollywood is not so popular anymore. You are still a little late on your analysis. We had left that almost a decade ago.

Recent craze in Pakistan are Turkish serials.

Pakistanis are not like Indians, we are racially very diverse. We have heritage from Turks, Mongols, Iranians, Arabs, Kurds, and Afghans, in addition to the predominant IVC and Iranic nomad ancestry (Saka, Kushan, Hepthalite) we have. We even have ancient pure Iranic populations like Kalash (called Nuristanis in Afghanistan) and African origin Makrani people.

Your racial caricatures of Pukhtoons also is highly offensive and false. They form 25% of our population, are represented in all cities, have high degree of intermarriage with other groups, and form distinct groups all over Pakistan such as Hindkowan of Hazara, Niazis of Central Punjab, and significant populations in Balochistan, Karachi, and North Punjab.



To outsiders who don't understand Pakistan, it can seem an insurmountable task to understand us. However, for those willing to ask questions and accept the answers given by Pakistanis, it will make sense.

Now sitting in a pind in Central Punjab or mountains of KPK, we would laugh at anyone who would claim we have some confusion about our identity. This is the soil of our fathers and the air breathed in by them, we are most comfortable in who we are. We are Pakistanis.



Sorry sir, I will bow out of off-topic discussions now.

:D


@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan a little introspection is right. Secularism is not the reason for the breakup of the state. Bengali people have always been nationalistic to a fckin T as a race. History is testament. It was our establishment's inability to realize and apply a one mold fits all approach. You sometimes have to use carrot, sometimes stick. Suppression is just a temporary solution, integration should have been the key


Infact @Shantanu_Left my hypothesis is the growing Islamism is a result, a PTSD due to the separation of Bangladesh. Zia, in his shortsightedness, thought Islamism would bind the nation together. But alas, that was like putting a weak bandage on a deep wound. Shias started Sunnis started fighting Barelvis started fighting Ahmedis. Pakistan was quite liberal and secular in the 60s amd early 70s. My dad was a 'hippie' in the mid 70s as a medical student in Karachi. This straitjacketing of the narrative into a conservative "with us or against us" narrative has only been something post 80s.


And @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan you keep talking of these Afghans, Sakas, Hun, Persians. These came and interbred with the local Indians to form Pakistani people hundreds of years ago. Waxing poetic about them does seem in a way foolish. What we have now are Brahuis, Sindhis, Siraikis, Kalash, Chitralis, Makranis, Gilgitis, Pashtos and Punjabis. We need to take pride in them and grow those cultures as part of a Pakistani identity. It will only bind us closer. Punjabis make a greater majority in Pakistani Punjab than Indian Punjab. How I wish our Punjab was the worldwide representative of Punjabi culture rather than Honey Singh and RDB. Similarly there are more Pashtuns in KPK and Balochistan combined than all of Afghanistan. How I wish we were the global representative of Pakhtun culture rather than Afghanistan.
 
.
north indians are absolute losers with a loud mouth that south india has to lug around. the south would be much better off as an independent country by breaking away from north india.


That sounds quite familiar... Where have I heard it? Oh yes. That's what people from Karachi say about Punjab no?

You are right. North India is a drag on South India. But punjab is a much bigger drag on Karachi ( revenue figures ). Please give Karachi nationhood and lead by example. Give South India some hope along with all these worries.
 
. .
I know what I am talking about I was born in the South of India and have studied in the North and worked for 2 years in Delhi- Yes I know what I am talking about- Now back under the rock you came from- Who cares what you think about Brahmins-You are just insignificant- Thats all!

haha what a paranoia and megalomania. I dont live under a rock - I have been to and I know INdia like the back of my hand. I have had wide range of discussions with several thinkers there.
It doesnt matter what you claim yourself to be. Its unthinkable that north and south indians intermarry to any meaningful extent. Any indians here will laugh at your face. Morover where is respect for your language when "central" govt does not even speak it. It takes taxes from you but neither your parliament speaks nor the GO's come in it.

India as a civilisation existed since at least 500 BC, the modern Pan-Indian identity is modelled after the European idea of nation-state starting from the 1900s.
The "Bharat Mata" was first drawn in 1905.

Even older arguments can be made like when Marathas declared that "This is Hindu Shahi, we will capture and rule all lands till Constantinople".

@Joe Shearer

India existed as a civilizational entity ? where ? definitely not as "India". Even if you claim bharat or hindustan are equivalent a civilizational entity absolutely does not mean national entity. Look at europe. infacr bharat is rubbish sangh nonsense no real evidence and hindustan was given by outsiders. If india were a civilization as you claim - atleast it should have a name for it from witin ?
 
.
India existed as a civilizational entity ? where ? definitely not as "India". Even if you claim bharat or hindustan are equivalent a civilizational entity absolutely does not mean national entity. Look at europe.
Germans were divided into various tribes too and were not a single entity until Otto von Bismarck.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom