Why the world’s biggest democracy still fails too many of its people

[mirage2K]

The land and civilization of India existed for ages. But the nation of India was created by the British. A civilization is similar to that of western civilization. Indian civilization is equivalent of western European civilization, Arab civilization, etc. But India never existed as a nation until Britain unified it. There were empires that come and go in India throughout history, just like Europe.

same as China...China was never a nation until the KMT came and unified it...there were too many regional centres of power in China...basically China is a nation of 23 countries...until the KMT came and unified it...China was not a nation only a civilization

 

[faithfulguy]

same as China...China was never a nation until the KMT came and unified it...there were too many regional centres of power in China...basically China is a nation of 23 countries...until the KMT came and unified it...China was not a nation only a civilization

China was not a civilization, but part of the East Asian Civilization that include Japan, China, Korea and Vietnam. Japan, Korea, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma were all countries prior to British invasion of Indian subcontinent, which eventually created the Indian nation. India, however, was a civilization for thousands of years before British created the Indian nation. Thus, there were this confusion even among Indians that India was a country. But that is proven not true as India was a geographical expression as well as a civilization. But never a country until the Brits create it.

 

[mirage2K]

China was not a civilization, but part of the East Asian Civilization that include Japan, China, Korea and Vietnam. Japan, Korea, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma were all countries prior to British invasion of Indian subcontinent, which eventually created the Indian nation. India, however, was a civilization for thousands of years before British created the Indian nation. Thus, there were this confusion even among Indians that India was a country. But that is proven not true as India was a geographical expression as well as a civilization. But never a country until the Brits create it.

how many times you have to bull **** to make others believe your lies...India has been a unified nation since time immoral...only thing is it has been governed sometimes by different kingdoms and rulers and have been known by different names like Hindustan, Bharat...the current name of India is the anglican name of the greek term indoi which itself is derieved from the persian word hindus signifying the people living on the land of the river Sindhu [the river Indus]

 

[Omtatsat]

China was not a civilization, but part of the East Asian Civilization that include Japan, China, Korea and Vietnam. Japan, Korea, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma were all countries prior to British invasion of Indian subcontinent, which eventually created the Indian nation. India, however, was a civilization for thousands of years before British created the Indian nation. Thus, there were this confusion even among Indians that India was a country. But that is proven not true as India was a geographical expression as well as a civilization. But never a country until the Brits create it.

The nation concept itself is just a couple of hundred years old. in 1400 AD, was France a nation...or Germany? Nation is a western concept the idea of which is based on a small homogenous population occupying a contiguous area. Old civilizations such as India and China were never nations in the western sense... but their civilizational unity is far stronger. In any case, the whole concept of nation was facilitated through the political state's monopoly on violence. As this declines, the nation state system will unravel as is happening in many parts. Civilizational states such as India and China will however remain.

 

[faithfulguy]

The nation concept itself is just a couple of hundred years old. in 1400 AD, was France a nation...or Germany? Nation is a western concept the idea of which is based on a small homogenous population occupying a contiguous area. Old civilizations such as India and China were never nations in the western sense... but their civilizational unity is far stronger. In any case, the whole concept of nation was facilitated through the political state's monopoly on violence. As this declines, the nation state system will unravel as is happening in many parts. Civilizational states such as India and China will however remain.

East Asian nations never were modern nations like what we have today. But they are countries in a sense that they have a national identity with one national leader. In China, Japan and Vietnam, its their emperors. In Korea and Thailand, they have kings. But this countries have a central leader, something that do not exist in India.

What India had was more like western Europe in the early modern ages. In India, there were countries and kingdoms like Sihk kingdom or Maratha confederation. In Europe, there were French kingdom and German confederation. What had stopped Europe from being one country is the lack of one external power that united all of western Europe into one country and impose a language that unified Europe. So Europe never become one country. India was fortunate enough for the British to come in, unify the country, impose English to unify India. As a result, India is a country today.

 

[Omtatsat]

East Asian nations never were modern nations like what we have today. But they are countries in a sense that they have a national identity with one national leader. In China, Japan and Vietnam, its their emperors. In Korea and Thailand, they have kings. But this countries have a central leader, something that do not exist in India.

What India had was more like western Europe in the early modern ages. In India, there were countries and kingdoms like Sihk kingdom or Maratha confederation. In Europe, there were French kingdom and German confederation. What had stopped Europe from being one country is the lack of one external power that united all of western Europe into one country and impose a language that unified Europe. So Europe never become one country. India was fortunate enough for the British to come in, unify the country, impose English to unify India. As a result, India is a country today.

Im afraid your understanding is not correct. India, because of its size, and Hinduism's democratic ethos, has always had a decentralized political system. All scriptures have the concept of a Chakravartin ( Emperor) who is the nominal head while local power lies with the Rajas ( Kings). Centralization has never worked in India as the local traditions are very strong. The federal system was in place in all times except when the country was disturbed. The examples you gave .. of the Sikhs and Marathas... existed when the Mughal empire was declining or breaking up. But even the Marathas recognized the Mughal emperor as the head of the country.

 

[manlion]

Im afraid your understanding is not correct. India, because of its size, and Hinduism's democratic ethos, has always had a decentralized political system. All scriptures have the concept of a Chakravartin ( Emperor) who is the nominal head while local power lies with the Rajas ( Kings). Centralization has never worked in India as the local traditions are very strong. The federal system was in place in all times except when the country was disturbed. The examples you gave .. of the Sikhs and Marathas... existed when the Mughal empire was declining or breaking up. But even the Marathas recognized the Mughal emperor as the head of the country.

1 - the concept of kings/emperor or raja etc existed in all civilsations, its not an Indian monopoly
2 -Centralisation can never worked in India for 2 reasons a) India isn't homogeneous b) India was never a unified country until the Brits arrived
3- Marathas and sikhs don't have long history in comparison with the Cholas etc as such its baseless reference, e.g Sikhs owe their origin to Islam

 

[Omtatsat]

1 - the concept of kings/emperor or raja etc existed in all civilsations, its not an Indian monopoly
2 -Centralisation can never worked in India for 2 reasons a) India isn't homogeneous b) India was never a unified country until the Brits arrived
3- Marathas and sikhs don't have long history in comparison with the Cholas etc as such its baseless reference, e.g Sikhs owe their origin to Islam

Why is it necessary for us to straitjacket ourselves into the western concept of a nation state? Is it the only way humans can organize themselves? Was there no political arrangement before the nation state concept came about a couple of hundred years age? India may not have been a nation state in the European sense but it has always been a nation since antiquity. Indians have always been civilizationally united and do not need artificial props. The Britishers did nothing other than to interrupt the resurgence of Hindu power on the eve of Mughal decline.

 

[manlion]

Why is it necessary for us to straitjacket ourselves into the western concept of a nation state? Is it the only way humans can organize themselves?

Please enlighten us , whether the present India is based on the western concept of nation state ?

and why did India do away with the Maharajas after the British left India?

Was there no political arrangement before the nation state concept came about a couple of hundred years age? India may not have been a nation state in the European sense but it has always been a nation since antiquity. Indians have always been civilizationally united and do not need artificial props. The Britishers did nothing other than to interrupt the resurgence of Hindu power on the eve of Mughal decline.

What are/were civilisational unity that you are bragging about ?

 

[Omtatsat]

Please enlighten us , whether the present India is based on the western concept of nation state ?

and why did India do away with the Maharajas after the British left India?




What are/were civilisational unity that you are bragging about ?

What do you know of Indian history? stick to your own Pygmy nation.

 

[manlion]

What do you know of Indian history? stick to your own Pygmy nation.

did I claim to know "Indian" history ?

As you have not answered any of the questions, but only capable of putting up some lame one liner, you are nothing but just hot air !!

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

I think India should first feed, clothe, shelter half its population before spending on defence budget or glamorous airports.

Right back at you.. Pakistan should first save its own people from getting killed by its own people ... before claiming to be a godfather of global Muslim population.

 

[INDIC]

East Asian nations never were modern nations like what we have today. But they are countries in a sense that they have a national identity with one national leader. In China, Japan and Vietnam, its their emperors. In Korea and Thailand, they have kings. But this countries have a central leader, something that do not exist in India.

What India had was more like western Europe in the early modern ages. In India, there were countries and kingdoms like Sihk kingdom or Maratha confederation. In Europe, there were French kingdom and German confederation. What had stopped Europe from being one country is the lack of one external power that united all of western Europe into one country and impose a language that unified Europe. So Europe never become one country. India was fortunate enough for the British to come in, unify the country, impose English to unify India. As a result, India is a country today.

What centralized leader was there in Tibet or Xinjiang except Yuan and Qing dynasties throghout Chinese history.

 

[Omtatsat]

did I claim to know "Indian" history ?

As you have not answered any of the questions, but only capable of putting up some lame one liner, you are nothing but just hot air !!

How can I discuss history with people who have no history of their own.

 

[INDIC]

1 - the concept of kings/emperor or raja etc existed in all civilsations, its not an Indian monopoly
2 -Centralisation can never worked in India for 2 reasons a) India isn't homogeneous b) India was never a unified country until the Brits arrived
3- Marathas and sikhs don't have long history in comparison with the Cholas etc as such its baseless reference, e.g Sikhs owe their origin to Islam

Search Mughal Empire in 1707 and Maratha Empire in 1760.