ravishingravi Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 It is a phrase that I have come across time and again. Never been sure what to make out of it. I suppose "unity in diversity" and "secularism" come to mind. But was India really founded on any of these ideologies. You look at our neighbouring countries Pakistan and China. Clearly founded on an ideal, not saying they are correct or people there are happy. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka also have a clear majority sect and it more or less rules in both countries at times by crushing and cleansing the minority. I am short of time hence I can't contribute much right now and I apologize if some of you find the subject rather obscure. But I get a feeling for a long time a lot of us were searching for some sense of identity. It has become more clearer in last couple of decades with India growth story, but there still is a long way to go.
ViruRulez Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 The "idea" of India is as diverse as the nation itself and we are certainly not searching for identity at all. On the contrary, India has a distinct self in all its diversity and it has one of the longest history amongst all the nations of the world. India's history also has been very diverse since ancient time and it has been ruled by various empires from various rulers from various regions and various religions. India was ruled by Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians and parts of India have also been ruled by Sikhs and Jains. India as a whole was not a single kingdom in the past too and was hardly ruled as one country before the British. Southern India, North Eastern India, Goa, Andaman etc. were ruled by separate rulers in most of history. Every region of India also has its own diverse culture and languages and all of them add to the glory of India too. Every culture of those regions are also very ancient and go back to thousands of years. India has been created with all these diversities getting unified to form one motherland for all the great people residing this great nation. In short, my idea of India is similar to the world's most incredible bouquet of flowers where the best flowers with its own identities are decorated together to create an amazing collection.
Sir john Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 why we don't use to call as resident of republic of india. which is our country real name.
ViruRulez Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 why we don't use to call as resident of republic of india. which is our country real name. Because India is not just a republic... India is a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic as mentioned by the constitution. Remember those school days when we had to by heart the whole preamble of the Indian constitution for social studies classes. Perhaps the preamble was the only part of constitution that I remembered by heart throughout my school days. :haha:
coffee_rules Posted October 25, 2010 Posted October 25, 2010 Group of princely states found it practical by Brits to have a common governance and after Brits left found it practical to have a common governance for everybody's greater well-being.
jf1gp_1 Posted October 26, 2010 Posted October 26, 2010 It is a phrase that I have come across time and again. Never been sure what to make out of it. I suppose "unity in diversity" and "secularism" come to mind. But was India really founded on any of these ideologies. You look at our neighbouring countries Pakistan and China. Clearly founded on an ideal, not saying they are correct or people there are happy. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka also have a clear majority sect and it more or less rules in both countries at times by crushing and cleansing the minority. I am short of time hence I can't contribute much right now and I apologize if some of you find the subject rather obscure. But I get a feeling for a long time a lot of us were searching for some sense of identity. It has become more clearer in last couple of decades with India growth story, but there still is a long way to go. Its a serious yet sad question. May i know what prompted you to ask this question ?
ravishingravi Posted October 26, 2010 Author Posted October 26, 2010 Its a serious yet sad question. May i know what prompted you to ask this question ? Depends on how you look at it. I think it is a question that everyone who believes in anything should ask. Like the religion, the nationality is omething you are born into. When I say I am a proud "Indian", what does it really mean. What does it stand for. What does the idea of India stand for ? It is probably the most unique country in the world considering the staggeringly diverse cultures, traditions, languages, belief systems etc. I mean if you travel for an hour by plane, it is almost as though you have landed in a different country. I think it is a pertinent question to ask what binds us together. Did the "founding fathers" ever had a vision of what India should stand for ? I don't think it is a sad question at all. I feel a sense of astonishment the more that I understand it as to how India has remained integrated with only few hiccups given these dynamics for more than 60 years. There would have been many "nay sayers" who would have not bet on us to exist together for as long as we have. I probably might take a couple of months off to travel around India. It is more of a personal quest.
ViruRulez Posted October 26, 2010 Posted October 26, 2010 Depends on how you look at it. I think it is a question that everyone who believes in anything should ask. Like the religion' date=' the nationality is omething you are born into. When I say I am a proud "Indian", what does it really mean. What does it stand for. What does the idea of India stand for ? It is probably the most unique country in the world considering the staggeringly diverse cultures, traditions, languages, belief systems etc. I mean if you travel for an hour by plane, it is almost as though you have landed in a different country. [b']I think it is a pertinent question to ask what binds us together. Did the "founding fathers" ever had a vision of what India should stand for ? I don't think it is a sad question at all. I feel a sense of astonishment the more that I understand it as to how India has remained integrated with only few hiccups given these dynamics for more than 60 years. There would have been many "nay sayers" who would have not bet on us to exist together for as long as we have. I probably might take a couple of months off to travel around India. It is more of a personal quest. That is what India is. It is Indianness which binds us all together. If you ask a dictionary definition of Indianness then you wont find it but it is the sense of mutual love for the nation, love and mutual respect for each other and for the diversities within all of us. It is not only in India but commons to Indians all over the world too I suppose. That is why it is said that you can keep an Indian out of India but you cannot keep Inda out of an Indian. :--D
Ram Posted October 26, 2010 Posted October 26, 2010 Group of princely states found it practical by Brits to have a common governance and after Brits left found it practical to have a common governance for everybody's greater well-being. Which brings us to a rather intriguing question; What would have happened to us, had we not been colonized by the British or the other Europeans? Would we still be ONE ‘country’, or would we have disintegrated into smaller pieces, with the system of kingdoms and princely states, still prevailing today?
ViruRulez Posted October 26, 2010 Posted October 26, 2010 Which brings us to a rather intriguing question; What would have happened to us, had we not been colonized by the British or the other Europeans? Would we still be ONE ‘country’, or would we have disintegrated into smaller pieces, with the system of kingdoms and princely states, still prevailing today? Very good question and I have also thought about this question several times all throughout my life as I read Indian history. Frankly speaking, every part of India's history is important and one cannot be seen neglecting any other part of history. The thousands of years of history including good rules as well as misrules including the British colonialism culminated in creation of this great nation. All of them were important.
siddhu Posted October 26, 2010 Posted October 26, 2010 Which brings us to a rather intriguing question; What would have happened to us, had we not been colonized by the British or the other Europeans? Would we still be ONE ‘country’, or would we have disintegrated into smaller pieces, with the system of kingdoms and princely states, still prevailing today? I will have to say YES. That would have been the case. This country has come together and disintegrated many times. I am just hoping for the best that this does not happen again.
ViruRulez Posted October 26, 2010 Posted October 26, 2010 I will have to say YES. That would have been the case. This country has come together and disintegrated many times. I am just hoping for the best that this does not happen again. Almost correct put partially incorrect. Northeast, extreme South and some parts of Northern India have never been a part of India before the British rule. Even in the other parts, only during the biggest empires such as Mughals, Pala, Maurya and Kushan Empire were they somewhat integrated (during Kushan empire entire central and south India were also not a part). Ashoka the Great holds the record for the largest Indian empire before the British. But British united India in its entirety and so it was somewhat necessary for our current nation. Just to add a few more interesting points of history. During the Chola Empire (South India/Dravidian empire), the geographical territory included the whole of South East India including Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar even to Malayasia and Indonesia of present day (they did not hold rest of India except parts of South and East though) . The Kushan Empire extended upto parts of China, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan etc. White Huns were another huge empire which extended upto Middle East and even near Europe.
f.b.m Posted October 26, 2010 Posted October 26, 2010 Some thoughts on that question: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiTrl0W1QrM]YouTube - Shashi Tharoor: Why nations should pursue "soft" power[/ame]
jf1gp_1 Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 I will have to say YES. That would have been the case. This country has come together and disintegrated many times. I am just hoping for the best that this does not happen again. One of the best things to have happened in the last decade (politics aside) is the acceptance of people from different states. I first went to Chennai 12-13 yrs ago was there for a few days and vowed never to return; it was general attitude towards a non tamil speaking person that i could not stand. I went back to chennai a few months back stayed there for about a month, yes language was still a hurdle but i have a great time. I then realized that yes the city had changed but so had i, there was a willingness to accept the city and its culture. I recently over heard two colleagues discussing Robot, two hindi speaking guys discussing rajnikanth movie in Delhi. unbelievable. There have been many more such instances like discussion (among friends) on karnataka being a BJP state as if it was just an extension to gujarat or this group from north east who live across street all dressed up to attend dandiya. i firmly believe we as individuals are moving towards that idealistic picture presented by virurulez if only we had a few more good men leading this country
siddhu Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 Almost correct put partially incorrect. Northeast, extreme South and some parts of Northern India have never been a part of India before the British rule. Even in the other parts, only during the biggest empires such as Mughals, Pala, Maurya and Kushan Empire were they somewhat integrated (during Kushan empire entire central and south India were also not a part). Ashoka the Great holds the record for the largest Indian empire before the British. But British united India in its entirety and so it was somewhat necessary for our current nation. Just to add a few more interesting points of history. During the Chola Empire (South India/Dravidian empire), the geographical territory included the whole of South East India including Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar even to Malayasia and Indonesia of present day (they did not hold rest of India except parts of South and East though) . The Kushan Empire extended upto parts of China, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan etc. White Huns were another huge empire which extended upto Middle East and even near Europe. I meant it as a general statement and did not want to get in all the details that you posted above. Good job BTW. The reason I just said that the country came together under somebody and then disintegrated was because we could not agree to resolve issues spread across multiple domains (be it states/princely states/regions/areas etc) ... again a general statement. Basically every person/village/state were fighting for themselves instead of the nation. Same thing happened during our 1857 independence movement. And this time, I want the country to stay together and not disintegrate at all:pray:.
Recommended Posts