India allowed foreigners to shape the idea of itself

[pankaj nema]

WTF even the Rajputs were NOT United against the Islamist Hordes

So how could we expect Rajputs Marathas Sikhs and Jats to have; ever come under ONE FLAG

 

[devgupt]

Indian Nationalism was born during British times
when the whole country was under one political rule ie under ONE FLAG

Before that we were all messed up

So before Bismarck, Garibaldi there was no German nationalism, Italian Nationalism - and these guys just invented it?

People of this subcontinent has always considered Bharatvarsha, Hindustan as a civilizational construct. Nationalism is a phenomenon which arose with the dawn of modern age. With time, the civilizational construct of Bharat,Hind,India got solidified into political boundaries.

 

[devgupt]

Good question

The Hindu Civilisational LINKS and Commonalities were NOT the political unifiers for India

The Himalayas and other holy places were just Piligrimages for the rest of the country

Why there are 4 dhams at the four corners of the country - why not 6 and anywhere in between?

 

[pankaj nema]

So before Bismarck, Garibaldi there was no German nationalism, Italian Nationalism - and these guys just invented it?

People of this subcontinent has always considered Bharatvarsha, Hindustan as a civilizational construct. Nationalism is a phenomenon which arose with the dawn of modern age. With time, the civilizational construct of Bharat,Hind,India got solidified into political boundaries.

Civilisational unity is all a text book phrase

All kings and kingdoms were fighting for themselves and never aided each other

 

[pmaitra]

One picture is worth a hundred words.

 

[devgupt]

All kings and kingdoms were fighting for themselves and never aided each other

The jobs of the king is to always fight - nothing new in that. the various German princes of various regions were fighting amongst themselves till the end of19th century

 

[pankaj nema]

Sir the people living in the Mauryan Empire or Any other empire were subjects of a King or a Dynasty

They DID not identify themselves as Hindustanis

 

[pmaitra]

Sir the people living in the Mauryan Empire or Any other empire were subjects of a King or a Dynasty

They DID not identify themselves as Hindustanis

I agree. This Emperor-Vassal concept existed then, existed during the British Era, and now we have a republic on similar lines, where the Lok Sabha is the Emperor and Rajya Sabhas are the vassals. Hierarchy is the same.

Note, Rome was also a Republic, but it was also an Empire.

 

[devgupt]

Indian Nationalism was born during British times
when the whole country was under one political rule ie under ONE FLAG

Before that we were all messed up

Burma was under the same flag as us - part of British India , ruled from Calcutta, Delhi, and it got separated only in 1937.Freedom movement had got much matured by then.So why are we not calling Burma as part of India?

 

[pankaj nema]

Burma was under the same flag as us - part of British India , ruled from Calcutta, Delhi, and it got separated only in 1937.Freedom movement had got much matured by then.So why are we not calling Burma as part of India?

It is not for US to call somebody Indian

Why Burmese Even after 1930 The people in the Present day Pakistan were declaring themselves
as NOT Indians though there were Million of Hindus still living there and the language spoken was the same

Burma was just another Administrative unit or province in British India

Indian People began to Feel themselves as " Indians " for the first time under the British

 

[devgupt]

Burma was just another Administrative unit or province in British India

Like Madras ? Bombay?

Indian People began to Feel themselves as " Indians " for the first time under the British

So if Burma was just another Administrative unit ruled by British like Madras, or Assam, why did Indian nationalism arise in these places and not in Burma?
Remember Assam was captured by British from Burmese king.So why does a figure like Gopinath Bordoloi fight for Indian independence and not for Burmese independence?

 

[pankaj nema]

Mate you are just creating unnecessary Confusion

The question when did majority of people in this South Asia begin to consider themselves as Indians

WTF even today we have disputes in Manipur and Kashmir

Those guys want to secede

SO what

 

[devgupt]

Mate you are just creating unnecessary Confusion

The question when did majority of people in this South Asia begin to consider themselves as Indians

WTF even today we have disputes in Manipur and Kashmir

Those guys want to secede

SO what

Birth of nations is not a simple event , brought about by any single event.There are complex historical forces behind it , acting in tandem, acting against it.

The reason why Guwahati stays with India and Rangoon doesnt even though both were part of the same Burmese and later British empire, points to more important causes rather than just 'common British rule' as the reason for the choices their people made in 20th century.

Putting regions under one rule doesn't make a country - it's the will of the people , how they view themselves that makes the nation. The Ottoman empire continued right till early 20th century - yet the the regions it ruled never crystallized into one country.

The concept of Bharat,Hindustan, India was always there in people's minds. In earlier times King as the shadow of god , ruled it, as was the case the world over. The tides of history shaped kingdoms into nation states, India was crystallized the same way.

 

[civfanatic]

Sir the people living in the Mauryan Empire or Any other empire were subjects of a King or a Dynasty

They DID not identify themselves as Hindustanis

Of course they did not call themselves 'Hindustanis', the term did not exist then. During Mauryan times the land was known as 'Aryavarta' and its inhabitants as 'Aryas'. Although the 'Aryas' were themselves a very diverse group, consisting of numerous polities and sub-cultures, they did have overarching cultural similarities which made them part of a greater civilisation. During Maurya times, the Aryas not only had a considerable degree of political unity, but also considerable cultural unity in the form of a common language (Magadhi Prakrit) and script (Brahmi); during Ashoka's reign, there were also efforts to promote a common ideology based on Buddhist dhamma. A tentative comparison can be drawn with the the peoples of ancient Greece, who were divided into many different city-states but were still aware that they all formed a greater civilisation, which included among other things a common language, religion, and worldview. Just as the Greeks considered all non-Greeks to be barbaroi (barbarians), the Aryas considered all non-Aryas to be mlecchas. The term mleccha was used throughout history to denote practically ANY group that is foreign to India, including groups as diverse as Greeks, Bactrians, Scythians, Huns, Arabs, and Turks. The fact that the term mleccha was used so indiscriminately shows that the Indic peoples of the subcontinent (i.e. the Aryas) were well-aware of the differences between 'us' and 'them', and of the fact that they were members of a distinct civilisation.

 

[Mad Indian]

Of course they did not call themselves 'Hindustanis', the term did not exist then. During Mauryan times the land was known as 'Aryavarta' and its inhabitants as 'Aryas'. Although the 'Aryas' were themselves a very diverse group, consisting of numerous polities and sub-cultures, they did have overarching cultural similarities which made them part of a greater civilisation. During Maurya times, the Aryas not only had a considerable degree of political unity, but also considerable cultural unity in the form of a common language (Magadhi Prakrit) and script (Brahmi); during Ashoka's reign, there were also efforts to promote a common ideology based on Buddhist dhamma. A tentative comparison can be drawn with the the peoples of ancient Greece, who were divided into many different city-states but were still aware that they all formed a greater civilisation, which included among other things a common language, religion, and worldview. Just as the Greeks considered all non-Greeks to be barbaroi (barbarians), the Aryas considered all non-Aryas to be mlecchas. The term mleccha was used throughout history to denote practically ANY group that is foreign to India, including groups as diverse as Greeks, Bactrians, Scythians, Huns, Arabs, and Turks. The fact that the term mleccha was used so indiscriminately shows that the Indic peoples of the subcontinent (i.e. the Aryas) were well-aware of the differences between 'us' and 'them', and of the fact that they were members of a distinct civilisation.

So what about the People of South India who were not part of the Mauryan empire, were they outsiders?

And Also the NE which were not part of India either? So when did they start feeling like Indians?

Also, is the Aryas and the Aryans Same? So what does that make me, a mleecha?

 

[Iamanidiot]

The genesis of Nationalism and nationalistic ideas took place with the laying of the railwayline between Thane and Bombay and also the Telegraph line in 1852 between Agra and Kaunpur.True Nationalistic feelings first came to the fore in 1919 during the Jallianwala bagh agitation undertaken by Gandhi.Which can be called the first true Pan-Indian National protest.

The Shankaracharya is genesis of nationalism or Hinduism is nationalism argument is quite laughable and are the rants of a saffronus cow pee connoserius neech Kameenus mutaeus.

The genesis of Indian nationalism lies in the Modern Indian history than in some unidentified distant past

 

[Iamanidiot]

Good question

The Hindu Civilisational LINKS and Commonalities were NOT the political unifiers for India

The Himalayas and other holy places were just Piligrimages for the rest of the country

Good one and a great post .Keeper for the archives

 

[devgupt]

The genesis of Nationalism and nationalistic ideas took place with the laying of the railwayline between Thane and Bombay and also the Telegraph line in 1852 between Agra and Kaunpur.True Nationalistic feelings first came to the fore in 1919 during the Jallianwala bagh agitation undertaken by Gandhi.Which can be called the first true Pan-Indian National protest.

The Shankaracharya is genesis of nationalism or Hinduism is nationalism argument is quite laughable and are the rants of a saffronus cow pee connoserius neech Kameenus mutaeus.

The genesis of Indian nationalism lies in the Modern Indian history than in some unidentified distant past

If the British rule is the only reason we are together, then why did't Burmese who were with us under the same British flag, ruled from Calcutta, Delhi, didnt got united with us?

When did whole India came under British rule - Never. British never ruled whole India.So how they can unite India?Hyderabad, Travancore, Baroda,Mysore,Jodhpur.Jaisalmer,Jaipur,Patiala, Cooch Behar(in today's Bengal),Junagarh,Kapurthala,Mandi, Kangra, Gwalior and may others were never ruled by them.How do you explain their nationalistic feelings if you discount the ancient ties?

British conquered Punjab in 1848 and that too not whole of it. States like Patiala were independent. from 1848 to jaliianwala Bagh - its only 70 years , one lifetime. So British in 70 years integrated Punjab with India?
The Soviets ruled Ukraine, Georgia for 70 years and yet couldn't integrate with Mother Russia. On BTW yes they had railway lines throughout USSR.

Before Jallianwala Bagh happened, Congress had already split into Moderates and extemists. Aurobindo Ghosh had dropped bombs against British, Khudiram Bose had given up his life. Rash Bihari Bose attempted what Netaji did 25 years later, Subramanya Bharathi had filled pages extolling Indian nationalism, Tilak had launched his Home Rule movement, Vivekanda was actively quoted by the revolutionary youth.In fact by the noughties the images of Lal - Bal- Pal (Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak,Bipin Chandra pal) inspired revolutionaries throughout India and provided a pan India nationalistic leadership to the freedom movement.

 

[Tshering22]

Beautifully written. We allowed too much foreign interference and mis-information to be the mainstay of Indian education and hence there are so many doubts and confusions people have today.

 

[KS]

The concept of Bharat,Hindustan, India was always there in people's minds. In earlier times King as the shadow of god , ruled it, as was the case the world over. The tides of history shaped kingdoms into nation states, India was crystallized the same way.

In other words - India as a 'state' came into existence on 15th Aug 1947...but Bharat as a 'nation' was always existed thanks to the civilizational links.