Fascinating story. This brings fourth how complex a country India is.
Before (and even during) the British rule India was a ruled tens of of such princely states each in turn had hundreds of low level feudal lords. While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc.,
India truly became a single political entity only after those hundreds or so kings were forced to abdicate their rule. I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India and not to some princely state.
> I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India
Most of the people in my state, and a lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India". India seems to expect us to fall to the ground and worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense, and we decline. We don't belong to anyone other than ourselves. Thank you.
> lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India"
Speak for yourself/Tamil Nadu. I'm from Karnataka (a southern state) and majority of kannadigas love India and are patriotic.
> worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense
Why do you believe that north indian language and religion are nonsense? I've lived in New Delhi for more than half of my childhood and I don't think North Indians are backward relative to South Indians. Although they are relatively poor.
It is informative that you assume I am from Tamil Nadu. It tells us a lot about the underlying assumptions within your "views".
> Why do you believe that north indian language and religion are nonsense?
No one said that except for you. I'll try to simplify what I said since you had difficulty comprehending what I wrote. What I said was that I am opposed to those who worship "India's language is Hindi". Further, I am opposed to those "who worship Aryans". Surely I don't have to explain why "wheatish" supremacy and other similar nonsense is a bad thing?
> I don't think North Indians are backward relative to South Indians. Although they are relatively poor.
Oh ho ho. Again, not something I said. You seem to have a great deal of imagination and are jousting against your imagined provocations instead of what I communicated.
> lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India"
Speak for yourself. I am from Andhra Pradesh, settled in Telangana. Never have I heard your kind of bullshit, except from ultra-leftists on the web.
I don't think you have a substantial minority (leave alone a majority) supporting your stand in TN!
I think , what he is trying to say is, ascribing a single language to a diversified nation like India is not a good idea.
> Why do you believe that north indian language and religion are nonsense?
Free speech.LoL.I am not saying OP is right or is following HN etiquette, but that it is OP's opinion(not fact, not truth).
> I don't think North Indians are backward relative to South Indians. Although they are relatively poor.
Bihar is the most uneducated state in the country. Kolkata is a terrible to place to conduct business of any kind. Although , this is not representative of the North.
But what is North anyway ?
Should we consider anything above Madhya Pradesh North ?
Does Gujarat count as North ?
Does Mizoram count as North ?
> Why do you believe that north indian language and religion are nonsense?
I believe the parent didn't call the North Indian language and religion nonsense. They argue against the attempts to make all the diverse ethnic groups/regions fall in line behind some centrally mandated language and religion.
They actually argue for the diversity and autonomy of the various groups to maintain their language and traditions, which is hard to disagree with (as an outsider).
The history of trying to repress religions and ethnic groups is long and bloody, no matter where we look on the globe.
> Why do you believe that north indian language are nonsense?
Hindi language should first correct the pronunciation of words like "Baink" for Bank, "Baal" for Ball, "Daaktar" for Doctor etc. And then thinking of enforcing that language on rest of the country.
I am curious, why Samskrut is not used as a common language for India, like how Hebrew resurrected as a language of Israel? With English as second language, and mother-tongue as the the third language. Samskrut has a treasure trove of important literature that not many in India understand!
There is always some idiot spewing vitriol by bringing up north/west/east/south/up/down. The whole culture of south India IS India. What the fuck are all those Jurassic old temples there for? Built by all South Indian kings. For fucks sake Tamil the language is born of Lord Shiva(North Indian, just kidding) taught to sage Agastya on which this whole hate mongering language movement started by the stupid Aryan/Dravidian theory.
Why I bring up Tamil? Because your username is the stupid movement started to grab power. Is there a South Indian shiva who is different from the North Indian shiva?
What is the Indian culture? What is the South Indian culture? Except the million languages found in India what major difference were there for religious or cultural purposes?
This hate is what leads to the so called Dalit leader take up the name of a rapist Brahmin (Ravan). Haters gonna hate.
From your writing above, I can see you are not from Tamil Nadu and that you need to educate yourself more.
Would it blow your mind if I told you that Shiva (or Vishnu) was not even worshipped by Tamils or in the ancient literature till it was brought in from the north?
The real religion of the Tamils is akin to ancestor worshi. Later, all the religions started invading and setting up roots ( actually Buddhism/Jainism took roots before current Hinduism came down ).
That seems to be patently false. The oldest Tamil literature is Sangam literature (except Tolkāppiyam which is about grammar and contains influences from people all around India) which also contains poems for Vishnu, shiva, Durga. Buddhism and Jainism came way later.
Those who tell you:
- "India's language is Hindi"
- "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism"
- and other similar things
are a pain in the neck not just for you but for everyone they will be in touch with. They will keep on creating new propaganda(just like the points above) targeted towards different groups of people so that they can annoy you and remain trending. Please keep in mind that they are not "India".
> India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism
This seems very short sighted.
From an objective historical standpoint, the current Hinduism is no more 'Aryan' than it's 'Dravidian' or 'Indigineous'.
The Rig Vedic dieties which share origins with Nordic, Greek or other Indo European mythology are not the central point of the Hinduism since the middle ages. The present rituals and systems evolved over, 3000+ years, shaped by various political forces, most of which was never documented and we will never know.
The "North Indian == Aryan" was wording used in Tamil Nadu politics that's why people in comments are assuming your from there.
Your point is correct that current Nationalist side of politics is pushing some views in order to unify their voter base. (I don't want to talk about politics on a nerd forum.)
The only thing more "Aryan" about Hindu nationalism is they want to claim this historically baseless OIT theory (as if anything that comes from outside is impure and bad).
[to non indians reading this, the word Aryan refers to slightly different meaning than held in the west, while we are talking about same indo european bronze age peoples, both theories (Nazism or Periyar's Dravidianism), are pseudoscience shit.
> I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India
The Indian govt continues to use the old British policy of different people groups in quelling dissidence still.
Our armed forced divisions are still based on people groups, and if they want to put forces in Kashmir, then they deploy non-native forces, who have less affinity to the local population. This might also explain some of the excesses seen.
True. And some states will still take another couple of generations. For example, no sense of Indian-ness was observed when killing Assam policemen by the fellow Indians on the other side fighting over state border.
I remember a discussion a couple of years ago. Why Indian states are not as straight cut as US states? The above incident is an example why it is not possible as yet here. I am not saying it is good or bad.
I think in every case around the world except North America, borders are associated with centuries of history. Since today's North American's aren't native - the borders weren't necessarily meant to follow any historical significance. This might be the reason of straight demarcations.
Some of what you said is not true. There were attempts made to unify "India" even before the British came to India. Infact the term "Hindu", "Hindi", "India", "Hindustan" is not Indian in the first place. The words "Hindu", "Hindi" and "Hindustan" were given to the people risiding east of the Indu/Sindhu river by the Persian/Arabic visitors and invaders. And the word "India" was derived from the word "Hindustan" by the European invaders and visitors as such: "Hindustan" became "Indostan", and then "Indostan" was further shortened to "India". So people visiting/invading the eastern parts of the Indu/Sindhu river were considering the people there as one civilisation if not one country. But there were attempts made before, as far back as Chanakya, to unify the people under one rule.
I am aware of the origin of the words India and Hindu which I find bemusing.
> So people visiting/invading the eastern parts of the Indu/Sindhu river were considering the people there as one civilisation if not one country.
I conjecture it is natural for foreigners at that time to refer to the land (and hence the people residing there) east of Sindhu river as India/Indians. For them it was just an alien/different region. For example, to refer Asoka as Indian ruler as in "king who belongs to India" and not "Ruler of India".
I'm curious to know if the contemporary people living in different parts of Indian land felt as if they belonged to India as a whole. Though possible, it is highly unlikely IMO. I highly doubt if a farmer in a village in Kerala would consider a village in Punjab as belonging to his nation.
> But there were attempts made before, as far back as Chanakya, to unify the people under one rule.
I've read/seen this in popular stories (Chanakya serial from 1990s is decent) but I don't know how authentic they are. I'd love to read more on this topic, preferably by historians. My naive search was fruitless. One thing to note is that Indian historical records from that period are extremely rare making it all the more difficult. It's a pity that Indians of that didn't write as much as Romans did.
> I highly doubt if a farmer in a village in Kerala would consider a village in Punjab as belonging to his nation.
Data point of one (and social circle of one), but this is how I feel, an average citizen coming from tiny village in one part of country. This is how I and everyone around me were raised. We are not rich, we used to be poor, but we never considered Punjab or Bengal or Tamilnadu or Mizoram were anything but my country. I went to college and met people from vast majority of the country and I never felt they were not from my country. Sure the language was different, the cultures were different, we looked a little different but it was never in question that we belonged to a 'different' country.
For the record, I do not come from a privileged background, my family worked hard for multiple generations to get where we are, we are not rich by any measure of the world even today, and Hindi is not my native language. I am proud of what happens to be my native language and speak in it everywhere I can. I do not like the push for Hindi if there ever was one that made a difference, and I like to believe politicians have learned their lesson on that one (besides, having what are effectively two dozen Quebecs in the country actually plays in politicians' favor).
I understand not everyone would think like me or those around me. But even when I hear ramblings about out-of-state migrations and social issues across the country (not a participants, just to get it out there), the question of 'others' not belonging to the same country never enters the discussion.
When I wrote "...in a village in Kerala" I was referring to a farmer contemporary of Chanakya ~2500 years ago.
That period of India fascinates me; dozen or so Janapadas ruling India. Specifically, day to day lives of people; how they felt about their identities vis-a-vis region/state/nation.
Coming to your eloquently stated comment I 100% respect that and totally relate with your sentiment. In fact it more or less mirrors my life (growing up, being exposed to different cultures in college etc.,); except that I'm from a neighbouring southern state :-)
> the question of 'others' not belonging to the same country never enters the discussion
Agreed, no one AFAIK thinks the other does not belong to India. There is a bit of racism in certain corners about the North East folks, considered as 'non Indian' primarily due to lack of awareness, since they do not conform to an 'Indian look'
The issue is more on 'outside my state' - as seen in response to the various riparian struggles across the country.
Some examples:
- The Shiv Sena in Mumbai was formed for this very reason
- No state except Tamil Nadu will accept having as its chief minister, someone who is not born from or speaking its language etc. The roots run deep.
---
Coming to the feeling of patriotism, Tamils are as or more patriotic than any other people when it comes to the concept of 'belonging to India', but these feelings are put under a lot of stress because of the unique situation, where people of their own race (outside of India) were given a short shrift both by local and national politicians. There is a lot of soul searching on what it means to be a Tamil. Obviously there is no consensus.
> One thing to note is that Indian historical records from that period are extremely rare making it all the more difficult. It's a pity that Indians of that didn't write as much as Romans did.
Indians did write at that time. There is literature on all sorts of things from that era. Unfortunately we lost the languages that they were written in. And some of it was destroyed or stolen by invading armies.
I'm from a farming family in Kerala, and I'll refute your statement. We consider ourselves as Indian as the next Punjabi or Gujarat. While the current gang of Gujjus in government are severely testing our patience at all levels, we still consider ourselves as Indian at the end of the day. Perhaps it's because most of Kerala's population is somehow associated with someone who has gone abroad, where the natives don't bother to brush them with separate strokes based on region.
A lot of countries (even Western ones) were like that. Both unified Germany and Italy were creations of the 19th century. Before that, both were just a collection of small kingdoms/principalities/republics that shared a similar dialect and culture.
Culture is similar, but they are often not dialects but entirely different languages in many cases.
the peoples in the different old German and Italian kingdom were not different peoples, they were just split because of different powers, thats not the case here...
unify india what? india was unified many times in history including Maratha rule, britain if anything divided india before it left into many states, they decided to unify themselves into the union of india despite britain breaking them down.
Before (and even during) the British rule India was a ruled tens of of such princely states each in turn had hundreds of low level feudal lords. While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc.,
India truly became a single political entity only after those hundreds or so kings were forced to abdicate their rule. I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India and not to some princely state.