08-17-2006, 04:26 AM
S. Valkan wrote:
sroy wrote:
Artificial, because the consolidation process is not yet complete
When did consolidation begin ?
Under the Kuru dynasty, under Ashoka, under the Guptas, when ?
Quote:
once that is done we will be truly a civilizational state.
Please specify the nature of this "consolidation" youhave in mind, and how long it might realistically take.
Seriously, much before Kurus. If you are interested, you might want to read some works of David Frawely and Koenraad Elst. The dual purpose of their narratives/commentaries on RigVeda and its assorted material including Puranas (there is some excellent work by Frawely to harmonize the information in Vedas and Puranas), is to refute AIT and on the other hand they document the expansion of ancient Vedic (later day more generic Indic) culture from centre of area around Indus.
In addition to expansion over the sub-continet, expeditions to Mesopotamia, SE Asia and Tibet and beyond are also recorded.
By consolidation I mean gaining political control over territories which are already under our cultural influence.
Didn't the Maurya's and the Gupta's also try to do so?
By consolidation I also mean recovering lost territories. No nation in the last century has lost as much land as we have.
Of course the cultural component of your territories are never static. You can either strive for homogenization or in the long run cultural differentition among territories will cause some of them to break away. For this you'll need to continously incorporate culturally homegenous areas in your state.
The present state of the Indian Union is not desirable. We have territories that have inhabitants treating us mainstream folks like foriegners, but there are neighbouring countries where you'll feel at home.
Sending in Army, fighting insurgencies over decades may not cost us much, but in that respect many parts of the Indian Union resemble the famous failed state next door.
This is the proof that the current geograhical organization of the Indian Union is not based on any common undercurrent, that could bind us togather effortlessly...making of an artificial state.
Bismarck and Garibaldi succeeded because Germans and Italians already possesed a common religion and language.
mirajuddin wrote:
security is always more in numbers
Fundamental principle, this is why nation states consolidate their territories.
>>Valkan, Muslilms living in India cannot make the choice as it was taken from them in 65.
Sorry to intervene here, but you may be missing the point. The point is for India to make that option available. Whether Pakistan will do the same will be a testament to its conviction on the Two Nation Theory. On India's part, it will be giving an option to takleef-ridden bigots to opt out of freedom and democracy and pluralism and to opt in to the land of pure Islam next door.
Mirajuddin,
In an undeclared way, the option is open even now. You may find it surprising that it is Pakistan and Bangladesh who don't want you. Another point, as far as numbers are concerned, there are more in India than Pakistan or Bangladesh. Ironic, is it not?
sroy wrote:
Artificial, because the consolidation process is not yet complete
When did consolidation begin ?
Under the Kuru dynasty, under Ashoka, under the Guptas, when ?
Quote:
once that is done we will be truly a civilizational state.
Please specify the nature of this "consolidation" youhave in mind, and how long it might realistically take.
Seriously, much before Kurus. If you are interested, you might want to read some works of David Frawely and Koenraad Elst. The dual purpose of their narratives/commentaries on RigVeda and its assorted material including Puranas (there is some excellent work by Frawely to harmonize the information in Vedas and Puranas), is to refute AIT and on the other hand they document the expansion of ancient Vedic (later day more generic Indic) culture from centre of area around Indus.
In addition to expansion over the sub-continet, expeditions to Mesopotamia, SE Asia and Tibet and beyond are also recorded.
By consolidation I mean gaining political control over territories which are already under our cultural influence.
Didn't the Maurya's and the Gupta's also try to do so?
By consolidation I also mean recovering lost territories. No nation in the last century has lost as much land as we have.
Of course the cultural component of your territories are never static. You can either strive for homogenization or in the long run cultural differentition among territories will cause some of them to break away. For this you'll need to continously incorporate culturally homegenous areas in your state.
The present state of the Indian Union is not desirable. We have territories that have inhabitants treating us mainstream folks like foriegners, but there are neighbouring countries where you'll feel at home.
Sending in Army, fighting insurgencies over decades may not cost us much, but in that respect many parts of the Indian Union resemble the famous failed state next door.
This is the proof that the current geograhical organization of the Indian Union is not based on any common undercurrent, that could bind us togather effortlessly...making of an artificial state.
Bismarck and Garibaldi succeeded because Germans and Italians already possesed a common religion and language.
mirajuddin wrote:
security is always more in numbers
Fundamental principle, this is why nation states consolidate their territories.
>>Valkan, Muslilms living in India cannot make the choice as it was taken from them in 65.
Sorry to intervene here, but you may be missing the point. The point is for India to make that option available. Whether Pakistan will do the same will be a testament to its conviction on the Two Nation Theory. On India's part, it will be giving an option to takleef-ridden bigots to opt out of freedom and democracy and pluralism and to opt in to the land of pure Islam next door.
Mirajuddin,
In an undeclared way, the option is open even now. You may find it surprising that it is Pakistan and Bangladesh who don't want you. Another point, as far as numbers are concerned, there are more in India than Pakistan or Bangladesh. Ironic, is it not?