12-02-2006, 07:18 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Dec 2 2006, 09:14 AM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Dec 2 2006, 09:14 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 2 2006, 12:01 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 2 2006, 12:01 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Coming back to political unity aspect, I think what definitely marks a difference is the extent of political unity that we see in present day India. But again let us be clear what political unity means. I believe instead of looking at "political unity" in black and white (i.e to say that either it is there or not there), let us consider a continuum of the condition of political unity in a state. At one end of this continuum a state is totally disunited for e.g. with disparate states, no centralization whatsoever etc. at the other end it is highly politically united. The reason I make this input is so that we can differentiate between the political unity during Mauryan or Guptan times or during the Mughal time with the political unity of present day India. I believe that modern day India is far highly politically united compared to any of these previous instances. Now in this case, we have to deliberate on the following points:
1. What exactly politcal unity means. What are its effects. What are the parameters to decide and judge the extent of political unity. This will help us determine the two ends of the political unity continuum
2. What factors cause or encourage political unity or disunity or in other words the centirfugal or centripetal forces
I think we have come back a full circle to the beginning of the discussion, maybe this all will end up with a question "Is India really modern"Â <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]61620[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All (political unity ) depends on the purpose of it - of the individual as well as collective (society), circumstances that drive it, motivations/drivers to achieve unity. Mauryan period's unity is going to be different than political unity during mughal times so on and so forth. India is unique, in terms of synthesis of traditional and contemporary, and of course with confusion over the all the said issues - the purpose, the drivers, the motivators and the indicators ergo all muddled results and effects. Now, where do we go from here... <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]61635[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets first look at what are the differences between a politically united state and one which is not, so that we determine the two poles so to speak. Lets consider the most politically united period. I believe India of today is that and most politically disparate period. Since we don't want a lot of time gap so as to negate influence of other factors, we will consider India of 18th century as the example.
Or you can compare Harsha's period or Gupta's period with the period of disunity immediately following these reigns or with India of 10th-12th centuries. What are these differences. Maybe that will give us some clue.
You have mentioned indivudaul/collective, circumstances, motivations etc. all these are factors that encourage or discourage political unity. Lets first look at how political unity is different from political disunity.
Coming back to political unity aspect, I think what definitely marks a difference is the extent of political unity that we see in present day India. But again let us be clear what political unity means. I believe instead of looking at "political unity" in black and white (i.e to say that either it is there or not there), let us consider a continuum of the condition of political unity in a state. At one end of this continuum a state is totally disunited for e.g. with disparate states, no centralization whatsoever etc. at the other end it is highly politically united. The reason I make this input is so that we can differentiate between the political unity during Mauryan or Guptan times or during the Mughal time with the political unity of present day India. I believe that modern day India is far highly politically united compared to any of these previous instances. Now in this case, we have to deliberate on the following points:
1. What exactly politcal unity means. What are its effects. What are the parameters to decide and judge the extent of political unity. This will help us determine the two ends of the political unity continuum
2. What factors cause or encourage political unity or disunity or in other words the centirfugal or centripetal forces
I think we have come back a full circle to the beginning of the discussion, maybe this all will end up with a question "Is India really modern"Â <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->[right][snapback]61620[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All (political unity ) depends on the purpose of it - of the individual as well as collective (society), circumstances that drive it, motivations/drivers to achieve unity. Mauryan period's unity is going to be different than political unity during mughal times so on and so forth. India is unique, in terms of synthesis of traditional and contemporary, and of course with confusion over the all the said issues - the purpose, the drivers, the motivators and the indicators ergo all muddled results and effects. Now, where do we go from here... <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->[right][snapback]61635[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets first look at what are the differences between a politically united state and one which is not, so that we determine the two poles so to speak. Lets consider the most politically united period. I believe India of today is that and most politically disparate period. Since we don't want a lot of time gap so as to negate influence of other factors, we will consider India of 18th century as the example.
Or you can compare Harsha's period or Gupta's period with the period of disunity immediately following these reigns or with India of 10th-12th centuries. What are these differences. Maybe that will give us some clue.
You have mentioned indivudaul/collective, circumstances, motivations etc. all these are factors that encourage or discourage political unity. Lets first look at how political unity is different from political disunity.