4096 characters remaining
Max filesize: 3.00 MB, Max files: 3

/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Habbenings, news and serious stuff
anon28/12/2018 (Fri) 23:32:582639Reply
>India is an artificial nation Enough with these memes
Mauryan Empire at its maximum extent
anon28/12/2018 (Fri) 23:33:532640Reply
Gupta Empire
anon28/12/2018 (Fri) 23:38:142641Reply
Delhi Sultanate
anon28/12/2018 (Fri) 23:38:402642Reply
Mughal Empire
anon28/12/2018 (Fri) 23:39:182643Reply
And lastly Mughal Empire.
So British didn't create India.
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 03:57:222644Reply
>brainlet can't even label Maratha empire properly
When people say India is an artificial country it doesn't mean map encompassing empires don't exist. They were part and parcel of medieval and ancient times. Europe enjoyed more time being a 'nation' under the Roman empire then India ever did.
When you call Germany or Japan an artificial country, they won't whip out the maps of ancient empires that nobody gives a fuck about because these nations have a history of dividing up between various infighting loyalty. Instead they whip out proof showing how linguistically and culturally homogeneous these countries are within their borders.
These nations share a common culture, history, language and consider themselves a common yolk. India doesn't, and no, no matter how much you try to compensate for the lack of that with pretending a meme religion represents a yolk, it won't succeed to achieve national consciousness as not even Hinduism is internally consistent and homogenous belief but more an alternative term for what would be more appropriately named "Indian/South Asian traditional religion".
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 04:08:142645Reply
The fact that I have to talk to you in English would have been fucking proof of why India isn't a nation state.
And you should probably stop obsessing over it too. Most of the countries in world aren't exactly nation states. In fact none of the states that enjoy high amount of soft power in the world are nation states (Except maybe Japan but that's mostly because of their cartoons and people barely knows about what happens in the rest of their country).
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 04:59:052646Reply
what made Adi Shankara to travel all across the country?
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 05:36:442648Reply
What a truly retarded argument. Now that Buddhist and Christian monks traveled across the globe preaching their ideology so now we should consider all the nations they visited as one county now? Lol.
Nations states are defined by a common yolk, common history, a common language and a common ethnicity, not by the area covered by somaras drunk monkey worshipping swamijis. I'll roast the rest of the arguments in it later.
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 05:41:022649Reply
>retard argument
open it and read it stoopid.
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 05:53:512650Reply
The article starts with denying the concept of nation states even exist. Not off to a good start. The concept of nation states being relatively new isn't something that European nationalists deny. As I said, multi cultural empires were part and parcel of the medieval and ancient era. Also the author clearly misunderstands the very concept of nation state. He probably thinks it's a nation with relatively stable border that existed in relatively long time. No, this is not what a nation state is. In fact the idea of a nation state being broken up until very recently united by people rejecting the kings and coming together is something that has a very romanticistic appeal to the adherents of nation states. As I told you before, nation states are defined by a common culture, language, history, ethnicity and yolk, not by a stable border that existed around a relatively long time.
Funniest thing is he even stated it in his article but he still chooses to be ignorant about it.
The next be goes on a tangent about US & UK. Let me get to the point straight. These two nations are not nation states and neither of their constitutions or most people in it consider it as one. The fact that he brought up these two nations that are not considered as nation states specifically is hilarious in itself and shows his ignorance.
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 05:54:092651Reply
I did retard
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 05:58:042652Reply
Also me not reading it doesn't mean the very argument you used is retarded in itself. Not that the article is right (Just a bunch of wishy washy opinions appealing to nationalist NPCs) but that retort is targeted to you and you alone.
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 06:30:072654Reply
I'm not really interested in the rest of the article as it's nothing but going on a tangent redefining the very concept of nation state. He goes off to talk about Mexico and African states which too are not considered as nation states still continuing to misunderstand the concept of nation state.
No, again that's not what a nation state is and being a self contained sub continent don't make India anymore a nation state than it make Europe or Australia one.
>Idea of India
First of all let me start by saying that Indian myths referencing other places in India doesn't make it an actual nation state. These myths also reference kings from other nations such as Greece, Tajikistan, etc... And no these weren't just references, these were full characters and full events. Also these myths were highly inconsistent to begin with. This is mainly because as Brahminism spread the upper caste tried to incorporate the local religions, myths, traditions, etc... into the brahmininc mold. So using this as an argument for nation hood is pretty retarded tbh. As retarded as considering Europe as a nation using Christianity as an identity for nation hood.
Third I don't deny the idea of Aryavarta didn't exist. A some point in time North India could have been called a nation state and I would argue it still is one for most part(Hence why there is lot of solidarity in the parts compared to rest of India) and that North West India and South East Pakistan is a broken nation state and so it West Bengal and Bangladesh.
Also Sanskrit being the language of literary and academia doesn't make it anymore a nation state than Latin and French used to being one for Europe making it a nation state or English bring one for most of the world.
I already touched upon the traveling monk argument. Persian used to serve the same purpose as Sanskrit at one point in India's history. Now what? We should rename ourselves as Persia? Lol.
Fourth other nations referring to India as one entity don't make it a nation state. Foreign nations generalising distant nations into one single group is nothing unheard of and India isn't unique in that aspect. Our historical records refer to westerners and other Asians in pretty generalising terms too.
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 06:47:592655Reply
>Because the conception of India, a civilization based in the Indian sub-continent, predates the rise and fall of these empires. True, that large parts of India were under unified political rule only during certain periods of time (though these several hundreds of years are still enormous by the scale of existence of most other countries throughout the globe) such as under the Mauryas or the Mughals. But those facts serve to hide rather than reveal the truth till we understand the history of the rest of the world and realize the historic social, political and religious unity of this land. We are not merely a country; we are a civilizational country, among very few other countries on the planet.

Parts of Europe came under the rule of the Roman Empire and later the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. None of these Empires held sway over all of what is the territory of Europe today. Rather, their areas of control were largely around the Mediterranean Sea – parts of southern Europe, northern Africa and the Middle East. There has also been some uniformity of religion in Europe imposed by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. But, there has been no empire of Europe. Eastern, western and Scandinavian Europe have had substantially different histories and cultural, linguistic and ethnic origins.

There is a more significant difference. The land of India has been thought of and considered a sacred whole by the people of India in a way that is simply not true of Europe.

As the Shankracharya of Kanchi said recently, for thousands of years, Indians throughout the land have woken up in the morning and sang a hymn celebrating the holy rivers of Ganga, Yamuna, Narmada, Godavari, Sindu, Saraswati and Cauvery as part of nitya kriya, or daily worship.

==gange ca yamune caiva, godAvari sarasvati
narmade sindho kAveri, jale’sminn sannidhiM kuru==

Thus our hymns and religious stories not only share common themes, heroes and deities, they also uniquely link us to this particular land in a way Christian stories do not link to the land of Europe. There are no hymns that Europeans sang that spoke of the land from the Urals to Scandinavia or from the Arctic Ocean to the Mediterranean as one. No one sang devotional songs listing all the major rivers of Europe, east to west. The idea of Europe is like another continent, like Africa or Americas – with some shared geography and history but no historic conception of the integrated whole as a unity that was recognized among all the common people.

Thus there have been no religious stories of Europe linked to its particular boundaries and capturing the common fealty of the people, unlike the story of Shakti being dispersed over the land of India in peethams that millions of people visit, or the sage who set up mathas in the four quadrants of the land, or who wrote the Mahabharata, or who wrote of the land of Bharatvarshaand Aryavrata. So there is a unity to India, an Indian nationhood that is far greater than any shared similarities between Europe.
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 06:48:432656Reply
Anyways I'm on my mobile so I'll roast the rest of the article later.
To understand the concept of nation state think like this. Suppose India was divided up into many nations. How likely would it be for people in these countries to give up their ethnic pride and independence and willing to join up and form a single nation like it is now? If the answer to your question is 'it definitely will' , then we know India is a nation state. And you know it's won't, hence why nationalist NPCs use a lot of McCarthyism against possible seditionists. Because they fear (and rightfully so) that once the nation breaks up or one part breaks away, there is little chance it'll go back to way it was. Nation states rarely worry about internal threats and secessionists. Most of their fear comes from outside.
On the other hand ask yourself these question. How likely is a possible Union of best and worst Korea? If WB seperated from India how likely is a possible Union with Bangladesh? If the answer to questions like these are 'its possible' then you know we are talking about nation states.
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 06:51:462657Reply
The Bhakti movement retold our ancient stories in the language of the common people, in Marathi and Bengali, in Avadhi (present day UP) and Bhojpuri (present day Bihar), in Gujarati and Punjabi and in Rajasthani. We can marvel at the cultural unity in India, where while theBhakti poets initiated the great movement for devotion to Shiva in the south, the erudite philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism was being developed coevally in the north. Or that Kamban in the south was the first poet to take the story of Rama to the major regional languages, and Tulsidas, much closer to Ayodhya, came centuries later. Or that the great Krishna bhaktaChaitanya was celebrating his devotion to the King of Dwarka in Bengal while Tukaram sang praises of Lord Vithal in the west. An immense body of pan-Indian worship revolved around the triad of Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti in their various forms – whether as Rama, Krishna, Sri Venkateshwara, Sri Dakshinamurti, Jagdamba, Durga Mata or Kali. These common stories were told and retold without the mandate of any central church and seeped through the pores of the land of Bharata, forging a shared bond, unlike any other seen on the planet.
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 07:03:052658Reply
>If WB seperated from India how likely is a possible Union with Bangladesh? If the answer to questions like these are 'its possible' then you know we are talking about nation states.

no thanks, no one wants to be part of Bangladesh. we know what they did to hindus in Bangladesh.
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 09:04:422660Reply
Also now I am back, time to roast the article.
>Political Unity
I addressed it already, multicultural empires were part and parcel of those times, nothing new here. And India isn't unique in that aspect.
Also the land being ruled within itself is no sign of it being a nation state. As I said the author is continuosly going on a tangent and bringing up red herrings while refusing to address the real question-does people of India share a similar culture, language, history and yolk. He prefers not to obviously because he knows the answer to those questions is negative.
Also he is wrong, because the aforementioned Kushan empire he refered to as 'pan indian' nation had its capital outside the sub continent. But again this is barely a point to begin with. When most of the country you rule is part of a self contained sub continent it only makes sense to rule from inside it at a time when long distance travelling and communication was almost impossible unless you have huge number of resources.
>Idea of India, muh Hinduism blah blah blah
I seriously had enough of this retort. I will go through his each and every point where he uses where he uses Hinduism as a tool for creating sense of syncretic national consciousness. Its fucking retarded. I believe not even the nationalist NPCs who say this meme actually believe in this meme. They just want tocomfort themselves, because coming in terms to accept that something you hold so dear to your heart is so fucking fake and little more than a meme taken too far.
Yes and I will adress your copypasta too, because as I said, its fucking retarded and I don't even think you actually believe that. You can fool NPCs with that fucking delusions maybe and maybe some nationalist NPCs who want to read some good wishy washy stuff to comfort themselves but anyone that bothers to assess and question this realizes how fucking retarded it is and the leaps of logic you have to jump to come in terms with it. I will now briefly go through his other points that are again, little more than red herrings that don't address the real question.
>Some other civilizational countries
I love this buzzword. I guess he has coined a new term, a civilizational nation to name his dear country as. Not even getting into the fucking meme called '[insert name here]an civilization and how much of a fucking meme they are. These questions never even bother answering the basic question-what is [insert]an civilization? In this case, what is Indian civilization? Is it just Hinduism and related values? Then why do Nepal hate us? Why do North Sri Lanka aka Tamil Elam hate us? These are majority Hindu states that have little to no solidarity with the Indian state. If it is just Hinduism then why is Kashmir with us? Why is these non deep blue states( even with us? So what if they were once Hindus(Which is still not the case for many NEer states even still)? Many nations that lie outside the Indian subcontinent used to be the cradle of Hindu relgion. They are not anymore and they are not going back. Unless you have some kind of genocide in mind that is, which is not fucking happening anyways. Then what is it? Dharmic religions? That still makes no sense because the only 'allies' we have in the immediate neighbourhood is Bangladesh and Afghanistan. There is no sense of solidarity nor commonness amongst neither dharmic nor hindu nations. Its just all in the nationalist NPCs head. Then what is Indian civilization? What if decline of religion hits India and everyone stops identifying as a Hindu? Will there be no more Indian civilization? And before you tell me Hinduims is a way of life and not a religion, then tell me in what fucking way is it not just like other religions? Religions are all just a way of life that have an identity and organizational name attatched, nothing else. Hinduism is no different in that respect from other religions. And it addressing atheism in its philosophy means nothing.
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 09:29:052661Reply
Even fucking Abrahamic religions had Ecclestians before Nietzche was cool. That besides Carvaka, the primary 'atheistic' hindu philisophy and others such as Jainism and Buddhism were directly in opposition to Brahmanism, what is today's mainstream Hinduism. So throwing around this argument is nothing but just plain dishonesty.
Now to his other points
Greeks consider themselves a nation state. Them having to struggle against powerful empires to get a nation of their own is something they talk with pride, like how Indians used to talk about their freedom struggle. That being said, Greeks consider themselves the cradle of 'western' civilization, whatever that means. They might view themselves as a seperate civilization. However in no way they see themselves as a civilizational state(which the author here uses as a buzzword to justify the existence of a unified continent pretending to be a country he deludes himself to be a nation state) like how the author intends it to be. At best a self contained civilization of common history , language and yolk.
Again he seems to be continually misunderstanding the concept of nation states. It isn't about continual borders, its more about solidarity and feeling of yolkness within the people occupying the nation.
The present day Egypt in no way consider themselves as a coninual civilization that have inherited the ancient egyptian civilization. Its an arab country leftover after colonial masters left. This is sort of like calling Pakistan a civilizational nation that continued the heritage of IVC.
>China and Iran
The author have hit a nail here because this time he have correctly identified two nations that fit his definition of a 'civilizational' country. However what he misses is that only thing that unites these nations is the fucking authoritarian regimes that rules over them with an iron fist and once these regimes fell, these nations will stop being 'civilizational' states as the author intends to be.
Then he goes on with a baseless assertion that India is a civilizational state(whatever that means) and hence it justifies the legitamacy of being called a nation state.
This is fucking retarded because it makes the legitemacy of Indian state no more legitimate than the fucking Roman Catholic Church ruling over all of Europe at some point or the retarded belief of Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS thinking they can make a single state comprising of all muslim states. The only real argument here is that modern Hinduism aka Brahminism might be doing the assimiliation project a little longer than what Islam or Christianity did.
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 10:04:522662Reply
>What you are calling the Indian civilization is actually the Sanskritic civilization of the Aryans who were invaders.
I agree with on him here. An existence of a migration or even invasion hundreds or thousands of years ago should be no way be made a point to argue against the legitemacy of the Indian state. It should also in no way used as an argument to influence current political decisions but I am sure he will disagree with me on that.
>Isn’t India simply like all of Europe, sharing some common history and religious ideas but no more?
Yes it is. I will address more on his points to the response to your copypasta.
>If the British hadn’t been here, wouldn’t we be a bunch of fighting kingdoms?
Probably. Why isn't he addressing the real question. If Hindu civilizational identity is so fucking precious and enough to unite as and give us a sense of yolkness, then why the fuck is there no movement and almost 0 enthusiasm from the Nepalese, Bali or Tamil Elam people to unite with India. Why is there no solidarity between Hindu/Dharmic nations and all of them actually despise the Akhand Bharatians(Just post those Akhand Bharat meme pics on /int/ to see how triggered south east asians are over that pic, and no its not because they are mullahs)? Yeah because it is nothing more than a meme cooked up in the head of disappointed indian nationalists who have have given up hope in the Hindustani Muttification Project and has taken up hindu assimiliation project instead as an alternative.
>You are excluding Islamic contributions and Indian Muslims from your definition
IDGAF about them, as I said previously idgaf about invasions or migrations hundreds of years ago.
>Indian Muslims are Arabs, Persians and Turks, not originally Indian
Again, IDGAF

You say that Islam is not the basis of nationhood, yet Pakistan is founded on the very premise. Your geographical conception of India includes present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. Do you want to create an ‘Akhand Bharat’ and re-unite India by force?
Bharatvarsha is just a meme, get over it. Its not happening. Just try to keep whatever that is left with us in our hands instead of fapping to imaginary pics of united India that encompasses the whole Indian subcontinent that never actually happened until the British came(And yes not even Mauryans and Mughals suceeded with it). In fact one wonders why Mughals and Britishers were able to hold onto the territory as a unified polity far more than any other indian king or emperor was able to do.
>India is not a `Hindu rashtra‘, you are trying to make India into a Hindu rashtra.
Hinduism is a fucking religion. Stop calling it a way of life. Sheesh. This meme that libtards used to actually subvert Hindu beliefs and traditions have gone too far. I am not kidding when I say that dindutvavaadis are the primary enemy of Hinduism. Is it any wonder why they looked and cheered when RSS wahmen wing in their group demanded that Sabarimala temple restriction to ripe women be banned because muh misogyny?
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 10:53:302665Reply
Akhand Bharat Ko wapis layenge
Mandir wahin banayenge
anon29/12/2018 (Sat) 22:12:102691Reply
Maratha Empire at its peak
anon30/12/2018 (Sun) 05:34:182709Reply
India isn't a a nation but a civilisation. The Roman Empire encompassed much of Europe. Would that make Europe a nation ?
At the same time, achieving nation states in the subcontinent is not feasible - every caste has it's own distinctions.
The closest we can come to is to have a Confederacy of Independent polities that are devoted to the idea of upholding Dharma.
Brahmanism ties the several cultures that exist in the Indian subcontinent.
There's a reason why any anti-India sentiment shows common symptoms - Anti-Brahmanism and Anti-Hinduism.
anon30/12/2018 (Sun) 06:08:172711Reply
>libtard hijacks the thread
India is a legitimate nation state. The Indian peoples are a single race, with differences. Stop trying to impose the Western idea of nation state on India. For the rest of the world, India was India, India is India and India will remain India.

Niggers out
anon30/12/2018 (Sun) 07:50:102713Reply
>butthurt nationalist npc who can't even argue back now wiggling with butthurt and reeeeing instead
When will all nationalist npcs kill themselves after realising their adherence was towards a shallow and fake identity made up by none other than cuckru and gandu thet hate do much?
anon30/12/2018 (Sun) 07:56:162714Reply
Europe isn't a civilization retard, it's a self contained continent like India. No European sees themselves as 'European' or believe in any such meme identity (Race is different from continental identity, race like caste is a real identity, continental identity is not). Stop using this meme everywhere. Not even Europhiles believe in this meme and see EU more as a convenience than an actual identity like you retards deluded yourselves to believe. Map encompassing empires that serve little other than to feed the ego of a small elite aristocrats who dgaf about whether they are ruling over their own kin or bunch of niggers existing at some point in time like the mauryans and Roman empire don't mean it's an actual identity retard.
anon30/12/2018 (Sun) 07:58:582715Reply
>single race
Cmon anon, not even you believe in that meme.
anon30/12/2018 (Sun) 08:19:102716Reply
I am no libtard retard, why would I even be one? India represents everything that libtards and commies love-a muttified mess of people, races, cultures and languages that don't give a fuck about their individual kin, race, culture or language and has pledged their loyalty towards an artificial identity that a small elite such as themselves has made up and don't care whether they are an efficient nation but care more about inflating the egos of this said minority group that others can't get into.
anon30/12/2018 (Sun) 08:26:102718Reply
I have actually seen some North Indians who love Hindi more than their own mother tongue. Kind of peak cuckoldry to be honest. Only western leftists would stoop to be so low and bend themselves down to reject their own kin for an artificial meme identity.
anon30/12/2018 (Sun) 08:31:282719Reply
Yep, sort of like Stalin and Mao, the guys who forced every non russian in the USSR to learn Russian and every non mandarin in china to learn mandarin while not even being a russian or mandarin themselves. Its funny how many of these nationalist npcs who throw around the word commies and libtards don't even have basic self awareness and idea of political spectrum themselves.
anon30/12/2018 (Sun) 08:38:192720Reply
This tbh. Hindu traditions and cultures should be preserved. Indian state should be a convenience more than an actual identity that we have to pledge our loyalty towards like EU or Hindu Padpadshahi meme that Maratha Confederacy thought of. Not like how these nationalist npcs want.
anon30/12/2018 (Sun) 18:10:402764Reply
India isn't a single "nation state" since the idea of a nation-state is relatively new. But it is a single country granted to the mixture of the IVC and BMAC + Aryan migrant people by the hand of Indra Himself.
anon11/01/2019 (Fri) 07:37:592932Reply


(Removes the file reference to the posts)

(Removes the saved files from the server)