Interesting. Firstly, I think the 'tired' meme you are pointing to is fact (even if you have heard it before) and I think the counterpoint being quoted is what is questionable. I don't know what reference the person below quotes for Sapta Sindhu but the seven rivers (atleast according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapta_Sindhu) are all in northern India (correct me if I am wrong). This definition of India disenfranchises southern and eastern India. It is not an insignificant contribution of the British when partition happened and the country of India emerged with almost the same borders it has today. Also the statement that for 2500 years that there was general agreement on the shape and size and extent of india? wow... I lived in several parts of rural tamil nadu enough to know that the 'common folk' there don't really rever the concept of the vedas or wherever else this idea of India is being quoted from. You think their ancestors were part of that 2500 year old consensus? They sure are part of modern India now. Quoting "Sapta Sindhu" from the Rig veda or the "Hapta Hindu" from the Avesta and saying that there was a consensus opinion about India as a country for 2500 years is much akin to quoting the Bible and saying that dinosaur fossils are 6000 years old (IMO). Anyways, we are getting away from our original point of discussion which is whether there exists any single concept of Indian culture. I would say that no there is not. I would also follow up by saying so what? Thaths said it correctly that culture is present continuous. It is time to embrace that and maybe start thinking about what our culture is now rather than what it was long ago. Shiv also made a nice point. Whats the cut off date for Indian culture? people are squabbling over mythical "bridges" built over "6000" years ago when genetic studies have shown that our subcontinent has been populated for around 40,000 years or so (ref: Journey of Man by Spencer Wells). People mostly lived as hunter gatherers. Why not lets all go back to those ways (no chaddi campaign!)? Even 2500 years doesn't compare to 40,000.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]> wrote: > Raja wrote, [on 3/9/2009 7:52 PM]: > > > That seems like an extensive discussion. Actually it seemed more like an > > ugly fighting contest in the undergrounds of Thailand. Was there some > > specific point that you were pointing me to? > > Primarily, this (in the context of the tired meme of "India as a nation > dates from 1947"): > > <quote> > > >It's a nation because this is all the Brits managed to conquer and keep. > >Had they managed to grab and keep Tibet for example, we'd have had Mt. > >Kailash in the anthem as well. Don't go all mushy on me; it's tedious. > > What is tedious is tendentious writing based on a misreading of the > historical facts. Eccentricity is fine, illiteracy and ignorance not so. > > The British had little to do with it. If you are not averse to a little > reading, > go look up the texts, all the way back. Sapta-Sindhu, or Hapta-Hindu, as > the unable-to-sibilate Iranians pronounced it, is a very old construct. > Right through the previous 2,500 years, there has been a general > agreement on the general shape and size and extent of India, which term > itself is a derivative of Sindhu and Hindu (not the religion, but the > place). Until very recently, Afghanistan, and parts slightly further > north of that, were also part of the extended area. If anything, the > British brought bits of South India and East India into the general mill. > > </quote> > -- > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) > >
