Is a Greater India feasible? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in India.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14539175
By "Greater India" essentially I mean to undo the horrible Partition which happened in 1947/8. And to restore India as an independent united country to essentially the territory it held as a British possession.

Is this feasible and if so on what time frame?

Do you see trends moving in this direction?
#14539186
So India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Ceylon? It would be a damn good idea but no it is incredibly unlikely to happen. The whole reason partition happened was that Muslims did not want to be ruled by Hindus.
#14539189
Decky wrote:So India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Ceylon? It would be a damn good idea but no it is incredibly unlikely to happen. The whole reason partition happened was that Muslims did not want to be ruled by Hindus.


I guess, but are there not MORE muslims INSIDE current India than inside "Pakistan" itself? I mean that seems to put the lie to any concerns muslims could possibly have regarding repression does it not?

I actually believe Hindus have been incredibly restrained given their pent-up rage after centuries of Muslim rule over them prior to the British taking over.
#14539190
I guess, but are there not MORE muslims INSIDE current India than inside "Pakistan" itself? I mean that seems to put the lie to any concerns muslims could possibly have regarding repression does it not?


And they have had time to get used to it. Pakistanis are used to self government and hate India with a passion.

I actually believe Hindus have been incredibly restrained given their pent-up rage after centuries of Muslim rule over them prior to the British taking over.


Oh I agree, after the Mugal Empire I would have assumed the Hindus would have tried to sort things out post independence.
#14539201
Is this feasible and if so on what time frame?

Do you see trends moving in this direction?


India doesn't want to rule Pakistan and Pakistan definitely doesn't want to be part of India. These countries have fought wars with each other in living memory. So no to both.
#14539281
What is more likely to happen is a nuclear "exchange" as a part of a resource war over scarce fresh water resources as a result of groundwater aquifer depletion, climate-change aggravated drought, and depletion/or of glaciers which will result in less freshwater flow into Pakistan's and India's greater river systems. Unfortunately, the resource problem will not be unique to the Indian subcontinent and we can expect resource wars across the globe driven by overpopulation, natural resource depletion, and climate disruption due to global warming.
#14539307
No.

This is a terrible idea and I am an Indian, there's no such thing as greater India, except for in the minds of right wing nutters. Anyhow, Burma, Ceylon have never been part of any non colonial Indian polity even during British rule almost 40% of subcontinent was ruled by various kings/princes although as puppets of British empire.

Although Greater India can extend towards all of South East Asia and even Indonesia in more crazy versions.

I actually believe Hindus have been incredibly restrained given their pent-up rage after centuries of Muslim rule


lol. There was no clear Hindu Muslim divide in Mughal era, once again right wing nutters twisting history to present as this era to be some sort of colonialism on par with British empire, its absurd.

In India, remember "Caste trumps all", most of the Muslims were still living as untouchables or lower castes in Indian villages (which still can be seen in many rural areas) during the so called Muslim rule, imagine such treatment handed to Brits.

I also love how no one talks about the brutal raids of Marathas on the territories of Bihar and Bengal or the Punjabis fighting against dirty 'poorvaiyaas' (people from east) because there is no potential political capital out of these historical narratives as there is in some Hindu king fighting Muslim king.
#14539311
If you interpret 'Greater India' as 'the Indian cultural zone', then it makes a lot more sense, because it can be an alliance of countries which share a cultural and religious heritage, and it can indeed cover large swathes of South Asia and South East Asia right into Indonesia as well.

There would just be the problem of Pakistan's existence, but you can help Pakistan toward its collapse and engage in some 'crazy' behaviour and 100 years from now everyone will look back and say, "That was a great job, guys".
#14539313
Sitting on the crazy parts of Pakistan is more troublesome for India than a belligerent Pakistani state. Why the hell would Indian state want to shoot itself in foot by trying to incorporate North Western province of Pakistan.
#14539390
fuser wrote:Sitting on the crazy parts of Pakistan is more troublesome for India than a belligerent Pakistani state. Why the hell would Indian state want to shoot itself in foot by trying to incorporate North Western province of Pakistan.


I agree. Eastern Pakistan only. But surely you concede Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka are incredibly tied to "Indian culture"?

I take your point about there never having truly existed a single united entity of "India" before the British. But there are clearly strong cultural commonalities binding peoples together.

As to your issue about muslims didn't really rule because mostly they were of lower castes, I can't say I know enough about that at this moment to comment definitively one way or the other.

I also agree that if this was attempted forcefully it would be nothing short of "Nazi-like" adventurism. I foresee some other methods to bring it about more gradually with Eastern Pakistan region being most likely the absolute final piece and not the first.
#14539400
And European culture is very much similar, hence Germany or France try to unite them all.

I just see no point.

Such imperial ambitions in 21st century is not going to happen neither is desirable, if you are talking about more economical integration and things like that, then why not. And with "Look East" policy of Indian government since the beginning of 21st century we are probably heading towards that.
#14539462
There is no great schism between India and Bangladesh apart from some dispute over water sharing, immigrants and recent cricket match in the world cup. The relations between two countries are rather good if not very friendly.
#14539463
Bangladesh used to be the other half of Pakistan. They didn't particularly enjoy being just "the other half" (also...a country in two pieces divided by a continent is a scheme only the British could come up with). India helped it to become independent, which included (again) beating the crap out of Pakistan, as one does.

India and Bangladesh get along much better than India and Pakistan for that reason. Also, Bangladesh doesn't care about Kashmir.
#14545301
India and British are two different countries in all aspects, so you can't compare with each other. Restoring by partition is not a good idea because in India people belongs to different religions, so you can't think about the partition.

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]