India

India as a concept has always existed beyond the regional and linguistic divides of the country. The Mahabharata, though set in Punjab referred to all of India as one. The root of all but all few languages is Sanskrit and all the texts are in Sanskrit. The four most religious spots or "dhams" for Hindus are literally in the four corners of modern India. And while the people do have a strong cultural identity they have a stronger national identity.

Honestly the only people that may secede in the future are Tamils and kashmiris. Incidentally both speak languages that don't have a Sanskrit root.

But also to answer you question the current borders have never existed. Any iteration of historical India will include the part of Punjab in Pakistan as well as Sindh.

Also worth noting that while each state has a different language as you pointed out there are thousands of dialects. So geographically you wouldn't even notice how one language changed to another if you were walking from say haryana to rajasthan or Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra.

>country does well together
>"WHY IS IT ALLOWED TO EXIST, REEEE"
its like /gsg/

But its not doing well at all, they're doing okayish despite their circumstances. India is like Europe that was forced by outsiders into unification.

What's the meme in "Spain"?

...

Hes probably talking about how its made up of Castilians, Catalans and Basques.

>its not doing well at all
It's doing just fine.
People coexist in harmony and actively participate in government, and despite wasting the first 2 decades on largely socialist policies it's economy has grown in leaps and bounds.

Given their circumstances they have done an excellent job in keeping the country together without suppressing minorities
>inb4 kashmir.
fuckers shot themselves in the foot and cried wolf. they deserve to be marginalized.

Hasn't there always been terms for a "nation" or "entity" governing the whole of india? Bharat, Hindustan or such. Just correct me if i'm wrong i don't know jack about indian history.

>Has there ever been a historical concept of an India which supports its present borders

Yes, it's a historical concept right now. Now fuck off Fukuyama.

Like how China got Qin(Emperor) -> China, India has Sindhu(river)->Indo->India and Bharata(emperor) -> Bharat

>le Castilians, Catalans and Basques meme

People who know a little are even worse than those who know nothing.

Dude its not Just Kashmiris that have a Problem with the Central Goverment
Theres also Tamils and assamese and Sikhs with the Later two even had seperatist violence decades ago
I am not saying that India Will Balkanize but some Hindi Nationalists seem to want to do what Pakistan and Sri Lanka did despite the fact that those two Countries ended up in Civil wars with Pakistan losing Bengal and Sri Lanka destroyed

Ahh. Thanks.

>tamils
both the tamil pride parties regularly run the state government of tamilnadu.
>sikhs
diaspora in canada doesn't count.
The current government in punjab is the ally of the ebil hindu fashisty party.

>hindi nationalists
that get drowned out by the collective rage of other states in India. All the government does is bother it's own employees for a fortnight in a year when they have hindi speaking celebrations.

The indian state allows for several outlets without taking up arms.

they had them as vassals.

>India as a concept has always existed beyond the regional and linguistic divides of the country.
[Citation needed]

>mahabharata
>concept of aryavarta
>the titles of every emperor in india.
But only China has existed forever.

>People coexist in harmony and actively participate in government, and despite wasting the first 2 decades on largely socialist policies it's economy has grown in leaps and bounds.

Is this bait?

Honestly it is mostly from the British colonial empire, but the Indian were able to use this shared experience to create a sort of nationhood among the elites.

India as a historical concept began in the 1870's.

India was never united as a country until 1947.

Before the euros arrived, india was a bunch of kingdoms and princely states with a few very large kingdoms that dominated certain areas. The only similarities of the indian people is the religion of hinduism and even then many are not hindu. Many indian languages are derived from ancient sanskrit which form some unity between the indians.

India is a meme country and constructed by the british.

Ah yes.
The Mahabharata, a wonderful example of 19th century literature.
you can literally say the same thing about nearly every nation state in the current year.

>t. Castilian

Are we even going to mention Portugal??

>meme country
>not Israel

Every nation is an invention. India is no different than the rest.
Good on them for holding it together instead of having a bunch of petty states that would be in constant civil wars like Africa.

Ahh yes, the british gave the indians a sense of identity. All praise greater british-anglo rule

>Sri Lanka destroyed

bizarre statement considering it's HDI and GDP(PPP)/Capita are the highest in the region

WE

See the empire of Ashoka

India is a multinational state, not a nation.

Pajeet, my son..

You have to poo, and want to go to the loo

NO Pajeet! Take the designated shitting street.

You are just afraid cause well be superpower by 2020.

well, all romance languages are descended from latin but nobody would claim that the romance speaking areas form a single nation. "nations" are constructed based on historical accidents (cf. germany and austria). in a way, india as a nation is like the idea of a single "european nation" tracing itself back to the roman empire, dominated by romance peoples, except dravidians are even further removed linguistically from indo-aryans than germanics are from romance. Under the right circumstances something like that might reasonably be made to work but it is by no means a given. india as a nation was only possible because of the british.

kashmiri is dardic. the current consensus is that dardic belongs to indo-aryan and is thus descended from (vedic) sanskrit

The vast majority of China does share a common ethnicity (Han are over 90%) and cultural identity. It's part of why the country kept coming back together again under new dynasties after old dynasties collapsed and it fragmented into smaller kingdoms, because as a whole it was believed to be natural that somebody should be ruling over the whole place because they were all Chinese and not barbarian.