How does India manage to keep itself together? With how different the individual states are, having different religions...

How does India manage to keep itself together? With how different the individual states are, having different religions, cultures, ethnicities, languages, etc, as well as having an Africa-tier economy that seems low enough to incite separatist movements, it seems to be a relatively stable state. Were the Brits just extremely good at gluing together a meme state, Frankenstein-style? Was it the oh- so-venerated Democracy that keeps it together? Is it the existence of Pakistan as a convenient rival that prevents Indians from looking at internal issues and the such?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_nationalism
livemint.com/Sundayapp/Z8DStEXICwm3MFvlE7PFXI/When-Bombay-overtook-Calcutta-A-history-of-Indias-financia.html
discoveredindia.com/punjab/fairs-and-festivals-in-punjab/fairs/ludhiana-jarag-mela-martyr-fair.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=NIgfiSzCy1o
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Mostly federalism.

If a state wants to be governed differently, they have a substantial latitude to do so.

I'd guess that Hinduism is also a unifying factor.

So could I equate it to a slightly more federalized version of the EU end goal?

Military interventions and high levels of federalism

It's the north hindus who keep things together, India is characterized by poos who hate themselves and each other, but use Pakistan conveniently as something to channel collective rage on so they have something in common. If Pakistan didn't exist there would be 100 "India"'s.

Don't forget China's influence as a popular antagonist to the Indian people

TFW both of your worst enemies are really close allies.

Everyone is too poor there to care about anything but survival, pretty much like Africa

From what I recall South Poos are actually the more educated, affluent, they poo less in the streets and all that.

They also have a hardcore communist insurgency with the Naxalites.

There's one state literally ran by commies, EU's federalization is far more centralized and unified.

Good old days

...

And people say the Reich was bad

...

Holy Indian Empire :)

>They also have a hardcore communist insurgency with the Naxalites.
They are everywhere on the Eastern side of India, including up towards Bengal. The only actual commies in India are Kerala and West Bengal, the former is in the south.

Also, yes more educated, but only more affluent because the vast majority of overpopulation happens in the North. Away from those areas, the wealth distribution is pretty much the same.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_nationalism
United by religion, it's basically a British construct with a Muslim minority.

Unrelated but does anyone have a map of Indian states between 1947 and 1951?
>Part A states, which were the former governors' provinces of British India, were ruled by an elected governor and state legislature. The nine Part A states were Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh (formerly Central Provinces and Berar), Madras, Orissa, Punjab (formerly East Punjab), Uttar Pradesh (formerly the United Provinces), and West Bengal.
>The eight Part B states were former princely states or groups of princely states, governed by a rajpramukh, who was usually the ruler of a constituent state, and an elected legislature. The rajpramukh was appointed by the President of India. The Part B states were Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Bharat, Mysore, Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU), Rajasthan, Saurashtra, and Travancore-Cochin.
>The ten Part C states included both the former chief commissioners' provinces and some princely states, and each was governed by a chief commissioner appointed by the President of India. The Part C states were Ajmer, Bhopal, Bilaspur, Coorg, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Cutch, Manipur, Tripura, and Vindhya Pradesh.
>The only Part D state was the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which were administered by a lieutenant governor appointed by the central government.

>yfw the state controlled by a communist government has the highest HDI in the country

Communist government sure, but in practice it was a welfare economy, same as the average western country.
The commiest things they did implement, namely healthcare education and land reform, had all already been happening in the capitalist west for a good fifty years to a century.

>The only actual commies in India are Kerala and

Isn't Kerala the best state to live in as the average Indian?

Yes it is

Do Indians have a magic affinity for communism? They should become like China then, desu.

>implement welfare state
>gommies

Yeah no. Nordic countries are't communist either, freer economies than USA.

>It's the north hindus who keep things together
Except BJP Nutjobs keep on pissing off local cultures of other Indian States whenever they go "Hurdurr that is not REAL HINDUISM" or enforce the Hindi language.

Indians are largely dominated by a group called "Hindi speakers". They make up half a billion people and call the shots.
Pakis realised this and did not want to be part of it, then used religion to liberate the Muslim ethnic groups into separate nations.
This ended the whole real opposition as Panjabis and Pashtuns traditionally had a lot of say into subcontinent matters.

How do you feel about the fact that Hindi is essentially a language brought to India by Muslim invaders as Urdu.
Hindi literally appeared in 1880. Prior to this, the concept of Sanskrit vocab and Devanagari script for this language was unheard of. A bit farcical if you ask me.

You have to be fucking retarded if you think everyone in Africa and India are in a Mad Max apocalyptic scramble for survival all the time

India would have united eventually if the british didnt do it. As Hinduism became more organized and nationalistic feelings grew all around the world it would have been the natural course.

Like how Christian Nations organised into one country or how Islam united the Arab world, right? lol

What the fuck

Britain directly caused hindu nationalism.

Kerala has a different culture and mostly agrarian lifestyle that makes communism perfect. The Kerala plan gave them high HDI, full literacy, etc but it would only work there.

This is an extremely misinformed post. Im not saying Hindi is older, but everything else is wrong.

>India would have united eventually if the british didnt do it.

Nah
>Marathas destroy Mughals.
>Instead of reunifying the country under Hindu rule they went "nah, you guys just do your thing."
>States. States fucking everyhwere. Everyday.

Voltaire is turning over in his grave.

Kerala, AKA the only place where communism worked

Without the British it almost certainly would have been united under Islamic rule prolly by the mughuls.

Kerala government's economic adviser is a former member of the New York Federal Reserve advisory board. They are def not commies, only actual commies in India are the Maoists who live in the jungles across the Red Corridor

you do realize that hindi and urdu, the national language and lingua franca of Pakistan, are almost the exact same language? theyre mutually intelligible barring certain vocabulary terms and the different script
partition was purely a matter of religion, wh a ch can be summed up as jinnah having a decades long autistic spergout

retard

>(Citation needed)

You do realize that there was only one language originally, called Urdu. Then the Hindus had an autistic tantrum because it has a Persian script and lots of Arabic, Turkish, and Persian words, and made their own version called Hindi with a different script. Over time Urdu kept adding more Persian while Hindi kept adding more Sanskrit. Give it 100 years and they won't be mutually intelligible anymore thanks to Hindu autists.

Unrelated, but Kashmir honestly would be best as it's own country as they initially wanted. Would be a good buffer in the region.

They originally wanted to be a part of Pakistan, they were a muslim majority state that had a Hindu ruler. The Hindu ruler, who was massively oppressive and hated (use google) wanted to have his own independent kingdom, which wasn't going to happen. The people in the regions of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit revolted and acceded to Pakistan, then Pakistani tribesmen entered Kashmir to stop the ruler and Hindus massacring locals (1947 Jammu massacres). Then Hari Singh the ruler signed accession to India so they would defend him. TLDR Pakistani Kashmir is happy, Indian Kashmir has 100k+ civilians killed by India.

WTF WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE THERES TOO MANY STATELETS AHHHHHHHHHHH

Nope, the state was working on remittances from gulf states which is now drying up. State treasury is now drying up.

North except j&k(war zone) was better than rest of india except kerala. Central and east was and is in bad state because they have a really sad history of being fucked up by their own people.

Retard

All of the Indian states were different shades of socialism. Before 1991, capitalism wasn't a concept here.

Also Kerala was always richer than rest of India. The commies have nothing to do with that.

Hinduism and Buddhism seem to help

Is Sikkim the most based state of India?

Britain separated India more if anything by stressing the negative aspects of the caste system. Britain is also one of the main reasons why India is a shit hole right now because they took like 99% of their wealth for themselves and India had to start anew after they gained their independence. Believe it or not, for most of history, the Indian subcontinent was a thriving and rich place.

>Kerala was always richer than rest of India
Nope. Also, can people stop talking out of their ass regarding us? Its always > muh commies > muh south is richer > muh aryans/dravidians, without any knowledge of our state (or any others for that matter).
t. Keralite

Let wh*toids meme. It's the only thing they can do now.

At the Independence yes, it was. My Malayali professor explained the same in collage. Kerala had many socioeconomic advantages over the rest of India- particularity the North.

Why is it Kerala and not Travancore?

That's a lot different than "always been richer", the latter is a ridiculous statement. The rest of India had all sorts of issues at that time that Kerala did not.

To you and also, Travancore =/= Kerala, in culture, history or location. The whole north of Kerala (where I'm from) was under Mysore rule off-and-on during the last few centuries.

Also, if you're asking about why the name "Kerala" was picked, do you want me to detail the history of the region a bit? If you want the short version: "Keralam" is a more historically accurate and less biased name.

Fair point, I meant to say Kerala had a head start than the rest of India after independence. I get really irritated especially when westerns say communism was the sole reason Kerala is better off than the rest of India.

Ahh ok, yes that's right. Communism is really more of a good match for our culture and economy, and the party is not against religion or traditionalism either.

> better off
Kerala is easily one of the least Westernized states, and has little industry or tech. Its a good place to live, but didn't get a head start in terms of english, industry, etc. Honestly the most "ahead" region upon independence was W. Bengal, due to Brit influence. And while both Kerala and Bengal have some meme similarities (communism, "matriarchy" and fish), they really have very different economies. You'll never see Kerala having big name companies etc..

Kerala is better off in terms of living standards, and while I don't know much about Kerala's current economy I can tell you even being under British influence did not save Bengal from being left behind under Mumbai and Maharastra's rise

livemint.com/Sundayapp/Z8DStEXICwm3MFvlE7PFXI/When-Bombay-overtook-Calcutta-A-history-of-Indias-financia.html

>Kerala is better off in terms of living standards
But this isn't what most people talk about regarding "progress", at least not the totality of it.

Regarding Bengal, I just mentioned it to contrast its early advantages with that of Kerala, the latter of which really isn't in the same "race" as the regions in question when talking about economic progress.

This tells me you know nothing of Indian history.

The vast majority of people on this board know nothing of non-european history.

>The vast majority of people on this board know nothing

Well, they might know some extremely basic things. Everyone knows the meme history of their own culture, to some degree.

India has a wonder vast history, visit any village and they all have their own folk stories. In the north there’s nothing but fairs, fakirs and religion. Great place to vacation if you don’t like crowds.

None of the things that made Britain rich are found in India.

Do the locals know the history of their former princely state?

Probably because they realize all Hindus need to stick together or else Islam will overtake them.

>What sort of borders you want senpai
>JUST

What do you mean? Most of it is folklore for example in my village to explain why the guys in my family have have small Adams’s apples is that the ruler fell in love with a dancer. He told her she can have anything, she asked for his head and he does so. Then supposedly they stitched it back together.
Even Punjab has different areas and ours is tribal.

Where in Punjab are you from?

There's always some people who'll know the history well, but princely state stuff is both extremely recent, and not too relevant to average people many times.

They'll know a lot about different communities, castes, families, etc., and a bunch of local history and legends though. That said, the average farmer won't know much, just like anywhere.

I’m from discoveredindia.com/punjab/fairs-and-festivals-in-punjab/fairs/ludhiana-jarag-mela-martyr-fair.htm
I remember going as a kid, this kids sandal fell off she was clearly a shudra. Me being the nice American kid picked it up and put it back on her. I swear I’ve never been sick in my life.

I wish I knew, pretty sure there are people in Patiala or Nabha that know. I’m American lol only went to India for boarding school

>put it back on her
lmao, nice.

> Shitala
nice, there's a temple to the Tamil version of her near my hometown, didn't even know there was a north indian equivalent, lmao.

Why is the Ganges Valley so shit (literally)?

>Indians shit in the street and blame open defacation on colonialism

youtube.com/watch?v=NIgfiSzCy1o

India was the fucking crown jewel of the British Empire wtf are you talking about.

>this post

Myanmar is far more diverse than "burmese"

>a welfare economy, same as the average western country.

so if welfare economies promote better standards of living why does the World Bank promote neoliberalism as the solution to poverty?

Because third worlders are more likely to listen to them if they say that they want to end poverty rather than just "promote foreign investment and international trade and the facilitation of capital investment", which is literally the organization's fundamental aim, as stated on its Articles of Agreement.

they all look the same to me, why are they arguing

Why should they lend money to some batshit insane commie or hopelessly corrupt generalissimo?

No one is entitled to their money, they aren't coercing anyone, they just say "if you implement these policies we will be prepared to risk lending you more".

Prestigious, sure, and a source of private wealth for many, but the things that made Britain rich was cotton and the Industrial Revolution - neither of which could possibly be argued to be facilitated by the acquisition of India.

British institutions , they have been a greater miracle for pakistan.