Pages:
Author

Topic: Akhand Bharat - United India : Should it happen ? - page 6. (Read 7971 times)

legendary
Activity: 2632
Merit: 1094

Both of us, I think, were talking about invading in some sense.

Nationalism is a lot like religion.

In religion a person projects a 'god' to represent something internal, a wholeness that is not conscious. Same with a country.

So trying to unify countries creates a natural paradox that can never solve. As you get fewer countries or centers of power there is a natural need amongst inhabitants to 'choose'. This will prevent 'unifiers' from ever making one society on earth.

The best solution is, as nationalism declines over time, and 'countries' have less and less power, to have smaller and smaller countries probably. When things are at that point then people will identify less as 'citizen of country x' than various other group identities a person can have.

When someone is motivated to 'do' something political or religious their focus is really on factors internal to them, not external.

I'm sorry but I don't get your logic. You want to increase the number of countries so that people can have their own identities? If that's the case then those smaller countries would have less citizens and would be easier to invade then and it would be a bigger problem then as the citizens would be slaves of the invader. It would be like 'Divide and Rule'.

We have 196 countries as of now and I don't want the number to increase just because one can choose his/her leader/ruler.
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
Why you are including regions such as the Philippines, Sichuan, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar (colored in yellow) in your Akhand Bharat? These places have nothing in common with India.

And talking about an India - Pakistan - Bangladesh merger, it will be a disaster for the Indian Hindus. Muslims will form around 35% of the total population, and they will quickly capture power with the help of "secular" Indian parties such as the Indian National Congress.
If they merge then the Muslims would form 40-50% of the total population within a few years cuz they are reproducing 4-5 times faster than a normal Hindu. If this happens then I am sure we'll see something similar to what happened in middle east happening in India. *that will be the time to leave the earth*.

Wow you speak like a real bigot you know that ? You're speaking of human beings not dogs in a kennel club. 'Reproduction rate' ? Seriously ?? What a disgusting mentality bro.
Its not the kid's faulty if he is born into a muslim family where his father has 5 wives. Its their culture, its their right. Deal with it and grow a pair.

Its high time you kids are given a proper secular neutral teachings in schools, else forget about united India we wont even have an united Banking system.


How many Pakistani friends do you have if any ? Have you ever met a muslim and not looked at him in a conspicuous way ?
Well I've had many Muslim friends and most of them had 3-4 brothers and sisters. If you think that terms like "reproduction rate" can only be used for dogs and animals ,then your mentality is disgusting, not mine. I used that term with utter respect  Roll Eyes .
Also i never said its the kids fault if he is born into a family where his father has 5 wives(you are reading too much between the lines), but it will be his fault if he further marries 5 more women and keeps on producing kids until all his women become infertile.
It would be more appropriate if schools start teaching Muslims to reproduce less, than teaching people like me to become 'secular'.
legendary
Activity: 2632
Merit: 1094

Like most 'unifiers', ultimately you show your color. That is not unity you want but servants. You will only lead with force, and even then it isn't leading but pushing.

The previous comment shows at least you have been trained well to tolerate the company of your servants.

Then what did you mean by this statement then "In fact the U.S. has not invaded a country now in quite some time, a few years at least. We could sweep through India and all those other countries easily. Then greater India would have a lot more territory, but it would be called the United States."

You were talking about invading a country and making Indians your servants while he is talking about mutual consent of those countries and uniting them (which for obvious reasons I don't support).
hero member
Activity: 1778
Merit: 764
www.V.systems
Why you are including regions such as the Philippines, Sichuan, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar (colored in yellow) in your Akhand Bharat? These places have nothing in common with India.

And talking about an India - Pakistan - Bangladesh merger, it will be a disaster for the Indian Hindus. Muslims will form around 35% of the total population, and they will quickly capture power with the help of "secular" Indian parties such as the Indian National Congress.
If they merge then the Muslims would form 40-50% of the total population within a few years cuz they are reproducing 4-5 times faster than a normal Hindu. If this happens then I am sure we'll see something similar to what happened in middle east happening in India. *that will be the time to leave the earth*.

Wow you speak like a real bigot you know that ? You're speaking of human beings not dogs in a kennel club. 'Reproduction rate' ? Seriously ?? What a disgusting mentality bro.
Its not the kid's faulty if he is born into a muslim family where his father has 5 wives. Its their culture, its their right. Deal with it and grow a pair.

Its high time you kids are given a proper secular neutral teachings in schools, else forget about united India we wont even have an united Banking system.


How many Pakistani friends do you have if any ? Have you ever met a muslim and not looked at him in a conspicuous way ?
hero member
Activity: 1778
Merit: 764
www.V.systems
Why you are including regions such as the Philippines, Sichuan, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar (colored in yellow) in your Akhand Bharat? These places have nothing in common with India.

And talking about an India - Pakistan - Bangladesh merger, it will be a disaster for the Indian Hindus. Muslims will form around 35% of the total population, and they will quickly capture power with the help of "secular" Indian parties such as the Indian National Congress.

1. Is it bad to have a muslim majority ? People are changing, its not 1942 anymore. Yes I said 42, why ? Google it.

2. We already had a muslim president and guess what INDIANS LOVED HIM irrespective of their religion!
hero member
Activity: 1778
Merit: 764
www.V.systems
Akhand Bharat is wishful thinking by RSS proponents in North India.
It has absolutely no support South of the Vindhyas. The RSS should first get a reality check done.

It is my wishful thinking and if you think I belong to RSS then you are the one who needs to have his head checked.
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
Why you are including regions such as the Philippines, Sichuan, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar (colored in yellow) in your Akhand Bharat? These places have nothing in common with India.

And talking about an India - Pakistan - Bangladesh merger, it will be a disaster for the Indian Hindus. Muslims will form around 35% of the total population, and they will quickly capture power with the help of "secular" Indian parties such as the Indian National Congress.
If they merge then the Muslims would form 40-50% of the total population within a few years cuz they are reproducing 4-5 times faster than a normal Hindu. If this happens then I am sure we'll see something similar to what happened in middle east happening in India. *that will be the time to leave the earth*.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1217
Why you are including regions such as the Philippines, Sichuan, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar (colored in yellow) in your Akhand Bharat? These places have nothing in common with India.

And talking about an India - Pakistan - Bangladesh merger, it will be a disaster for the Indian Hindus. Muslims will form around 35% of the total population, and they will quickly capture power with the help of "secular" Indian parties such as the Indian National Congress.
hero member
Activity: 1778
Merit: 764
www.V.systems
As most of us are here for bitcoin and the ideas of decentralization, I'd presume that that would be the same sentiment when it comes to nation-states. Regional government will be less responsive to the people than a sole national govt and world govt even worst.

Hey there fake Ramsey,
The idea of decentralization originated from the Indus valley civ, if you do your research you would find out some tantalizing aspects of it.
The way I see it, every country on earth needs to be unified into one country, in other words there should be either no country or just one. That government wouldnt rule but it'd administrate.

The more fragmented we become in territorial terms the more tension it exerts in the world economy. Just imagine if only people in US paid taxes for development in Somalia and if the oil revenues from the Middle east was used in the development of the South American countries, then what a different world we would be living in.

I am not talking about world domination, but world collaboration.
hero member
Activity: 1778
Merit: 764
www.V.systems

What about Gandhi? Who is He? What you say about him?
 

He was what he was and the world respects him. Its ok you can be proud of him too, he was after all an Indian just like you & me. But hey no human being is without flaws so why dont you go ahead and list a few for us to be entertained ?
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000
Akhand Bharat is wishful thinking by RSS proponents in North India.
It has absolutely no support South of the Vindhyas. The RSS should first get a reality check done.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
...several Islamic states were established in the Indian subcontinent in the course of a gradual Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent. This process culminated in the Mughal Empire, which ruled most of India during the mid-16th to mid-19th centuries.....
This is the Map Showing Muslim rule....



Hey, Religion of Peace, how you doing?
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1001
As most of us are here for bitcoin and the ideas of decentralization, I'd presume that that would be the same sentiment when it comes to nation-states. Regional government will be less responsive to the people than a sole national govt and world govt even worst.
legendary
Activity: 3234
Merit: 1654
Enterapp Pre-Sale Live - bit.ly/3UrMCWI
hero member
Activity: 1778
Merit: 764
www.V.systems

(assuming that's where you live)

Tell me do you still assume that I am a figment of imagination ? Or do you actually believe I am who I say I am ? I m fine with whatever the hell you believe I am but at least be straight forward about it. Where the hell do you think I am from ? The Fitzroy Crater on mars ?

And its high time that your generation started living outside the text based world of google.

I am IN Kolkata and I live in an apartment thats close to 2000 sqft big. 90% of all the people in this town have a big enough room close to this dimension.
You wanna know what population density really looks like then go visit Taiwan or Japan or Thailand. I said VISIT. That doesnt imply a google street view visit.

Thats Bezti Wink though none intended.
hero member
Activity: 1778
Merit: 764
www.V.systems

Hindu and Muslim can never Unite, If that possible they would have join before 1947 partition, Its called Two nation theory.

Muslim Rule over the subcontinent more than 800 year, And then British came and Muslim rule was over, And British rule was started. FIRST THE Indian were Under the MUSLIM and then Under the BRITISH rule. They have no problem. Muslim has the problem because they are the ruler, and rulers are now treated as slaves.



Irfan, I am going to make an insult/Joke about you and your country please dont take it seriously & be a sport.

Seriously which school did your parents sent you that your brain is so thoroughly washed - with some form of detergent - that you are actually calling a British India Map the Muslim India map ?? Please get your facts right. Please read on..


Get your hands & feet together folks I see an Indo Pak war coming.

 There is no Hindu there is no Muslim its plain and simple INDIAN.

In the ancient times people lived near the now dried up vedic Saraswati they werent Hindu, they didnt have rules, they didnt follow any other civiliztions but were expert traders.

Then we were part of the Haryanks and in a broader picture the Mahajanapads, the greatest empire of these 'Janapads' = Realm of the People ? It was the Magadh empire.

Then came the persians and the greeks, who returned back to their abodes when they were faced with the sheer logistical challenges of a military conquest in this peninsula.

Then throughout the classical age India was the land of the people whose majority were Hindu, and by majority I would say above 90%

It was during this classical time when the Mauryas rose & fell and with them spread the wings of India all across the south of Asia.
It was during this time when the age old tradition of cultivating wheat and the expanding wheat - farm lands spreading to the East and the west at an exponential rate; that the name 'Sone Ki Chirya' (The Golden Bird) was coined to India.

It wasnt until the early half 5th century, when the White Huns lead by Toramana invaded the North of Pakistan through the Afghan mountains, that Islam or any form of islam was introduced here. It was a short lived reign but converted enough Hindus to other religions like Tengri & Manichaeism, it basically opened up the possibility of conversion of Hindus to other religion which wasnt possible until now..

Much later in the 7th Century when Sindh (today's pakistan) was conquered by an invading Umayyadi Meccan army followed by the death of Muhammad. But even then this was isolated to the Northern part of the peninsula. While the rest of India was entering the late classical era, during which India and it's cultural influence spread further south east down through Sumatra and Indonesia.

The small muslim kingdoms formed during the Umayyadi crusades in the north were part of the Meccan caliphate but it's rulers were too unequipped to invade the rest of India.

Lets face it, Islam is the best religion for barbarian central asian tribes, who were among the early adopters of the religion. They could eat almost anything, they could have many wives, they got rid of the need of idols, anyone anywhere could just curl up and claim to be in a 'holy place' - which is good if you are a nomad and have no fixed place to live. Multiple wives just increases the reproduction efficiency and most importantly they could take anything from anyone because according their 'trollbook' the whole world is theirs to pillage.

AND they've been so successful at this craft of pillaging that they eventually dared to get into the heart of Delhi (Old Delhi) by the beginning of the 13th century and eventually set up the muslim rule in India by converting the general population into their own religion of Islam. But this was for 300 years not 800 The french, the Spanish the Portuguese and the Dutch started arriving by the 16th century and by the 17th Century the Britts.

In a way the britts were the first political unity this peninsula had seen in a long time.

But we shouldnt forget one fact. Religion is stupid. It is fake, it is a form of mind control, a form of herding the sheep. That sheep is the common man, every religion had one agenda and no it was not 'peace', it was the illusion of peace through fear and subjugation.

Hindu, muslim, sikh, Buddhists, Jains, Tengris (lol) all are and were ALWAYS Indians.
They just started believing in different imaginary concepts at different points in time thats all.


I get it how pathetic the common man in Pakistan today must feel that the founder of their country was nothing more than a delusional hateful old man, yes I m talking about Jinnah. Its high time my ancestral brothers stopped living in another man's delusion.
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250

Spoken like a true outsider.

I mean why wont you 'outsiders' ever stop complaining about our population ? Trust me we might be heavily populated but not densely populated.
Really? "Not densely populated"? I just Googled it out and found out that Kolkata(assuming that's where you live) has a density of 24,000people/sq.km . If that's not called densely populated then what shall it be called? All the liveable parts in India are densely populated. Delhi itself has 11,320 people/sq.km density.

Lastly, US 'sweeping' over India is as long shot as Guatemala having a manned space program for Pluto in the next 20 years. Not only does US lack the 'firepower' to take India down, it'd also starve to death because it is India that created the thousands of jobs in US which eventually helped you guys pull through your 08 crisis.
LoL. Bezti.
legendary
Activity: 3234
Merit: 1654
Enterapp Pre-Sale Live - bit.ly/3UrMCWI
@legendster hard to see that happen anytime soon. Too many other problems to solve first.

@no-ice-please the us doesn't invade nuclear armed countries. They aren't that stupid. And I don't think legendster is talking about military conquest. Just hindu muslim unity.

Hindu and Muslim can never Unite, If that possible they would have join before 1947 partition, Its called Two nation theory.

Muslim Rule over the subcontinent more than 800 year, And then British came and Muslim rule was over, And British rule was started. FIRST THE Indian were Under the MUSLIM and then Under the BRITISH rule. They have no problem. Muslim has the problem because they are the ruler, and rulers are now treated as slaves.

Beginning in the 12th century, several Islamic states were established in the Indian subcontinent in the course of a gradual Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent. This process culminated in the Mughal Empire, which ruled most of India during the mid-16th to mid-19th centuries. The Islamic rule gradually declined due to dominance of Maratha rule and several other rebellions (case during entire period of mughal rule past Akbar). The eventual end of the period of Islamic rule of India is marked by the two main events Indian Rebellion of 1857 and the beginning of British rule, although Islamic rule persisted in Hyderabad State and other minor princely states until Union of India in 1948. However, most Islamic rule had started to wane in the 17th and 18th century before that.

This is the Map Showing Muslim rule.



hero member
Activity: 1778
Merit: 764
www.V.systems
I am an avid supporter of this, though this is a pipe dream at the time being but if I ever achieve a public following and if I ever got into politics because of it; then it would be for this and only this topic / goal in mind.
So go ahead, and give your views regarding if this unison should happen, should not happen should have happened 60 years ago etc
Whatever is your opinion just jot in down below.
Biggest hurdles : Pakistan, Burma, Tibet (currently part of Imperial People's republic of China) and surprisingly the newly anti-india Thailand.

The map doesn't even show the whole of Kashmir in India.  Grin
This is really wishful thinking. There are nationalistic sentiments in all nations. Why on earth would any nation want to be part of "Akhand Bharat". At best, some sort of Free Trade Agreement is what could be hoped for.

The whole of Kashmir is not included in the map because the map is sourced from wikipedia which respects 'international boundary disputes'.

The question is not whether Kashmir belongs to India but rather should any land ocean sea or island which was administered or influenced significantly by India in any cultural or political form in the past, consider joining forces to become what could be a global power in no time.

India could have taken Kashmir a long time ago if US didnt help Pakistan fuel the terrorism there, and if only they didnt help them become a nuclear power, a country which still has 6 hours power cut in it's capital, a large area of it unmonitored or un-administered due to Taliban rule - yes I am talking of Pakistan.

Back when India gained freedom it made Russia it's closest ally, they chose to have strong ties with Russia than the americans because India already faced Japanese aggression in WW2.
Somehow US saw this move as Anti-US which was bullshit. Too bad it took them so long to realize their mistake.

I do agree however, even before dreaming about Akhand Bharat one must conspire to reclaim the lost territory to China and Pakistan and settle that matter once & for all.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000
I am an avid supporter of this, though this is a pipe dream at the time being but if I ever achieve a public following and if I ever got into politics because of it; then it would be for this and only this topic / goal in mind.
So go ahead, and give your views regarding if this unison should happen, should not happen should have happened 60 years ago etc
Whatever is your opinion just jot in down below.
Biggest hurdles : Pakistan, Burma, Tibet (currently part of Imperial People's republic of China) and surprisingly the newly anti-india Thailand.

The map doesn't even show the whole of Kashmir in India.  Grin
This is really wishful thinking. There are nationalistic sentiments in all nations. Why on earth would any nation want to be part of "Akhand Bharat". At best, some sort of Free Trade Agreement is what could be hoped for.
Pages:
Jump to: