说印度是由现代殖民主义捏合而成的人是想把印度巴尔干化
正文翻译
People that say India is a modern colonial construct only seek to Balkanize
说印度是由现代殖民主义捏合而成的人是想把印度巴尔干化
说印度是由现代殖民主义捏合而成的人是想把印度巴尔干化
评论翻译
rac3r5
The Marathas are definitely underrated in modern history. They were actually very close to unifying most of the subcontinent and their army was meritocracy based and a diverse one. The reason the British were able to defeat them was because of timing.
https://youtu.be/6NZCFoKrqg0
https://youtu.be/svbQq3oype4
马拉塔人在现代史上绝对被低估了。他们实际上非常接近于统一次大陆大部分地区，而且他们的军队是以精英为基础的，是一支多元化的军队。英国人能够打败他们的原因是时机问题。
According to these people India is a modern colonial construct and there isn’t any shared history amongst the people of the subcontinent. Not only is this nonsensical, but it applies modern day idealogies of colonialism to thousands of year old warring states. Ask these same people if China is a politically united civilization or if it’s actually artificially constructed as well. What they want is Balkanization and be seen as distinct groups, which is perhaps fair but to disregard periods political unity is blatantly false. To disregard the Mauryan empire is unequivocally political and only seeking to create discord. It’s fairly obvious to anyone that the modern state of India is a political unit because of British rule but to remove a common civilization Al history that has had many of the different groups in India rule over one another is a mistake. There have been Kannada kings, Tamil Kings, North Indian kings that have ruled over a variety of parts of India that was different than their “homelands”. Diversity may be India’s strength but it’s hard to see how it’s not also the largest downfall by seeing the diaspora argue over stuff like this.
根据这些人的说法，印度是现代殖民主义的产物，次大陆的人民之间没有任何共同的历史。这不仅是无稽之谈，而且还将现代殖民主义思想应用于具有数千年相互交战历史的政权之间。问问这些人，中国是一个政治上统一的文明，还是说它实际上也是人为捏合的。他们想要的是将印度巴尔干化和被视为不同的群体，这也许是公平的，但无视印度历史上的不同时期存在过政治统一也是一种显而易见的错误。无视孔雀王朝的统一是明确的政治行为，是在印度寻求制造不和谐。任何人都相当清楚，统一的印度现代国家来自于英国的统治，但把印度的许多不同群体之间相互统治过的这段共同文明的历史删除，也是一个错误。历史上卡纳达国王、泰米尔国王、北印度国王都统治过与他们"家乡"不同的印度各地。多样性可能是印度的优势，但看到散居世界各地的印度侨民为这样的事情争论不休，也很难说它不是最大的劣势。
根据这些人的说法，印度是现代殖民主义的产物，次大陆的人民之间没有任何共同的历史。这不仅是无稽之谈，而且还将现代殖民主义思想应用于具有数千年相互交战历史的政权之间。问问这些人，中国是一个政治上统一的文明，还是说它实际上也是人为捏合的。他们想要的是将印度巴尔干化和被视为不同的群体，这也许是公平的，但无视印度历史上的不同时期存在过政治统一也是一种显而易见的错误。无视孔雀王朝的统一是明确的政治行为，是在印度寻求制造不和谐。任何人都相当清楚，统一的印度现代国家来自于英国的统治，但把印度的许多不同群体之间相互统治过的这段共同文明的历史删除，也是一个错误。历史上卡纳达国王、泰米尔国王、北印度国王都统治过与他们"家乡"不同的印度各地。多样性可能是印度的优势，但看到散居世界各地的印度侨民为这样的事情争论不休，也很难说它不是最大的劣势。
TangerineMaximum2976
It really is though. Prior to British forcibly making it into one unit for administrative purposes you have to go back 3000+ years to get any semblance of an entity which reflects ‘india’
India has always been a continent rather than what we see as a country in modern times. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
但事实就是如此啊。在英国人出于行政目的强行将其变成一个单位之前，你必须追溯到3000多年前，才能找到任何反映一个统一的"印度"的实体的迹象。
印度一直是“一个大陆”，而不是我们在现代看到的“一个国家”。这并没有错。
It really is though. Prior to British forcibly making it into one unit for administrative purposes you have to go back 3000+ years to get any semblance of an entity which reflects ‘india’
India has always been a continent rather than what we see as a country in modern times. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
但事实就是如此啊。在英国人出于行政目的强行将其变成一个单位之前，你必须追溯到3000多年前，才能找到任何反映一个统一的"印度"的实体的迹象。
印度一直是“一个大陆”，而不是我们在现代看到的“一个国家”。这并没有错。
bigtrackrunner
India as a concept has existed as a cultural/racial group, but due to size and population it was never possible for pre industrial empires to conquer and unify the entire territory. Bharatvarsha and Jambudvipa were the historical names that residents had for the land and it’s people.
印度作为一个概念已经存在于文化/种族群体之中，但由于规模和人口，前工业帝国永远不可能征服和统一整个次大陆的领土。“Bharatvarsha”和“Jambudvipa”是居民对这片土地和人民的历史称呼。
India as a concept has existed as a cultural/racial group, but due to size and population it was never possible for pre industrial empires to conquer and unify the entire territory. Bharatvarsha and Jambudvipa were the historical names that residents had for the land and it’s people.
印度作为一个概念已经存在于文化/种族群体之中，但由于规模和人口，前工业帝国永远不可能征服和统一整个次大陆的领土。“Bharatvarsha”和“Jambudvipa”是居民对这片土地和人民的历史称呼。
kinsho
Nah, I just don't think the will or the vision was there to subvert India under one authority. Shih Huang Ti pulled off that feat with China. Ashoka could have done the same thing in India, but he stopped expanding his empire after converting to Buddhism.
不，我不认为如果有强权把印度统一在一个权威之下大家的反抗会有多激烈。秦始皇在中国完成了这一壮举。阿育王本来可以在印度做同样的事情，但他在皈依佛教后停止了帝国的扩张。
Nah, I just don't think the will or the vision was there to subvert India under one authority. Shih Huang Ti pulled off that feat with China. Ashoka could have done the same thing in India, but he stopped expanding his empire after converting to Buddhism.
不，我不认为如果有强权把印度统一在一个权威之下大家的反抗会有多激烈。秦始皇在中国完成了这一壮举。阿育王本来可以在印度做同样的事情，但他在皈依佛教后停止了帝国的扩张。
EpicHiddenGetsIt
actually that's a common misconception. he was notoriously cruel even after converting
事实上，这是一个常见的误解。他是出了名的残忍，甚至在皈依之后也是如此。
actually that's a common misconception. he was notoriously cruel even after converting
事实上，这是一个常见的误解。他是出了名的残忍，甚至在皈依之后也是如此。
kinsho
How?
何以见得？
How?
何以见得？
BundMarsaan
Punjabistani
Europe and Africa have also existed as racial groups. Also, aren’t most East Asians considered the same race?
“印度作为一个概念已经存在于文化/种族群体之中”
“欧洲”和“非洲”这两个概念也曾作为种族群体存在过。另外，大多数东亚人不是被认为是同一个种族吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Punjabistani
Europe and Africa have also existed as racial groups. Also, aren’t most East Asians considered the same race?
“印度作为一个概念已经存在于文化/种族群体之中”
“欧洲”和“非洲”这两个概念也曾作为种族群体存在过。另外，大多数东亚人不是被认为是同一个种族吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
bigtrackrunner
Difference there is that Africans were labeled as one race by outsiders. There wasn’t any African literature describing the common origins and similarities between various African tribes, and calling non Africans outsiders.
As for Europe, until recently Anglosphere countries didn’t even consider South Europe and Irish to be white.
不同之处在于，非洲人是被非洲以外的人标记为一个种族。没有任何非洲文学描述过不同非洲部落之间的共同起源和相似之处，并称非非洲人为局外人。
至于欧洲，直到最近盎格鲁圈国家甚至都不认为南欧和爱尔兰人是白人。
Difference there is that Africans were labeled as one race by outsiders. There wasn’t any African literature describing the common origins and similarities between various African tribes, and calling non Africans outsiders.
As for Europe, until recently Anglosphere countries didn’t even consider South Europe and Irish to be white.
不同之处在于，非洲人是被非洲以外的人标记为一个种族。没有任何非洲文学描述过不同非洲部落之间的共同起源和相似之处，并称非非洲人为局外人。
至于欧洲，直到最近盎格鲁圈国家甚至都不认为南欧和爱尔兰人是白人。
thestoneswerestoned
Paneer4Lyfe
Common history, which nobody is denying, does not necessarily translate to a pan-subcontinental political state, which is evidenced by the fact that (excluding Mughals and the British since they weren't a part of the majority demographic) there hasn't been one since the Mauryas over 2000 years ago. And that was before the advent of Islam in the subcontinent, which further complicates things politically in the present era.
until recently Anglosphere countries didn’t even consider South Europe and Irish to be white.
That was mostly just the US. And they were still considered white, just not preferred compared to English, German, Scandinavian etc whites. If they weren't considered as such, they would've been banned completely like Asians were with the Chinese Exclusion Act.
共同的历史，这点没有人否认，但这不一定能转化为一个统一的泛次大陆的政治国家，这可以从以下事实中得到证明：（不包括莫卧儿和英国人，因为他们不是多数人口的一部分）自2000多年前的孔雀王朝以来，就没有过一个统一的泛次大陆。而且那是在伊斯兰教出现在次大陆之前，在这之后现今时代的政治情况更加复杂了。
“直到最近，盎格鲁圈国家甚至不认为南欧和爱尔兰是白人。”
主要是美国这么认为。而且他们一直被认为是白人，只是与英国、德国、斯堪的纳维亚等国的白人相比，级别低一点。如果他们真的不被认为是白人，他们就会被完全排斥，就像亚洲人在《排华法案》中被排斥一样。
Paneer4Lyfe
Common history, which nobody is denying, does not necessarily translate to a pan-subcontinental political state, which is evidenced by the fact that (excluding Mughals and the British since they weren't a part of the majority demographic) there hasn't been one since the Mauryas over 2000 years ago. And that was before the advent of Islam in the subcontinent, which further complicates things politically in the present era.
until recently Anglosphere countries didn’t even consider South Europe and Irish to be white.
That was mostly just the US. And they were still considered white, just not preferred compared to English, German, Scandinavian etc whites. If they weren't considered as such, they would've been banned completely like Asians were with the Chinese Exclusion Act.
共同的历史，这点没有人否认，但这不一定能转化为一个统一的泛次大陆的政治国家，这可以从以下事实中得到证明：（不包括莫卧儿和英国人，因为他们不是多数人口的一部分）自2000多年前的孔雀王朝以来，就没有过一个统一的泛次大陆。而且那是在伊斯兰教出现在次大陆之前，在这之后现今时代的政治情况更加复杂了。
“直到最近，盎格鲁圈国家甚至不认为南欧和爱尔兰是白人。”
主要是美国这么认为。而且他们一直被认为是白人，只是与英国、德国、斯堪的纳维亚等国的白人相比，级别低一点。如果他们真的不被认为是白人，他们就会被完全排斥，就像亚洲人在《排华法案》中被排斥一样。
bigtrackrunner
Yeah I never said India existed as political concept. I’m saying there was a cultural concept of India.
Regardless, the point is that non Anglos were seen as an inferior subgroup racially, and their lands would not be treated as an equal partner
是的，我从未说过统一的印度作为政治概念存在。我是说存在一个统一的印度的文化概念。
不管怎么说，重点是，非盎格鲁人在种族上被视为低等亚群，他们的国家不会被视为平等的伙伴。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Yeah I never said India existed as political concept. I’m saying there was a cultural concept of India.
Regardless, the point is that non Anglos were seen as an inferior subgroup racially, and their lands would not be treated as an equal partner
是的，我从未说过统一的印度作为政治概念存在。我是说存在一个统一的印度的文化概念。
不管怎么说，重点是，非盎格鲁人在种族上被视为低等亚群，他们的国家不会被视为平等的伙伴。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Acrobatic-Motor-857
Ugh contrary to popular belief, believing that India and South Asia as a whole today were once united as one power and that everything was happy etc. is itself a colonial mindset and construct. South Asia, before the Brits arrived, was never a united nation or people, just a patchwork of different kingdoms, the Mughals etc etc. or varying Nawabs across the land. The British colonialists forcefully united all of them to create the British Raj and then India/Pak and so on.
与流行的看法相反，相信今天的印度和整个南亚曾经作为一个大国团结在一起，一切都很幸福等等，这本身就是一种殖民心态和捏造。在英国人到来之前，南亚从来都不是一个统一的国家或民族，是由不同的王国、莫卧儿王朝等等或不同的纳瓦卜（注：半独立领主）在片土地上拼凑而成。英国殖民主义者强行将他们全部统一起来，建立了英属印度，然后是印度/巴基斯坦，等等。
Ugh contrary to popular belief, believing that India and South Asia as a whole today were once united as one power and that everything was happy etc. is itself a colonial mindset and construct. South Asia, before the Brits arrived, was never a united nation or people, just a patchwork of different kingdoms, the Mughals etc etc. or varying Nawabs across the land. The British colonialists forcefully united all of them to create the British Raj and then India/Pak and so on.
与流行的看法相反，相信今天的印度和整个南亚曾经作为一个大国团结在一起，一切都很幸福等等，这本身就是一种殖民心态和捏造。在英国人到来之前，南亚从来都不是一个统一的国家或民族，是由不同的王国、莫卧儿王朝等等或不同的纳瓦卜（注：半独立领主）在片土地上拼凑而成。英国殖民主义者强行将他们全部统一起来，建立了英属印度，然后是印度/巴基斯坦，等等。
Rubrumaurin
No place was all “United and happy”. Not China, not Japan, not Germany. India however was United multiple times in history with varying degrees of success. To say this is false is quite ahistorical.
没有一个地方是全部"统一而幸福"的。中国不是，日本不是，德国也不是。然而，印度在历史上曾多次联合，取得了不同程度的成功。说这是假的是很不符合历史的。
No place was all “United and happy”. Not China, not Japan, not Germany. India however was United multiple times in history with varying degrees of success. To say this is false is quite ahistorical.
没有一个地方是全部"统一而幸福"的。中国不是，日本不是，德国也不是。然而，印度在历史上曾多次联合，取得了不同程度的成功。说这是假的是很不符合历史的。
sorceraider
Canada
I'm not convinced that India would be a single unified country today without the legacy of British rule. There was common history and a common religion, but India has always been made up of warring Kingdoms and different ethnolinguistic groups.
If the Brits hadn't colonized India, it would probably resemble the EU or African unx.
It's true that, in the ancient past, empires have ruled over vast portions of the Indian subcontinent (the Mauryan empire, for example), but the same is true of Europe and the Middle East.
我不相信，如果没有英国统治的遗产，印度今天会是一个统一的国家。是有着共同的历史和共同的宗教，但印度一直是由相互交战的王国和不同民族语言的群体组成的。
如果英国人没有对印度进行殖民统治，它现在可能会像欧盟或非洲联盟一样。
诚然，在古代，帝国曾统治过印度次大陆的广大地区（例如，孔雀王朝），但欧洲和中东不也有过大帝国。
Canada
I'm not convinced that India would be a single unified country today without the legacy of British rule. There was common history and a common religion, but India has always been made up of warring Kingdoms and different ethnolinguistic groups.
If the Brits hadn't colonized India, it would probably resemble the EU or African unx.
It's true that, in the ancient past, empires have ruled over vast portions of the Indian subcontinent (the Mauryan empire, for example), but the same is true of Europe and the Middle East.
我不相信，如果没有英国统治的遗产，印度今天会是一个统一的国家。是有着共同的历史和共同的宗教，但印度一直是由相互交战的王国和不同民族语言的群体组成的。
如果英国人没有对印度进行殖民统治，它现在可能会像欧盟或非洲联盟一样。
诚然，在古代，帝国曾统治过印度次大陆的广大地区（例如，孔雀王朝），但欧洲和中东不也有过大帝国。
Cuddlyaxe
Counterfactuals are always kinda dangerous for this reason. We have no idea whether or not India would be unified or not
Yeah India had been a bunch of disunited squabbling kingdoms, but so was Germany. That didn't stop Pan Germanism or Pan Italianism from taking off
I think had the British not arrived, Pan Indianism almost def would've arisen with the introduction of European ideas of nationalism, whether it would be successful or not would be a coinflip
由于这个原因，反设事实总是有点危险。我们不知道印度到底会不会统一。
是的，印度曾经是一群不团结的争吵不休的王国，但德国也是如此。这并没有阻止泛德意志主义或泛意大利主义的兴起。
我认为，如果英国人没有来，泛印度主义几乎会随着欧洲民族主义思想的引入而出现，至于它是否会成功，那就得看运气了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Counterfactuals are always kinda dangerous for this reason. We have no idea whether or not India would be unified or not
Yeah India had been a bunch of disunited squabbling kingdoms, but so was Germany. That didn't stop Pan Germanism or Pan Italianism from taking off
I think had the British not arrived, Pan Indianism almost def would've arisen with the introduction of European ideas of nationalism, whether it would be successful or not would be a coinflip
由于这个原因，反设事实总是有点危险。我们不知道印度到底会不会统一。
是的，印度曾经是一群不团结的争吵不休的王国，但德国也是如此。这并没有阻止泛德意志主义或泛意大利主义的兴起。
我认为，如果英国人没有来，泛印度主义几乎会随着欧洲民族主义思想的引入而出现，至于它是否会成功，那就得看运气了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
BundMarsaan
Punjabistani
Pan-Italian and Pan-Germanism is completely different from what you’re suggesting. Those are ethnicities with a common language and culture. Also, technically Austria, The Netherlands, and Flanders should be part of Germany if Pan-Germanism really took off.
泛意大利和泛德国主义与你所暗示的完全不同。这些是有着共同语言和文化的民族。另外，从技术上讲，如果泛德主义真的兴起，奥地利、荷兰和佛兰德斯都应该是德国的一部分。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Punjabistani
Pan-Italian and Pan-Germanism is completely different from what you’re suggesting. Those are ethnicities with a common language and culture. Also, technically Austria, The Netherlands, and Flanders should be part of Germany if Pan-Germanism really took off.
泛意大利和泛德国主义与你所暗示的完全不同。这些是有着共同语言和文化的民族。另外，从技术上讲，如果泛德主义真的兴起，奥地利、荷兰和佛兰德斯都应该是德国的一部分。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Cuddlyaxe
lol the only reason Italian is considered a single language is for political reasons. During unification, North and South Italians couldn't understand each other.
Same with German to a lesser extent, there's High and Low German probably would be considered
The question about whether Austria should be a part of Germany or not was kinda a big deal, there's a reason why so many Austrians supported Anchluss
The Dutch and Flemish were pretty clearly not Germans and no one ever thought of them as such
And India shared a common culture lmao
啊哈哈哈，意大利语被认为是单一语言的唯一原因是政治原因。在统一期间，北意大利人和南意大利人无法相互理解。
德语也一样，高地德语和低地德语在某种程度上也差不多
关于奥地利是否应该成为德国的一部分的问题是个大问题，这就是为什么那么多奥地利人支持“德奥合并”的原因。
荷兰人和佛兰德人显然不是德国人，没有人认为他们是德国人。
而印度有着共同的文化，笑
lol the only reason Italian is considered a single language is for political reasons. During unification, North and South Italians couldn't understand each other.
Same with German to a lesser extent, there's High and Low German probably would be considered
The question about whether Austria should be a part of Germany or not was kinda a big deal, there's a reason why so many Austrians supported Anchluss
The Dutch and Flemish were pretty clearly not Germans and no one ever thought of them as such
And India shared a common culture lmao
啊哈哈哈，意大利语被认为是单一语言的唯一原因是政治原因。在统一期间，北意大利人和南意大利人无法相互理解。
德语也一样，高地德语和低地德语在某种程度上也差不多
关于奥地利是否应该成为德国的一部分的问题是个大问题，这就是为什么那么多奥地利人支持“德奥合并”的原因。
荷兰人和佛兰德人显然不是德国人，没有人认为他们是德国人。
而印度有着共同的文化，笑
Aamir989
All Italian languages ( except for 1/2 a million German speakers in the alps) are all Latin based languages. The languages of the Italian peninsula probably started to splinter of from each other over the last 800-1300yrs. Additionally many are just dialects.
Unlike in India where indo-Aryan languages started to splinter of from each other around the last 2500-3500yrs, so their is far greater linguistic differences/distant. Then you have Tibetan-Burman, Austroasiatic, Dravidian languages which come from completely different language families in India. You also have the iranic language of Pakistan which separates from the indo-aryans languages some 4000+ yrs ago.
The differences Between the languages of the Italian peninsula is more similar to the differences between gujarati languages than to the entire Indo-Aryan language family.
所有的意大利语言（除了阿尔卑斯山上的50万德语使用者）都是基于拉丁语的语言。意大利半岛的语言可能是在过去的800-1300年中开始相互分裂的。许多语言只是方言。
与印度不同的是，印度的雅利安人语言在过去2500-3500年左右开始相互分裂，因此他们的语言差异/距离要大得多。然后，这里还有藏缅语、南亚语、德拉威语，这些语言来自印度完全不同的语系。还有巴基斯坦的伊朗语，它在大约4000多年前就从印度-雅利安人的语言中分离出来了。
意大利半岛语言之间的差异更类似于古吉拉特语之间的差异，而不是整个印度-雅利安语系之间的差异。
All Italian languages ( except for 1/2 a million German speakers in the alps) are all Latin based languages. The languages of the Italian peninsula probably started to splinter of from each other over the last 800-1300yrs. Additionally many are just dialects.
Unlike in India where indo-Aryan languages started to splinter of from each other around the last 2500-3500yrs, so their is far greater linguistic differences/distant. Then you have Tibetan-Burman, Austroasiatic, Dravidian languages which come from completely different language families in India. You also have the iranic language of Pakistan which separates from the indo-aryans languages some 4000+ yrs ago.
The differences Between the languages of the Italian peninsula is more similar to the differences between gujarati languages than to the entire Indo-Aryan language family.
所有的意大利语言（除了阿尔卑斯山上的50万德语使用者）都是基于拉丁语的语言。意大利半岛的语言可能是在过去的800-1300年中开始相互分裂的。许多语言只是方言。
与印度不同的是，印度的雅利安人语言在过去2500-3500年左右开始相互分裂，因此他们的语言差异/距离要大得多。然后，这里还有藏缅语、南亚语、德拉威语，这些语言来自印度完全不同的语系。还有巴基斯坦的伊朗语，它在大约4000多年前就从印度-雅利安人的语言中分离出来了。
意大利半岛语言之间的差异更类似于古吉拉特语之间的差异，而不是整个印度-雅利安语系之间的差异。
BundMarsaan
Punjabistani
So, we’re pretty much agreeing that nation states are built for political reasons and not because they “belong” to another nation based on a civilization from thousands of years ago. And what common culture are you talking about? There’s over 200 languages in India alone and thousands of miles separating ethnicities apart. I certainly don’t relate to people from Sri Lanka or Bangladesh. Apart of some physical similarities, they’re completely foreign to me.
“意大利语被认为是单一语言的唯一原因是政治原因”
所以说，我们基本上都同意民族国家的建立是出于政治原因，而不是因为他们曾"同属于"另一个几千年前的文明国家。你在说什么共同文化？仅在印度就有超过200种语言，而且各民族之间相隔数千英里。我当然不会和来自斯里兰卡或孟加拉国的人联系在一起。除了身体上的一些相似之处，他们对我来说是完全陌生的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Punjabistani
So, we’re pretty much agreeing that nation states are built for political reasons and not because they “belong” to another nation based on a civilization from thousands of years ago. And what common culture are you talking about? There’s over 200 languages in India alone and thousands of miles separating ethnicities apart. I certainly don’t relate to people from Sri Lanka or Bangladesh. Apart of some physical similarities, they’re completely foreign to me.
“意大利语被认为是单一语言的唯一原因是政治原因”
所以说，我们基本上都同意民族国家的建立是出于政治原因，而不是因为他们曾"同属于"另一个几千年前的文明国家。你在说什么共同文化？仅在印度就有超过200种语言，而且各民族之间相隔数千英里。我当然不会和来自斯里兰卡或孟加拉国的人联系在一起。除了身体上的一些相似之处，他们对我来说是完全陌生的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Cuddlyaxe
No we're not agreed lol
Neither German Unification nor Italian Unification was initially driven by states. The Prussian and other German states establishment were initially against it, but the 1848 revolution, which was largely a mass movement, demanded German unification and is the only reason it was pursued by the authorities
Italian unification was even more extreme, it was literally some random dude who fought in South America deciding to conquer Southern Italy to unify Italy
I'm not saying that they were unified because they "belonged" to a nation based on a civilization from thousands of years ago. But I'm also not saying that top-down political reasons were the reasons for unification, because that's just as false. The fact of the matter is, people's identities and perceptions of identities are what shaped and caused nationalism. If everyone in Texas tomorrow decided they were Louisanan, they would be Louisanan
The fact of the matter is, Indians largely shared a sense of identity, in the face of the British yes, but also prior. Indian identity always existed in an us vs them sense and was only strengthened by the Muslim invasions of India
And what common culture are you talking about? There’s over 200 languages in India alone and thousands of miles separating ethnicities apart. I certainly don’t relate to people from Sri Lanka or Bangladesh. Apart of some physical similarities, they’re completely foreign to me.
lol Bavarians and North Germans have variations in these culture as well. As do Venetians and Sicilians.
But there's plenty shred in Desi culture, from religion to song to dance etc.
不，我们没有达成一致，笑
无论是德国的统一还是意大利的统一，最初都不是由国家推动的。普鲁士和其他德国国家的机构最初是反对的，但由群众主动的1848年革命，要求德国统一，这是当局追求统一的唯一原因，
意大利的统一甚至更加极端，就是一些曾经在南美作战的不知道哪来的家伙决定征服意大利南部来统一意大利。
我不是说他们统一是因为他们曾"同属于"一个几千年前的文明国家。但我也没说自上而下的政治原因是统一的原因，因为这同样是错误的。事实是，人们的身份和对身份的认知是塑造和造成民族主义的原因。如果明天德克萨斯州的每个人都决定他们是路易西安人，他们就会成为路易西安人
事实是，印度人在很大程度上有一种认同感，在面对英国人时是这样，在这之前也是这样。印度人的身份认同让这里的人对外人一直有一种"我们VS他们 "的感觉，这在穆斯林入侵印度后更加得到了强化。
“你在说什么共同文化？仅在印度就有超过200种语言，而且各民族之间相隔数千英里。我当然不会和来自斯里兰卡或孟加拉国的人联系在一起。除了一些身体上的相似之处，他们对我来说完全是陌生的。”
笑，巴伐利亚人和北德人也有这些文化差异。威尼斯人和西西里人也是如此。
而次大陆文化中有大量的共同点，从宗教到歌曲到舞蹈等等。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
No we're not agreed lol
Neither German Unification nor Italian Unification was initially driven by states. The Prussian and other German states establishment were initially against it, but the 1848 revolution, which was largely a mass movement, demanded German unification and is the only reason it was pursued by the authorities
Italian unification was even more extreme, it was literally some random dude who fought in South America deciding to conquer Southern Italy to unify Italy
I'm not saying that they were unified because they "belonged" to a nation based on a civilization from thousands of years ago. But I'm also not saying that top-down political reasons were the reasons for unification, because that's just as false. The fact of the matter is, people's identities and perceptions of identities are what shaped and caused nationalism. If everyone in Texas tomorrow decided they were Louisanan, they would be Louisanan
The fact of the matter is, Indians largely shared a sense of identity, in the face of the British yes, but also prior. Indian identity always existed in an us vs them sense and was only strengthened by the Muslim invasions of India
And what common culture are you talking about? There’s over 200 languages in India alone and thousands of miles separating ethnicities apart. I certainly don’t relate to people from Sri Lanka or Bangladesh. Apart of some physical similarities, they’re completely foreign to me.
lol Bavarians and North Germans have variations in these culture as well. As do Venetians and Sicilians.
But there's plenty shred in Desi culture, from religion to song to dance etc.
不，我们没有达成一致，笑
无论是德国的统一还是意大利的统一，最初都不是由国家推动的。普鲁士和其他德国国家的机构最初是反对的，但由群众主动的1848年革命，要求德国统一，这是当局追求统一的唯一原因，
意大利的统一甚至更加极端，就是一些曾经在南美作战的不知道哪来的家伙决定征服意大利南部来统一意大利。
我不是说他们统一是因为他们曾"同属于"一个几千年前的文明国家。但我也没说自上而下的政治原因是统一的原因，因为这同样是错误的。事实是，人们的身份和对身份的认知是塑造和造成民族主义的原因。如果明天德克萨斯州的每个人都决定他们是路易西安人，他们就会成为路易西安人
事实是，印度人在很大程度上有一种认同感，在面对英国人时是这样，在这之前也是这样。印度人的身份认同让这里的人对外人一直有一种"我们VS他们 "的感觉，这在穆斯林入侵印度后更加得到了强化。
“你在说什么共同文化？仅在印度就有超过200种语言，而且各民族之间相隔数千英里。我当然不会和来自斯里兰卡或孟加拉国的人联系在一起。除了一些身体上的相似之处，他们对我来说完全是陌生的。”
笑，巴伐利亚人和北德人也有这些文化差异。威尼斯人和西西里人也是如此。
而次大陆文化中有大量的共同点，从宗教到歌曲到舞蹈等等。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
bigtrackrunner
It’s slightly different than Europe and Africa though. There was always a concept of “India”, just not political unity. I’m guessing a confederacy would be most likely, but in the environment of the Cold War who really knows what route India would’ve taken.
不过这与欧洲和非洲略有不同。次大陆一直有一个"印度"的概念，只是没有政治统一。（如果没有英国）我猜测形成一个邦联是最有可能的，但在冷战的环境下，谁真的知道印度会采取什么路线。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It’s slightly different than Europe and Africa though. There was always a concept of “India”, just not political unity. I’m guessing a confederacy would be most likely, but in the environment of the Cold War who really knows what route India would’ve taken.
不过这与欧洲和非洲略有不同。次大陆一直有一个"印度"的概念，只是没有政治统一。（如果没有英国）我猜测形成一个邦联是最有可能的，但在冷战的环境下，谁真的知道印度会采取什么路线。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Aamir989
I mean theirs also been a concept of Europe , concept of Confucius Asia, concept of turkestan , Malay world, Iranshahr ( greater Iran), Dar al Islam , Christendom, Latin America , Arabia for centuries . Doesn’t mean they all the same though or should be under one country.
他们也有欧洲的概念，儒家的亚洲概念，大突厥的概念，大马来世界的概念，大伊朗的概念，大伊斯兰教世界的概念，基督世界的概念，拉丁美洲的概念，几个世纪以来大阿拉伯的概念。但这并不意味着它们都是一样的，或者就应该归属于一个国家。
I mean theirs also been a concept of Europe , concept of Confucius Asia, concept of turkestan , Malay world, Iranshahr ( greater Iran), Dar al Islam , Christendom, Latin America , Arabia for centuries . Doesn’t mean they all the same though or should be under one country.
他们也有欧洲的概念，儒家的亚洲概念，大突厥的概念，大马来世界的概念，大伊朗的概念，大伊斯兰教世界的概念，基督世界的概念，拉丁美洲的概念，几个世纪以来大阿拉伯的概念。但这并不意味着它们都是一样的，或者就应该归属于一个国家。
Z-KNHO
It would. The Marathas would’ve unified the country.
会的。马拉塔帝国会统一这个国家的。
（注：马拉塔帝国是印度次大陆上的一个近代帝国，也是印度最后一个印度教帝国。从1674年开始到1818年结束，它的鼎盛时期横跨整个印度次大陆。这是继孔雀王朝和古普坦帝国之后第三个统一印度大部分地区的本土印度帝国。）
It would. The Marathas would’ve unified the country.
会的。马拉塔帝国会统一这个国家的。
（注：马拉塔帝国是印度次大陆上的一个近代帝国，也是印度最后一个印度教帝国。从1674年开始到1818年结束，它的鼎盛时期横跨整个印度次大陆。这是继孔雀王朝和古普坦帝国之后第三个统一印度大部分地区的本土印度帝国。）
rac3r5
The Marathas are definitely underrated in modern history. They were actually very close to unifying most of the subcontinent and their army was meritocracy based and a diverse one. The reason the British were able to defeat them was because of timing.
https://youtu.be/6NZCFoKrqg0
https://youtu.be/svbQq3oype4
马拉塔人在现代史上绝对被低估了。他们实际上非常接近于统一次大陆大部分地区，而且他们的军队是以精英为基础的，是一支多元化的军队。英国人能够打败他们的原因是时机问题。
tonysr27
They're not underrated. If anything, they're overrated, and certainly the most whitewashed out of any group, owing to how easily Maratha history can be co-opted into a narrative of "The Pursuit of a United Hindu India" or something.
They ravaged entire cities in conquest. Their repeated raids of Bengal were particularly brutal, leading to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of commoners, women, and children. A good chunk of them Hindus, in fact.
The Marathas were interested in plunder, conquest, and empire. Not unity. Well, unity springing from "we'll be the only ones left with any kind of power", yeah maybe. But certainly not any inclusive kind of unity. Not even a pan-Hindu one.
And it wasn't just the British, and it wasn't just the timing. The nature of this kind of empire is inherently unstable. A consequence of being unwilling to share power, is that you don't have allies. The Mughals too couldn't have ruled without sharing power with other kingdoms and groups in north India. The Marathas did not have the support of the Rajputs, nor the Jats, which contributed to their defeat in the Third Battle of Panipat.
他们没有被低估。硬要说的话，他们被高估了，而且肯定是所有群体中被粉饰得最多的，因为马拉塔人的历史很容易被纳入"追求统一的印度教印度"之类的叙述中。
他们在征服中蹂躏了整个城市。他们对孟加拉的反复袭击尤其残酷，导致数十万平民、妇女和儿童被屠杀。事实上，其中有很大一部分是印度教徒。
马拉塔人对掠夺、征服和帝国感兴趣。而不是统一。好吧，如果是那种"唯我独尊"式的统一，也许是的。但肯定不是任何包容性的统一。甚至不是一个泛印度教的统一。
而且不仅仅是英国人，也不仅仅是时机问题。这种帝国的性质本质上是不稳定的。不愿意分享权力的后果是，你没有盟友。如果不与北印度的其他王国和团体分享权力，莫卧儿人也不可能进行统治。马拉塔人没有得到拉杰普特人的支持，也没有得到贾特人的支持，这导致了他们在第三次帕尼帕特战役中的失败。
They're not underrated. If anything, they're overrated, and certainly the most whitewashed out of any group, owing to how easily Maratha history can be co-opted into a narrative of "The Pursuit of a United Hindu India" or something.
They ravaged entire cities in conquest. Their repeated raids of Bengal were particularly brutal, leading to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of commoners, women, and children. A good chunk of them Hindus, in fact.
The Marathas were interested in plunder, conquest, and empire. Not unity. Well, unity springing from "we'll be the only ones left with any kind of power", yeah maybe. But certainly not any inclusive kind of unity. Not even a pan-Hindu one.
And it wasn't just the British, and it wasn't just the timing. The nature of this kind of empire is inherently unstable. A consequence of being unwilling to share power, is that you don't have allies. The Mughals too couldn't have ruled without sharing power with other kingdoms and groups in north India. The Marathas did not have the support of the Rajputs, nor the Jats, which contributed to their defeat in the Third Battle of Panipat.
他们没有被低估。硬要说的话，他们被高估了，而且肯定是所有群体中被粉饰得最多的，因为马拉塔人的历史很容易被纳入"追求统一的印度教印度"之类的叙述中。
他们在征服中蹂躏了整个城市。他们对孟加拉的反复袭击尤其残酷，导致数十万平民、妇女和儿童被屠杀。事实上，其中有很大一部分是印度教徒。
马拉塔人对掠夺、征服和帝国感兴趣。而不是统一。好吧，如果是那种"唯我独尊"式的统一，也许是的。但肯定不是任何包容性的统一。甚至不是一个泛印度教的统一。
而且不仅仅是英国人，也不仅仅是时机问题。这种帝国的性质本质上是不稳定的。不愿意分享权力的后果是，你没有盟友。如果不与北印度的其他王国和团体分享权力，莫卧儿人也不可能进行统治。马拉塔人没有得到拉杰普特人的支持，也没有得到贾特人的支持，这导致了他们在第三次帕尼帕特战役中的失败。
TangerineMaximum2976
Their peak lasted barely a few years, they are a footnote in Indian history tbh
他们的巅峰只持续了几年，说实话他们只是印度历史上的一个脚注
Their peak lasted barely a few years, they are a footnote in Indian history tbh
他们的巅峰只持续了几年，说实话他们只是印度历史上的一个脚注
sorceraider
Canada
I somehow don't think that Tamils, Sikhs, Muslims, etc. would necessarily have wanted to be ruled by the Marathas.
Empires that involve one ethnolinguistic group ruling over others generally don't last. The Ottoman, Roman, and Mongol Empires demonstrate this.
我不认为泰米尔人、锡克人、穆斯林等一定会希望被马拉塔人统治。
由一个民族语言群体统治其他民族语言群体的帝国一般不会持久。奥斯曼帝国、罗马帝国和蒙古帝国证明了这一点。
Canada
I somehow don't think that Tamils, Sikhs, Muslims, etc. would necessarily have wanted to be ruled by the Marathas.
Empires that involve one ethnolinguistic group ruling over others generally don't last. The Ottoman, Roman, and Mongol Empires demonstrate this.
我不认为泰米尔人、锡克人、穆斯林等一定会希望被马拉塔人统治。
由一个民族语言群体统治其他民族语言群体的帝国一般不会持久。奥斯曼帝国、罗马帝国和蒙古帝国证明了这一点。
patharmangsho
Lmao fuck the Marathas, those violent idiots did more damage to my land than the Mughals. There's a reason bargis are still used to scare kids.
去他妈的马拉塔人，笑。那些暴力的白痴对我的家乡造成的损害比莫卧儿人还大。巴吉斯仍然被用来吓唬孩子是有原因的。
Lmao fuck the Marathas, those violent idiots did more damage to my land than the Mughals. There's a reason bargis are still used to scare kids.
去他妈的马拉塔人，笑。那些暴力的白痴对我的家乡造成的损害比莫卧儿人还大。巴吉斯仍然被用来吓唬孩子是有原因的。
Rjoe1993
You can have shared history without functioning as a single political unit. Indian history, just like most of the world, is of warring states, and the concept of modern India is a British given one, I see nothing wrong with that.
However I would argue that modern India has something better, than race/religion/language based nations- unity among diversity. If Indians uphold that message properly, we might see a realisation of a world order based on the same mantra. However, right now, unity in diversity for the world is very utopian, at the same time, modern India, despite of plenty shortcomings, ain't doing it that bad.
你可以拥有共同的历史而不作为一个单一的政治单位运作。印度的历史，就像世界上大多数国家一样，都是战国史，而现代印度的概念是英国人赋予的，我认为这没有错。
然而，我想说的是，现代印度有比基于种族/宗教/语言的国家更好的东西--多样性之间的统一。如果印度人正确地坚持这一点，我们可能会看到一个基于相同准则的世界秩序的实现。然而，现在，世界的多样性统一是一个非常乌托邦的想法，同时，现代印度，尽管有很多缺点，但做得并不坏。
You can have shared history without functioning as a single political unit. Indian history, just like most of the world, is of warring states, and the concept of modern India is a British given one, I see nothing wrong with that.
However I would argue that modern India has something better, than race/religion/language based nations- unity among diversity. If Indians uphold that message properly, we might see a realisation of a world order based on the same mantra. However, right now, unity in diversity for the world is very utopian, at the same time, modern India, despite of plenty shortcomings, ain't doing it that bad.
你可以拥有共同的历史而不作为一个单一的政治单位运作。印度的历史，就像世界上大多数国家一样，都是战国史，而现代印度的概念是英国人赋予的，我认为这没有错。
然而，我想说的是，现代印度有比基于种族/宗教/语言的国家更好的东西--多样性之间的统一。如果印度人正确地坚持这一点，我们可能会看到一个基于相同准则的世界秩序的实现。然而，现在，世界的多样性统一是一个非常乌托邦的想法，同时，现代印度，尽管有很多缺点，但做得并不坏。
sorceraider
Canada
The Republic of India is indeed largely a British invention. They established many of the institutions, the civil service, military, court system, etc.
And that's not a bad thing. The Republic of India has historically been the most democratic and stable country in the region. It's democratic institutions have remained intact, it is a secular democracy, and it has never succumbed to militarily rule (unlike Pakistan, Myanmar, Thailand, etc).
印度共和国确实在很大程度上是英国的发明。他们建立了许多机构、公务员制度、军队、法院系统等。
而这并不是一件坏事。印度共和国在历史上一直是该地区最民主和最稳定的国家。它的民主机构一直保持完整，它是一个世俗的民主国家，而且它从未屈服于军事统治（不像巴基斯坦、缅甸、泰国等）。
Canada
The Republic of India is indeed largely a British invention. They established many of the institutions, the civil service, military, court system, etc.
And that's not a bad thing. The Republic of India has historically been the most democratic and stable country in the region. It's democratic institutions have remained intact, it is a secular democracy, and it has never succumbed to militarily rule (unlike Pakistan, Myanmar, Thailand, etc).
印度共和国确实在很大程度上是英国的发明。他们建立了许多机构、公务员制度、军队、法院系统等。
而这并不是一件坏事。印度共和国在历史上一直是该地区最民主和最稳定的国家。它的民主机构一直保持完整，它是一个世俗的民主国家，而且它从未屈服于军事统治（不像巴基斯坦、缅甸、泰国等）。
thundalunda
People promoting the idea of "akhund Bharat" and psueohistories of an ancient unified India are doing it to balkanize India today, namely by using these ideologies to portray all Muslim and Christians in the subcontinent as "alien."
那些宣扬"akhund Bharat（大印度主义）"和“史前大一统的印度”的人才是想让今天的印度巴尔干化，即利用这些意识形态将次大陆的所有穆斯林和基督徒描绘成"异类"。
People promoting the idea of "akhund Bharat" and psueohistories of an ancient unified India are doing it to balkanize India today, namely by using these ideologies to portray all Muslim and Christians in the subcontinent as "alien."
那些宣扬"akhund Bharat（大印度主义）"和“史前大一统的印度”的人才是想让今天的印度巴尔干化，即利用这些意识形态将次大陆的所有穆斯林和基督徒描绘成"异类"。
AagaySheun
Regardless of what india may have been like Sans British “intervention” Imo india needs to stay as one big unit for it to project power (military, political, economic, cultural). A divided india won’t help anyone except maybe ethnocentrists in India and the diaspora in the western world.
Freedom of movement of people and goods, trade etc is vital in today’s world.
不管印度在没有英国“干预”的情况下是什么样子，我认为印度都需要保持作为一个大统一单位才能投射力量（军事、政治、经济、文化）。一个分裂的印度不会对任何人有帮助，除了那些印度的种族中心主义者和西方世界的侨民。
人员和货物、贸易等的自由流动在当今世界至关重要。
Regardless of what india may have been like Sans British “intervention” Imo india needs to stay as one big unit for it to project power (military, political, economic, cultural). A divided india won’t help anyone except maybe ethnocentrists in India and the diaspora in the western world.
Freedom of movement of people and goods, trade etc is vital in today’s world.
不管印度在没有英国“干预”的情况下是什么样子，我认为印度都需要保持作为一个大统一单位才能投射力量（军事、政治、经济、文化）。一个分裂的印度不会对任何人有帮助，除了那些印度的种族中心主义者和西方世界的侨民。
人员和货物、贸易等的自由流动在当今世界至关重要。
yeah_can_i_get_a_uhh
Listen here, buddy, don't drag Kannada into this. They just wanted independence like anyone else, and then they minded their own business.
听着，伙计，别把卡纳达人扯进来。他们只是像其他人一样想要独立，然后管好自己的事。
Listen here, buddy, don't drag Kannada into this. They just wanted independence like anyone else, and then they minded their own business.
听着，伙计，别把卡纳达人扯进来。他们只是像其他人一样想要独立，然后管好自己的事。
KunnFayyaKunn
The argument isn't that there is no shared history, it is that the modern India is not the arbiter of that "shared history". For example, let' ask the question: if the British decided to one day (highly unlikely) return the crown jewels it stole form the subcontinent during the Raj, which country does it go to?
It isn't Blakanization to say that the current India as a country never existed prior to 1947. This whole post is just soft Hindutva propganda dressed up in liberalized speech. Notice how OP completely "forgot" to mention the role of the Mughals in this shared history. It isn't wrong to counter the narrative which implies that certain people and countries shouldn't exist.
The Mauryans never "united" the entire subcontinent. It never conquered a lot what is now present day Pakistan, Bangladesh or Nepal.
论点不是有没有共同的历史，而是现代印度是不是这段"共同历史"的仲裁者。例如，让我们问一个问题：如果英国人决定有一天（极不可能）归还它在英属印度时期从次大陆偷来的皇冠上的珠宝，它要还给哪个国家？
说现在的印度作为一个国家在1947年之前从未存在过，这并不是巴尔干化。这整个帖子只是披着言论自由外衣的软性的印度教民族主义宣传。注意到OP是如何完全"忘记"提及莫卧儿王朝在这段共同历史中的作用了吗？去反驳那些暗示如今某些人和国家不应该存在的叙述并没有错。
孔雀王朝从未"统一"过整个次大陆。它从来没有征服过现在的巴基斯坦、孟加拉国或尼泊尔。
The argument isn't that there is no shared history, it is that the modern India is not the arbiter of that "shared history". For example, let' ask the question: if the British decided to one day (highly unlikely) return the crown jewels it stole form the subcontinent during the Raj, which country does it go to?
It isn't Blakanization to say that the current India as a country never existed prior to 1947. This whole post is just soft Hindutva propganda dressed up in liberalized speech. Notice how OP completely "forgot" to mention the role of the Mughals in this shared history. It isn't wrong to counter the narrative which implies that certain people and countries shouldn't exist.
The Mauryans never "united" the entire subcontinent. It never conquered a lot what is now present day Pakistan, Bangladesh or Nepal.
论点不是有没有共同的历史，而是现代印度是不是这段"共同历史"的仲裁者。例如，让我们问一个问题：如果英国人决定有一天（极不可能）归还它在英属印度时期从次大陆偷来的皇冠上的珠宝，它要还给哪个国家？
说现在的印度作为一个国家在1947年之前从未存在过，这并不是巴尔干化。这整个帖子只是披着言论自由外衣的软性的印度教民族主义宣传。注意到OP是如何完全"忘记"提及莫卧儿王朝在这段共同历史中的作用了吗？去反驳那些暗示如今某些人和国家不应该存在的叙述并没有错。
孔雀王朝从未"统一"过整个次大陆。它从来没有征服过现在的巴基斯坦、孟加拉国或尼泊尔。
kinsho
Nobody is saying India didn't exist before British colonization. But it was the British that effectively unified India into one cohesive unit. This we can't deny. The Mauryan and Moghul Empires came the closest, but neither one of them came all that close to uniting entire subcontinent under the rule of a single authority. In fact, after Ashoka died, the Mauryans pretty much lost control over the lands that Ashoka brought under his rule, which should really show you how tenuous their hold over the country was.
Think about it like this - if any ancient empire was successful in uniting India under one banner, you wouldn't see so much variation in language, diet, religion, or culture. A ruling house wouldn't tolerate so much diversity because it would complicate things for the administrative institutes overseeing the country and it would foment secessionist tensions.
没有人说印度在英国殖民化之前不存在。但正是英国人有效地将印度统一为一个有凝聚力的政治单位。这一点我们不能否认。孔雀王朝和莫卧儿帝国是最接近的，但它们都没有接近将整个次大陆统一在一个单一的权力机构的统治之下。事实上，阿育王死后，孔雀王朝几乎失去了对阿育王统治下的土地的控制，这应该能告诉你他们对这个国家的控制是多么的脆弱。
这样想吧--如果任何一个古代帝国成功地将印度统一在一面旗帜之下，你就不会看到语言、饮食、宗教或文化方面有这么多的差异。一个统治者不会容忍这么多的多样性，因为这将使监督国家的行政机构的工作变得复杂，而且会煽动分裂主义的紧张局势。
Nobody is saying India didn't exist before British colonization. But it was the British that effectively unified India into one cohesive unit. This we can't deny. The Mauryan and Moghul Empires came the closest, but neither one of them came all that close to uniting entire subcontinent under the rule of a single authority. In fact, after Ashoka died, the Mauryans pretty much lost control over the lands that Ashoka brought under his rule, which should really show you how tenuous their hold over the country was.
Think about it like this - if any ancient empire was successful in uniting India under one banner, you wouldn't see so much variation in language, diet, religion, or culture. A ruling house wouldn't tolerate so much diversity because it would complicate things for the administrative institutes overseeing the country and it would foment secessionist tensions.
没有人说印度在英国殖民化之前不存在。但正是英国人有效地将印度统一为一个有凝聚力的政治单位。这一点我们不能否认。孔雀王朝和莫卧儿帝国是最接近的，但它们都没有接近将整个次大陆统一在一个单一的权力机构的统治之下。事实上，阿育王死后，孔雀王朝几乎失去了对阿育王统治下的土地的控制，这应该能告诉你他们对这个国家的控制是多么的脆弱。
这样想吧--如果任何一个古代帝国成功地将印度统一在一面旗帜之下，你就不会看到语言、饮食、宗教或文化方面有这么多的差异。一个统治者不会容忍这么多的多样性，因为这将使监督国家的行政机构的工作变得复杂，而且会煽动分裂主义的紧张局势。
很赞 2
收藏