Jaipur’s Last Stand
historytoday.com
historytoday.com
Before (and even during) the British rule India was a ruled tens of of such princely states each in turn had hundreds of low level feudal lords. While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc.,
India truly became a single political entity only after those hundreds or so kings were forced to abdicate their rule. I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India and not to some princely state.
I remember a discussion a couple of years ago. Why Indian states are not as straight cut as US states? The above incident is an example why it is not possible as yet here. I am not saying it is good or bad.
Most of the people in my state, and a lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India". India seems to expect us to fall to the ground and worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense, and we decline. We don't belong to anyone other than ourselves. Thank you.
Speak for yourself/Tamil Nadu. I'm from Karnataka (a southern state) and majority of kannadigas love India and are patriotic.
> worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense
Why do you believe that north indian language and religion are nonsense? I've lived in New Delhi for more than half of my childhood and I don't think North Indians are backward relative to South Indians. Although they are relatively poor.
Hindi language should first correct the pronunciation of words like "Baink" for Bank, "Baal" for Ball, "Daaktar" for Doctor etc. And then thinking of enforcing that language on rest of the country.
I am curious, why Samskrut is not used as a common language for India, like how Hebrew resurrected as a language of Israel? With English as second language, and mother-tongue as the the third language. Samskrut has a treasure trove of important literature that not many in India understand!
And I agree with OP that Sanskrit should be revived in India like the Jews did for Hebrew in Israel.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_India#Bh%C4%81rata
I think , what he is trying to say is, ascribing a single language to a diversified nation like India is not a good idea.
> Why do you believe that north indian language and religion are nonsense?
Free speech.LoL.I am not saying OP is right or is following HN etiquette, but that it is OP's opinion(not fact, not truth).
> I don't think North Indians are backward relative to South Indians. Although they are relatively poor.
Bihar is the most uneducated state in the country. Kolkata is a terrible to place to conduct business of any kind. Although , this is not representative of the North.
But what is North anyway ? Should we consider anything above Madhya Pradesh North ? Does Gujarat count as North ? Does Mizoram count as North ?
It is informative that you assume I am from Tamil Nadu. It tells us a lot about the underlying assumptions within your "views".
> Why do you believe that north indian language and religion are nonsense?
No one said that except for you. I'll try to simplify what I said since you had difficulty comprehending what I wrote. What I said was that I am opposed to those who worship "India's language is Hindi". Further, I am opposed to those "who worship Aryans". Surely I don't have to explain why "wheatish" supremacy and other similar nonsense is a bad thing?
> I don't think North Indians are backward relative to South Indians. Although they are relatively poor.
Oh ho ho. Again, not something I said. You seem to have a great deal of imagination and are jousting against your imagined provocations instead of what I communicated.
Speak for yourself. I am from Andhra Pradesh, settled in Telangana. Never have I heard your kind of bullshit, except from ultra-leftists on the web. I don't think you have a substantial minority (leave alone a majority) supporting your stand in TN!
I believe the parent didn't call the North Indian language and religion nonsense. They argue against the attempts to make all the diverse ethnic groups/regions fall in line behind some centrally mandated language and religion.
They actually argue for the diversity and autonomy of the various groups to maintain their language and traditions, which is hard to disagree with (as an outsider).
The history of trying to repress religions and ethnic groups is long and bloody, no matter where we look on the globe.
There is always some idiot spewing vitriol by bringing up north/west/east/south/up/down. The whole culture of south India IS India. What the fuck are all those Jurassic old temples there for? Built by all South Indian kings. For fucks sake Tamil the language is born of Lord Shiva(North Indian, just kidding) taught to sage Agastya on which this whole hate mongering language movement started by the stupid Aryan/Dravidian theory.
Why I bring up Tamil? Because your username is the stupid movement started to grab power. Is there a South Indian shiva who is different from the North Indian shiva?
What is the Indian culture? What is the South Indian culture? Except the million languages found in India what major difference were there for religious or cultural purposes?
This hate is what leads to the so called Dalit leader take up the name of a rapist Brahmin (Ravan). Haters gonna hate.
Would it blow your mind if I told you that Shiva (or Vishnu) was not even worshipped by Tamils or in the ancient literature till it was brought in from the north?
The real religion of the Tamils is akin to ancestor worshi. Later, all the religions started invading and setting up roots ( actually Buddhism/Jainism took roots before current Hinduism came down ).
for example, Murugan was the primary god and later assimilated with Shiva etc.
are a pain in the neck not just for you but for everyone they will be in touch with. They will keep on creating new propaganda(just like the points above) targeted towards different groups of people so that they can annoy you and remain trending. Please keep in mind that they are not "India".
This seems very short sighted.
From an objective historical standpoint, the current Hinduism is no more 'Aryan' than it's 'Dravidian' or 'Indigineous'.
The Rig Vedic dieties which share origins with Nordic, Greek or other Indo European mythology are not the central point of the Hinduism since the middle ages. The present rituals and systems evolved over, 3000+ years, shaped by various political forces, most of which was never documented and we will never know.
The "North Indian == Aryan" was wording used in Tamil Nadu politics that's why people in comments are assuming your from there.
Your point is correct that current Nationalist side of politics is pushing some views in order to unify their voter base. (I don't want to talk about politics on a nerd forum.)
The only thing more "Aryan" about Hindu nationalism is they want to claim this historically baseless OIT theory (as if anything that comes from outside is impure and bad).
[to non indians reading this, the word Aryan refers to slightly different meaning than held in the west, while we are talking about same indo european bronze age peoples, both theories (Nazism or Periyar's Dravidianism), are pseudoscience shit.
> So people visiting/invading the eastern parts of the Indu/Sindhu river were considering the people there as one civilisation if not one country.
I conjecture it is natural for foreigners at that time to refer to the land (and hence the people residing there) east of Sindhu river as India/Indians. For them it was just an alien/different region. For example, to refer Asoka as Indian ruler as in "king who belongs to India" and not "Ruler of India".
I'm curious to know if the contemporary people living in different parts of Indian land felt as if they belonged to India as a whole. Though possible, it is highly unlikely IMO. I highly doubt if a farmer in a village in Kerala would consider a village in Punjab as belonging to his nation.
> But there were attempts made before, as far back as Chanakya, to unify the people under one rule.
I've read/seen this in popular stories (Chanakya serial from 1990s is decent) but I don't know how authentic they are. I'd love to read more on this topic, preferably by historians. My naive search was fruitless. One thing to note is that Indian historical records from that period are extremely rare making it all the more difficult. It's a pity that Indians of that didn't write as much as Romans did.
haha, not even today
Data point of one (and social circle of one), but this is how I feel, an average citizen coming from tiny village in one part of country. This is how I and everyone around me were raised. We are not rich, we used to be poor, but we never considered Punjab or Bengal or Tamilnadu or Mizoram were anything but my country. I went to college and met people from vast majority of the country and I never felt they were not from my country. Sure the language was different, the cultures were different, we looked a little different but it was never in question that we belonged to a 'different' country.
For the record, I do not come from a privileged background, my family worked hard for multiple generations to get where we are, we are not rich by any measure of the world even today, and Hindi is not my native language. I am proud of what happens to be my native language and speak in it everywhere I can. I do not like the push for Hindi if there ever was one that made a difference, and I like to believe politicians have learned their lesson on that one (besides, having what are effectively two dozen Quebecs in the country actually plays in politicians' favor).
I understand not everyone would think like me or those around me. But even when I hear ramblings about out-of-state migrations and social issues across the country (not a participants, just to get it out there), the question of 'others' not belonging to the same country never enters the discussion.
Agreed, no one AFAIK thinks the other does not belong to India. There is a bit of racism in certain corners about the North East folks, considered as 'non Indian' primarily due to lack of awareness, since they do not conform to an 'Indian look'
The issue is more on 'outside my state' - as seen in response to the various riparian struggles across the country.
Some examples:
- The Shiv Sena in Mumbai was formed for this very reason
- No state except Tamil Nadu will accept having as its chief minister, someone who is not born from or speaking its language etc. The roots run deep.
---
Coming to the feeling of patriotism, Tamils are as or more patriotic than any other people when it comes to the concept of 'belonging to India', but these feelings are put under a lot of stress because of the unique situation, where people of their own race (outside of India) were given a short shrift both by local and national politicians. There is a lot of soul searching on what it means to be a Tamil. Obviously there is no consensus.
When I wrote "...in a village in Kerala" I was referring to a farmer contemporary of Chanakya ~2500 years ago.
That period of India fascinates me; dozen or so Janapadas ruling India. Specifically, day to day lives of people; how they felt about their identities vis-a-vis region/state/nation.
Coming to your eloquently stated comment I 100% respect that and totally relate with your sentiment. In fact it more or less mirrors my life (growing up, being exposed to different cultures in college etc.,); except that I'm from a neighbouring southern state :-)
Indians did write at that time. There is literature on all sorts of things from that era. Unfortunately we lost the languages that they were written in. And some of it was destroyed or stolen by invading armies.
The Indian govt continues to use the old British policy of different people groups in quelling dissidence still.
Our armed forced divisions are still based on people groups, and if they want to put forces in Kashmir, then they deploy non-native forces, who have less affinity to the local population. This might also explain some of the excesses seen.
Culture is similar, but they are often not dialects but entirely different languages in many cases.
the peoples in the different old German and Italian kingdom were not different peoples, they were just split because of different powers, thats not the case here...
From the original article: "Ayesha and Jai, as they were known to their friends, soon became India’s ‘golden couple’, its answer to John and Jackie Kennedy or Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip."
"Gayatri Devi was more commonly known as Ayesha to her friends and family. According to her, her mother was reading a Rider Haggard's novel and decided that she would name her child Ayesha, after the protagonist. Some days after the birth of Gayatri Devi, an Islamic friend of Indira Devi, told her that Ayesha is a Muslim name. The name remained as a nickname since the family was already calling her Ayesha."
https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs...
Surprisingly, Jaipur princes managed to largely regain their wealth after being stripped of it, if not actually becoming more wealthier.
This is while even the main family line of Nizam of Hyderabad barely got enough money to live properly, and some of their relatives died in abject poverty.
The last direct descendant of Mughal line famously died as a bum (Mughals had no succession rules as such, but English forced primogeniture on them in their final years.)
https://www.scoopwhoop.com/inothernews/indian-royal-families...
They deserved it imho. Surprised the nizam wasn't prosecuted for his crimes against humanity.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/surviv...
Let me disagree.
The Princes, Nawabs, and Kings were all chosen based on birth and birth only and they are flag bearers of a classist society with no chance of upwards mobility. They were proponents of a system which was deeply sexist and castiest.
I am very glad that they were gotten rid of.
About Gandhi, she is among the best and worst Prime Ministers of India. She is the only one who suspended democracy and started emergency rule, and was an autocrat. On the other hand she implemented a lot of policies that pulled many people out of poverty, helped the freedom fighters in Bangladesh to gain freedom from the Genocidal and mass-rapist regime of Pakistan. Sje fully deserves the criticism for being an autocrat.
And on a different note, it is weird seeing an Indian woman being referred as Devi. Devi is not a last name. Even half a century ago, before the age of IDs, Indian women weren't allowed to hold the family name- before or after marriage. Their last name became Devi which means "goddess", literally.
It is still used informally in formal conversations and media. So if an Indian woman is X Y, where X is the given name, and Y is the family name, the woman can be referred to as X Devi.
Just Devi makes no sense. Foreign writers writing about India should know these.
Also, the title Devi is often divisive and casteist, as often only higher caste women were referred to as Devi (goddess), and women from lower castes were referred to as Dasi (slave).
Her primary sins: 1. Emergency 2. Nationalization of banks, and other leftist causes. 3. Abolition of privy purses.
The GoI poured money on royals when they were entering 'the market' (governance), and when they had a strong market standing, they pulled a bait and switch, and raised prices (stopped giving out massive discounts, a.la. Uber, WeWork).
Not that I'm complaining, 9/10 royals where horrible people completely disconnected from the general population. Good riddance.
But the royals weren't the goody-two-shoes as the article mentions. Most of them were so disconnected from the ground reality that it is hilarious to think they were capable of ruling anybody. The article mentions Jai's yearly visits to europe, in a time when half the country had barely enough to eat (this was before green or white revolution in the country). Gandhi's family was the from the same category, and I am glad none of them are in power anymore.
> Devi is not a last name
Agree..
> Even half a century ago, before the age of IDs, Indian women weren't allowed to hold the family name- before or after marriage.
We probably grew up in different parts of country, but I can definitely attest my grandmother having last name the same as my grandfather after marriage (her father's before getting married). I am almost certain that was the case with my great grandmothers too, but its a little hard to track it down to be 100% sure.
> often only higher caste women were referred to as Devi (goddess), and women from lower castes were referred to as Dasi (slave).
This was also not the case from where I grew up. For at least 100 years this was not the case. There was ridiculous caste segregation, and other casteist nonsense all over, but the naming didn't really reflect like this. Often the ruling class had some fancy titles, that the peasants didn't have, but they also didn't have any marker like 'dasi'.
Borderline misogynistic too with quotes like "Indira could not stomach a woman more good-looking than herself and insulted her in Parliament".
The quote is not by the author, rather as written - “As the writer Khushwant Singh eloquently observed”.