I have a question for you all, I'm very noob at all these, so I'm asking here. will India subcontinent would have thrived more we just separate all the state and make it a nation (something like what europian did?)
All I know is indian identity was forced one, just like when african lands were partitioned the borders were drawn in random ways that people who had nothing in common with each others formed into one country.
Even here people dont like each other, north doesnt like south and vice versa, people in north itself hate sub groups within there, same can be said for south and NE etc.
>>164793
no. contrary to retarded beliefs, it wouldn't have worked. india as its independent constituent states was a violent mess where people's quality of life wasn't even a paltry fraction of what it is today.
>>164799
this is a complete lie.
india at its widest geographical expanse was a lot larger than india as it exists today.
none of these onga (north-indian) and ponga (south-indian) ethnic conflicts were documented at that time because they, themselves, are an imported construct, brought about by the racialism advocated by the brits.
today, it's just a divisive tactic employed by k2es and politicians who think they can make a killing sowing these materially irrelevant divisions.
>>164793
two answers; yes by aryans, no by abbos
aryans can survive and thrive without abbos, abbos can't without aryans, india without aryans is africa
>>164799
I think Indias case is significantly different because of the existence of caste. Most western analysts in 1947 predicted that India would turn to civil war within 20 years, because they didn't factor that in. Indians are far more loyal to their caste than to their language or state. So the probability of language based civil war is a lot lower.
