> Intuitively, it would seem to be quite a task to
> "homogenize" Indian society. You guys have, what,
> dozens of languages and ethnic groups?
IMO, the independent state (and the notion of citizenship) is constituted through struggles against colonialism and the political/ideological basis on which such struggles are based. The mere fact of belonging to a language and ethnic group can not constitute a state. It depends on how one appropriates ones historical and cultural history in contemporary politics.
> I've been wondering about something. Whet does the
> word "Indian" actually mean? Russian has two words,
> one of which means "ethnic Russian" and one of which
> means "resident of Russia" -- Russians, Ossetians,
> Jews, Chechens, etc. etc. etc. "Indian" doesn't have
> an ethnic meaning, does it? What is the origin of the
> word? Does it just mean "somebody born in India"?
The notion of Cultural and historical India has existed for thousands of years. (Btw, Kabul was part of Mughal Empire! :))Indian freedom movement was largely (exept for the tragedy of the Partition) able to build a state on that basis. It was British imperialism that used every division in Indian society (Caste, language, religion, regions, urban/rural) to divide and weaken India's freedom struggle.
Ulhas