Worswick:
I respect your ideas as a historian. But I fail to see a cogent logic in your assumption that India has disintegrated virtually and figuratively, in that India has been burdened and divided along linguistic, ethnic, racial, and provincial lines. Unity in diversity, a much used phrase, is the strength that India will thrive on. The pull and push between federal and state Govts are not only healthy, elucidating, enlightening and also a prime example of democracy at work. A unified view between state and federal Govts on a project happens only when there is a concurrence of views between local and central Govts, or more pointedly in a dictatorship.
A military with no political burden or ambition, such as India's, will keep the country together under times of fissiparous tendencies - to use Nehruvian term.
Forgive me for pointing out the following:
Your spelling, syntax, and sentence construction are hurried and need more attention from a self-described historian like you. This is not meant as an insult. I hope that you take this as a constructive suggestion.
<<I won't say sadly that Indiq will "distingrate" >>
<<histoiran>>
<< as a historain of India>>
<<aggessive>>>
<<Maharasthra>>
I won't say sadly that Indiq will "distingrate" I will make the observation that history is history and what happens happens and therefore isn't sad to a histoiran or happy.>>> |
