Charles Haynes wrote: > But national, religious, ethnic or cultural borders are necessarily > fluid in time and space. It's all too easy to pick the time and place > that suits one's agenda. Unfortunately it's also easy for people who > disagree with you to pick equally convincing times and places that > support their views.
Fair enough. But even if you do go back in time, the "Bharatavarsha" as it was called then, transcended religions and kingdoms. Invasion from other kingdoms was usually regional in nature and did not pervade to the extent that was achieved by the Brits. Yes, if you go back to the stone ages, you would be right in saving that the cultural border did not exist. > Religion seems particularly susceptible to this particular problem, > religions tend to grow, merge, and mutate, and when defining a > territory by religion the practical effect seems to be to choose the > times and places that maximize the area of influence of the religion > under discussion. At the risk of boasting and sounding racist, I have to say this. Religion has never been a big hoo-haa in India/Bharat. Hinduism is the only religion that allows you to believe in non-hindu gods or even non at all, this is hearsay. Someone correct me if I am wrong. My point is that till the RSS raised its ugly head, Hindu fanatics were unheard of. There were no holy wars with other religions. Yes, the caste system is a big negative, but this was purely an selfish instrument and not everyone subscribes to those views. We (as in people of India) stabbed ourselves in the guts by turning a purely professional division to something that is construed as a virtue of being born in a certain family. Shame on us. Venkat
