On Sunday 04 Dec 2011 9:11:20 am Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: > If you are disagreeing with the idea of nation states, I'm with you. > However when the nation state of India was created in 1947 the term could > no longer be used to describe the subcontinent as well without some > confusion. > > I prefer the term Indian subcontinent as more accurate than South Asia, > however in an era of insecure nation states who were/are trying to mould a > national identity that doesn't include the entirety of history, but only > the romanticized past, their discomfort at overt reminders of origins is > natural.
Srini, I do agree that Indian subcontinent is a more appropriate term for the region. But in my view nation states are a necessary evil. I also believe that no quarter (or "concession" or "adjusht-ment") needs to be given to "insecure' or "paranoid" nation states. Either they get their act together or be predated upon. Screw them all. That is the way the world works. shiv
