I am aware of the origin of the words India and Hindu which I find bemusing.
> So people visiting/invading the eastern parts of the Indu/Sindhu river were considering the people there as one civilisation if not one country.
I conjecture it is natural for foreigners at that time to refer to the land (and hence the people residing there) east of Sindhu river as India/Indians. For them it was just an alien/different region. For example, to refer Asoka as Indian ruler as in "king who belongs to India" and not "Ruler of India".
I'm curious to know if the contemporary people living in different parts of Indian land felt as if they belonged to India as a whole. Though possible, it is highly unlikely IMO. I highly doubt if a farmer in a village in Kerala would consider a village in Punjab as belonging to his nation.
> But there were attempts made before, as far back as Chanakya, to unify the people under one rule.
I've read/seen this in popular stories (Chanakya serial from 1990s is decent) but I don't know how authentic they are. I'd love to read more on this topic, preferably by historians. My naive search was fruitless. One thing to note is that Indian historical records from that period are extremely rare making it all the more difficult. It's a pity that Indians of that didn't write as much as Romans did.
> I highly doubt if a farmer in a village in Kerala would consider a village in Punjab as belonging to his nation.
Data point of one (and social circle of one), but this is how I feel, an average citizen coming from tiny village in one part of country. This is how I and everyone around me were raised. We are not rich, we used to be poor, but we never considered Punjab or Bengal or Tamilnadu or Mizoram were anything but my country. I went to college and met people from vast majority of the country and I never felt they were not from my country. Sure the language was different, the cultures were different, we looked a little different but it was never in question that we belonged to a 'different' country.
For the record, I do not come from a privileged background, my family worked hard for multiple generations to get where we are, we are not rich by any measure of the world even today, and Hindi is not my native language. I am proud of what happens to be my native language and speak in it everywhere I can. I do not like the push for Hindi if there ever was one that made a difference, and I like to believe politicians have learned their lesson on that one (besides, having what are effectively two dozen Quebecs in the country actually plays in politicians' favor).
I understand not everyone would think like me or those around me. But even when I hear ramblings about out-of-state migrations and social issues across the country (not a participants, just to get it out there), the question of 'others' not belonging to the same country never enters the discussion.
When I wrote "...in a village in Kerala" I was referring to a farmer contemporary of Chanakya ~2500 years ago.
That period of India fascinates me; dozen or so Janapadas ruling India. Specifically, day to day lives of people; how they felt about their identities vis-a-vis region/state/nation.
Coming to your eloquently stated comment I 100% respect that and totally relate with your sentiment. In fact it more or less mirrors my life (growing up, being exposed to different cultures in college etc.,); except that I'm from a neighbouring southern state :-)
> the question of 'others' not belonging to the same country never enters the discussion
Agreed, no one AFAIK thinks the other does not belong to India. There is a bit of racism in certain corners about the North East folks, considered as 'non Indian' primarily due to lack of awareness, since they do not conform to an 'Indian look'
The issue is more on 'outside my state' - as seen in response to the various riparian struggles across the country.
Some examples:
- The Shiv Sena in Mumbai was formed for this very reason
- No state except Tamil Nadu will accept having as its chief minister, someone who is not born from or speaking its language etc. The roots run deep.
---
Coming to the feeling of patriotism, Tamils are as or more patriotic than any other people when it comes to the concept of 'belonging to India', but these feelings are put under a lot of stress because of the unique situation, where people of their own race (outside of India) were given a short shrift both by local and national politicians. There is a lot of soul searching on what it means to be a Tamil. Obviously there is no consensus.
> One thing to note is that Indian historical records from that period are extremely rare making it all the more difficult. It's a pity that Indians of that didn't write as much as Romans did.
Indians did write at that time. There is literature on all sorts of things from that era. Unfortunately we lost the languages that they were written in. And some of it was destroyed or stolen by invading armies.
I'm from a farming family in Kerala, and I'll refute your statement. We consider ourselves as Indian as the next Punjabi or Gujarat. While the current gang of Gujjus in government are severely testing our patience at all levels, we still consider ourselves as Indian at the end of the day. Perhaps it's because most of Kerala's population is somehow associated with someone who has gone abroad, where the natives don't bother to brush them with separate strokes based on region.
> So people visiting/invading the eastern parts of the Indu/Sindhu river were considering the people there as one civilisation if not one country.
I conjecture it is natural for foreigners at that time to refer to the land (and hence the people residing there) east of Sindhu river as India/Indians. For them it was just an alien/different region. For example, to refer Asoka as Indian ruler as in "king who belongs to India" and not "Ruler of India".
I'm curious to know if the contemporary people living in different parts of Indian land felt as if they belonged to India as a whole. Though possible, it is highly unlikely IMO. I highly doubt if a farmer in a village in Kerala would consider a village in Punjab as belonging to his nation.
> But there were attempts made before, as far back as Chanakya, to unify the people under one rule.
I've read/seen this in popular stories (Chanakya serial from 1990s is decent) but I don't know how authentic they are. I'd love to read more on this topic, preferably by historians. My naive search was fruitless. One thing to note is that Indian historical records from that period are extremely rare making it all the more difficult. It's a pity that Indians of that didn't write as much as Romans did.