Why is India a subcontinent and Europe a continent?

Homepage    About me      Contact me    Privacy policy

Disclaimer: **I love Europe but some questions need to be answered and by India I mean South Asia because most of the present day countries of South Asia were parts of India earlier.**

You might have wondered sometime 'Why India is a subcontinent and not a continent?' If you try to convince yourself by saying that India is connected to Asia then you really need to read this article.

Of the seven most globally recognized continents, only Antarctica and Australia are completely separated from other continents by ocean. Asia and Africa are joined by the Isthmus of Suez, and North and South America by the Isthmus of Panama. In both cases, there is no complete separation of these landmasses by water (disregarding the Suez Canal and Panama Canal, which are both narrow and shallow, as well as artificial). What separates Europe from Asia? Ural hillocks.. And what separates Subcontinent from Asia? The mother of all mountain ranges, the legendary, the impenetrable, the gigantic, HIMALAYAS! Which separation is stronger?


Across the world, different types of models are taught:

• The seven-continent model is usually taught in China, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, parts of Western Europe and most English-speaking countries, including Australia^[22] and the United Kingdom.
• The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is mostly used in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan.
• The six-continent combined-America model is often used in France and its former possessions, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Latin America and Greece.
• A five-continent model is obtained from this model by excluding Antarctica as uninhabited. This is used, for example in the United Nations and in the Olympic Charter.

Also before 60 to 70 million years ago this Indian Landmass was not a part of Eurasian landmass. This Indian Subcontinent drifted from southern hemisphere and collided with Eurasian plate to lift these tallest mountain ranges. So, don't you think we qualify to be called as a continent? 

Calling Indian subcontinent a "Subcontinent" and Europe a full continent is a pure euro-centric mindset and has nothing to do with logic. We are much more diverse when compared to the rest of Asia. 

There are only two types of religions in world: Abrahamic(Islam, Christianity, Jew) and Dharmic (Hindu, Jain, Buddhism). We have an entirely separate SET of religions, not just a separate religion. Both Kashmiri and Keralian cuisines are spicy. But differently spicy. Is English food differently bland than Hungarian food?

So if India is more drastically different from Asia culturally, geographically, racially, spiritually, linguistically, culinarily, sartorially and on every other imaginable fronts; Why is it not a continent and Europe is?

Answer : Because Europeans wrote the geography books and not Indians.

Read more articles:

Home

What is India's stance on Tibet ?

Homepage     About me     Contact me   Privacy policy

In 1959, as Chinese troops consolidated power over Lhasa, the Dalai Lama, only 23 at the time, disguised himself as a soldier and fled to India. Eighty thousand Tibetans followed. India allowed him to set up an exile government in the Himalayan town of Dharamsala.

Heart-rending stories of Tibetans walking through icy mountain passes to reach India — their land seized, their monasteries razed, their prayers silenced — buttressed U.S. efforts to isolate China during the Cold War and have continued to rake up support on college campuses and outside Chinese embassies worldwide. “Free Tibet” long ago became a familiar cry. So, what is the Indian stance on Tibet?

Strategic importance of Tibet:

 A sizable proportion of Chinese water reserves are on the Tibetan plateau and the region includes a long land border with India. Any concessions to Tibetans could draw the ire of hard-liners within China’s ruling party, PLC and rouse nationalist fervor in Inner Mongolia and other regions which PLC has suppressed for so long. 

India's stance:

India likes to keep a moderate approach for every problem- ‘Non-Alignment Policy’. But that does not mean that India is weak. Unlike China and some other nations who keep meddling in other’s problems, India likes to keep a neutral stance. Despite Chinese threats, India was the country that provided sanctuary for the Tibetans. This shows that India is not weak.

Now, coming back to the main question, current situation does not allow a full-fledged war between any two nukes. So, a military approach to free Tibet is not possible.

Other than that there are political issues. Every nation wants its own benefit first. The first duty of any nation is to work for the benefit of its citizens. India and China already have tensed relations due to Chinese claim on north eastern part of India. So, accepting Chinese claim on Tibet may lead the Chinese to accept Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh as a part of India (although I believe Chinese government is not trustworthy enough as they keep on claiming more and more territories everyday. God knows when they are going to find solace !!). However freeing Tibet would also mean getting rid of an irritating neighbor because India would no longer share such a long border with China.

Now if Tibet really wants to free itself, Tibetans have to fight for themselves. When dictatorship is a fact, revolution becomes a right. They need to revolt against their Chinese dictator. Every civilization has from time to time became a thin crust over a volcano of revolution. India like US can only help Tibetans to achieve independence. Remember, India helped Bangladesh because they themselves fought for independence.

Read more articles:

Home

Why are there so many small northeastern states? Why don't they join to form 2-3 states?

Homepage              About me                   Contact me            Privacy policy     

To understand the scenario, you need to know the history of North eastern states of our India.

When India got its independence in 1947, northeast comprised of three states- Assam and the princely states of Manipur and Tripura. (Like you had wished)

As you can see, Assam was much bigger than present day Assam and included many tribes like nagas, garo, khasi, jaintia etc. In 1960, Assam declared Assamese as the state language. This move led to revolt from the different linguistic people who lived in Assam. It became very difficult to control such a big and diverse Assam.

Subsequently, Nagaland was formed in 1963 to please the violent Naga people who had taken arms against the army, Meghalaya in 1972, Arunachal Pradesh in 1975 and Mizoram in 1987 where Indian government had to use air Force to quell an armed uprising of Mizos!!

So, reasons like linguistic convenience, armed rebellion of tribes etc. were some reasons which led to division of Assam.

Union will again lead to disorder and unrest in northeast which could be exploited by our ‘well wishing' neighbors.

Division is easy, Union is difficult.

For more articles:
Home

Untouchability- Is this a problem present only in Hinduism?

Home          About            Contact me             Privacy policy

Whenever India's achievements are discussed on world stage, someone always pops up a question that maligns India's name- 'Untouchability'.
The caste system of India remains a dark spot in the otherwise vibrant history of India. But is it exclusive only for India?

Innocent uneducated folks have always suffered because of some educated groups who were able to climb the social ladders using the shoulders of the fellow masses as the steps of ladder. It is not just a matter of history. Even today, the less educated masses work as labourers and drain-cleaners while the more educated people continue to hold big lofty posts. The division of work is essential for the function of any society. This is called the 'varna system' in Hinduism. The original varna system was just like the present day division of work. It was a mobile system where the son of a potter could become the head of the Republic while the son of a chieftain could learn and teach others. The problem began with the increase in power of some particular groups who destroyed the mobility of varna system.
Still, there have been many instances in the history of India where people from the 'oppressed classes' became rulers though I won't state their names because this will start a new caste claiming debate. According to the Hindu mythologies, there are many instances where Gods took birth even in the 'oppressed class' families. One of the supreme Hindu dieties, Lord Krishna was born in a yadav family which is now considered as another backward community by the government of India. So, it was not always the case that some castes were always excluded from the mainstream society of Indians. This was the nature of the caste system or the varna system of India. Now, let's talk about the other societies of the world.

To begin with, let's talk about the western society which constantly ridicules India for its caste system:
Cagots- Cagots were the dalits( which means 'the oppressed') of France and Spain. They were made to live in outskirts of town. Cagots were excluded from all political and social rights. They were not allowed to marry non-Cagots, enter taverns, hold cabarets, use public fountains, sell food or wine, touch food in the market, work with livestock, or enter the mill. They were allowed to enter a church only by a special door, and during the service, a rail separated them from the other worshippers. Either they were altogether forbidden to partake of the sacrament, or the water stoup was reserved for their exclusive use. They were compelled to wear a distinctive dress.
Their cruel treatment lasted through the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Industrial Revolution, with the prejudice fading only in the 19th and 20th centuries. These types of castes were present in almost all the societies that existed. Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Tibetans, Middle Eastern and Africans all had such kind of a caste system. However, only the Indian caste system seems to be highlighted every now and then. If you try to give an explanation for this prejudice by saying that it still exists in the Hindu society, then you need to need to know that even other religions have this kind of divisions. Islam has Ashrafs which are considered superior because of their aristocratic ancestry while the Ajlafs and Arzals are considered inferior. There are separate seats, separate communion cups, burial grounds, and churches for members of the lower castes, especially in the Latin Catholic Church.

I am not supporting caste system but I do wish to say that India is not the only place where caste system prevailed. So, do keep this in mind before you ridicule my nation!!

Read more articles:
Homepage