> Indian identity was split right in the middle and was done on religious lines
Religion is only one factor. People also derive their group identity along cultural, caste and social lines.
This is not specific to India. Although religion is less emphasized in America, other factors (cultural, social, racial, economical, etc.) still continue play its role in forming the identity of its denizens.
--
Response to below comment inline, due to moderator comment limit:
> When was Indian identity split on cultural, caste or social lines?
And not everything has to be seen from the exclusive lens of politics and religion.
--
> I am talking about splitting Indian identity on religious lines.
What do you think the word "identity" refers to?
> Last I checked, Tamil Nadu is still a part of India. Karnataka is still a part of India. Kerala is still a part of India. They haven't "split" out of India. Makes sense?
Although Kerala for instance is still politically situated in India, that is besides the point, as the word "identity" does not exclusively refer to one's political identity.
Generally, the political distinction of states, as you repeatedly bring here, has no relevance whatsover to the subject of identity which, as stated above, can be based on several factors (not just religion). Just to state a few (in general terms, for the benefit of non-Indian readers):
1. A vocational identity as ‘employee’/‘employer’, ‘worker’/‘pensioner’, ‘junior/‘senior’ and so on.
2. A national identity as ‘English’, ‘American’, ‘Australian’ and etcetera.
3. A racial identity as ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘brown’ or whatever.
4. A religious/spiritual identity as a ‘Hindu’, a ‘Muslim’, a ‘Christian’, a ‘Buddhist’ ad infinitum.
5. A ideological identity as a ‘Capitalist’, a ‘Communist’, a ‘Monarchist’, a ‘Fascist’ and etcetera.
6. A political identity as a ‘Democrat’, a ‘Tory’, a ‘Republican’, a ‘Liberal’ and all the rest.
7. A family identity as ‘son’/‘daughter’, ‘brother’/‘sister’, ‘father’/‘mother’ and the whole raft of relatives.
8. A gender identity as ‘boy’/‘girl’, ‘man’/‘woman’.
--
> Sigh! I can't believe someone will have such a big problem understanding such a simple thing. [...] I spoke about Indian identity being divided on religious lines.
You keep bringing this up as if division/ splitting is the central issue, when I acknowledged no such thing. Really, my comment is exclusively to do with identity itself. I'd suggest a re-read of my comment, from top to the bottom.
> What was once a homogenous Indian identity was split into a Pakistani identity, a Bangladeshi identity and a smaller Indian identity.
There was never a "homogenous" Indian identity in the first place. People think this because they do not fully acknowledge the various identities they themselves personally harbour. It is one thing to talk about something in abstract, and another thing entirely to intuitively feel it out for themselves.
> You are so wrong here. The creation of States was done on linguistic/ethnic/regional lines.
As I never said anything about creation of states -- only that the the political distinction of (Indian) states has no relevance whatsoever to the (general) subject of identity -- you might just as well go for a re-read of my comment?
> People also derive their group identity along cultural, caste and social lines.
You are missing the point I made. I said Indian identity was split on religious lines. When was Indian identity split on cultural, caste or social lines? Last I checked, Tamil Nadu is still a part of India. Karnataka is still a part of India. Kerala is still a part of India. They haven't "split" out of India. Makes sense?
Sigh! I can't believe someone will have such a big problem understanding such a simple thing. I have a feeling you are deliberately nitpicking my comments just to prove some non-existent point. I don't understand why you think I have no idea about what "identity" means. That is besides the point mate. I never spoke about "identity" by itself or the definition of "identity". I spoke about Indian identity being divided on religious lines.
Since you are finding it so difficult to understand, I'll make it even simpler for you. Let me take your own definition of identity and explain my statement:
You stated a few factors for "identity" right? Namely: Vocational Identity, National Identity, Racial Identity, Religious Identity, Ideological Identity, Political Identity, Family Identity, Gender Identity etc etc.
Now can we just say that all the above identities reasonably define the Indian identity? If yes, then out of all those identities, only the "religious identity" was used as a tool to split Indian identity. What was once a homogenous Indian identity was split into a Pakistani identity, a Bangladeshi identity and a smaller Indian identity. Each of these are now independent identities.
> Generally, the political distinction of states, as you repeatedly bring here, has no relevance whatsover to the subject of identity which, as stated above, can be based on several factors (not just religion). Just to state a few (in general terms, for the benefit of non-Indian readers)
You are so wrong here. The creation of States was done on linguistic/ethnic/regional lines. It is not "political distinction" but a "linguistic/ethnic/regional distinction". If you do not understand that basic thing about India then you are doing a big disservice to not just yourself but to also those who will be reading your comment mate.
Here you crossed into breaking the site guidelines by becoming personally abrasive if not abusive. Please don't do that. "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
Gosh this is getting ridiculous! You do not seem to have a good understanding of what I wrote in the first place. I am talking about splitting Indian identity on religious lines. I never said Indian identity is only based on "religion". How hard is it for you to understand that? Pakistan was created on religious lines. Pakistan did not take language, caste or social issues with it! Those remained in India. Makes sense?
Religion is only one factor. People also derive their group identity along cultural, caste and social lines.
This is not specific to India. Although religion is less emphasized in America, other factors (cultural, social, racial, economical, etc.) still continue play its role in forming the identity of its denizens.
--
Response to below comment inline, due to moderator comment limit:
> When was Indian identity split on cultural, caste or social lines?
You do not seem to have a good understanding of the word "identity". I'd consult this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(social_science)
And not everything has to be seen from the exclusive lens of politics and religion.
--
> I am talking about splitting Indian identity on religious lines.
What do you think the word "identity" refers to?
> Last I checked, Tamil Nadu is still a part of India. Karnataka is still a part of India. Kerala is still a part of India. They haven't "split" out of India. Makes sense?
Although Kerala for instance is still politically situated in India, that is besides the point, as the word "identity" does not exclusively refer to one's political identity.
Generally, the political distinction of states, as you repeatedly bring here, has no relevance whatsover to the subject of identity which, as stated above, can be based on several factors (not just religion). Just to state a few (in general terms, for the benefit of non-Indian readers):
1. A vocational identity as ‘employee’/‘employer’, ‘worker’/‘pensioner’, ‘junior/‘senior’ and so on.
2. A national identity as ‘English’, ‘American’, ‘Australian’ and etcetera.
3. A racial identity as ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘brown’ or whatever.
4. A religious/spiritual identity as a ‘Hindu’, a ‘Muslim’, a ‘Christian’, a ‘Buddhist’ ad infinitum.
5. A ideological identity as a ‘Capitalist’, a ‘Communist’, a ‘Monarchist’, a ‘Fascist’ and etcetera.
6. A political identity as a ‘Democrat’, a ‘Tory’, a ‘Republican’, a ‘Liberal’ and all the rest.
7. A family identity as ‘son’/‘daughter’, ‘brother’/‘sister’, ‘father’/‘mother’ and the whole raft of relatives.
8. A gender identity as ‘boy’/‘girl’, ‘man’/‘woman’.
--
> Sigh! I can't believe someone will have such a big problem understanding such a simple thing. [...] I spoke about Indian identity being divided on religious lines.
You keep bringing this up as if division/ splitting is the central issue, when I acknowledged no such thing. Really, my comment is exclusively to do with identity itself. I'd suggest a re-read of my comment, from top to the bottom.
> What was once a homogenous Indian identity was split into a Pakistani identity, a Bangladeshi identity and a smaller Indian identity.
There was never a "homogenous" Indian identity in the first place. People think this because they do not fully acknowledge the various identities they themselves personally harbour. It is one thing to talk about something in abstract, and another thing entirely to intuitively feel it out for themselves.
> You are so wrong here. The creation of States was done on linguistic/ethnic/regional lines.
As I never said anything about creation of states -- only that the the political distinction of (Indian) states has no relevance whatsoever to the (general) subject of identity -- you might just as well go for a re-read of my comment?