- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 164 Hour
- Reading permission
This is honestly beautiful. Of course any nation must have scholars, industrialization, technology etc. however of paramount importance is that China must not lose its agricultural roots. Not only that China needs ocean-livelihood as well like some island nations. Then, China's relationship with the nature is comprehensive. The nature is the forest, climate, geo-nature, the rivers, the oceans and agriculture, of course including aquaculture and how all these are being approached by and cared for defines the character of a nation.|
It is never a religion or a race that defines a nation or society. The xenophobic insane pursuit of religion or racial supremacy will eventually lead a society to self-ravage and annihilates itself.
India has thrived for more than 6,000 years and was never ever a global power for this 6,000 years even today - which isn't a bad thing. When one isn't a global power, one isn't the target of others to be beaten or destroyed like many empires were before it. Global power here means that it conquered or is doing acts of conquering the world, doing things of the likes of Alexander the Great, Great Britain, Napoleon, Otto the Great, Roman Empire, Austrian-Hungarian Empire etc. The effects of all the empire-empire achievements after a few centuries tend to fade. But India has some how not perished while many other civilizations had disappeared completely including those more modern than India at one time or another. Yet the attribute of India is that it is made up of diverse sub-ethnics - who aren't Indian per se, some of whom are very much a minority with few in numbers. How did these various small numbered ethnics survived and had not disappeared compared to some larger ones elsewhere that have totally perished and ceased to exist? The difference lies in that India had many different rituals and religions although Hinduism is the unrivalled majority but all these weren't what defined India historically. In the early days of India religion, ethnicity and race were not the driving force of their existence but agriculture was. The people generally need not seek war day to day and thus could focus and search for excellence in agriculture. This helped to feed the nation. Prior to England's conquest, India had different dynasties conquering different parts of India at different times. Rightfully they should have perished. However the people survived. Today India is much larger than either Austria and Hungary put together or Italy or Germany. Minus the EU, India will be a power that exceeds the individuals of Austria, Hungary, Italy or Germany. Yet India doesn't represent a Hindu Empire and India has never positioned itself as a Hindu Empire. All it has done is having a majority of Hindu believers that's all. There is a huge number of Muslims in India too and Pakistan and Bangladesh not been separated from India, India would have housed the most Hindus and Muslims in the world. India has not attempted to send Hindu missionaries to convert others and has not build any Hindu militancy or dictate Hinduism into its foreign forays unlike some other nations which did with the religion they believed. The time it has not spent on this, was spent in matters that relate to day-to-day survival. The effect is little by little it accumulated into a mass. Even when it became the massive India it is today both by geographical area and population, India didn't do it through war. Rather it is the British Empire conquest that contributed to that effect. The British shouldn't take credit for this though. Much wealth was taken away by the British which impoverished India and the British Empire caused many natural deaths during their rule in India. The British is gravely indebted to India. It was because of India's last 5,000 years' of foundation that helped the Indians survived the British conquest. Compared to Canada and Australia, the other 2 major British Empire conquests, all the indigenous people there have almost perished. Certainly there are brilliant indigenous people in those two countries too, so why didn't they survive given that the English mentality will be the same wherever they go? Clearly the Indians overcame the killing claws of the conqueror due to some of their inherent attributes. This can be attributed to their will to survive that lies above any religion or race issue manifested by their agrarian mentality. In an genuinely agrarian society, people are taught to adapt naturally. Different climate and geographical attributes demand different skills and different learning. To live, the Indians did adapt to accept British lifestyles and as such did not oppose the British vehemently and thus avoided antagonising the conquerors. The British on the other hand did try to reduce the Indian population as it did in the two other places just that the measures couldn't overcome the survival will of the Indians.