Hapankaali t1_irt2o7b wrote
Reply to comment by Smart_Ass_Dave in TIL according to the Census of India of 2001, India has 122 major languages and 1599 other languages by Sistermateriial
Most of what is today India was controlled by the Mughals before the British conquered it. So there was a "country," just not one with a dominant single language. The idea that a nation state should be associated with a single culture and language didn't gain traction until the advent of nationalism. As a second example, French was not spoken as a native tongue by a majority of the French population until about 100 years ago. The adoption of a single lingua franca was accelerated by the start of WW1 and the popularization of radio in the 20th Century.
Smart_Ass_Dave t1_irt45x4 wrote
That's all true, though I'd like to add that the Mughal empire's dominion over the whole subcontinent was uhhh...short lived. Here's the place 51 years after your map, as an example: LINK
Hapankaali t1_irtewmd wrote
The Mughal Empire lasted about 2 centuries, so not that short-lived.
Anyway, that the ruling class doesn't speak the language(s) of the people they are ruling was the norm until quite recently - colonialism didn't invent this. The Qing court used Manchu - a now practically extinct language - until the 20th Century.
Smart_Ass_Dave t1_irtg2md wrote
My point about the Mughals is that while the empire itself existed for hundreds of years, it did not cover the whole of the continent for hundreds of years. Your points about China is a good one though.
I do feel like you've missed my overall point however, so I'll explain it more clearly. India was not a homogenous entity when Europeans arrived there. It was a bunch of different people all slammed together by foreign empires. The Mughals were as foreign to a Mysorean or Bengali as the British were. We as westerners (meaning your average Redditor, I don't know you specifically) would do well to imagine them as complexly as they deserve.
Shturm-7-0 t1_is3u47u wrote
Manchu was almost extinct by the late 19th century, even by the late 18th century a big chunk of Manchus couldn't speak Manchu.
tipdrill541 t1_irtist4 wrote
What language did the French speak 100 years ago
djn808 t1_iru4cnf wrote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergonha
lots of them
innergamedude t1_iry4tv8 wrote
This. "French as a language" doesn't really mean anything in a strict sense. You had a whole continuum of dialects and the powerful interests in the national government declared one of them the "real thing" and all others basically Kirkland-brand French. This is actually the case for basically any Old World country with a nationalized language. The notion that "German" is one language is laughable.
Hapankaali t1_irv0m6u wrote
As mentioned, Occitan was a major one. Other languages with formerly large minorities include Alsatian, Basque, Breton, Dutch, Provençal (the latter is sometimes considered a variation of Occitan) and others. Of these, only Breton and Alsatian survive with a significant number of speakers today, though Alsatian is also rapidly dying.
Napoleon Bonaparte was from Corsica and not a native speaker of French.
deeptull t1_irtk3ia wrote
Smart_Sherlock t1_isgefxw wrote
Everything correct, except that between the 100 years of Mughals and British, India was mostly ruled by the Maratha Empire.
Hapankaali t1_isgotty wrote
Yep - but that empire was much smaller. My point was just that the British didn't glue together some disparate small realms, there was a precedent for a (mostly) unified Indian subcontinent.
Smart_Sherlock t1_isgpdc2 wrote
Not that much smaller. It was comparable to what Mughals controlled for most of their existence.
Concept of Bharat was indeed there, even in times of Chandragupta as documented by Chanakya himself.
Places can have same culture (including religion) but at the same time be politically divided. This has happened many times in history
Ani1618_IN t1_iudvran wrote
By the time the Brits began establishing a serious presence in the subcontinent, the Mughals had withered away and became puppets of various states including the Marathas, the Afghans, and various North Indian warlords and ministers.
iamawesome001 t1_iuixqze wrote
Small correction by the time British colonalism started Mughals were already faded. Marathas were major forces (very much decentralised though) and Mughals were only namesake rulers with their influence only in Delhi
deeptull t1_irtkhb9 wrote
The minor matters of having the same religion, myths, contiguous cuisines, massively shared vocabularies etc
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments