An interesting article, but I feel this is crap. It seems the author has the notion that North was fighting wars every day during 100s to 1700s without any cultural development. I'm sorry, Taj Mahal and many more beautiful architectural marvels were built during that time. I am myself from South, and having lived my life there and in North, I can confidently say that both North and South are completely equal in development. If we see Bangalore and Hyderabad and feel that whole of South is developing, it is a mis-conception
I think this is a load of crap. According to u the famines did NOT alter the fabric of society, the european invasion didn`t and the only reason was the Muhammedan invsaions!!! This looks like a make fit hypothesis rather than a logical one. Going by your assumption the adamanese tribes should be thoroughly developed because they trace their ancestry directly to the Africans and trust me there continuity has not been altered by Famine, European, Muhammedan or Hindu invasions so why are they still un-21st century like(for lack of proper word)? Is it because in this case the Muhammedan's didn`t invade them? It was foolish of you to try to fit in a hypothesis were none existed.
RE:india
by karthik on Nov 23, 2006 08:31 PM Permalink
Well CV which category did u put urself in?? You'v been talking nonsense about north, and my tamil nadu too. You havent even talked about karnataka as such, its just north karnataka uv been bragging about. You really have made nuisance out of yourself, first decide whom are u supporting.
I'm either a Namboothiri or other type of brahman from Kerala...
I know none of the Rig Veda Rishis had a last name, but then again I cling onto my Brahman identity..but then again I thought you become a brahman only after you give up your ego:)
RE:Oh I'm Rajeev Srinivasan
by julie on Nov 21, 2006 04:08 PM Permalink
Then, Raj, you are a casteist bigot. You admit that you don't pay attention to what a person says, you are only concerned about their caste. You are pathetic!
RE:Oh I'm Rajeev Srinivasan
by rajaji on Nov 16, 2006 11:29 PM Permalink
then again none of european countries has ny colored man at high level and pope is always black...why are Hindus/Indians divided?
And Kerala christians has about 12 denominations that I can think of and some consider high caste Hindus converted and think of Pentacostals as untouchables:) so why are Hindus thinking division?
the phrase "places that faced jihads, violent conversions and loss of cultural continuity" is not correct. jihad means 'holy war' and is a last resort when nothing can be done to extinguish the fire. You can't point, indirectly, that jihad results loss of culture. moreover, religion spread from the coastal regions, so how can you say that south was less affected from imperialism and conquest?
secondly, you can't say that education is the reason. majority of the people study in good colleges, even though they are becoming more uncivilised. why ? due to television culture!
Being a Maharashtrian I'd like to inject some neutral thoughts on this debate..
1. South Indian culture exhibits more "hinduness" than the north on account of the relatively less disruptions caused by the islamic invasions. It has a richer tradition of scholarship, education, history of empowerment for the downtrodden sections of the society..all these factors have contributed towards the rapid development of South vis a vis north india.
2. South also exhibits narrow regional mindset and a "patriotic" deficit as compared to the rest of India. South has had virtually no contribution towards India's freedom struggle, when Gandhi was spearheading "Quit India" movement in 1940s, the southern prophet Periyar was advocating a separate nation of South India. Periyar was the only hindu besides the god-foresaken communists to actively support M A Jinnah's idea of division of BharatMa to creat Pakistan.
3. Historically speaking Gujarat,Punjab, Maharashtra and Bengal have been the foundations of pan indian nationalism, nothwithstanding their liguistic/cultural differences.I'd rather go with the underdeveloped but Nationalist North than the more developed but opportunistic south.
RE:India is the Best.
by ashish on Nov 16, 2006 09:31 AM Permalink
Well this article reflects how well south india is developing, dunno much about how holding on to the values n cultures has a role to play in it, but i feel southern states' politicians are lot better than other parts of india. i guess a little more attention on the smaller towns of south would be great. Well for my north indian frnds, guys if an article shows south's progress, it does not mean its anti-north. And as far as that great HINDI language debate, well whenever u move to a different state, u will have problems related to language. Peoplle from states with regional languages (include gujrat orrisa etc too) arent as gud at hindi like ppl frm MP, UP. Lets not indulge in bashing each others' regions nd languages. PS : Im a north indian settled in bangalore
There's nothing really good about the article except the "Redeveloping" theory. The article is not logical. This is because of the following reasons.
1) South Indian states are not the top 4 states of the country by any means. There are states like Gujarat, Punjab, Maharashtra which are more developed than most of the south indian states 2) Development is not just IT 3) Not all things about the South Indian states are good. (for ex, A.P is still in the last 2-3 states w.r.t Literacy) 4) By just maintaining culture, an area/state can't develop.
