Critique of India

[mhcrxlc at dir.manchester-computing-centre.ac.uk]

Lars Fosse writes:

>Point taken. Actually, the definition of Europe is a bit of a problem,
>since it has changed with the centuries. Europe stretching from the
>Atlantic to the Urals is a quite modern concept. What I had in mind was the
>"core" of Europe, that is those parts that have been considered part of the
>continent for many centuries, that is again the Northern shores of the
>Mediterranean and the parts stretching towards the North Sea in the North
>and the Catholic or Protestant countries in Central Europe (also a somewhat
>fuzzy term). That Eastern Europe belongs to "Europe" is a pretty modern
>concept, in fact a British historian visiting Oslo some time ago told about
>an unpleasant encounter in the British Foreigh Office where an official
>told him that "we do not consider Bosnia part of Europe". But LSC is right:
>We must compare regions of India with regions of Europe.

If you define Europe in terms of a supposed 'core', this is a bit circular
in the present context - effectively, the 'core' is the part that didn't
come under Muslim control in Ottoman times. In truth of course both the
concept of India and the concept of Europe as political entities are modern
inventions. The Roman Empire was Mediterranean based. Similarly the ancient
Indian empires (whatever their social organization) seem to have been
Ganges-Indus based with some extensions into the area of present-day
Afghanistan. Of course there are cultural continuities (and
discontinuities) in both cases.

Lance Cousins

MANCHESTER, UK
Email: mhcrxlc at dir.mcc.ac.uk