Would a combined India/Pakistan have dominated cricket?

[trundler]

So in asia:

Azhar
Agarwal
Pujara
Kohli
Babar
Shakib
Mushfiq
Jadeja
Ashwin
Shami
Abbas

Abbas's UAE record is actually insane. Azhar has been pants outside Asia but has been gun for a long time otherwise. 3 spinners might be overkill tho.

Tamim in for Azhar outside Asia, Bumrah in for Abbas depending on conditions and one of Ashwin/Jadeja makes way for Ishant

 

[stephen]

Wasn't India only united by the British in the first place? Before the English the subcontinent was a loose collection of little kingdoms. When the English arrived they basically united India to rule it more easily.

Kind of like how Bismarck United the Germanic states to create Germany.

 

[srbhkshk]

Wasn't India only united by the British in the first place? Before the English the subcontinent was a loose collection of little kingdoms. When the English arrived they basically united India to rule it more easily.

Kind of like how Bismarck United the Germanic states to create Germany.

And that's why you shouldn't talk about things you don't know about.

 

[Burgey]

And that's why you shouldn't talk about things you don't know about.

Doesn’t stop you talking about cricket.

 

[stephen]

And that's why you shouldn't talk about things you don't know about.

Well educate me. I haven't looked much into the history of India pre-British rule. As I understood it the only reason Britain could conquer India was that it was divided into a number of states that wouldn't unify against the British. And before that it was unified under the Moguls, who were ostensibly conquerors from the 16th century. But by the time the British came that empire had basically disintegrated, with the Moguls in charge in the same way that the Holy Roman Empire was technically an empire but had little to no actual power over the governance of its regions until Bismarck united the Germanic speaking people in the 19th century.

 

[srbhkshk]

Well educate me. I haven't looked much into the history of India pre-British rule. As I understood it the only reason Britain could conquer India was that it was divided into a number of states that wouldn't unify against the British. And before that it was unified under the Moguls, who were ostensibly conquerors from the 16th century. But by the time the British came that empire had basically disintegrated, with the Moguls in charge in the same way that the Holy Roman Empire was technically an empire but had little to no actual power over the governance of its regions until Bismarck united the Germanic speaking people in the 19th century.

Man I don't feel like putting the whole stuff out there but if you actually want to know just remember that India doesn't start at the Britishers or the Mughals, the history of this land goes way back and we have texts that are at least 3000 years and potentially even older, the land has been one since those times, sometimes ruled by one, sometimes by many.

 

[smash84]

Man I don't feel like putting the whole stuff out there but if you actually want to know just remember that India doesn't start at the Britishers or the Mughals, the history of this land goes way back and we have texts that are at least 3000 years and potentially even older, the land has been one since those times, sometimes ruled by one, sometimes by many.

His points are completely accurate though. The British did unite a whole bunch of princely states under one umbrella and formed a United India.

Just because the land was there for thousands of years doesn't mean much.

 

[Dan]

If you took, say, late 1990s Indian batting with late 1990s Pakistani bowling there'd be one hell of a combined XI.

Like, think about this circa-1998/99:

1. Saeed Anwar
2. S Ramesh / Wajahatullah Wasti
3. Rahul Dravid
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Inzamam ul Haq / Ijaz Ahmed
6. Sourav Ganguly
7. Moin Khan
8. Wasim Akram
9. Anil Kumble
10. Saqlain Mushtaq
11. Waqar Younis / Javagal Srinath

 

[TheJediBrah]

Man I don't feel like putting the whole stuff out there but if you actually want to know just remember that India doesn't start at the Britishers or the Mughals, the history of this land goes way back and we have texts that are at least 3000 years and potentially even older, the land has been one since those times, sometimes ruled by one, sometimes by many.

This doesn't dispute what stephen said at all. In fact it seems to agree with him.

I'm assuming you were offended by the implication that India "needed" the British to show them how to unite or something along those lines? I don't think that was stephen's intent.

 

[vcs]

We were certainly united in wanting to get rid of the Brits (hatred of them can be a pretty strong unifying factor ). Since they were the ones who introduced the game, whatever we had before them doesn't matter in this discussion.

 

[Victor Ian]

His points are completely accurate though. The British did unite a whole bunch of princely states under one umbrella and formed a United India.

Just because the land was there for thousands of years doesn't mean much.

and really, if you are going to combine cricketing entities, you should only combine them from when they played cricket - which is since Britain took over. You should not combine them based on when they played skullball or other such games 4000 years ago.

 

[trundler]

The entire subcontinent has never been under one ruler. The South resisted the Mughals for ages and even the British failed to gain control of Pondicherry and some other French colonies.

 

[stephen]

We were certainly united in wanting to get rid of the Brits (hatred of them can be a pretty strong unifying factor ). Since they were the ones who introduced the game, whatever we had before them doesn't matter in this discussion.

Yeah modern India was born as rebellion against British rule in a similar way to how the USA was born as a rebellion against British rule. My point was only that before the British there was little unity in what we call India but the Brits unified much of India under their control so that they could more easily manage the colony.

I'm trying not to show any kind of bias here, since it would be silly for me to show any bias as I'm not a Brit and nor am I Indian. I'm trying to understand things better. And if I do have a bias it's for how well Ghandi managed to organise the peaceful resistance successfully to win independence without bloodshed. Successful peaceful rebellion is so rare in history as to be almost unique and those who engage in it should be venerated more highly than a thousand conquerors.

 

[stephen]

Oh and the fact that India remained a democratic nation and didn't descend into warring states when they drove off the English is also remarkable. The birth of a new country can be a tumultuous and fragile time. A country the side of India staying united after independence is truly remarkable.

 

[ankitj]

My point was only that before the British there was little unity in what we call India but the Brits unified much of India under their control so that they could more easily manage the colony.

That would be true of many countries in Europe too. Nationalism rose in places like Germany and France as late as 19th century didn't it? At around the same national movements in India started taking root. Whether it would have taken the same path without the Brits is speculative.

 

[ankitj]

I'm trying not to show any kind of bias here, since it would be silly for me to show any bias as I'm not a Brit and nor am I Indian. I'm trying to understand things better. And if I do have a bias it's for how well Ghandi managed to organise the peaceful resistance successfully to win independence without bloodshed. Successful peaceful rebellion is so rare in history as to be almost unique and those who engage in it should be venerated more highly than a thousand conquerors.

Yeah, that mobilization of peaceful resistance is remarkable and kind of unique. There is also a view that armed struggle against Brits is under-appreciated and mostly unknown. Some go as far as to say that may have been a big factor in forcing Brits to pack up and leave. Check out: Royal Indian Navy mutiny. This was in response to imprisoning of Indian National Army personnel which itself was culmination of a set of systematic armed struggles. The mutiny is thought to have pushed the Brits to a point where they didn't think it was possible or worth it to continue to control India. Of course previous non-cooperation movement led by Gandhi and world war 2 were great forces weakening the Brits too.

Oh and the fact that India remained a democratic nation and didn't descend into warring states when they drove off the English is also remarkable. The birth of a new country can be a tumultuous and fragile time. A country the side of India staying united after independence is truly remarkable.

Yes, it was predicted that India will disintegrate into pieces by many historians and thinkers at the time of her independence. It's indeed quite remarkable. Sometimes I look at places as distinct from each other as Tamil Nadu and Punjab and then frontier states like Nagaland and wonder what really is keeping this country together!

 

[srbhkshk]

It's as if Ashoka doesn't exist and the land hasn't been referred to as one since the pre-historic times.

His points are completely accurate though. The British did unite a whole bunch of princely states under one umbrella and formed a United India.

Just because the land was there for thousands of years doesn't mean much.

Smali - If the britishers united it? Why exactly was there a need for checking with the princely states whether they wanted to join India , Pakistan or remain independent once they left? And why exactly was there a need for that permission to be taken from about 500 of such states? Weren't they like united already? I am not saying the land was there for thousands of years, of course it has been there like practically all other land, I am saying culturally there has always been a binding thread in the country. At least till before the Religious divisions happened. The only thing Britishers did was *divide* India, not break it,

 

[honestbharani]

His points are completely accurate though. The British did unite a whole bunch of princely states under one umbrella and formed a United India.

@ "united"

The discussion is stupid because India had always been seen by the west as a single entity inspite of the various kingdoms, primarily because it was a bit of a trading bloc before they were cool. And if there was no entity called India, why was it called the "British East India Company"? And like @vcs pointed out, it is irrelevant to the discussion as when the sport did get to India, it was a single entity, which is what the thread is about.

And if folks cannot understand the cultural and ethical sameness across those "princely" states, well....

Dodgy knowledge of history can wait.

 

[Line and Length]

Many interesting and varied comments here. Opinions can often be based on the history taught in schools in different countries.

 

[honestbharani]

Opinions can often be based on the history taught in schools in different countries.

Of course, but pretending you know the history of a country better than those countrymen is not a fault of the history lessons and curriculum, I presume.