Before all the members of a large population have the same characteristics that form the basis of nationality, first think about their own entity and think, individually, do these features have any logical basis, or are they merely imaginary mirages?
First of all, let's talk about racial or ethnic partnership and equality. This is the unity of blood. The semen of mother and father is its starting point. By this blood relationship developed between some people. Then its circle is further expanded to form family clans and descendants. When it comes to this last limit, that is, descendants, man is his descendant.
The founder moves far away from the father. It goes so far that his name as the son of the father-in-law becomes very minor and insignificant. Many tributaries of the external blood also join the tributaries in this huge river of so-called descent. As a result, no intelligent person can claim that the real water of the river from which it flowed is flowing in it.
If, in spite of such a mixture of adulteration, man can accept a "bhasdhar" as a bond of unity for himself on the basis of equal sharing of blood, then where is the difficulty in accepting the bond of blood which unites the whole Sanbajati with their ancestors?Who are the people who are considered to be the founders of different generations nowadays?
The lineage of all of them has gone up and down in the same line somewhere and in the end there is no way without acknowledging that they all originated from the same source. So where is the rationale for this division in the name of Arya Anarya?
The issue of geographical and homeland unity is even more imaginary.
The real birthplace of man is nothing more than a square yard. If he decides that such a small area is his homeland, then he may not be able to call any country his homeland. But around this small territory he draws boundaries for hundreds or thousands of miles, and says that he has nothing to do with my motherland, anything beyond that boundary, it is just the narrowness of his vision. Otherwise, no one can stop him from claiming the whole world as his motherland.
On the basis of that argument, the motherland of one square yard can be expanded to thousands of square yards. That same argument could spread to the rest of the world. If man does not narrow down his point of view, then he realizes that the sea, the mountains, the rivers, etc., which he used to demarcate by his own whims and fancies, distinguishing between one land and another, are all part of the same world.
So on what basis did he give the mountains, rivers and seas the right to keep him captive in a certain territory? Why doesn't he say that I am a resident of the world, the whole world is my motherland and homeland and all the people living in the world are my homeland? Why doesn't he claim that I have the birthright in the whole world that I have in this one square yard of my homeland?
The only advantage of linguistic partnership is that those who speak the same language have a greater chance of mutual understanding and exchange of ideas. This largely cuts off the feeling of unfamiliarity with each other and makes homosexuals feel more intimate with each other. But if the means of expressing the attitude of more than one person are the same, there is no question that the attitude itself should be the same.
The same attitude can be expressed in ten different languages, and it is possible for those who express the same attitude in those ten languages to be united in the same attitude. On the other hand, ten different attitudes can be expressed in the same language and it is not strange that those who speak the same language can become contradictory by believing in those different meditative ideas.
So the unity of opinion which is the lifeblood of the nation is not dependent on linguistic unity. Similarly, speakers of the same language do not necessarily have the same opinions and thoughts. The next important question that we have to face is, what is the contribution or influence of human language on human humanity and its personal good or bad? Should a German be preferred to a French speaker just because he speaks German? No, it never is.
We have to see what kind of faults or qualities his personality is endowed with? Just looking at the language will not work. Suffice it to say that a person who knows the language of a country can be more useful and successful in running the broadcasting work and general affairs of that country. But this is not the right basis for the division of humanity and national inequality.
274.173 SRY