23

With a population of over 200 million, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has a much larger population than most EU countries(eg: Switzerland has approx 9 mil population). Why is it that small places became countries in Europe when they big places become states in India?

tryst with freedom
  • 3,269
  • 13
  • 36
  • 1
    Note that if you correct for population density, Uttar Pradesh is not quite so huge as it first seems. Uttar Pradesh, despite it’s size, actually has a higher population density than quite a few European capital cities, and actually has a significantly higher population density than some of the smallest European countries (of the seven smallest countries in Europe, only Monaco and the Vatican have a higher population density than Uttar Pradesh, and all five of the next smallest have less than half he population density). – Austin Hemmelgarn Jan 07 '22 at 17:28
  • 10
    @AustinHemmelgarn what are you talking about? How exactly would you "correct for population density"? This question is about comparing states and countries by population. The density of the population is irrelevant to the size of the population. A place with a million people has a million people regardless of whether it occupies 100 square kilometers or 100,000. – phoog Jan 07 '22 at 23:59
  • 1
    @phoog Uttar Pradesh has a huge population partly because it has a high population density, and the geography and sociopolitical environment are actively conducive to maintaining that high population density. Montenegro, as a counter-example, has a tiny population not just because it’s a small country, but also because the geography and sociopolitical environment can’t support a high population density. ‘correcting for population density’ is probably not the best way to say what I meant, but I’m not really sure of any better way to say it concisely. – Austin Hemmelgarn Jan 08 '22 at 13:42
  • Don't you think that's more about linguistic idiom than politics or demographics, economics or history? Consider most obviously - to me - US America or Australia, as well as my own UK. To citizens of Wales, New South Wales or Washington, what difference is there between states and countries? I suggest that matters so much, it might be why we have a United Nations, rather than a United Countries or a United States. – Robbie Goodwin Jan 08 '22 at 20:11
  • @AustinHemmelgarn Are you proposing something other than that we should compare land area rather than population? – Acccumulation Jan 09 '22 at 08:13

3 Answers3

48

History.

India did consist of many more-or-less sovereign countries before the British came. When decolonization came around and the colonizers left, it split into India and Pakistan, and then Bangladesh.

The Indian independence movement came at a time with the telegraph, printed newspapers, etc. Many of the European states came before that. You might compare Germany and Italy, which also consolidated many small polities at a later time.

o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
  • 3
    History and military power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Hyderabad – Vladimir F Героям слава Jan 07 '22 at 15:32
  • 8
    At least half of all modern geopolitical conflicts can be traced to some (usually) British guy drawing a line on a map. – Kevin Jan 08 '22 at 06:26
  • @Kevin, like the one in Yalta? – o.m. Jan 08 '22 at 06:31
  • "You might compare Germany and Italy, which also consolidated many small polities at a later time." - Was the second possible meaning of that sentence intentional? It certainly supports the point that history is messy, and decides what is and what isn't a country. – Peter Jan 08 '22 at 16:51
  • @Peter, the decision between the kleindeutsche and grossdeutsche unification came rather late in the process. But little polities had been merging since the 30 years war and even earlier. I don't think much got gobbled up that wasn't somehow Germany, but how many Germanies was an open question. – o.m. Jan 08 '22 at 18:02
  • Don't you think that's more of a historial aside than an Answer, o.m.? – Robbie Goodwin Jan 10 '22 at 18:23
  • @RobbieGoodwin, when people want explanations for individual historical outcomes, there is usually no hard rule which forced it. – o.m. Jan 11 '22 at 05:14
10

Some possible historical reasons for areas to come together to form countries:

(1) Similar cultures. If all the people in the region speak the same language and follow the same religious beliefs, there isn't much reason to be independent from one another.

(2) External threats. If you're worried about being conquered or colonised, there's strength in numbers.

(3) Empire building. If an ancient ruler conquered and pacified a vast area and his successors crushed all separatist movements, over time it might be accepted that the region he controlled is a natural nation.

None of these factors guarantee that a single country will exist and hold together. Everywhere has its own history - for example a former nation might have been forcibly split up after being defeated in a war, and never reunited due to local rulers successfully clinging on to power.

user3153372
  • 1,960
  • 7
  • 10
  • 13
    Note that a common language can also be imposed from above to force a national identity. For a good example, see France and languages like Breton, Occitan, Provencal, Alsatian that have been more or less forcibly suppressed. In 1794, only 3 million French people (out of 25 million) spoke French as their native language. – user141592 Jan 07 '22 at 17:45
8

A often-used explanation of why Europe is divided into a lot relatively tiny states is that there are a lot of natural borders within this continent. For example, the Pyrenees divide France and Spain, the Alps divide Italy from France, Austria and Switzerland.

thieupepijn
  • 2,458
  • 9
  • 13
  • 18
    Are you proposing India is a featureless plane with no natural borders? – Azor Ahai -him- Jan 07 '22 at 19:03
  • 1
    I said it's an often-used theory, not one I necessarily agree with. However in the case of the Indian subcontinent, are the borders between India and most of it's neighbors not defined by either extremely inhospitable mountain ranges (Bhutan, Nepal, China/Tibet, Pakistan) or a sea (Sri Lanka)? – thieupepijn Jan 07 '22 at 20:07
  • 2
    @AzorAhai-him- Where he said that India is featureless plane with no natural borders?! – Mithridates the Great Jan 07 '22 at 23:44
  • 3
    @MithridatestheGreat he didn't say it; he implied it. – phoog Jan 08 '22 at 00:02
  • 6
    That doesn't explain the small countries. The borders of Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco, Andorra, are not really natural. – DJClayworth Jan 08 '22 at 16:46
  • Geography definitely explains the borders of some countries, like Switzerland, Spain, Luxembourg (a natural fortress), Scandinavia, and the various island nations, but certainly doesn't explain all. – Stuart F Jan 08 '22 at 17:29
  • 1
    Where does "India did consist of many more-or-less sovereign countries before the British came" come from, please? Did "India" not largely consist of a single Moghul Empire, ruling over many by-definition non-sovereign states - and no countries? – Robbie Goodwin Jan 08 '22 at 20:17
  • 1
    @RobbieGoodwin: It depends on when you take the snapshot. It was pretty unified when the British (in the form of the East India Company) first arrived, but by the time the British were engaging in territorial conquest, the Mughals and Marathas had been fighting each other long enough, and the Mughals in decline long enough, that the "empire" was pretty fragmented and an empire in name only; what was left was mostly local Mughal successor states. Small snippet from Wikipedia: "After the execution of Emperor Farrukhsiyar in 1719, local Mughal successor states took power in region after region." – ShadowRanger Jan 09 '22 at 14:56
  • 1
    @DJClayworth I agree with your point, that not all borders are natural, but Andorra definitely does not belong into your list. 90% of that countries border is a natural mountain ridge. – mlk Jan 10 '22 at 10:10
  • Most of the borders in Europe have also shifted multiple times during history, even after the nation states have formed. Sure, they often use natural features (rivers, mostly), but not all of them happened to be at the same river during all of the last two centuries. – Hulk Jan 10 '22 at 10:55
  • A river or a mountain range may become a 'natural border', but only in the right circumstances. For example, the Danube is used as a natural border along some parts of its course, but not along others. The reasons are just... history. – Hulk Jan 10 '22 at 11:17