What's new

Chinese Troops Intrude Into India Again

In fact Tibet was never a part of China. At best it was a kind of protectorate for some time. The Tibetan cultural roots are entirely Indian. And a lot of land, including Kailash Mansarovar, actually used to be part of Aryavrata.

India is a culture and a geographical expression. An equivalent of India would be Europe. India itself is not a natural nation. Its 32 nations array along the British railroads.

“India is not a real country. Instead it is thirty-two separate nations that happen to be arrayed along the British rail line.”

lee-kuan-yew
 
India is a culture and a geographical expression. An equivalent of India would be Europe. India itself is not a natural nation. Its 32 nations array along the British railroads.

“India is not a real country. Instead it is thirty-two separate nations that happen to be arrayed along the British rail line.”

lee-kuan-yew


Similar to China which was forged under Qing Dynasty, a foreign dynasty who gave the current China which is almost 3 times the Chinese Ming Dynasty and Ming dynasty itself took over from Yuan, another foreign dynasty - India existed in one form or another since the Maurya time but the current India was forged under British.
 
When it has various kingdoms and empires at various parts of Indian subcontinent. Such as Mysore Kingdom, Maratha confederacy, Sikh empire.



China was not created by Britain. China was not a geographical expression like how India subcontinent was.

India was always a geographical expression , your ignorance is appaling

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

"The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam ( India ); there dwell the descendants of Bharata."
 
Similar to China which was forged under Qing Dynasty, a foreign dynasty who gave the current China which is almost 3 times the Chinese Ming Dynasty and Ming dynasty itself took over from Yuan, another foreign dynasty - India existed in one form or another since the Maurya time but the current India was forged under British.

Not true, China was created in the Qin dynasty in 221BC. All other dynasties claim succession from that first emperor. Does any leaders after Maurya empire claimed to succeed after Ashoka?

India was always a geographical expression , your ignorance is appaling

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

"The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam ( India ); there dwell the descendants of Bharata."

You just described a geographical expression. Does this country has a central government or a central language until the arrival of the British? The answer is obvious. India was a geographical expression as how Winston Churchill put it. The new history book of India was a revisionist fantasy tried to concoct an Indian nation before the British. But history disproved this fantasy.
 
Not true, China was created in the Qin dynasty in 221BC. All other dynasties claim succession from that first emperor. Does any leaders after Maurya empire claimed to succeed after Ashoka?

Again not true. There was a period within China where there were several kindgoms and dynasties which was ruling the current China, especially Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period. Again similar to India which had great dynasties ruling India - Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals etc. but was split into multiple kingdoms otherwise.
 
India is a culture and a geographical expression. An equivalent of India would be Europe. India itself is not a natural nation. Its 32 nations array along the British railroads.

“India is not a real country. Instead it is thirty-two separate nations that happen to be arrayed along the British rail line.”

lee-kuan-yew

Yeah! Yeah! We now have to take lessons in Political thought from leader of a Pygmy "Nation".

Tell me which of the present countries was a nation in the European nation-state sense 300-400 years back?
 
My Jap friend posted this on Stormfront

India in 2030 - Whites will be our servants - Stormfront

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

So it had happened. This video will circulate among the white supremacist and get their reviews. There would be no chance that any Indians would allowed to join the skin heads, KKK or storm front.

Again not true. There was a period within China where there were several kindgoms and dynasties which was ruling the current China, especially Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period. Again similar to India which had great dynasties ruling India - Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals etc.

Even during that time, each claimant regard all others as rebels. Do you see how both Taiwan and China both claim to be the legitimate leader of China? That is because China has a tradition of being one nation.

Yeah! Yeah! We now have to take lessons in Political thought from leader of a Pygmy "Nation".

Tell me which of the present countries was a nation in the European nation-state sense 300-400 years back?

Many countries had a single government and identity 400 years ago, such as Vietnam, Thailand, Japan, Korea and China. But India was a geographical expression back then.
 
Even during that time, each claimant regard all others as rebels. Do you see how both Taiwan and China both claim to be the legitimate leader of China? That is because China has a tradition of being one nation.


It does not matter who claimed what - China was not a single entity throughout its history similar to India. Current China was forged by a foreign empire similar to India.
 
It does not matter who claimed what - China was not a single entity throughout its history similar to India. Current China was forged by a foreign empire similar to India.

Qing was as foreign as Mughals were foreign to India. But China was never forged by a foreign country where its national capital was thousands of miles away. All of China's capitals was within China. Such as the Mongol Yuan dynasty or the Manchu Qing Dynasty had their capital in Beijing. British capital was at London, no where near India, BTW.
 
So it had happened. This video will circulate among the white supremacist and get their reviews. There would be no chance that any Indians would allowed to join the skin heads, KKK or storm front.



Even during that time, each claimant regard all others as rebels. Do you see how both Taiwan and China both claim to be the legitimate leader of China? That is because China has a tradition of being one nation.



Many countries had a single government and identity 400 years ago, such as Vietnam, Thailand, Japan, Korea and China. But India was a geographical expression back then.

India always had a single Identity. During Mughal rule, the country was called Hindustan.

At the most, Post Mughal India can be considered like the pre-unification German states bonded by ties of ethnicity and culture.
 
Not true, China was created in the Qin dynasty in 221BC. All other dynasties claim succession from that first emperor. Does any leaders after Maurya empire claimed to succeed after Ashoka?



You just described a geographical expression. Does this country has a central government or a central language until the arrival of the British? The answer is obvious. India was a geographical expression as how Winston Churchill put it. The new history book of India was a revisionist fantasy tried to concoct an Indian nation before the British. But history disproved this fantasy.

Central government :- yes India had central governments several times in history like mauryas, guptas, delhi sultanate, mughals.
Central govt had its court language which may or may not have been the language of masses. Common language was never a criteria for defining a nation.

The geographipcal expression "India" defines a nation which is bounded by himalays in the north and ocean in the south, whose people shared cultural similarities.

We don't need communist propganda history to tell us what India is.
 
Qing was as foreign as Mughals were foreign to India. But China was never forged by a foreign country where its national capital was thousands of miles away. All of China's capitals was within China. Such as the Mongol Yuan dynasty or the Manchu Qing Dynasty had their capital in Beijing. British capital was at London, no where near India, BTW.

Mughal capital was thousands og miles away? Didnt know Delhi is a thousand miles from India. What have you been smoking?
 
Qing was as foreign as Mughals were foreign to India. But China was never forged by a foreign country where its national capital was thousands of miles away. All of China's capitals was within China. Such as the Mongol Yuan dynasty or the Manchu Qing Dynasty had their capital in Beijing. British capital was at London, no where near India, BTW.

Again it can be claimed that Qing dynasty after the opium wars was nothing but a puppet to the British empire when it had to accept all the conditions enforced by the British empire(and French as well) - the time period coinciding with the absolute rule by British in India after throwing away the Mughal dynasty once for all(in 1857).

So in short the form may be different but it is a similar fate for both China and India.
 
Mughal capital was thousands og miles away? Didnt know Delhi is a thousand miles from India. What have you been smoking?

I was refer to London as the capital of British India.

Central government :- yes India had central governments several times in history like mauryas, guptas, delhi sultanate, mughals.
Central govt had its court language which may or may not have been the language of masses. Common language was never a criteria for defining a nation.

The geographipcal expression "India" defines a nation which is bounded by himalays in the north and ocean in the south, whose people shared cultural similarities.

We don't need communist propganda history to tell us what India is.

Throughout most of history of Indian subcontinent, its consisted of various kingdoms and empire. So India is equivalent of Western Europe and Middle East when we regard it as a geographic expression. The one difference is that one country united the whole India subcontinent and made it a country. No country united the European subcontinent(Europe is indeed a bigger subcontinent of Asia than Indian subcontinent) so Europe is still divided while trying to form a union.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom