And the origin of bharatiya comes from pakistan since thats where hinduism originates from. Btw why not make that ur offical name instead of going with a name india that was shoved down ur throat by your invader. Also change ur hindu oral language that was created by muslim empire.we have another name Bharatiya Ganarajya...we use that on our passports...
Hinduistan = muslim empire name for india
And india = british name for its loyal dogs india
And the origin of bharatiya comes from pakistan since thats where hinduism originates from. Btw why not make that ur offical name instead of going with a name india that was shoved down ur throat by your invader. Also change ur hindu oral language that was created by muslim empire.
India today is nothing without foriginer invasions. If u want to know what india would be just look at australian native community. India was civilized by multiple invasions.
Why not use these names during cricket matches??? Cuz all i hear is bunch of foreigner powers enforced names that u people so proudly use.Our self designation is Sanatana Dharma and Dharmiks, Boomer
And haryana originated from indus civilization.Bharata dynasty is from Haryana...
Why not use these names during cricket matches??? Cuz all i hear is bunch of foreigner powers enforced names that u people so proudly use.
And haryana originated from indus civilization.
aeaAre you denying these kingdom existed? He forgot to include Tipu Sultan.
I think enough real history has been shoved down this sanghi troll's both ends that now he tries to defer answers replies that he would first do research on andhbhakt whatsapp university
So if he was so ignorant why he opened this thread in first place to show how ignorant and dumb sanghis are ???
We already know that
And even tries to out right reject historical references slapping his face and bs narrative he opened this thread upon
I already gave evidence from Greek travellers what used to considered as India 300 BC onwardsRss history lesson by zombie on display!
if it was bakht whatsapp university he would be praised as a hero!
if not for brits there would be no "India as we know today" because there never was India in history as we know today!
land mass was named India it was divided and populated by different clans tribes kingdom it wasnt united there was no united Hindu heaven as we know today...its like saying europe was one country but it never was it was a land mass populated by different kingdoms rulers!I already gave evidence from Greek travellers what used to considered as India 300 BC onwards
Arrian's Indica I am gonna quote
II. But the parts from the Indus eastward, these I shall call India, and its inhabitants Indians. The boundary of the land of India towards the north is Mount Taurus. It is not still called Taurus in this land; but Taurus begins from the sea over against Pamphylia and Lycia and Cilicia; and reaches as far as the Eastern Ocean, running right across Asia. But the mountain has different names in different places; in one, Parapamisus, in another Hemodus; elsewhere it is called Imaon, and perhaps has all sorts of other names; but the Macedonians who fought with Alexander called it Caucasus; another Caucasus, that is, not the Scythian; so that the story ran that Alexander came even to the far side of the Caucasus. The western part of India is bounded by the river Indus right down to the ocean, where the river runs out by two mouths, not joined together as are the five mouths of the Ister; but like those of the Nile, by which the Egyptian delta is formed; thus also the Indian delta is formed by the river Indus, not less than the Egyptian; and this in the Indian tongue is called Pattala. Towards the south this ocean bounds the land of India, and eastward the sea itself is the boundary. The southern part near Pattala and the mouths of the Indus were surveyed by Alexander and Macedonians, and many Greeks; as for the eastern part, Alexander did not traverse this beyond the river Hyphasis. A few historians have described the parts which are this side of the Ganges and where are the mouths of the Ganges and the city of Palimbothra, the greatest Indian city on the Ganges.
III. I hope I may be allowed to regard Eratosthenes of Cyrene as worthy of special credit, since he was a student of Geography. He states that beginning with Mount Taurus, where are the springs of the river Indus, along the Indus to the Ocean, and to the mouths of the Indus, the side of India is thirteen thousand stades in length. The opposite side to this one, that from the same mountain to the Eastern Ocean, he does not reckon as merely equal to the former side, since it has a promontory running well into the sea; the promontory stretching to about three thousand stades. So then he would make this side of India, to the eastward, a total length of sixteen thousand stades. This he gives, then, as the breadth of India. Its length, however, from west to east, up to the city of Palimbothra, he states that he gives as measured by reed-measurements; for there is a royal road; and this extends to ten thousand stades; beyond that, the information is not so certain. Those, however, who have followed common talk say that including the promontory, which runs into the sea, India extends over about ten thousand stades; but farther north its length is about twenty thousand stades. But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world; Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months' journey. Megasthenes would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point. The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name; each of these is greater than the Nile of Egypt and the Scythian Ister, even were these put together; my own idea is that even the Acesines is greater than the Ister and the Nile, where the Acesines having taken in the Hydaspes, Hydraotes, and Hyphasis, runs into the Indus, so that its breadth there becomes thirty stades. Possibly also other greater rivers run through the land of India.
Internet History Sourcebooks
Since at least 300 BC after Megasthenes visit, India meant the whole subcontinent to foireign travellers
land mass was named India it was divided and populated by different clans tribes kingdom it wasnt united there was no united Hindu heaven as we know today...its like saying europe was one country but it never was it was a land mass populated by different kingdoms rulers!
and what are you trying to imply then?never said that it was united throughout its whole history..only parts like Maurya, Gupta, Republic of India...but that India meant the whole diamond shaped subcontinent has been firmly established in the minds of foreigners for AT LEAST 2,300 years
That has been my entire point India meant the whole landmass of the subcintinent since 300 BC and not just the landmass of Indus Valley....
Indus Valley was considered ENTIRETY of India from around 550 BC to 300 BC...when the Persians discovered and conquered Indus Valley and Scylax of Carynda explored the area...after that those accounts made its way to Greece and Herodotus..making the first maps that painted India only recognizing the Indus Valley and it was thought that only Ocean lay beyond it
and what are you trying to imply then?
before Islam Indian land mass (including Pakistan) was easy to conquer
after Islam Pakistan part joined the larger empires and Hindus were easy to conquer...thats history!
now move on!