GodlessBastard
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2010
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 0
My whole point was there was no united country known as "india" untill 1947. You were twisting about my words, trying to confuse people.
The Indian people, Indian culture, and Indian civilization has existed for thousands of years. Sometimes we had political unity, sometimes we didn't. But we were always considered one comprehensive civilization. That is the basic fact, supported by piles and piles of historical evidence.
indika, indica,india, indoi, ect, were all names used by inavders to describe the geographic location of south Asia. Just as how "middle east" is used to describe the geographic location of western Asia. And all these names are deprived from Indus River in Pakistan (not south india, where you come from).
Yes, these names came from the Indus River, which was historically a part of India. But these names don't refer to just the Indus Valley, they refer to the entire subcontinent.
Numerous foreigners have written books on Indian people, culture, and geography. In all of these books, the individual nations of India were mentioned (like Magahda, Kambojas, Andhras, etc.), but they were always considered part of the larger civilization, called 'India'.
South Asia has historically been home to just one civilization, while the Middle East has been home to many civilizations (like Egyptians, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Jews, etc.)
This is why the Middle East has always been described by foreigners seperately, while India has been described as a whole.