Ancient India in the time of the Mahabharata

[Halaku Khan]

This image shows the locations of Kingdoms mentioned in the Indian epics. Focus is on Mahabharata. The names mentioned in Ramayana also is included. The locations of the kingdoms are based on the current knowledge about their locations.

At times India was politically united by Empires such as the Mauryas, and at other times there were many separate kingdoms. But there has always been a civilizational unity. Adi Shankara of Kerala and Panini of Gandhara belonged to the same civilization.

This civilization must be considered distinct from the culture of the Islamic invaders, which is the legacy claimed by many present-day Pakistanis. It is probably true that Pakistanis of today are mostly of Indic stock converted to Islam by the sword or otherwise. For example, people with surnames like Cheema, Janjua, Rathod, Thakur, Bhat and Warraich can be Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. But historical legacy is transmitted not through genes but through culture, philosophy, knowledge and outlook.

Those Pakistanis who believe that the "matlab" of Pakistan is "La Ilaha Illalah" obviously cannot claim credit for Panini or Brahmaguta. That would be as ludicrous as Nazis trying to claim credit for Einstein's theory of relativity. Panini and Brahmaguta are as Pakistani as LK Advani (from Karachi) or Manmohan Singh (from Chakwal). But IMHO Pakistanis have the option of reclaiming that legacy by going back to their "Jaheel" and "Kaffir" pre-Islamic civilizational roots.

 

[Zaheerkhan]

Great find,, only Karnataka and Kerala have retained their names intact over all these ages. I think Andhrika now has become Andhra Pradesh,Kasmira is now Kashmir, Gomanta is now Goa, Tushara is Turkmenistan, the names of rivers has been unchanged all these ages..

 

[roadrunner]

Yup, that seems like a hugely united country

What a stupid thing to post. Can we say, getting desperate now?

Even in the Mahabharat (which I personally do not believe in, and wash my grubby vidharmic paws of), it mentions a lot of separate kingdoms, but no unified country.

Much like the Qu'ran mentions Khorasa'aan, but that doesn't mean Khorasa'aan was a part of Arabia, or belonged to it in any way.

 

[Halaku Khan]

You missed the point. Political boundaries of kingdoms change, empires rise and fall. But there is a civilizational bond between Adi Shankara of Kerala and Panini of Gandhara.

That bond obviously is not shared by people who say "Pakistan ka matlab kya - la Ilaha Illalah". The people shouting that slogan might have names like Cheema, Bhat, Janjua and so on. But they have cut themselves off civilizationally from Hindus and Sikhs with the same surnames.

It is only because of religion that West Punjab and East Bengal were joined in one political entity, which partly broke up in 1971. It is only because of religion that the Muhajirs from UP and and Jinnah from Gujarat supported the creation of that entity. The basis on which Pakistan was founded has nothing to do with the Jaheel, Kaffir pre-Islamic civilization.

Yup, that seems like a hugely united country

What a stupid thing to post. Can we say, getting desperate now?

Even in the Mahabharat (which I personally do not believe in, and wash my grubby Indus Valley evolved paws of), it mentions a lot of separate kingdoms, but no unified country.

Much like the Qu'ran mentions Khorasa'aan, but that doesn't mean Khorasa'aan was a part of Arabia, or belonged to it in any way.

 

[UnitedPak]

Firstly, that's an incredibly daft map.

Someone took a modern satellite image of the region and went ahead to add Saraswati river and any other improvements they needed to explain the next ridiculous idea of a united India.

Secondly, the Kingdoms on the map (the ones which are not imaginary) were not united. I hope this is not certain peoples mental image of India when me and RR go to great lengths to find real sources and references.

 

[tabby]

We can have a serious debate on this one..Troy was an epic till Schliemann found tat out..Lets be open to ideas n not close our minds but most importantly we r going to need serious history boys to be discussing it..
First to discuss if Mahabharat is history before even coming to this map..If it has been discusses in any other thread then i apologise n please point it out..Thanks

 

[Flintlock]

Firstly, that's an incredibly daft map.

Someone took a modern satellite image of the region and went ahead to add Saraswati river and any other improvements they needed to explain the next ridiculous idea of a united India.

Secondly, the Kingdoms on the map (the ones which are not imaginary) were not united. I hope this is not certain peoples mental image of India when me and RR go to great lengths to find real sources and references.

I'm not sure how they got such a detailed map of the Saraswati river, and some of the place names are definitely suspect.

However, as far as the boundaries of "historical India" are concerned, the map is accurate. When historians talk about the history of India, they usually refer to the landmass depicted here.

Basically, the author of the map has collected place-names from the Mahabharata and Ramayana, and located them on a map of Ancient India.

 

[roadrunner]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

"India", "Ancient India", if you like was only known to the outside world as the region of modern day Pakistan, right up till 300 BC. For 1000 years of the Ancient history, during the height of Vedic times, modern day India had nothing to do with "India".

Following 300 BC, it was only the outside world that grouped bits of modern day India, Bharat, under the term "Indian". In fact during this time, there was no India, just a lot of separate kingdoms. This continued right up till 1947.

So you see the only times in the WHOLE of history when India existed was 3,000 years ago as the "Saptha Sindhu" (the real India), and then in 1947 as today's India or Bharat.

You can see that Bharat, for whatever reason, has stolen the name "India" from a previous country.

This would be like the Congo changing its name to The United States of America in 3,000 years time, then claiming it was themselves who sent the first man to the moon!!

 

[Vinod2070]

Yup, that seems like a hugely united country

What a stupid thing to post. Can we say, getting desperate now?

Even in the Mahabharat (which I personally do not believe in, and wash my grubby vidharmic paws of), it mentions a lot of separate kingdoms, but no unified country.

Much like the Qu'ran mentions Khorasa'aan, but that doesn't mean Khorasa'aan was a part of Arabia, or belonged to it in any way.

You don't have to believe anything same as we don't believe in any of your nonsense.

Failed to give credit for the usage of "vidharmi".

 

[Vinod2070]

This image shows the locations of Kingdoms mentioned in the Indian epics. Focus is on Mahabharata. The names mentioned in Ramayana also is included. The locations of the kingdoms are based on the current knowledge about their locations.

At times India was politically united by Empires such as the Mauryas, and at other times there were many separate kingdoms. But there has always been a civilizational unity. Adi Shankara of Kerala and Panini of Gandhara belonged to the same civilization.

This civilization must be considered distinct from the culture of the Islamic invaders, which is the legacy claimed by many present-day Pakistanis. It is probably true that Pakistanis of today are mostly of Indic stock converted to Islam by the sword or otherwise. For example, people with surnames like Cheema, Janjua, Rathod, Thakur, Bhat and Warraich can be Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. But historical legacy is transmitted not through genes but through culture, philosophy, knowledge and outlook.

Those Pakistanis who believe that the "matlab" of Pakistan is "La Ilaha Illalah" obviously cannot claim credit for Panini or Brahmaguta. That would be as ludicrous as Nazis trying to claim credit for Einstein's theory of relativity. Panini and Brahmaguta are as Pakistani as LK Advani (from Karachi) or Manmohan Singh (from Chakwal). But IMHO Pakistanis have the option of reclaiming that legacy by going back to their "Jaheel" and "Kaffir" pre-Islamic civilizational roots.

Man you are echoing my thoughts in my words! It is all 100% true.

Some people here are plain confused about their true identity. There is little than can be done to help them.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Firstly, that's an incredibly daft map.

Someone took a modern satellite image of the region and went ahead to add Saraswati river and any other improvements they needed to explain the next ridiculous idea of a united India.

Secondly, the Kingdoms on the map (the ones which are not imaginary) were not united. I hope this is not certain peoples mental image of India when me and RR go to great lengths to find real sources and references.

I fail to see the cause of your agitation. These are geographical names from the ancient epics. Nobody is claiming all these were in one united kingdom at the time of the Mahabharata. Boundaries change, empires rise and fall. Many of them are easily recognizable to a layman even today - Dwaraka, Saurashtra, Magadha, Gandhara, Vidarbha, Ganga, Yamuna, Narmada etc.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Its true that "India" and "Hindu" are foreign corruptions of the name Sindhu. Frankly I prefer "Bharat" and "Sanatana Dharma" instead of India and Hinduism. Sanskrit names have a wonderful deeper meaning. "Bharat" means "he who is devoted to the search for knowledge". "Sanatana Dharma" means "eternal righteousness".

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

"India", "Ancient India", if you like was only known to the outside world as the region of modern day Pakistan, right up till 300 BC. For 1000 years of the Ancient history, during the height of Vedic times, modern day India had nothing to do with "India".

Following 300 BC, it was only the outside world that grouped bits of modern day India, Bharat, under the term "Indian". In fact during this time, there was no India, just a lot of separate kingdoms. This continued right up till 1947.

So you see the only times in the WHOLE of history when India existed was 3,000 years ago as the "Saptha Sindhu" (the real India), and then in 1947 as today's India or Bharat.

You can see that Bharat, for whatever reason, has stolen the name "India" from a previous country.

This would be like the Congo changing its name to The United States of America in 3,000 years time, then claiming it was themselves who sent the first man to the moon!!

 

[Vinod2070]

Let's not get sidetracked by a useless debate on name. India and Bharat are synonymous. India is the name by which the Western world knew Bharat.

Our constitution contains both names for the country.

"India that is Bharat.....".

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Those Pakistanis who believe that the "matlab" of Pakistan is "La Ilaha Illalah" obviously cannot claim credit for Panini or Brahmaguta. That would be as ludicrous as Nazis trying to claim credit for Einstein's theory of relativity. Panini and Brahmaguta are as Pakistani as LK Advani (from Karachi) or Manmohan Singh (from Chakwal). But IMHO Pakistanis have the option of reclaiming that legacy by going back to their "Jaheel" and "Kaffir" pre-Islamic civilizational roots.

The argument has been raised in another thread, and IMO thoroughly refuted. Even if you do not agree with my latter assessment, discourse on that particular argument is already taking place on a separate thread.

Read through the arguments already made, instead of raising this canard on multiple threads.

That said, what exactly is the point of this thread, other than a hypothetical map that may or may not be representative of reality?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Title edited to better reflect the distinction between Ancient India as a region and India as the nation state created in 1947.