China’s border row with India has misfired, says regional security expert

[faithfulguy]

Again you came up with your $hit....CHINI Guys got killed like a RAT at Tienanmen square...And Still you did not got the maturity...First Implement your Idea at CHINA, then we will see later.

China is not a democracy. It would never work. In China, strong central rule have always been the norm. Not so in India.

 

[faithfulguy]

As usual lying through ur teeth,no bunkers were destroyed,no compromise made.A tine shed removed.Right from mouth of northern command head general.Confirmed by your own govt.Ur rhetoric only exists in ur brain.



Plz all indian dynasties first around pataliputra then delhi attempted to unify by power,they were not always succesful.First emeperor of india is mahapadma nanda actually.But more generally chandragupta maurya.
Just because italy was divided into naples,venice,papal states,milan for over thousand years and whole of middle ages doesn't mean italian identity was gone .Ur desperation is apparent.

The Italian identity was a modern concept. As Italy was compose of city states. My favorite one is Regusa. And that city state is not in Croatia, isn't it. And as city states, they develop and go through the renaissance and enter the modern age. Italy has many achievements, has many great companies such as FIAT and AugustaWestland and produced many great leaders and scientist. Even their waitress get to be the most powerful person in India.

So its not until the modern times that people of Italy decide to unify their country under a common LANGUAGE. The case is also true with Germany even though there are many dialects. So what is the common language of India? English. Its the English language that unite India. And its the British parliamentary system that rule India.

Finally, show me the link that anyone that rule Delhi always regard itself as the ruler of India. Did you just grab that out of your behind?

 

[faithfulguy]

Which dynasty besides the Qing dynasty ruled over entire China?

All these nawabs and rajas rose to power when central power was weak as i have commented before. To guess what would have been the political structure of India had there been no British is like shooting in the dark.

Even during british rule entire India fought against them under the banner of India ,not for their kingdoms or provinces whether they were from Madras or Punjab. Even Burma was part of the part of British India but they didn't struggle against the british with the rest of the Indians nor did the Indians bother about them.

If victoria was the first empress of India then who was Razia Sultan ?

As for the central rule claim . Every king that ruled over Delhi claimed to be the ruler of India and tried to unify the entire country under a single rule as with the case of chinese kingdoms.They didn't rule over entire present day china through your entire course of history.

In China, in most cases, one dynasty believe that its the ruler of the whole China. Now, its border might expand and contract. But there is always one emperor and all others are regarded as rebels.

As for all the ruler in Dehli claim to be the ruler of India, can you give an example? The only one is the Mughals. All the previous rulers never make that claim. And Dehli was not a prominent center of power until the Dehli Sultanate, isn't it?

As for the rebellion against the British, I won't be able to comment as Indians have already learned about nationalism from the British. Some Indians even learn imperialism from the British and now try to rule over others.

As for the nawabs, Nizams and Rajas, I won't know what would have happened. The Sultan of Mysore was an independent power himself, isn't it?

 

[Daedalus]

Its not a dream, but what is best for India. Today's union government is too corrupt to rule the whole India. Its time for the parts to govern themselves. Once the people and the government achieve a level of maturity in the state level, than they can form one government. this is how US proceed from colonies, states and then the federal government.

Let me show you how flawed your logic is. First of all understand the names of the countries you are talking about. You gave an example of US, it was possible for them because they are UNITED STATES of America, not a union of States which is India.
Constitutional it is not possible to divide a union. Read the very first line of Indian constitution.
"India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States."

And for your theory that China is less corrupt than India, I tell you its just because of free media that you are able to hear about all the corruption allegation being made here. This is not possible in China. Show me a single corruption article written in Chinese daily about any high ranking government official.

 

[Joe Shearer]

India was a name given to the British colony in the subcontinent, it was artificially created by the British. British have left but their colonial legacy in the subcontinent still lingers on known as India. Many nations fell victim to India, Kashmir is just one fatelity of it.

I hope there comes a peaceful day when this curse on subcontinent known as India remains no more, and the states of subcontinent become free again.

Read an elementary textbook (not one written in Urdu published on a cyclostyle machine) and you will discover some interesting facts.

You will find, first, that the British did not coin the name India; it was current from the time of the Achaemenian Empire among Europeans, with marginally differing spellings.

Second, you will find that your country was a creation of your own, endorsed by the colonial authority, and carved out of India as the Indian Independence Act clearly spells out. To learn this, a working knowledge of English is needed.

Third, no countries fell victim to India. You mentioned Kashmir; the sovereign ruler joined India, when he was attacked (not by India). Certain portions remain under illegal occupation, in violation of the UN resolutions, The rest is free.

Peaceful days will come when Pakistani stops klling Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Afghan, Sri Lankan...you get the picture.

It is impertinent to take up other issues and other's doings when your own country is the source of the most barbaric activity in the sub-continent. Coming as it does on the heels of yet another atrocity committed on foreigners on Pakistani soil.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Ashoka didn't unify anything, all he did was wage bloody wars on innocent people and their governing bodies. That so called empire of his was short lived and soon disappeared after he passed away. Our region of Pakistan was one his victims.

Nobody unified voluntarily through early and mediaeval history, anywhere in the world. You might like to look at the history of the expansion of Islam, for instance; it was marked by bloodletting, battles, warfare, punitive executions on the battlefield, ethnic cleansing - the lot. Not so Asoka; his battle against the Kalingas was his last.

As you are one more of these magazine school of history experts, you have no idea about the continuity of administrative and social systems between Maurya India and its successor states.

 

[SRP]

A kid from pakistan and a Chinese who left his country and self claimed specialist on India will teach us who we are.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

The Italian identity was a modern concept. As Italy was compose of city states. My favorite one is Regusa. And that city state is not in Croatia, isn't it. And as city states, they develop and go through the renaissance and enter the modern age. Italy has many achievements, has many great companies such as FIAT and AugustaWestland and produced many great leaders and scientist. Even their waitress get to be the most powerful person in India.

So its not until the modern times that people of Italy decide to unify their country under a common LANGUAGE. The case is also true with Germany even though there are many dialects. So what is the common language of India? English. Its the English language that unite India. And its the British parliamentary system that rule India.

Finally, show me the link that anyone that rule Delhi always regard itself as the ruler of India. Did you just grab that out of your behind?

Delhi was the imperial capital from late medieval ,rulers of delhi traditionally expanded their empires to include whole subcontinent if they ahd power.Before that it was kanauj,in ancient times it was pataliputra of magadha.

By the way common language of india in ancient times was pali/prakrit for masses and sanskrit for upper classes.Regional languages developed later during early medieval era.You will see all dynasties using these 3 languages.

Nowadays its slowly hindi,now much of the subcontinent speaks hindi.
A fusion of persian [which was state administration language during medieval era] and local languages.

Italy was disunited for far longer than india,right from 476 AD fall of western roman empire to 1859,their identity didn't die...throughout middle ages an italian was an italian to any european.Ur simplistic explanations always overlook the unique effect of the synthetic indic culture or civilization that supersedes political unity.Most vedic holy shrines are spread all over india from himalyas to kanyakumari,from mahabharata time it is considered a singular cultural unit despite diversity.Ashwamedha yajna,bharatvarsha,uttarapatha,dakshinapatha,aryabarta are terms far older than british LOL.Despite several british attempt to suppress it.

 

[Dushmann]

I didn't read whole thread, but for ongoing discussion:
India usually did not need a single central ruler or boundaries on paper map to artificially define itself, except when invaded by foreigners (and there was very clear idea who is the foreigners). That is because nature itself has clearly defined India- the region between himalayas and Afghanistan upto Indian ocean.

Also since ancient times, even in mythology, there is a concept called 'Chakravartin' emperor which is the highest political position any ruler in India could achieve.

But anyway just like today, while political leaders keep fighting and elections go on, and governments keep changing; but people are not much bothered and go on doing their work; in ancient India the wars were between ruling classes for power, but rest of the people went on with their daily lives and travelled relatively freely from one corner of India to other corner. The 'unity in diversity' of India is not a modern invention, it is the way India has always been.

Chakravartin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Bharata, from whom modern India gets its name 'Bharat' was a mythological Chakravartin emperor and founder of Hastinapur empire of Mahabharata. According to Jainism, Bharata was name of son of Rishabhdev-who is first tirthankar (Mahavira is last)- and some Jains claim it goes back to time of Indus valley civilization.
*Mauryan emperors Chandragupta and Ashok- whose many symbols modern India adopted as state symbols- were Chakravartin emperors.

 

[faithfulguy]

Let me show you how flawed your logic is. First of all understand the names of the countries you are talking about. You gave an example of US, it was possible for them because they are UNITED STATES of America, not a union of States which is India.
Constitutional it is not possible to divide a union. Read the very first line of Indian constitution.
"India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States."

And for your theory that China is less corrupt than India, I tell you its just because of free media that you are able to hear about all the corruption allegation being made here. This is not possible in China. Show me a single corruption article written in Chinese daily about any high ranking government official.

Let me turn the question around to you. Is India a federal republic?

I never claimed that China is less corrupt. I'm just discussing India here. But as far as I know, both China and India are very corrupt. And corruption news do exist in China and people there are fed up as well. But as you are correct point out government there suppress corruption stories. Media in India don't bother to report corruption except for the most outrageous cases.

 

[faithfulguy]

Delhi was the imperial capital from late medieval ,rulers of delhi traditionally expanded their empires to include whole subcontinent if they ahd power.Before that it was kanauj,in ancient times it was pataliputra of magadha.

By the way common language of india in ancient times was pali/prakrit for masses and sanskrit for upper classes.Regional languages developed later during early medieval era.You will see all dynasties using these 3 languages.

Nowadays its slowly hindi,now much of the subcontinent speaks hindi.
A fusion of persian [which was state administration language during medieval era] and local languages.

Italy was disunited for far longer than india,right from 476 AD fall of western roman empire to 1859,their identity didn't die...throughout middle ages an italian was an italian to any european.Ur simplistic explanations always overlook the unique effect of the synthetic indic culture or civilization that supersedes political unity.Most vedic holy shrines are spread all over india from himalyas to kanyakumari,from mahabharata time it is considered a singular cultural unit despite diversity.Ashwamedha yajna,bharatvarsha,uttarapatha,dakshinapatha,aryabarta are terms far older than british LOL.Despite several british attempt to suppress it.

Italy never existed until 1859. And Roman empire is not exactly the Italian empire. Today's Italian never claimed that their country once rule over the whole Mediterranean nor western Europe. The people of Italy has changed so dramatically during the age of migration that the whole population make up has changed. Also, there was no central government for so long that the people of each city state develop their own independent identity. Couple that with the various rulers, foreign or "domestic" that rule Italy that an Italian national identity did not exist until around the time of French revolution. So the point here is that today's Italians do not claim Roman empire as their national empire, even though the capital of Roman empire is the same capital of today's Italy. Of course some ultra nationalist would do that to make themselves feel better, such as Mussolini. But they have their own political agenda.

Another way to look at this question is why do they call themselves Roman empire instead of Italian empire and you will get the answer of why Italy was not created until 1859.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Italy never existed until 1859. And Roman empire is not exactly the Italian empire. Today's Italian never claimed that their country once rule over the whole Mediterranean nor western Europe. The people of Italy has changed so dramatically during the age of migration that the whole population make up has changed. Also, there was no central government for so long that the people of each city state develop their own independent identity. Couple that with the various rulers, foreign or "domestic" that rule Italy that an Italian national identity did not exist until around the time of French revolution. So the point here is that today's Italians do not claim Roman empire as their national empire, even though the capital of Roman empire is the same capital of today's Italy. Of course some ultra nationalist would do that to make themselves feel better, such as Mussolini. But they have their own political agenda.

Another way to look at this question is why do they call themselves Roman empire instead of Italian empire and you will get the answer of why Italy was not created until 1859.

For one who is determined to be stupid, it is impossible to acquire an education through the efforts of others.

Italians do not claim to be the Roman Empire, because the Roman Empire was not a single, undivided mass. If you open a textbook of Roman history (you might have noticed that I use this phrase a lot when responding to your mails; ever wonder why?), you will find that the Roman Empire was one thing, Italia was another. It was only Italy that Italians claimed, not Rome, not the Roman Empire, but Italy.

In the days of city-states, that preceded mediaeval personal realms, that in turn preceded Westphalian nation-states, it was never a country, never a region that became an empire. It was a personal realm, as in the case of the Achaemenids, arguably the first empire in the world, or in the case of the Macedonian Alexander III, or it was a city, as in the case of Carthage, or in the case of Rome. So there was no question of a nation-state of Westphalian type equating itself to an empire such as the Roman.

The modern Italy is almost exactly the area occupied by the area known as Italia under the Roman Empire. Modern Italians are almost exactly the same as ancient residents of Italia, except for the Lombard (Langobard) element north of the Po, and the very mixed elements, including Greek, Arab and Norman, on top of a solid Italian sub-stratum, in Sicily.

I wish you would stop labouring this point until you had educated yourself further. It makes dismal reading.

 

[LURKER]

In China, in most cases, one dynasty believe that its the ruler of the whole China. Now, its border might expand and contract. But there is always one emperor and all others are regarded as rebels.

As for all the ruler in Dehli claim to be the ruler of India, can you give an example? The only one is the Mughals. All the previous rulers never make that claim. And Dehli was not a prominent center of power until the Dehli Sultanate, isn't it?

As for the rebellion against the British, I won't be able to comment as Indians have already learned about nationalism from the British. Some Indians even learn imperialism from the British and now try to rule over others.

As for the nawabs, Nizams and Rajas, I won't know what would have happened. The Sultan of Mysore was an independent power himself, isn't it?

As i had said earlier even in the case of India the dynasty which controlled Delhi (from early medieval age) lay claim to India and would strive to control maximum regions of India. Many petty kingdoms paid tribute to the central power. What claim are you talking about? would they shout on top of the roof that they are rulers of India? even mughals never did that. It was acknowledged that ruler of delhi would be seen as king of India. Mauryas controlled larger parts of present India and beyond, so did guptas, so did the delhi sultanate and so did the mughals.

I never denied that modern nationalism in India was due to the british. And how did India learn imperialism from the british? If that was the case India would have laid claim to pakistan, bangladesh, parts of afghanistan etc because at some point of time in history these were parts of India and ruled by Indian kings, just like how china does imperialism by showing random ancient chinese maps to lay claim to territories that were historically never part of it politically or culturally. (just because it may have been conquered by its imperialst dynasties very briefly).

As i had said and i will repeat these sultans , nawabs, etc sprang up once the central power got weak. And due to the fragemented political structure it became easier for foreign powers to subdue India.

 

[faithfulguy]

For one who is determined to be stupid, it is impossible to acquire an education through the efforts of others.

Italians do not claim to be the Roman Empire, because the Roman Empire was not a single, undivided mass. If you open a textbook of Roman history (you might have noticed that I use this phrase a lot when responding to your mails; ever wonder why?), you will find that the Roman Empire was one thing, Italia was another. It was only Italy that Italians claimed, not Rome, not the Roman Empire, but Italy.

In the days of city-states, that preceded mediaeval personal realms, that in turn preceded Westphalian nation-states, it was never a country, never a region that became an empire. It was a personal realm, as in the case of the Achaemenids, arguably the first empire in the world, or in the case of the Macedonian Alexander III, or it was a city, as in the case of Carthage, or in the case of Rome. So there was no question of a nation-state of Westphalian type equating itself to an empire such as the Roman.

The modern Italy is almost exactly the area occupied by the area known as Italia under the Roman Empire. Modern Italians are almost exactly the same as ancient residents of Italia, except for the Lombard (Langobard) element north of the Po, and the very mixed elements, including Greek, Arab and Norman, on top of a solid Italian sub-stratum, in Sicily.

I wish you would stop labouring this point until you had educated yourself further. It makes dismal reading.

And I would said that the first line apply to you, as you are trying to ignore the fact that the country of India never exists before the British. There were Indian cultures, just as there were western European cultures. But never has India being a country until British unified India.

As for your posts about Roman empire, I was agreeing with your response for me. But I'm sure in your indignation about my intention of share the fact of history of India caused you to skim through my posting and then respond basically with my thesis.

As for European history, there were many fiefs in medival European countries and early renaissance. Though they are not exactly the same as modern nation states, they form the basis of the modern nation state. The same thing was developing in Indian subcontinent at the same time. If its not for the British, there is most likely a Mysore nation, a Sikh nation.. etc.

No one invaded western Europe to bring all the nations together, but someone did invaded India to unify the nations of Indian subcontinent. With similar culture and heritage, western Europeans are struggling to form a union. India had outside help that provide it with a language, border and political system to unify it. So the British rule could be a blessing in disguise for the proponents of one single Indian nation since the beginning of time, such as you.

 

[faithfulguy]

As i had said earlier even in the case of India the dynasty which controlled Delhi (from early medieval age) lay claim to India and would strive to control maximum regions of India. Many petty kingdoms paid tribute to the central power. What claim are you talking about? would they shout on top of the roof that they are rulers of India? even mughals never did that. It was acknowledged that ruler of delhi would be seen as king of India. Mauryas controlled larger parts of present India and beyond, so did guptas, so did the delhi sultanate and so did the mughals.

I never denied that modern nationalism in India was due to the british. And how did India learn imperialism from the british? If that was the case India would have laid claim to pakistan, bangladesh, parts of afghanistan etc because at some point of time in history these were parts of India and ruled by Indian kings, just like how china does imperialism by showing random ancient chinese maps to lay claim to territories that were historically never part of it politically or culturally. (just because it may have been conquered by its imperialst dynasties very briefly).

As i had said and i will repeat these sultans , nawabs, etc sprang up once the central power got weak. And due to the fragemented political structure it became easier for foreign powers to subdue India.

You proved in your post that India never existed before British unification of India. For a nation to exist, a central power must assert others as subordinate to the central power. For example, the Japanese emperors and the shogun insist loyalty from other daimyo as Japan was a nation. As India was never a nation, any "power" that rule Delhi is just one among many countries of Northern India. The ruler of Delhi don't require submission from other rules inside India. So hence, its my point that the first requirement of a nation is the one strong central government.