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

[JSCh]

Need to check your facts:


Ashoka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Ascending the throne, Ashoka expanded his empire over the next eight years, from the present-day boundaries and regions of Burma–Bangladesh and the state of Assam in India in the east to the territory of present-day Iran / Persia and Afghanistan in the west; from the Pamir Knots in the north almost to the peninsula of southern India (i.e. Tamil Nadu / Andhra Pradesh)







Right Thank India for bearing the brunt of Islamic and European invasions. Thank the Gods for the Himalayas which acted as a firm deterrent and barrier to such invasions.

Yes, China is unique that she sit at the far east end of the Eurasia land mass protected AND limited by harsh geographical features.

China is a sedentary agrarian civilization. China is probably far more organized with good governance far earlier and is able to maintain its orderly existence with far fewer disruption than any other civilization in the world. Geography likely part of the factors that contribute to China ability to do that.

It is probably unfair to held others to the same standard. But Chinese are ancestor worshiper and is very appreciative of what their ancestor has achieved. We could not help ourselves in wanting to boast of our heritage in a world where we feel we are constantly misunderstood and put down by the western media.

 

[LURKER]

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.

Where did i prove i my post that India never existed before the british.
Whenever central power was strong and existant, India was united as a political entity. Chinese kingdoms never raised the flag of china but represented their own kingdoms.There was struggle among different kingdoms to control India , that doesn't mean they were different countires. All strong central powers tried to subdue regional powers because they lay claim to India.

Since India was invaded by foriegn powers constantly because of its location and riches which weakened central powers many a times hence giving rise to petty kingdoms , that does not mean India was not a nation.

 

[faithfulguy]

Where did i prove i my post that India never existed before the british.
Whenever central power was strong and existant, India was united as a political entity. Chinese kingdoms never raised the flag of china but represented their own kingdoms.There was struggle among different kingdoms to control India , that doesn't mean they were different countires. All strong central powers tried to subdue regional powers because they lay claim to India.

Since India was invaded by foriegn powers constantly because of its location and riches which weakened central powers many a times hence giving rise to petty kingdoms , that does not mean India was not a nation.

First of all, you need to learn about Chinese history before you mention another word about China as it only make you look foolish. Come to think of it, you also need to learn about Indian history about well as there were only a short period of time when most of India was united by a single empire. And that single empire represent himself and his lordship, not a nation of India. However, the concept of India existed as a geographical expression just like western Europe. So when an ruler such as Gupta's controls the northern India, he regard himself as the ruler of northern India. if India were a nation at the time, the Gupta rulers would regard all of southern Indian kingdom as rebels and insist that they submit to him. But that didn't happen as India was not a nation. If for some reason India is split into many pieces today and one person want to unite India, and if he already united Northern India, he would not just proclaim himself to be the ruler of Northern India. he would insist on rulers from Tamil and Karnataka submit to him.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

First of all, you need to learn about Chinese history before you mention another word about China as it only make you look foolish. Come to think of it, you also need to learn about Indian history about well as there were only a short period of time when most of India was united by a single empire. And that single empire represent himself and his lordship, not a nation of India. However, the concept of India existed as a geographical expression just like western Europe. So when an ruler such as Gupta's controls the northern India, he regard himself as the ruler of northern India. if India were a nation at the time, the Gupta rulers would regard all of southern Indian kingdom as rebels and insist that they submit to him. But that didn't happen as India was not a nation. If for some reason India is split into many pieces today and one person want to unite India, and if he already united Northern India, he would not just proclaim himself to be the ruler of Northern India. he would insist on rulers from Tamil and Karnataka submit to him.

When they could they did....samudragupta,chndragupta maurya,asoka,alauddin khilji to akbar they all tried.Harshvardhana tried but was stopped by pulakeshin 2.India is far more difficult to unify due to geographical barriers like vindhyas and satpura ranges seperating north and south rather than china which is mostly flat plains centrally.This poses huge logistical problems for any conqueror.Also indian concept of conquest is not similar to chinese where all other dynasties must be totally exterminated.Its based on digvijay or ashwamedha yajna..that is formal transferance of soveriegnity and u can govern ur territory in ur own way as long as u formally send tribute to overlord.Most indian rulers followed this for outlying areas save a few.Thus when central authority grew weak often smaller powers cropped up...but that was the way things were done except for a few kings.
The difference in concept of conquest or rule has nothing to do with identity which culture/civilizational thing.

 

[faithfulguy]

When they could they did....samudragupta,chndragupta maurya,asoka,alauddin khilji to akbar they all tried.Harshvardhana tried but was stopped by pulakeshin 2.India is far more difficult to unify due to geographical barriers like vindhyas and satpura ranges seperating north and south rather than china which is mostly flat plains centrally.This poses huge logistical problems for any conqueror.Also indian concept of conquest is not similar to chinese where all other dynasties must be totally exterminated.Its based on digvijay or ashwamedha yajna..that is formal transferance of soveriegnity and u can govern ur territory in ur own way as long as u formally send tribute to overlord.Most indian rulers followed this for outlying areas save a few.Thus when central authority grew weak often smaller powers cropped up...but that was the way things were done except for a few kings.
The difference in concept of conquest or rule has nothing to do with identity which culture/civilizational thing.

Do you have any evidence that any one Indian ruler regard itself as the ruler of all India and others followed him inherit his mantle until the British take over India? I haven't find any evidence online. So if you can show the evidence to me, you would convince me. Otherwise, you have research enough to show that India was geographical area divided into multiple kingdoms that come and go throughout history.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

Do you have any evidence that any one Indian ruler regard itself as the ruler of all India and others followed him inherit his mantle until the British take over India? I haven't find any evidence online. So if you can show the evidence to me, you would convince me. Otherwise, you have research enough to show that India was geographical area divided into multiple kingdoms that come and go throughout history.

Yes, we have evidence but it dated backed soo old when Han was not born and Christian was not cease to exist. See Maha- Bharat. Where two Kings Fight and one win dominated the entire India from Afghanistan to Malaysia.

more dated back goto Ramayana where one King defeated another and become the ruler of all land.

But the problem is the technology currently christian and hans has cannot make them accept the reality that indian discovered gravity long before britisher were born and know earth move around sun.

Still in Han and Christians lean that Gravity discover by Newton, first correct those then came and asking about other things.

Fake ego and misinformation is part of your teaching,

 

[faithfulguy]

Yes, we have evidence but it dated backed soo old when Han was not born and Christian was not cease to exist. See Maha- Bharat. Where two Kings Fight and one win dominated the entire India from Afghanistan to Malaysia.

more dated back goto Ramayana where one King defeated another and become the ruler of all land.

But the problem is the technology currently christian and hans has cannot make them accept the reality that indian discovered gravity long before britisher were born and know earth move around sun.

Still in Han and Christians lean that Gravity discover by Newton, first correct those then came and asking about other things.

Fake ego and misinformation is part of your teaching,

You come up with moronic statement because you cannot respond with evidence. Case closed and you lose. Stop coming up with a fantasy that even Bollywood would reject as too unrealistic.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

You come up with moronic statement because you cannot respond with evidence. Case closed and you lose. Stop coming up with a fantasy that even Bollywood would reject as too unrealistic.

I dont need to live fool paradise where ppl know Newton discover the law of gravity. if you prove that that law of gravity is not known before newton discover its. then i prove your other things

 

[faithfulguy]

I dont need to live fool paradise where ppl know Newton discover the law of gravity. if you prove that that law of gravity is not known before newton discover its. then i prove your other things

First, you prove to me that India was not created by the British. As for Newton's laws, you should go ask a physicist. Didn't you tell me that an Indian discovered Eisteins general theory of relativity.

 

[senkakudefender]

These idiots have derailed the thread out of insecurity. Yet you dumbarses have no sense?

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

First, you prove to me that India was not created by the British. As for Newton's laws, you should go ask a physicist. Didn't you tell me that an Indian discovered Eisteins general theory of relativity.

Then go and ask historians that india is not created by british I am talking law of gravity by newton and not relativity.

Hans and Christian have tough in school that , if question is asked 2+2=? then always answer 1x1=1 .

And sorry i cannot prove you 2+2=4
lol

Back to topic , no need to connivence you, you keep you history / knowledge yourself , last time time you i proved you wrong many times but yet you always came with new excuse.

BTW that , China is a biggest fool that they challenged india, which will become starting for their downfall.

 

[Stealthfighter]

India is a weak country with meek people. We militarily defeated them in 1962 and we invaded them in April this year and they did nothing. India is a defeated country in the eyes of the Chinese people, that's why vast majority of Chinese people look down on Indians. India has to do something great to earn our respect.

 

[Jade]

India is a weak country with meek people. We militarily defeated them in 1962 and we invaded them in April this year and they did nothing. India is a defeated country in the eyes of the Chinese people, that's why vast majority of Chinese people look down on Indians. India has to do something great to earn our respect.

Aren't you the false flagger Bangladeshi who was banned

 

[nair]

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.

I am sorry .....Your post doesnt deserve a reply...... Because i dont reply to dreams and wishes....

 

[LURKER]

First of all, you need to learn about Chinese history before you mention another word about China as it only make you look foolish. Come to think of it, you also need to learn about Indian history about well as there were only a short period of time when most of India was united by a single empire. And that single empire represent himself and his lordship, not a nation of India. However, the concept of India existed as a geographical expression just like western Europe. So when an ruler such as Gupta's controls the northern India, he regard himself as the ruler of northern India. if India were a nation at the time, the Gupta rulers would regard all of southern Indian kingdom as rebels and insist that they submit to him. But that didn't happen as India was not a nation. If for some reason India is split into many pieces today and one person want to unite India, and if he already united Northern India, he would not just proclaim himself to be the ruler of Northern India. he would insist on rulers from Tamil and Karnataka submit to him.

It is quite foolish and hypocrite of you to say that ancient chinese kingdoms like tang and song dynasties represented nation of china and not thier thier empires whereas mauryas, guptas and delhi sultanate represented thier respective kingdoms. It is even more foolish of you to compare western europe with India. If you would have studied Indian history you would have known that thoughGuptas did not directly controlled South India but many southern kingdoms submitted to the Guptas and paid tribute. If i have said and will say it again to penetrate your thick head that all strong central powers tried to unite India, their succes varied.

Ancient Indian texts had long before defined what was India as :

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."

Your constant rhetoric to prove otherwise is not going to change ground reality.