How Much of Indian History Is Really True?

[django]

And talking of delusion - can you think of any greater delusion then, when a neighbour, nay in some cases from the end of the street is dreaming of what is under your roof? He is making fables out of what is in your home. So intoxicated that he starts imagining that you are just a tenant and he is the freeholder and owner of everything on that land. That is delusion exemplified.

That is what Ganga people are doing ....

Thank you Kaptaan for the kind words and indeed yes they should stop dreaming about the Indus (crucible of civilisation) which has a far richer history than the Ganges and your latter paragraph was a most wonderful analogy of the Hindian narrative or rather delusion in regards to the lands of the Indus.Kudos sir

You do understand that includes Pakistan, it is also composed of different ethnics groups ,still you think working as single nation is difficult

They all have a common faith which dictates to a large extent their cultural and spiritual values besides they are all sons of the Indus as kaptaan stated, whereas you guys are...........................Kudos

 

[ThinkLogically]

@Stephen Cohen You are wasting your time in this thread. We are unbowed hairs more than 10000 years old, we do not have to explain any thing to any one. Its their time to live under Hindus for eternity I am not sure how they are going to bear this as they could not withstand it for just 70 years.

 

[footmarks]

Their version of history is just not understandable for me....I don't know where are they going and bringing terms like ashoka or other stuff....No clue I have and I also suspect their version of history is highly influenced by Hindutuva RSS ideology....

His posts are flying above my heads....

I believe this following is the right one and close to reality.....A comment I saw on different forum....

Pakistan and India came into being in 1947. Before partition, there was no INDIA but SUBCONTINENT. So, Pakistan and India are both in Sub Continent, just a line was drawn in 1947.
Remember there was no such nation called India before the British came but semi autonomous to autonomous regions and kingdoms. The region West of the Indus has always been separate by virtue of ethnicity culture language and faith from East of the Indus. Even with the nations along the Ganges there are a variety of cultures, ethnicities, languages and even within the Vedic faiths there are vast differences but one common theme polytheism hence why the British classified all the different vedic faiths with their thousands of ways as Hinduism.

Now going back to the Muslims, the West of Indus referred as Mughal Empire at one stage had one third of the sub continent which is East of the Indus. Jehanghir the Mughal King right the way to Aurangzaib were among the richest men in the world for their time. The British East India company sought to capitalize on the ailing aging Mughal empire which was pretty much on its knees and Crumbling.

So thus the campaign of divide and conquer began and the British colony in the sub continent was referred to as India. Remember Dutch India was Ceylon and the Pacific and Portugese India was Goa and Spain found its Indies in the Americas. By this I am inferring there was no monolithic entity known as India.

The history of subcontinent shows you it was never monolithic the two most dominant empires which controlled the vast majority were the Mughals and The British the rest is unverified history.

Pakistan is liberated lands belonging to Muslims. Punjab was Muslim way before the dawn of Sikhism....

you are brainwashed beyond repair. I wonder if this is the version of history taught in Pakistan? Why stop here? why not believe that India came into existance after 1947, before that it was pakistan only. Pakistan came into existance right after big bang, and has always been inhabited by supreme beings

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

you are brainwashed beyond repair. I wonder if this is the version of history taught in Pakistan? Why stop here? why not believe that India came into existance after 1947, before that it was pakistan only. Pakistan came into existance right after big bang, and has always been inhabited by supreme beings

Exactly....Pakistan was always there right from the beginning, just line was drawn, and name was given in 1947...It is the destiny. It is the history...

Our version of history is far better and understandable than hindutuva history who claimed to produce space crafts, powered by 40 engines, invented by Indians 7000 years ago....

 

[Hellfire]

Indian history begins when east india company fused different states with no commonality together for their own nefarious colonial interests, thankfully our grandfathers split the artificial entity asunder into 3 pieces

Absolutely incorrect. India, has been mentioned since the times of Alexanderic invasions. You started factually wrong and falsified history on this base and effectively derailed a great topic.

For one, there was no Aryan "invasion" and forced displacement of natives. Aryans were basically anti-Persians (read sura and asura meaning in both ancient cultures). Overtime they settled in northern areas of India, brought their own culture and traditions which was, coincidently, not very different from what natives believed in (at least in terms of basic religious traditions and theology relating to deities and gods). over time, they slowly assimilated with local tribes, adopted many of their gods, and lost many of their too in due course. It was a slow and steady assimilation with local populace.

Reference this please. Then let me know origin of Persians.

indian history is indeed confusing. neutrally speaking. after 100 years how will indian history teacher defends that they won the 1965 war but started to celebrate it after 40+ years. or we were not aligned with any nation but we had defence pacts with soviets and then later US. just like now i had seen indians asking questions that why nehru went to UN on kashmir. alot of such questions.

Off topic. It was a stalemate. Both Pakistan and now India fool themselves. Politically, Pakistan lost (failed to achieve political goal), militarily status quo maintained.

Their version of history is just not understandable for me....I don't know where are they going and bringing terms like ashoka or other stuff....No clue I have and I also suspect their version of history is highly influenced by Hindutuva RSS ideology....

His posts are flying above my heads....

I believe this following is the right one and close to reality.....A comment I saw on different forum....

Pakistan and India came into being in 1947. Before partition, there was no INDIA but SUBCONTINENT. So, Pakistan and India are both in Sub Continent, just a line was drawn in 1947.
Remember there was no such nation called India before the British came but semi autonomous to autonomous regions and kingdoms. The region West of the Indus has always been separate by virtue of ethnicity culture language and faith from East of the Indus. Even with the nations along the Ganges there are a variety of cultures, ethnicities, languages and even within the Vedic faiths there are vast differences but one common theme polytheism hence why the British classified all the different vedic faiths with their thousands of ways as Hinduism.

Now going back to the Muslims, the West of Indus referred as Mughal Empire at one stage had one third of the sub continent which is East of the Indus. Jehanghir the Mughal King right the way to Aurangzaib were among the richest men in the world for their time. The British East India company sought to capitalize on the ailing aging Mughal empire which was pretty much on its knees and Crumbling.

So thus the campaign of divide and conquer began and the British colony in the sub continent was referred to as India. Remember Dutch India was Ceylon and the Pacific and Portugese India was Goa and Spain found its Indies in the Americas. By this I am inferring there was no monolithic entity known as India.

The history of subcontinent shows you it was never monolithic the two most dominant empires which controlled the vast majority were the Mughals and The British the rest is unverified history.

Pakistan is liberated lands belonging to Muslims. Punjab was Muslim way before the dawn of Sikhism....

Who wrote this drivel?


It is indeed hilarious to see either Pakistani or Indian members claim right to ownership to the history or deny thereof.

To claim India did not exist, is a fallacy as the word in its various forms, describing the territories between HinduKush till Bengal inclusive of peninsular India, has been mentioned from the era of the spread of the Macedonian empire, depending on the language and dialect of the author.

While @django has basically trolled the thread all over by making one after the other statements (ably assisted by our Indian members too) questioning the use of India to describe a nation, he has failed to take into account any nation, which has evolved over centuries, which has similar history, and failed to debunk the same also, giving a narrative of any ancient state that has remained as a static entity till date.

The ancient civilizations of China, India, Assyria, Mesopotamia. Egypt, all arose in small geographical areas/pockets and expanded over a period of time, purely to do with the population and the technological advances at the time, to name a few.

Evolution of a nation state is neither a static event nor a consistent one. Britain, originated in 4th Century BC when it was first mentioned in Pytheas of Massalia. Similarly, the origin of India can be traced depending on which literature is consulted.

 

[footmarks]

Exactly....Pakistan was always there right from the beginning, just line was drawn, and name was given in 1947...It is the destiny. It is the history...

Our version of history is far better and understandable than hindutuva history who claimed to produce space crafts, powered by 40 engines, invented by Indians 7000 years ago....

Thats what the reality is. Pakistan was a name given to a land, originally part of India. And the hindutva history you are talking about, is your history as well (call it pakistani history as you may). Your great grandfathers believed in it as much as any other hindu, before their lower generations were converted to a new and aggressively spreading religion.

Reference this please. Then let me know origin of Persians.

For a start
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian_religion

 

[Hellfire]

For a start
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian_religion

Don't give wikipedia. Atleast when I am asking you to reference it, understand that I am not asking a wikipedia reference.

 

[footmarks]

Don't give wikipedia. Atleast when I am asking you to reference it, understand that I am not asking a wikipedia reference.

just to clear, wikipedia is not written as imagined by any con man. you can get references at the bottom of wikipedia page itself.

One correction though, by anti-persians I meant anti-zoroastrians

 

[Peer Haman Shah]

There was not India country exist before the British rule, there were indefendent states,Yes Hidustan was which was ruled by Muslim Empires. Indian historian has written colombus was travel in search of India, he was traveled in surch of Hindustan.

 

[Hellfire]

One correction though, by anti-persians I meant anti-zoroastrians

Now you are coming on track ...

The origin of so called aryans and persians is same. Hence your post was off and hence you were asked.

And wikipedia can be amended right now by me to prove my point hence asked you to put a reference.

It can be a quote of anyone. Like John Keay.

Hope you get my point.

Thanks

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

Who wrote this drivel?


It is indeed hilarious to see either Pakistani or Indian members claim right to ownership to the history or deny thereof.

To claim India did not exist, is a fallacy as the word in its various forms, describing the territories between HinduKush till Bengal inclusive of peninsular India, has been mentioned from the era of the spread of the Macedonian empire, deoending on the language and dialect of the author.

While @django has basically trolled the thread all over by making one after the other statements (ably assisted by our Indian members too) questioning the use of India to describe a nation, he has failed to take into account any nation, which has evolved over centuries, which has similar history, and failed to debunk the same also, giving a narrative of any ancient state that has remained as a static entity till date.

The ancient civilizations of China, India, Assyria, Mesopotamia. Egypt, all arose in small geographical areas/pockets and expanded over a period of time, purely to do with the population and the technological advances at the time, to name a few.

Evolution of a nation state is neither a static event nor a consistent one. Britain, originated in 4th Centurt BC when it was first mentioned in Pytheas of Massalia. Similarly, the origin of India can be traced depending on which literature is consulted.

Ok...I m trying to get it but will you provide me a source? a credible and verified one?

@Kaptaan Sorry to disturb you again and again but just can't resist to get your opinion on this above quoted post. Hope you don't mind...

 

[footmarks]

Now you are coming on track ...

The origin of so called aryans and persians is same. Hence your post was off and hence you were asked.

And wikipedia can be amended right now by me to prove my point hence asked you to put a reference.

It can be a quote of anyone. Like John Keay.

Hope you get my point.

Thanks

There is a lot of research on the topic, will post references when i have time to. But the point remains, india was more or less the whole of subcontinent way back in history as well. the notion that it was demarcated by britishers is a fallacy.

 

[ekhindustani]

pakistanis have nothing to do with Indian history right except for the period when they ruled over the inferior Hindus. All the muslims in Pakistan are or Arab origin some even claim they're more closer to the Turks than Indians. The black Indians are just another race of people totally unrelated to the superior fair skinned pakistani.

 

[Hellfire]

Ok...I m trying to get it but will you provide me a source? a credible and verified one?

@Kaptaan Sorry to disturb you again and again but just can't resist to get your opinion on this above quoted post. Hope you don't mind...

Read.....

What I have typed is an amalgamation of lot of literature. Verify facts by individually reading about events.

One can claim that India as a single political entity never existed, and one can be right to a certain extent. But the history is similar as that of China, with varying degree of eminence of a kingdom at varied periods of history.

Start with a simple reading of John Keay - India. A History

Collate with Romilla Thapar.

And amend them for latest discoveries. You need to refer for references to India in Greek write ups.

Then read any book on nation states...or article

 

[Indika]

Read.....

What I have typed is an amalgamation of lot of literature. Verify facts by individually reading about events.

One can claim that India as a single political entity never existed, and one can be right to a certain extent. But the history is similar as that of China, with varying degree of eminence of a kingdom at varied periods of history.

Start with a simple reading of John Keay - India. A History

Collate with Romilla Thapar.

And amend them for latest discoveries. You need to refer for references to India in Greek write ups.

Then read any book on nation states...or article

You are absolutely wasting ur time with these trolls. first the discussion you are having with them has nothing to do with the main topic. Second the moment India is mentioned any where some ppl start thinking with their butts. We all know the reason why they are filled with such paranoia. Just avoid responding to them, they can burn within.