What's new

India: Mother of all Asians

Status
Not open for further replies.
The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi (Ινδοί), the people of the Indus.
The Constitution of India and common usage in various Indian languages also recognise Bharat (pronounced [ˈbʱɑːrʌt̪] ( listen)) as an official name of equal status.
Hindustan ([hɪnd̪ʊˈstɑːn]( listen)), originally a Persian word for “Land of the Hindus” referring to northern India, is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India

so India did exist my friend just because Pakistan came to existance in 1947 u don't have to prove that India did not exist before that :what:



Hi,

Just like they refer to a certain area as middle east---doesnot make it one nation---even though a lots of americans think that it is a nation---and all muslims live in the middle east.



But---if india existed before----then who was the ruler and what were the geographical boundries?
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Just like they refer to a certain area as middle east---doesnot make it one nation---even though a lost of americans think that it is a nation---and all muslims live in the middle east.



But---if india existed before----then who was the ruler and what were the geographical boundries?

India is British invention. The current border of India is defined by the British.
 
@MastanKhan

How many countries that exist today had the same borders and names 500 or even 100 years ago? But still there are some areas that have had historical connotations.

Even in the prophet's sayings 1400 years ago you have the mention of Room, Chin, Hind and Faras which clearly means that there were different land or nations or people from these areas were recognised distincly from arabs.

It doesn't mean that China today had the exact same boundaries 100 years ago but there was a recognition among the civilised world of that time that China existed as an entity. I guess the same applies to India, Hind, Hindustan e.t.c
 
Moreover, according to plate tectonics theory, India and Africa were next to each other as part of the Gondwanaland super-continent.

You are absolutely right Ejaz.

The Indian subcontinent both geologically as well as biologically has thrown up numerous evidences of this break, swivel, crash-bang theory.

Cheers, Doc
 
I believe that either they were known by their ethnic languages and tribal heritage---there was no such thing as india before the british took over the sub-continent.
I am guessing that you have never heard of Indica, by Megasthenes (350 BC - 290 BC)
Let me call the country east of the Indus India, and the people Indians.

- Megasthenes, in Indica
 
I have a question

What was the kingdom of Ashok, kingdom of Chandragupta called?
for the unification of what Chanakya roamed around for so many years to achieve the political stability.


Just goggling for the answers of the above question will satisfy those who believe in the non existence of India prior independence.
 
Why are we even trying to convince Pakistanis about India guys?

Do you not realise that agreeing to the very concept of India that has existed for millenia as a separate land and people negates the very foundation of the theory their nation is built on?

Do you not see that so shaky is their own inner belief in the need for a separate state for Muslims to begin with, that rather than having the gumption to say so in so many words and stand by their beliefs (flawed as they may be), they need to project outwards and rather question India and its place in human history?

So what are we really arguing about .... seriously?

Will the twain ever meet between a land and culture of 5000 years and another of 62.

Yes Mastan ..... if it helps, India is Russia ..... and Pakistan one of its breakaway Balkan states.

Cheers, Doc
 
Last edited:
If it helps the members here, these are the few facts to be taken into consideration:

Inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent always had a market culture. It meant the subcontinent was rife with cities that had same law and order throughout, they were ruled by the market forces, and not by specific rulers. - 4000 BCE to 3000 BCE

The religious scholars began to gain authority, and Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) became a way of life, religious authorities dictated the law and order and mediated between kingdoms (not that there were any problems of law and order, for no great numbers of weapons have ever been unearthed). - 2500 BCE

Change of course of the Indus river led to the expansion of the cities to the Gangetic plains that were full of resources giving rise to a great population - 2000-2500 BCE

Small kingdoms propped up, but expanded to other parts of the Indian subcontinent, for we see no evidence of any conflicts whatsoever, as the development of the religion was the priority (known as the Vedic Period). - 1000 BCE - 2000 BCE

First empire (by proper definition - stretched from today's Bengal in east to today's NWFP in west) came into existence in Magadh (Today's Bihar/Jharkhand) under the Nanda Dynasty (Started by Mahapadma Nanda - an emperor belonging to the lower caste), and reached the pinnacle under Dhana Nanda (It was his Army of 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8,000 war chariots, and 6,000 war elephants, that the soldiers of Alexander refused to war with, and went back after their fight with Porus). That was when it had begun to gain the name of Bharatvarsha - 700 BCE to 300 BCE.

That was followed by the Mauryan Empire, under the guidance of Chanakya (Chanakya was a Brahmin, and Nanda was a lower caste - if you are interested), that stretched from today's Kerala in south, to today's Assam in east to Kashmir in north and Iran and Turkmenistan in west and northwest respectively. - 300 BCE to 100 BCE.

That was followed be a rebellious Sunga dynasty (Sunga was Brahmin, and Ashok and his progenies, carrying the mixed blood of a lower caste and a higher caste, had promoted Buddhism to no end, so Sunga, as the General, beheaded Ashok's grandson in front of the entire army), that shrunk to half of the previous empire, stretching merely from edge of Burma in the east to the edge of Rajasthan in the west. According to some sources, Pushyamitra Sunga is solely responsible for the demise of Buddhism from India. - 150 BCE to 50 BCE.

Then came Gupta empire that covered today's entire India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Nepal, except for the areas of today's Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. - 300 CE to 600 CE.


Then came the Pala empire that stretched over today's entire India (except Karnataka, Rajasthan), Bangladesh, North of Pakistan, and some parts of Tajikistan. 650 CE to 850 CE.

After the demise of Devpala, Indian subcontinent got divided into many substates, called Mahajanapads, and remained so until the advent of the Delhi Sultenat under Mamluk, Sayyid, Lodhi, and Tughlaq. In 1526, Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur came to India and started the Mughal dynasty.

I suppose you all are well aware of the rest.

So much so for the negation of one of the oldest countries in the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom