Indian version of the 1962 Sino-India war

[phylumchordata]

There exists no country by the name of India until British created it in 1947. Prior to the British Raj, it was Mughal Empire and a few other kingdoms.
Indeed, the intellect world community romance with India. India history was written by German and British indologists.

Names of India:
Aryavarta: Rigveda: 1500 BC
Hindush: Persians: 486 BC
India: Greeks : 440 BC
Bharatam : Vishnupuran :320 CE
Wǔ Yìn and Tianzhu : China
Tenjiku :Japan
Greater India or Middle India : Marco Polo
India the greater : Friar Jordanus in his quote :1328 :"What shall I say? The great- ness of this India is beyond description. But let this much suffice concerning India the Greater and the Less. Of India Tertia I will say this, that I have not indeed seen its many marvels, not having been there. . . ."
India Minor : Clajivo :1440

That said India has been a nation several times in its history:

 

[Amolthebest]

Our lost in 1962 had seeds of liberalization on east Pakistan. We woke up from sleep in 1962 and we create a new nation on earth

 

[Fattyacids]

Names of India:
Aryavarta: Rigveda: 1500 BC
Hindush: Persians: 486 BC
India: Greeks : 440 BC
Bharatam : Vishnupuran :320 CE
Wǔ Yìn and Tianzhu : China
Tenjiku :Japan
Greater India or Middle India : Marco Polo
India the greater : Friar Jordanus in his quote :1328 :"What shall I say? The great- ness of this India is beyond description. But let this much suffice concerning India the Greater and the Less. Of India Tertia I will say this, that I have not indeed seen its many marvels, not having been there. . . ."
India Minor : Clajivo :1440

That said India has been a nation several times in its history:

How long did Maurya survive? Are you saying 130 years is representative of your entire history? If so, Mughals empire alone lasted 300 over years. And what happened after Maurya perished? There was no succession, no political lineage.

Those are historical names of South Asia subcontinent, not exclusively India. British only created India in 1947.

There was no official historical record of your history because India does not have any historians back then. Most of your history was written relatively recent, during 19th century, by Germans and British.

 

[phylumchordata]

How long did Maurya survive? Are you saying 130 years is representative of your entire history? If so, Mughals empire alone lasted 300 over years. And what happened after Maurya perished? There was no succession, no political lineage.

Those are historical names of South Asia subcontinent, not exclusively India. British only created India in 1947.

There was no official historical record of your history because India does not have any historians back then. Most of your history was written relatively recent, during 19th century, by Germans and British.

that's why we claim whole of it ... btw Mauryans were the first to unite the land followed by Guptas , Chauhans, Marathas , Sultans, Kushans etc. etc., there was also a time before Mauryans in 600BC when India was a union of states India called Mahajanpadas. The major unifying factor has been Hinduism and whenever there has been an attack on India , Hindu states unlike Muslim states of India have acted in unison. The major reason why the concept of India as one entity is so much possible is the fear of foreign domination and invasion. The several ethnically and linguistically distinct states live in unity to project the cause of the land worldwide. A Chinese cannot understand it has he lives in one of the world's homogenous nations , this is something beyond your understanding.

 

[faithfulguy]

How long did Maurya survive? Are you saying 130 years is representative of your entire history? If so, Mughals empire alone lasted 300 over years. And what happened after Maurya perished? There was no succession, no political lineage.

Those are historical names of South Asia subcontinent, not exclusively India. British only created India in 1947.

There was no official historical record of your history because India does not have any historians back then. Most of your history was written relatively recent, during 19th century, by Germans and British.

Britain created the Indian colony in 1858. Prior to that, India was administered by East Indian Trading company with various presidencies. Also, most of the Indian history was written in tablets. India never used papers until much more recently even compare to even Europe.

But India did have a long history and civilization and a strong caste system.

 

[faithfulguy]

that's why we claim whole of it ... btw Mauryans were the first to unite the land followed by Guptas , Chauhans, Marathas , Sultans, Kushans etc. etc., there was also a time before Mauryans in 600BC when India was a union of states India called Mahajanpadas. The major unifying factor has been Hinduism and whenever there has been an attack on India , Hindu states unlike Muslim states of India have acted in unison. The major reason why the concept of India as one entity is so much possible is the fear of foreign domination and invasion. The several ethnically and linguistically distinct states live in unity to project the cause of the land worldwide. A Chinese cannot understand it has he lives in one of the world's homogenous nations , this is something beyond your understanding.

India existed as a civilization. Such as the western European civilization. And each state is like a western European state. So in India, there was Mysore, Travancore, Tamil, Hyderabad, Punjab, and Bengal states. In Europe, there were France, Spain, Holland, England, etc...

 

[Fattyacids]

that's why we claim whole of it ... btw Mauryans were the first to unite the land followed by Guptas , Chauhans, Marathas , Sultans, Kushans etc. etc., there was also a time before Mauryans in 600BC when India was a union of states India called Mahajanpadas. The major unifying factor has been Hinduism and whenever there has been an attack on India , Hindu states unlike Muslim states of India have acted in unison. The major reason why the concept of India as one entity is so much possible is the fear of foreign domination and invasion. The several ethnically and linguistically distinct states live in unity to project the cause of the land worldwide. A Chinese cannot understand it has he lives in one of the world's homogenous nations , this is something beyond your understanding.

The notion of one country has nothing to do with religion. Sharing the same religion doesn't qualify to be called one country. If so, the entire Europe would be one country. Same goes for middle east. You cannot have 8 emperors or 15 Kings and call yourself one unified country. If you are one country, you can only have one emperor. :

Britain created the Indian colony in 1858. Prior to that, India was administered by East Indian Trading company with various presidencies. Also, most of the Indian history was written in tablets. India never used papers until much more recently even compare to even Europe.

But India did have a long history and civilization and a strong caste system.

I think it's more appropriate to say South Asians have a long history and civilization. There were dozen of kingdoms historically. India only become a country in 1947.

 

[phylumchordata]

The notion of one country has nothing to do with religion. Sharing the same religion doesn't qualify to be called one country. If so, the entire Europe would be one country. Same goes for middle east. You cannot have 8 emperors or 15 Kings and call yourself one unified country. If you are one country, you can only have one emperor. :

what do you mean ? Modern India has no right to be a country because in some periods of its history it has been a collection o princely states or you imply that Modern India has nothing to do with India's History. Republic of India is the proud carrier of ancient Indian culture and tradition and it has done the most for its propagation and preservation , it has the majority of Ancient India's land mass and majority of the region's population. It is a diverse nation held together y invisible but strong bonds. Structurally it is nothing like homogenous monstrosity of China. in 1947 Pakistan was created on religious lines only , majority of them speak Urdu,Punjabi and Sindhi which are also widely spoken in India. The lines on which nations are made a different for every nation , US has been made on different lines , Europe is divided on different lines . The history takes its course and nations are formed. In the case of India , history wanted it to be a unified land , that;s what it indicated throughout it course. Whenever India got divided , it was unified quickly back by Mauryans , Chauhans , Marathas , Guptas , Sultans , Mughals , British or Modern republic.
You want to prove that somehow that idea of Republic of India is flawed and needs correction but the events of past speak otherwise. Same goes with China , it was called by different names , divided and unitied , expanded and contracted , but it was destined to be united. Next is you suspect that India even has a history , that it has all been a huge conspiracy , then buddy you need mental checkup. I cannot explain you anything then.

 

[Fattyacids]

what do you mean ? Modern India has no right to be a country because in some periods of its history it has been a collection o princely states or you imply that Modern India has nothing to do with India's History. Republic of India is the proud carrier of ancient Indian culture and tradition and it has done the most for its propagation and preservation , it has the majority of Ancient India's land mass and majority of the region's population. It is a diverse nation held together y invisible but strong bonds. Structurally it is nothing like homogenous monstrosity of China. in 1947 Pakistan was created on religious lines only , majority of them speak Urdu,Punjabi and Sindhi which are also widely spoken in India. The lines on which nations are made a different for every nation , US has been made on different lines , Europe is divided on different lines . The history takes its course and nations are formed. In the case of India , history wanted it to be a unified land , that;s what it indicated throughout it course. Whenever India got divided , it was unified quickly back by Mauryans , Chauhans , Marathas , Guptas , Sultans , Mughals , British or Modern republic.
You want to prove that somehow that idea of Republic of India is flawed and needs correction but the events of past speak otherwise. Same goes with China , it was called by different names , divided and unitied , expanded and contracted , but it was destined to be united. Next is you suspect that India even has a history , that it has all been a huge conspiracy , then buddy you need mental checkup. I cannot explain you anything then.

India is a country, who says it is not? But ancient indian was never one country. There is no concept of one country, you cannot have 20 kings and call yourselves one country.

China was unified as a country since 220BC. There's only one emperor at any one time! Territory changes throughout history but the concept of one China never change. The wikipedia map that you guys love to post is totally inaccurate, LOL. Please learn the history of China thru academic texts, but wikipedia or blog.

 

[phylumchordata]

India is a country, who says it is not? But ancient indian was never one country.
China was unified as a country since 220BC. Territory changes throughout history but the concept of one China never change.
The wikipedia map that you guys love to post is totally inaccurate, LOL. Please learn the history of China thru academic texts, but wikipedia or blog.

Wikipedia has the option in which Chinese can edit and discuss the authenticity of content. and I have given you enough proof , taking you as a retard who doesn't know abt Chinese history let alone Indian , that India has been a united country several times.

 

[faithfulguy]

I think it's more appropriate to say South Asians have a long history and civilization. There were dozen of kingdoms historically. India only become a country in 1947.

The term India actually means South Asia geographically. As India is a geographical expression for South Asia. Such as Levant is for today's Israel, Jordon, Lebanon and Syria. If someone united all these countries and call the new country Levant, they can try to fool the world by saying that Levant was just temporarily divided, (even though for thousand of years) and they would point out that King David of ancient Israel in 900BC was in country of the whole Levant. So Levant was a country all along though they were just "temporarily" divided. Though the people of this artificial entity call Levant might be diluted because of internal propaganda. The rest of the world know better. Just substitute Levant for India and you know what I mean.

 

[Fattyacids]

Wikipedia has the option in which Chinese can edit and discuss the authenticity of content. and I have given you enough proof , taking you as a retard who doesn't know abt Chinese history let alone Indian , that India has been a united country several times.

That's why I said learn history thru academic books, not wikipedia or blog. It is not reliable. The map that you posted is from wiki LOL.
Go read any academic books of South Asia by prominent university, you will know ancient India was never one country. Do you know what is the Mandate of Heaven? There was never a political concept of one country in India.

 

[faithfulguy]

Wikipedia has the option in which Chinese can edit and discuss the authenticity of content. and I have given you enough proof , taking you as a retard who doesn't know abt Chinese history let alone Indian , that India has been a united country several times.

The true fact that India signify a geographical area, such as Turkestan in central Asia and western Europe. For example, if a country call bbyb that sepak bbybian invaded France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal and unified this land call West Europe for 200 years. The language that unified West Europe is bbybian as its the invaders language that unify the land that contain speak different native speakers. After 200 years, West Europe gain independent and now proclaims that West Europe has been one country all along because of Roman Empire and Napolean. And that the language that unifies this country is bbybian. Does this sound familiar to you?

 

[phylumchordata]

That's why I said learn history thru academic books, not wikipedia or blog. It is not reliable. The map that you posted is from wiki LOL.
Go read any academic books of South Asia by prominent university, you will know ancient India was never one country. Do you know what is the Mandate of Heaven? There was never a political concept of one country in India.

your claim is too stupid to be even looked at let alone researched. do you even realize that or are deliberately humiliating yourself ?

 

[Fattyacids]

The term India actually means South Asia geographically. As India is a geographical expression for South Asia. Such as Levant is for today's Israel, Jordon, Lebanon and Syria. If someone united all these countries and call the new country Levant, they can try to fool the world by saying that Levant was just temporarily divided, (even though for thousand of years) and they would point out that King David of ancient Israel in 900BC was in country of the whole Levant. So Levant was a country all along though they were just "temporarily" divided. Though the people of this artificial entity call Levant might be diluted because of internal propaganda. The rest of the world know better. Just substitute Levant for India and you know what I mean.

You are right, India was a geographical expression, aka, Indian Subcontinent. Didn't Winston Churchill make a famous remake about it? It was India PM Neru who took name India to represent the country when it was granted independence. The traditional name is Hindustan or Bharat, I think.