Is Modern Europe Enduring The Same Scourge As Ancient India?

[posedion]

Very well said I support your opinion.

Written by another chutiya.. Who doesn't know that 1000 years ago a united India didn't exist.. And those evil Muslim created empires .. Gave a society that was taxing low castes for covering their breasts and whatnot dignity .. Gave them things like the grand trunk road,tak mahal and whatnot..

 

[dray]

Do you mean Ancient Pakistan? And if you blabber something like "Oh there was no Ancient Pakistan" well there was no Ancient India other than inside your head. If it was please cite me one primary source before 500BC that mentions India".

No translations, no transfers but actual use of "India" as in "INDIA" in a primary source?

"Prachin Bharat" will do?

 

[Levina]

Europe is rediscovering terror. Paris, Brussels, Nice, Cologne and Munich. In all of this, one discerns a faint sense of history repeating itself, but under a different sky.

Law of nature.
Every system (be it your body, a society, nation or universe) tends to move from being normal to a state of chaos and back to normal. Like the article says history repeats itselfs under a different sky.

I do not know why some of the members seem to be so offended when their country is associated with ancient India. It was one of the greatest civilization, and its successors are still following the thousand year old customs...religiously.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Which Indian is he on about?

*West Indian
*Dutch East Indian
*British Indian
*Indian Sub Continient
*Indiana (state of)
*Indian Republic

There is more permutations but this should suffice for now.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Kaptaan is likely of lower caste Dalit

I am a Dalit who was living in "Happy India" that the OP is crying for.

 

[dadeechi]

Do you mean Ancient Pakistan? And if you blabber something like "Oh there was no Ancient Pakistan" well there was no Ancient India other than inside your head. If it was please cite me one primary source before 500BC that mentions India".

No translations, no transfers but actual use of "India" as in "INDIA" in a primary source?

So you mean to say , if a person changes the name or adopts a new name, then the person has died and is reborn?

1000 years ago a united India didn't exist

Technically true. If Indians were united around 1000 years ago, then India would not have fallen to the Islamic invaders.

But remember King Ram united India over 14000 years ago

Ramayana - Birth of Rama 12,240 BCE (Source - The Historic Rama: Indian Civilization at the end of Pleistocene)

 

[Maira La]

So you mean to say , if a person changes the name or adopts a new name, then the person has died and is reborn?

Something that has not been defined/conceived before the new name cannot have an old name.

In your analogy, the person was defined at birth - so they can take up any number of name any number of times post-birth and the renaming wouldn't change them. However there cannot be an older name.

India is the renamed successor state of British India. So the old name would be British India and the name at the infant age would be British East India Company.

ps. Note the word 'East'. The entire thing (naming of India) was being viewed from a British perspective - the Brits also had 'West Indian' real estate. Don't pretend you were a self-conscious entity that continually renamed itself over the ages to what it is today.

 

[dadeechi]

Something that has not been defined/conceived before the new name cannot have an old name.

"Definition" comes before naming. In your analogy, the person was defined at birth - so they can take up any number of name any number of times post-birth and the renaming wouldn't change them.

India is the renamed successor state of British India. So the old name would be British India and the name at the infant age would be British East India Company.

ps. Note the word 'East'. The entire thing (naming of India) was being viewed from a British perspective - the Brits also had 'West Indian' real estate. Don't pretend you were a self-conscious entity that continually renamed itself over the ages to what it is today.

A serious question. Does Allah has a different name? I am not trolling. I will answer why I asked this question once you respond.

 

[Maira La]

A serious question. Does Allah has a different name? I am not trolling. I will answer why I asked this question once you respond.

I heard He does have 99 names. I'm irreligious; so you better ask someone else.

 

[Tamilnadu]

Something that has not been defined/conceived before the new name cannot have an old name.

"Definition" comes before naming. In your analogy, the person was defined at birth - so they can take up any number of name any number of times post-birth and the renaming wouldn't change them.

India is the renamed successor state of British India. So the old name would be British India and the name at the infant age would be British East India Company.

ps. Note the word 'East'. The entire thing (naming of India) was being viewed from a British perspective - the Brits also had 'West Indian' real estate. Don't pretend you were a self-conscious entity that continually renamed itself over the ages to what it is today.

do you when columbus discover america and where was he trying to reach.And why the natives or america called Indians.

 

[GiannKall]

Far safer to live in todays Europe than in Europe during the 1970s or 1980s. 5000 British people were murdered by other British people in that period because of local terrorist organizations. What makes the difference is the media who have orders to portray muslims and islam with a bad name. So when a muslim commits a terrorist act, its fault of all muslims. But when western, white, christian, British people put a bomb in Omagh in 1998 and kill 31 civilians it is, of course the result of two or three "crazy" thugs and nothing more...

 

[Maira La]

do you when columbus discover america and where was he trying to reach.And why the natives or america called Indians.

Columbus didn't have a picture of India's current map in his mind. To them India was where spices and other agricultural stuff came from. They had no particular race of people or civilization in mind.

Do realize that before the industrial revolution, wealthy were those who owned fertile land. 'India' as a concept was similar to 'Asia' to the eurocentric people - some eastern land with lush forests and fertile land. That's what they went after. Which is why Indonesia came to be known as Dutch India and the Deccan Peninsula as British India - they really had no well-defined particular geographical region in mind.

Basically the colonial powers defined what constitutes India. Heck, even Burma was India!

 

[dadeechi]

I heard He does have 99 names. I'm irreligious; so you better ask someone else.

Yes. Here they are

http://www.searchtruth.com/Allah/99Names.php

Now coming to India. All the following have been used historically

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_India

 

[Tamilnadu]

Columbus didn't have a picture of India's current map in his mind. To them India was where spices and other agricultural stuff came from. They had no particular race of people or civilization in mind.

Do realize that before the industrial revolution, wealthy were those who owned fertile land. 'India' as a concept was similar to 'Asia' to the eurocentric people - some eastern land with lush forests and fertile land. Which is why Indonesia came to be known as Dutch India and the Deccan Peninsula as British India - they really had no well-defined particular geographical region in mind.

Basically the colonial powers defined what constitutes India. Heck, even Burma was India!

The term what you are refering is indies ,east indies is the term used to refer the countries now towards the east of indus .all these where refered to as east indies and India.

 

[Maira La]

Yes. Here they are

http://www.searchtruth.com/Allah/99Names.php

Now coming to India. All the following have been used historically

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_India

Again, poor analogy.

All 99 names of Allah refer to the same concept. Why so? Because the person who conceived the concept has assigned to it all those names. It's like me creating a robot and assigning it 5 different names.

All those so-called 'names of India' a) do not refer to the same entity, b) were not assigned by the same person, c) the person assigning the name did not picture the same thing (or maybe you thought they all had India's map in mind?).

On a separate note, do keep in mind that Wiki is edited by thousands of right-wing Indian jingoists everyday - not the most reliable source of historical facts.

The term what you are refering is indies ,east indies is the term used to refer the countries now towards the east of indus .all these where refered to as east indies and India.

Trust me, the British did not have the Indus river in mind while thinking up those names!