Lee Kuan Yew

[INDIC]

"India" is a derogatory term coined by the Greece to describe the civilizations from beyond the Indus river. Princely states already exist since before the British came. All they do was just exploit it. Remember India never really have an "Empire" they have Confederation.

Its not a derogatory term but obtained from the Greek word Indios(Indus or Sindhu river), before that Achaemenid Empire named India as "Hind" from the same word Sindhu which later became Hindustan.


This is Mughal Empire in 1707,

It was soon replaced by Marathas Empire in most of the Mughal Empire along with few states, this is Maratha Empire in 1960

Seeing this turmoil, British started conquest of India and they manufactured about 562 Princely states by making relatives fight each other, governor rebel against their king or arming one state against another making India internally weak.

 

[INDIC]

A nation's borders changes. But the most important thing is the identity of the nation. Chinese national identity was created in 221 BC and its the same identity today. There is usually one emperor. And when there are multiple claims to the imperial seat, each aspirant would regard all others as illegitimate. That case is manifested today between Taiwan and China. Both insist that all other nations must recognize one China and that they represent the true China.

Border changes but your so called united China of 221BC only contains about 35-40% of China of 2013 and the remaining land has native non-Han inhabitants who were never the part of Chinese civilization.

Hans never had capability to unite whole landmass of China and its people until done for the first time by Mongols in 13th century.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Its not a derogatory term but obtained from the Greek word Indios(Indus or Sindhu river), before that Achaemenid Empire named India as "Hind" from the same word Sindhu which later became Hindustan.


This is Mughal Empire in 1707,

It was soon replaced by Marathas Empire in most of the Mughal Empire along with few states, this is Maratha Empire in 1960

Seeing this turmoil, British started conquest of India and they manufactured about 562 Princely states by making relatives fight each other, governor rebel against their king or arming one state against another making India internally weak.

India is a derogatory term by the European to describe the civilization who lived east of the Indus river. Its the most accepted view shared by most historian & etymologist. India is not even a Hindi word, its Hellenic. It was Greece that give India her name. The same with what the Roman did to the German & the British.

This is beginning to go . Lee Kuan Yew merely remark that India is an artificial state. Which is true, but what does it matter anyway?

 

[INDIC]

India is a derogatory term by the European to describe the civilization who lived east of the Indus river. Its the most accepted view shared by most historian & etymologist. India is not even a Hindi word, its Hellenic. It was Greece that give India her name. The same with what the Roman did to the German & the British.

Prove it.

This is beginning to go . Lee Kuan Yew merely remark that India is an artificial state. Which is true, but what does it matter anyway?

Lee Kuan Yew had no idea about Indian civilization, so how could his word be marked as authentic .

Didn't I mention Indian name for India is Bharat and official name of India is Bharat Ganrajya(Republic of India).

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Prove it.

Other than the fact that India is what the Hellenic civs used to describe other civs east of the Indus river & that the word India is Hellenic in origin. LOL its pretty much self explanatory. That's what the Roman used to call their region. British Isle "real name" (What's the Celt used to call it anyway) was Albion

Lee Kuan Yew had no idea about Indian civilization, so how could his word be marked as authentic .

Simple he's Lee "Motherfu*king" Kuan Yew. I take his word over a random people on the forum any day of the week.

Beside "India" (as a country) doesn't even exist during the time period you just explain. You ask any historian about this & you will receive the same answer.

 

[INDIC]

Other than the fact that India is what the Hellenic civs used to describe other civs east of the Indus river & that the word India is Hellenic in origin. LOL its pretty much self explanatory. That's what the Roman used to call their region. British Isle "real name" (What's the Celt used to call it anyway) was Albion

Is India only such example of having foreign origin names, what about other countries like China, Greece, Egypt, Japan, Germany.

Beside "India" (as a country) doesn't even exist during the time period you just explain. You ask any historian about this & you will receive the same answer.

You have no knowledge of Indian history or Indian civilization. Empire is not a country and nation state is a modern western concept, civilizations had defined a country throughout history. So, your opinion is total waste.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Is India only such example of having foreign origin names, what about other countries like China, Greece, Egypt, Japan, Germany.

So what of it? If you actually read my post. I don't have any ill feeling about India. Just merely pointing out that India is an Artificial state.

The country may have foreign name, but all of them with the exception of Germany (Prussian invention) is a "Natural construction." Notice the difference.

You have no knowledge of Indian history or Indian civilization. Empire is not a country and nation state is a modern western concept, civilizations had defined a country throughout history. So, your opinion is total waste.

So? you have no knowledge of differentiating between Pre-Colonial India & Contemporary India. That's the problem, any civs living east of Indus river automatically become an Indian civilization. Its a regional expression. The Archipelago nation like Indonesia maybe import much of its culture from the India subcontinent, but Srivijaya or Majapahit never considered to be member of the "Bharat" or India civilization.

India as a nation is a modern concept so what of it?

 

[INDIC]

So what of it? If you actually read my post. I don't have any ill feeling about India. Just merely pointing out that India is an Artificial state.

The country may have foreign name, but all of them with the exception of Germany (Prussian invention) is a "Natural construction." Notice the difference.

During the time of Greek Empire, two races Iranians and Indians met at the end of the plains of Indus river, so Greeks could distinguish between these two cultures so there is nothing artificial about naming people of Bharat as Indian by Greeks.

Germany is a foreign name.

So? you have no knowledge of differentiating between Pre-Colonial India & Contemporary India. That's the problem, any civs living east of Indus river automatically become an Indian civilization. Its a regional expression. The Archipelago nation like Indonesia maybe import much of its culture from the India subcontinent, but Srivijaya or Majapahit never considered to be member of the "Bharat" or India civilization.

India as a nation is a modern concept so what of it?

The civilization east of Indus river were united by a common culture, language and common dress.

 

[asad71]

Akhand Bharat was given by Great Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya even succeeded to unite whole of India.

Even the Muslim Empires across the world and Muslim converts and Empires in India agreed that the same Bharat is 'Hind' or 'Hindustan' throughtout history till 1947, it doesn't matter if you are Bangladeshi today, history don't change.

"Saare jahan se achcha, Hindustan hamara"(greatest among all, its our India)
-Allama Iqbal(Pakistan's national poet)

Bilkul! Hinustan to hamara'hi hain. Iqbal also said, "Sara jahan hamara -- Muslim hain hamm ---"

 

[INDIC]

Bilkul! Hinustan to hamara'hi hain. Iqbal also said, "Sara jahan hamara -- Muslim hain hamm ---"

What about the last line of the same poem.

 

[faithfulguy]

Border changes but your so called united China of 221BC only contains about 35-40% of China of 2013 and the remaining land has native non-Han inhabitants who were never the part of Chinese civilization.

Hans never had capability to unite whole landmass of China and its people until done for the first time by Mongols in 13th century.

What we are discussing is the creation of a nation. Most country has no privilege of being unified by Britain like how India had. Without Britain, India would not exist as a country today.

So what of it? If you actually read my post. I don't have any ill feeling about India. Just merely pointing out that India is an Artificial state.

The country may have foreign name, but all of them with the exception of Germany (Prussian invention) is a "Natural construction." Notice the difference.


So? you have no knowledge of differentiating between Pre-Colonial India & Contemporary India. That's the problem, any civs living east of Indus river automatically become an Indian civilization. Its a regional expression. The Archipelago nation like Indonesia maybe import much of its culture from the India subcontinent, but Srivijaya or Majapahit never considered to be member of the "Bharat" or India civilization.

India as a nation is a modern concept so what of it?

Some Indians have already accept the fact that India was a civilization and a country that come into existence because of British invasion. This @INDIC guy is stubborn to his own belief and he would ignore the evidence and come up with bull crap arguments just to argue.

 

[INDIC]

What we are discussing is the creation of a nation. Most country has no privilege of being unified by Britain like how India had. Without Britain, India would not exist as a country today.



Some Indians have already accept the fact that India was a civilization and a country that come into existence because of British invasion. This @INDIC guy is stubborn to his own belief and he would ignore the evidence and come up with bull crap arguments just to argue.

True with Han people, first Mongol, then Manchus and lastly Americans during world war 2.

 

[faithfulguy]

True with Han people, first Mongol, then Manchus and lastly Americans during world war 2.

Han people is not a nation, its an ethnic group. We are talking about nations. And India as a nation was created by the British.

In India, would a subcaste be regarded as an ethnic group? India would have so many ethnic groups as there are 4 varnas plus the untouchables, India definitely has a varieties of ethnic groups. Add this difference into regional differences and religious difference and we know why India is the way it is today.

 

[INDIC]

Han people is not a nation, its an ethnic group. We are talking about nations. And India as a nation was created by the British.

In India, would a subcaste be regarded as an ethnic group? India would have so many ethnic groups as there are 4 varnas plus the untouchables, India definitely has a varieties of ethnic groups. Add this difference into regional differences and religious difference and we know why India is the way it is today.

If China was united as a country in 221BC where are the homeland of 56 ethnic minorities who had their own civilization as the part of China in 221BC.

Why was Great wall which was the outskirt of China in 221BC came deep inside China if China was a united country in 221 BC.

Some Indians have already accept the fact that India was a civilization and a country that come into existence because of British invasion. This @INDIC guy is stubborn to his own belief and he would ignore the evidence and come up with bull crap arguments just to argue.

Because there was no nation in Asia before the concept was imported from Europe.

 

[faithfulguy]

If China was united as a country in 221BC where are the homeland of 56 ethnic minorities who had their own civilization as the part of China in 221BC.

Why was Great wall which was the outskirt of China in 221BC came deep inside China if China was a united country in 221 BC.



Because there was no nation in Asia before the concept was imported from Europe.

That is not true. Japan, China and Korea were nations for centuries before nation states formed in Europe. These countries has a strong central government. And any government that come afterward would inherit the mantle of the previous government. In these three countries plus Vietnam, there are succession of dynasties, Or military government, the shogun, in the case of Japan. So these countries would form a single national state without a European nation create it for them, as in the case of India.

Border changes but your so called united China of 221BC only contains about 35-40% of China of 2013 and the remaining land has native non-Han inhabitants who were never the part of Chinese civilization.

Hans never had capability to unite whole landmass of China and its people until done for the first time by Mongols in 13th century.

Are you saying that if for some reason, India is capable of doubling its size in the next ten year, than India today does not exist as a nation?