Lee Kuan Yew

[AADHAAR]

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.



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?

China's borders were self-marked by the so-called "great wall" ... china is now the last country practicing colonisation over Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner mongolia, after South Africa gave up its colonial rule of Namibia.

PRC should peacefully withdraw from Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner mongolia so that colonialism is finally wiped from the face of the earth.

Learn from South Africa, how they peacefully withdrew from Namibia.

 

[scorpionx]

For centuries Indians although living in a multi ethnic society had been interweaved together through common culture,life style,food habits,languages and most importantly by the the ancient philosophical faiths. It is true that the British altered the geographical identity of this country,inner as well as outer and credit must go to them for waking up the nationalism,buried under centuries of Imperial exploitation.

 

[INDIC]

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.

Please answer my question, if China was a united country in 221BC not just Hans, what about the homelands and cultures of 56 ethnic groups of China

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?

I already told you the ancient geography of India which is still almost same.( the land between the mountains of the north and 3 seas of the South).

 

[faithfulguy]

Please answer my question, if China was a united country in 221BC not just Hans, what about the homelands and cultures of 56 ethnic groups of China



I already told you the ancient geography of India which is still almost same.( the land between the mountains of the north and 3 seas of the South).

How do we know that "han" people back then is the same as the ones today. So that is not the point. The point is that there is a continuous country of China throughout these 2000 plus year. India, on the other hand was created by the British. You keep on pointing out geography as the reason that India nation existed since ancient time. But what you are doing is proving that Winston Churchill was correct, than India is a geographical expression. ( the land between the mountains of the north and 3 seas of the South). So your argument about why India is a nation is the same how everyone else is showing you that India is a geographical expression.

 

[INDIC]

China's borders were self-marked by the so-called "great wall" ... china is now the last country practicing colonisation over Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner mongolia, after South Africa gave up its colonial rule of Namibia.

Japan conquered whole coastline of China and carved out a Manchu homeland in Manchuria named as Manchukuo reducing China as a landlocked country. The last king of China of Qing Dynasty, Puyi who was an ethnic Manchu happily became the king of Manchukuo.

It were Americans who came to rescue China, they defeated Japanese and reunited China again as a single nation.

 

[AADHAAR]

How do we know that "han" people back then is the same as the ones today. So that is not the point. The point is that there is a continuous country of China throughout these 2000 plus year. India, on the other hand was created by the British. You keep on pointing out geography as the reason that India nation existed since ancient time. But what you are doing is proving that Winston Churchill was correct, than India is a geographical expression. ( the land between the mountains of the north and 3 seas of the South). So your argument about why India is a nation is the same how everyone else is showing you that India is a geographical expression.

China's as a province of mongolia:

 

[INDIC]

How do we know that "han" people back then is the same as the ones today. So that is not the point. The point is that there is a continuous country of China throughout these 2000 plus year. India, on the other hand was created by the British. You keep on pointing out geography as the reason that India nation existed since ancient time. But what you are doing is proving that Winston Churchill was correct, than India is a geographical expression. ( the land between the mountains of the north and 3 seas of the South). So your argument about why India is a nation is the same how everyone else is showing you that India is a geographical expression.

Please don't twist things, tell me about the 56 ethnic groups of China and their homeland. Many of the non-Han groups of China are too different from the Han culture.

 

[AADHAAR]

Please don't twist things, tell me about the 56 ethnic groups of China and their homeland. Many of the non-Han groups of China are too different from the Han culture.

And the thing is they despise the colonial rule of Beijing..

see what's happening in East Turkestan / Xinjiang

see what's happening in Tibet

see what's happening in Inner Mongolia

 

[asad71]

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.

1. The Marathas never had an empire. Far from it they had a confederacy of local Sardars like Scindia, Holkar, Bhonsle, Gaekowad and smaller chiefs like Pantpratinidhi, , Panse, Vinchurkar, Pethe, Raste, Phadke, Patwardhan, Pawar, Pandit, Purandare and Mehendale, who were never at peace with each other or with the titular head at Pune, Peshwa. However, the Marathas have dreamt of ruling from Delhi throughout their existence. In 1713 Emperor Farukhsyar had given them a farman giving them certain rights conditional to their loyalty to Mughal realm. But their dream was shattered utterly by that great soldier and leader of men and a Ghazi of Islam, Ahmad Shah Abdali (Durrani) at the 3rdBattle of Panipath 1761.

2. The Marathas have been notable in history for treachery, fickleness, cruelty and lust for loot and destruction. Post-Aurangjeb the Maratha activity had weakened the Mughals allowing the rise of the English and small kingdoms allover SA. Had the Marathas been otherwise then the English could not have defeated the patriot Tipu Sultan.

3. Maratha units in IA use the war cry, :Chhatrapati Shivaji ki Jai" without realizing that Shivaji was nothing but a deceitful dacoit who had taken full advantage of Mughal magnanimity and honor.

 

[LURKER]

1. The Marathas never had an empire. Far from it they had a confederacy of local Sardars like Scindia, Holkar, Bhonsle, Gaekowad and smaller chiefs like Pantpratinidhi, , Panse, Vinchurkar, Pethe, Raste, Phadke, Patwardhan, Pawar, Pandit, Purandare and Mehendale, who were never at peace with each other or with the titular head at Pune, Peshwa. However, the Marathas have dreamt of ruling from Delhi throughout their existence. In 1713 Emperor Farukhsyar had given them a farman giving them certain rights conditional to their loyalty to Mughal realm. But their dream was shattered utterly by that great soldier and leader of men and a Ghazi of Islam, Ahmad Shah Abdali (Durrani) at the 3rdBattle of Panipath 1761.

2. The Marathas have been notable in history for treachery, fickleness, cruelty and lust for loot and destruction. Post-Aurangjeb the Maratha activity had weakened the Mughals allowing the rise of the English and small kingdoms allover SA. Had the Marathas been otherwise then the English could not have defeated the patriot Tipu Sultan.

3. Maratha units in IA use the war cry, :Chhatrapati Shivaji ki Jai" without realizing that Shivaji was nothing but a deceitful dacoit who had taken full advantage of Mughal magnanimity and honor.

1. Though maratha empire was a confedration it had a unified command under the Peshwa. The so called ghazi of Islam was able to defeat Marathas only because he got support of traitor Rohillas and Nawab of Awadh.

2. It was Aurangzeb's lust for more territories down south which led to the decline of mughals . they embroiled in costly wars and tried to swallow more than they can chew.

3. As for dacoits and looters i think none can match Mahmud ghaznavi, Md. Bin Qasim, Nadir Shah, Taimur

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

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.



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

Let me make this easier for you:

Was Rome, Italy?

Was Babylon, Iraq?

Was Holy Roman Empire, Germany?

Was Maratha, India?

Let me give you an example:

Was Majapahit, Indonesia? No!

Or I can give you an analogy:

Imagine the Maratha as a mother & the British as a father. As the father going in & out of the mother. He gives the mother the benefit of western civilization inside the mother. In time the mother will give birth to a child & that child is Modern day India, but remember a child is not his/er parents. The child may take some of his/er parents trait, but the child is still not the parents.

The Point is, today India may take its root culture, language, history etc.from "old India," but its government, law, Cricket & almost everything else came from Great Britain! Today India is just far too different compared from yesterday India

 

[INDIC]

1. The Marathas never had an empire. Far from it they had a confederacy of local Sardars like Scindia, Holkar, Bhonsle, Gaekowad and smaller chiefs like Pantpratinidhi, , Panse, Vinchurkar, Pethe, Raste, Phadke, Patwardhan, Pawar, Pandit, Purandare and Mehendale, who were never at peace with each other or with the titular head at Pune, Peshwa. However, the Marathas have dreamt of ruling from Delhi throughout their existence. In 1713 Emperor Farukhsyar had given them a farman giving them certain rights conditional to their loyalty to Mughal realm. But their dream was shattered utterly by that great soldier and leader of men and a Ghazi of Islam, Ahmad Shah Abdali (Durrani) at the 3rdBattle of Panipath 1761.

2. The Marathas have been notable in history for treachery, fickleness, cruelty and lust for loot and destruction. Post-Aurangjeb the Maratha activity had weakened the Mughals allowing the rise of the English and small kingdoms allover SA. Had the Marathas been otherwise then the English could not have defeated the patriot Tipu Sultan.

3. Maratha units in IA use the war cry, :Chhatrapati Shivaji ki Jai" without realizing that Shivaji was nothing but a deceitful dacoit who had taken full advantage of Mughal magnanimity and honor.

I can understand you pain and frustrations.

 

[INDIC]

Let me make this easier for you:

Was Rome, Italy?

Was Babylon, Iraq?

Was Holy Roman Empire, Germany?

Was Maratha, India?

Let me give you an example:

Was Majapahit, Indonesia? No!

Or I can give you an analogy:

Imagine the Maratha as a mother & the British as a father. As the father going in & out of the mother. He gives the mother the benefit of western civilization inside the mother. In time the mother will give birth to a child & that child is Modern day India, but remember a child is not his/er parents. The child may take some of his/er parents trait, but the child is still not the parents.

The Point is, today India may take its root culture, language, history etc.from "old India," but its government, law, Cricket & almost everything else came from Great Britain! Today India is just far too different compared from yesterday India

True with every civilization, what so special in your comment.

 

[faithfulguy]

Imagine who is ruling PRC...

It's likely its the blood of imperial Japan..

Say, Hu Jintao or Xi Jinpin's mother.. then young girls in 1940, among "comfort girls" in the service of Imperial Japan.

Isn't it obvious ... the way CPC works in a dicatorial fashion as all the charateristics of dictatorial Japan...

"old china" died long back ... now its just gas chamber of coal fumes, and labour camps, courtesy the continued rule of successors of japanese soldiers and their "comfort women"..

We sympathise with the plight of slave chinese ..and wish them well, against their fight with dictatorship.

Best wishes.

Your comment about comfort women and China is no different than people bring up rape and India. The one difference is that the atrocities of wwii by an invading people vs todays India by the so called Indian people.

India is just 33 or34 nations align along the old British railroad. Are Indians proud of their British heritage. If not, than India should not be a country as India itself is the testament of British imperialism of India.

 

[East Asia United]

USA is also a multi ethnic society when it is formed and continuous to do so with immigrations from all over the world does that mean USA is not a power house??

This Singaporean guy failed in this logic. He also lack the historic knowledge about India.

US was a multi-ethnic country? You're sorely lackign in your history. Until the 1960's the USA was monoethnic. If you weren't a White man who spoke English and "praised tha LORD" (yee-ha), you weren't an American.