Partition of British Indian Empire

[Kuru]

India existed as a geographical expression like Europe or Balkans. Let's say Serbia decided to call itself the Balkan Republic and claim all Balkan land south of Danube. Will other Balkan countries suddenly become illegitimate and in rebellion? India in its existence is as legitimate as this Balkan republic in my example. India need to revert to the kingdoms prior to British arrival.

I wonder why there was a geographical expression called India in the first place if India never existed?

Indian Republic - as in a sense of modern nation state - came into being in 1947. There was no nation state concept 5000 years ago. Just like PRC came into existence in 1949. However, before 1949, that geography was always known as China.

Does that mean PRC is different than ancient China ?

 

[Gibbs]

even Burma is an artificial creation based on your Argument.

Burman people existed as a single political entity before colonialism.. The Brits just amalgamated colonized Burma with British India for administration purposes, The Burmese identity was strong enough that they were never be considered as part of British created India, Unlike most other people in the sub continent.. @Aung Zaya

Similarly in Ceylon, For a brief period of time the British did try to administer the island from it's Madras presidency but they couldn't do it indefinitely due to the strong nationalism and separate identity of the Ceylonese, Who never wanted to be a part of India

 

[Indus Pakistan]

India existed as a geographical expression like Europe or Balkans. Let's say Serbia decided to call itself the Balkan Republic and claim all Balkan land south of Danube. Will other Balkan countries suddenly become illegitimate and in rebellion? India in its existence is as legitimate as this Balkan republic in my example. India need to revert to the kingdoms prior to British arrival.

I think it was the Nazi propagandist Goebbels who said if you lie, lie, lie, lie eventually that lie will sink in to become a accepted fact. This is exactly thie case here. The fact is one state born in August 1947 that never existed before approriated a geographic term [India] and then has used that to leverage it's existence to eternity.

As you stated beautifully "Balkan" could be appropriated by Kosova to then claim all of Balkans heritage. Or how about tiny Moldovia calls itself "Republic of Europe" would it follow it has existed ever since the first use of the term "Europe" in antiquity? Or that all of European heritage belongs to Modavia?

This infographic below reflects the reality.

 

[Nexus]

Burman people existed as a single political entity before colonialism.. The Brits just amalgamated colonized Burma with British India for administration purposes, The Burmese identity was strong enough that they were never be considered as part of British created India, Unlike most other people in the sub continent.. @Aung Zaya

Similarly in Ceylon, For a brief period of time the British did try to administer the island from it's Madras presidency but they couldn't do it indefinitely due to the strong nationalism and separate identity of the Ceylonese, Who never wanted to be a part of India

do you have any prof that Burma was a single political entity before ?

ceylon was always a different entity if i am not wrong. only time North Indians had contact with Lankans when Samrat Ashok sent his priests to convert you guys to Buddhism. beside that i dont think North India ever had any contact with lanka in History until British arrived. @Gibbs

aren't you guys Drividians and closely related to South Indians generally ?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

why there was a geographical expression called India

Because River Indus in what is now Pakistan existed. And existence of a geographic expression does not embelish your country anything special as much as if I called myself Trump would make me the President of USA. It's just a name you have appropriated. As I said before if Pakistan called itself Republic of Asia would it give us some special rights to the geographic expression "Asia"?

 

[Kuru]

Because River Indus in what is now Pakistan existed. And existence of a geographic expression does not embelish your country anything special as much as if I called myself Trump would make me the President of USA. It's just a name you have appropriated. As I said before if Pakistan called itself Republic of Asia would it give us some special rights to the geographic expression "Asia"?

Exactly. River Indus was existed and a geography called India was existed since antiquity. This also explains why "present day Pakistan" (which came into existence only on 16 December 1971) was always considered Geographical India.

There was no concept of Nation State back then.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

River Indus was existed and a geography called India was existed since antiquity

Yes. So. All this proves is existence of a river, of a geography. How does that embelish your country? Just as a asides most of Indus flows in Pakistan. Indeed my village is less than 10 miles east of Indus.

Going back to the piont existence of a geographic region named after a river in Pakistan the name of which has been appropriated by your country proves what exactly beyond proving existence of a geography? A geography as a region is not "owned" by any one party other than what physical sovereighty they have. It does not extend beyond it.

As I said before if Pakistan named itself "Asia" could we use the geographic expression "Asia" to extol the virtues of our country? Or as another member mentioned if Serbia renamed itself as "Balkans" would that confer on it some exclusive rights to all of the Balkan geographic expression.

Bottom line you just happen to have and share a common name with the geographic expression. That does not give you any special exclusivity to the geography which has a natural existence unrelated and beyond your country.

 

[Kuru]

Yes. So. All this proves is existence of a river, of a geography. How does that embelish your country? Just as a asides most of Indus flows in Pakistan. Indeed my village is less than 10 miles east of Indus.

Going back to the piont existence of a geographic region named after a river in Pakistan the name of which has been appropriated by your country proves what exactly beyond proving existence of a geography? A geography as a region is not "owned" by any one party other than what physical sovereighty they have. It does not extend beyond it.

As I said before if Pakistan named itself "Asia" could we use the geographic expression "Asia" to extol the virtues of our country? Or as another member mentioned if Serbia renamed itself as "Balkans" would that confer on it some exclusive rights to all of the Balkan geographic expression.

Bottom line you just happen to have and share a common name with the geographic expression. That does not give you any special exclusivity to the geography which has a natural existence unrelated and beyond your country.

I wonder why would we name ourselves something which we are not. We didn't name our country Europe or Russia because we aren't those. This was always India (in a geographical sense). Since ancient times.

Like a member said, India is a geographical term used since antiquity to point to a location where it exists (Yes, exactly where it exists). A part of this geographical India was broken away and called itself Pakistan. That doesn't change the fact that this geography was always India for whatever reasons.

A part of this geographical India became "present day" Republic of India in 1947. The other part of this geographical India became "present day" Pakistan on 16 December 1971 (along with Bangladesh).

I don't know what's your confusion!

 

[faithfulguy]

I wonder why there was a geographical expression called India in the first place if India never existed?

Indian Republic - as in a sense of modern nation state - came into being in 1947. There was no nation state concept 5000 years ago. Just like PRC came into existence in 1949. However, before 1949, that geography was always known as China.

Does that mean PRC is different than ancient China ?

India was a geographical expression like Balkans or Arabia. China was a name for an empire consist of continuation of dynasties for the empire since 221BC. Big difference.

 

[Kyoto]

I wonder why would we name ourselves something which we are not. We didn't name our country Europe or Russia because we aren't those. This was always India (in a geographical sense). Since ancient times.

Like a member said, India is a geographical term used since antiquity to point to a location where it exists (Yes, exactly where it exists). A part of this geographical India was broken away and called itself Pakistan. That doesn't change the fact that this geography was always India for whatever reasons.

A part of this geographical India became "present day" Republic of India in 1947. The other part of this geographical India became "present day" Pakistan on 16 December 1971 (along with Bangladesh).

I don't know what's your confusion!

The geographical term of India only applies to the Indian subcontinent, of which almost 1/2 of Pakistan is not in. Saying Pakistan is made from India is like saying Russia is made from Siberia.

 

[faithfulguy]

do you have any prof that Burma was a single political entity before ?

ceylon was always a different entity if i am not wrong. only time North Indians had contact with Lankans when Samrat Ashok sent his priests to convert you guys to Buddhism. beside that i dont think North India ever had any contact with lanka in History until British arrived. @Gibbs

aren't you guys Drividians and closely related to South Indians generally ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konbaung_Dynasty

The last Burmese dynasty before British control. Proof that Burma was a country. Unlike India, which consisted of many big and small kingdoms and empires such as Maratha empire, Sihk empire, Hyderabad kingdom, Mysore kingdom, etc.

So to sum it up, Burma was occupied by British but was not created by British. India was a British creation.

 

[Avijit]

How is post not useless/baseless or any other -less possible?

 

[Kuru]

India was a geographical expression like Balkans or Arabia. China was a name for an empire consist of continuation of dynasties for the empire since 221BC. Big difference.

There were dynasties in India too. Like India, China was also occupied by foreign powers i.e. Japan or Britishers in case of Hong Kong till 1997. That should mean China is also an expression like Europe or India and it came into being in 1949.

The geographical term of India only applies to the Indian subcontinent, of which almost 1/2 of Pakistan is not in.

Yeah sure

 

[Kambojaric]

Burman people existed as a single political entity before colonialism.. The Brits just amalgamated colonized Burma with British India for administration purposes, The Burmese identity was strong enough that they were never be considered as part of British created India, Unlike most other people in the sub continent.. @Aung Zaya

Similarly in Ceylon, For a brief period of time the British did try to administer the island from it's Madras presidency but they couldn't do it indefinitely due to the strong nationalism and separate identity of the Ceylonese, Who never wanted to be a part of India

In the Pakistani provinces that were part of British India, Indian nationalist parties too never garnered much support. Prior to the rise of the Muslim League, secular regionalist parties such as the Unionist Party of Punjab, Sind United Party etc dominated. Even Bacha Khan in the NWFP who was closely allied with Gandhi used Pakhtun nationalism and regionalism rather than the concept of Indian Nationalism to garner mass support.

 

[Gibbs]

do you have any prof that Burma was a single political entity before ?

Those are historical facts, Well recorded.. You can look it up

ceylon was always a different entity if i am not wrong. only time North Indians had contact with Lankans when Samrat Ashok sent his priests to convert you guys to Buddhism. beside that i dont think North India ever had any contact with lanka in History until British arrived. @Gibbs

aren't you guys Drividians and closely related to South Indians generally ?

Not really.. It's only Sri Lankan Tamils and plantation Tamils or Indian origin Tamils that are of Dravidian Ethnicity, They are the largest minority group

Sinhalese majority community which constitutes to about 75% of the population have strong genetic links to East and Western India, Their language is Indo Aryan, (Sanskrit based) Like Hindi, Bengali and Urdu

The rest of us Lankans are of mainly Middle Eastern/North African, Malay (South East Asian) or European stock.. Among many other minor groups