Shut your mouth, Indians - Welcome to the era of instant censorship

[RazPaK]

i think that's a redundant statement

I don't think so.

 

[sarthak]

What are the pakistani members getting so excited. The article talks about how people like Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen were not given permission to speak freely in india. Had they been given permission, you would be the first people crying and whining about it. Actually 99% of indians want them to speak up and read their books like Lajja and satanic verses, but then again , there are these 1% extremist muslims like those commonly found in your country who will start blowing up stuff if free speech is given to these people. Not to mention some fundamentalist nutterheads already have tons of fatwas and bounties against these people

 

[Nakki Nair]

i think that's a redundant statement

nice rack

 

[KS]

Wasnt Jernail singh a former indian army man?who had fought against Pakistan aswell? why did he pick up weapons in the first place... no pun...just askin

LOL..who told you this fairy tale ?

 

[anonymus]

well "India" was only unified under the Mughals and the British...before that the "Indians" had several kingdoms, and "India" was quite divided between the different ethnicities (eg. the "Aryans" in the north and Dravidians the south) and different language speakers. The only thing common between all the different communities was the common religion. Btw did you know it was thanks to the greeks and the arabs that the subcontinent is known as "India/Indian"?

India was united under Ashoka,far before the name mughals entered history books.

Strictly speaking India was not unified under mughals.Mughals controlled only northern part of India.They never controlled deccan and ahom(assam) except for brief period of time.Deccan for 12 years(1687-99) and ahom for 5 years(1633-77).

So unless one is taking in cognisense only mainland India was never united completely.For mainland it was united under ashoka for 52 years and under aurengzeb for 12 years.

Aryan and Dravidian is cluster of races and languages not kingdoms.

India is known as India because of Greeks.This is well established in megasthenes book "Indica".Greeks gave the name Indus to Sindhu river as it formed boundary of India.India was known as bharata to local Inhabitants.

 

[RazPaK]

India was united under Ashoka,far before the name mughals entered history books.

Strictly speaking India was not unified under mughals.Mughals controlled only northern part of India.They never controlled deccan and ahom(assam) except for brief period of time.Deccan for 12 years(1687-99) and ahom for 5 years(1633-77).

So unless one is taking in cognisense only mainland India was never united completely.For mainland it was united under ashoka for 52 years and under aurengzeb for 12 years.

Aryan and Dravidian is cluster of races and languages not kingdoms.

India is known as India because of Greeks.This is well established in megasthenes book "Indica".Greeks gave the name Indus to Sindhu river as it formed boundary of India.India was known as bharata to local Inhabitants.

Lmao. Everything you have written is negated by this.

India was united under Ashoka,

 

[anonymus]

Lmao. Everything you have written is negated by this.

You conveniently forget the part where i differentiated between mainland india and India 2012.

India as per todays boundary was never united neither under mughals nor under ashoka but if you took exception of frontier areas and vassals India was united at many points.

Largest empires in India were that of

Ashoka (He kingdom extended to today's Iraq)

Aurangzeb (if vassals (rajputs) and frontiers (NE) are counted)

Samudragupt(whole India if vassal state are counted)

 

[RazPaK]

You conveniently forget the part where i differentiated between mainland india and India 2012.

Please explain for a simple minded person as myself.

 

[anonymus]

I hope you're not talking about IVC which is in Pakistan, Bharati.

You should increase your knowledge about history.compare to 12 settlements in pakistan india has 24.

List of Indus Valley Civilization sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RazPaK]

You should increase your knowledge about history.compare to 12 settlements in pakistan india has 24.

Haha. But you have to measure the significance of these sites compared to the ones from Pakistan, and if they were or not rooted from the original sites from Pakistan.

 

[anonymus]

You know the meaning of vassal states(who accept surzenity of a ruler) and frontier areas( areas between two ecumen)
took place

Please explain for a simple minded person as myself.

---------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 AM ----------

Haha. But you have to measure the significance of these sites compared to the ones from Pakistan, and if they were or not rooted from the original sites from Pakistan.

Lothal in gujrat was only harbour via which trading with mesopotamia and egyptian civilisation.

suradkotda in gujrat was only site where horse was domesticated

Kalibanga was spiritual centre of IVC as indicated by unearthning of7 fire altars.

 

[RazPaK]

Ashoka (He kingdom extended to today's Iraq)

LOL. It barely reached today's Iran. What are you making these baseless claims for?

---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 PM ----------

Lothal in gujrat was only harbour via which trading with mesopotamia and egyptian civilisation.

Trade by sea was a new and important concept, however trade by land was more of a defining factor in those times.

 

[RazPaK]

Anyways anonymus I think we should continue our discussion in a different thread, so we are not off-topic. I will read and research the links you have provided and will ensure a fruitful discussion tomorrow or in the future as I have work in the morning. Just PM me and we can continue our discussion on IVC.

 

[anonymus]

LOL. It barely reached today's Iran. What are you making these baseless claims for?

---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 PM ----------



Trade by sea was a new and important concept, however trade by land was more of a defining factor in those times.

Ashoka kingdom shared borders with syria(which was larger than today's syria and included tigris-euphrates area.

Ancient kingdoms were not defined by boundaries but by frontiers.Frontiers were transitional areas between two ecumens(inhadited areas).

The two deserts of todays Iran Dast-e-lut and Dast-e-kavir formed the frontier between two kingdoms.You cannot pinpoint exact boundaries but it approximately lied in western Iran(i took liberty to state the western most hypothesized border as original one).

 

[Mai dong thu lang]

Indianese talk thu much.

No good