Some similarity's between India and China

[艹艹艹]

Sun Wukong is a character in an novel, not a god. So he cannot be an incarnation of some god elsewhere. So to whether the character is drawn from Hanuman, there's no conclusive evidence, opinions are divided. Point to note, monkey is not the only animal like in Hindu mythology, the Chinese novel is made up of various animal spirits from pig, fox, snake.....and the main villain is an ox/cow.

Sun Wukong and bull demon king（牛魔王） are sworn brothers

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

No such thing as ancient Indian civilization.

The civilization and religion were named by Westerners after the Indus River which exists almost entirely within modern-day Pakistan.

The IVC itself was a civilization that was brought by outside Aryans, not native to the subcontinent.

 

[LURKER]

Highly doubtful.

China was ruled by one central government/authority since 2000 years ago (Qin/Chin Dynasty). All of China's dynasties since then have been successors to this state, and also ruled the country from one central authority in the Chinese capital.

India is completely different. The dynasties in India had no connection to each other, they did not succeed each other, they did not rule from any central authority apart from one instance where the territory of modern-day India just happened to be inside Ashoka's Empire (along with the rest of the subcontinent and beyond).

The idea of India as a unified nation, under one central authority only existed after British India. Before that the landmass was occupied by hundreds of separate countries.

I guess you could say that the majority of people in the subcontinent had some degree of influence from the IVC civilisation (brought by outside Aryans) which existed in what is now modern-day Pakistan. But by that logic, all of East Asia was influenced by Confucian ideology, that doesn't make East Asia a single country or civilisation.

Your assertion that China was always ruled by one central authority is highly doubtful in itself and far from truth. Modern day China is not same as ancient Chinese kingdoms. Some Chinese kingdoms controlled most parts of China for some times in history as some Indian kingdoms like Mauryas or Mughals did. The timeline of central kingdom controlling large parts of China may have been more than that in India's case as India faced many more foreign invasions. Here's how Chinese empires fared through the centuries.

There was no idea of nation state or countries before 18th century either in case of India or in case of China. China became a country in 1949, before that it was Qin, Xia, Ming dynasties and these dynasties had no connecton to each other, similar to the case of India. British Raj did act as the catalyst for awakening nationalist feelings among the Indians but then that was how the winds were flowing in the rest of the World at that time with the rise of national states and idea of modern day nationalism.

IVC civilization bought by 'outsider aryans' is again wrong even if we go by the Aryan invasion theory according to which Aryans were the cause of its decline. IVC civilization extended from eastern India (Uttar Pradesh) to Afghanistan, with its trading port town in Gujarat. Indic culture has extended within the natural geographical frontiers of the Indian sub-continent and modern nation state of India encompasses most that geographically and is its cultural inheritor, since other remaining states of the sub-continent are anything but Indic now.

 

[艹艹艹]

Yep, Nepal was part of ancient Indian civilization, so was Tibet.

The administrative jurisdiction in Tibet has been under the jurisdiction of the central government of ancient China since 700 years ago.
But ancient India civilization has long since disappeared

Your assertion that China was always ruled by one central authority is highly doubtful in itself and far from truth. Modern day China is not same as ancient Chinese kingdoms. Some Chinese kingdoms controlled most parts of China for some times in history as some Indian kingdoms like Mauryas or Mughals did. The timeline of central kingdom controlling large parts of China may have been more than that in India's case as India faced many more foreign invasions. Here's how Chinese empires fared through the centuries.

There was no idea of nation state or countries before 18th century either in case of India or in case of China. China became a country in 1949, before that it was Qin, Xia, Ming dynasties and these dynasties had no connecton to each other, similar to the case of India. British Raj did act as the catalyst for awakening nationalist feelings among the Indians but then that was how the winds were flowing in the rest of the World at that time with the rise of national states and idea of modern day nationalism.

IVC civilization bought by 'outsider aryans' is again wrong even if we go by the Aryan invasion theory according to which Aryans were the cause of its decline. IVC civilization extended from eastern India (Uttar Pradesh) to Afghanistan, with its trading port town in Gujarat. Indic culture has extended within the natural geographical frontiers of the Indian sub-continent and modern nation state of India encompasses most that geographically and is its cultural inheritor, since other remaining states of the sub-continent are anything but Indic now.

LOL，，
This picture and content is wrong

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

British Raj did act as the catalyst for awakening nationalist feelings among the Indians...

See you guys accept it as well, it's just mainstream world history.

The idea of India was one created by Western colonialists. Before that there was no sense that someone from Tamil Nadu and West Bengal were the same people, of the same nation or the same civilization.

It's okay to not know something, but peddling misinformation as 'knowledge' makes one a joker, don't be one.

Next you'll be claiming the Indus Valley Civilization was a part of Ancient India.

The people who actually live along the Indus River (Pakistanis) will roll on the floor laughing at such an assertion. @Kaptaan.

 

[dray]

Next you'll be claiming the Indus Valley Civilization was a part of Ancient India.

Of course, any sane Pakistani already knows that, Pakistan itself was a part of ancient Indian civilization.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Of course, any sane Pakistani already knows that, Pakistan itself was a part of ancient Indian civilization.

No such thing as Ancient Indian Civilization.

The Civilization and religion were named by Westerners after a river in British India, not in the Republic of India.

The source of this Civilization lies in modern day Pakistan.

 

[GS Zhou]

It was China that was created in 1949.

We Chinese call ourselves as Zhong Guo (中国, literally the Middle-Country.)

The script below comes from an ancient Chinese ritual bronze vessel that made in Xi Zhou Dynasty, around 3,000 years before. The four characters circled is: 宅兹中国 (Translation: build house in Zhong Guo /中国).

Below is an arm protector digged from an East Han-Dynasty tomb in Xinjiang Province in 1995. The East Han Dynasty existed from 25–220 AD. See what is written on it? 五星出东方利中国, or "Five star rises in the East, brings benefits to Zhong Guo".

And Indian civilization is one of the oldest continuous civilization in the world,

since India is a continuous civilization, so you must can read the Indus script (also known as the Harappan script)

 

[schoolboy]

China was ruled by one central government/authority since 2000 years ago (Qin/Chin Dynasty). All of China's dynasties since then have been successors to this state, and also ruled the country from one central authority in the Chinese capital.

India is completely different. The dynasties in India had no connection to each other, they did not succeed each other, they did not rule from any central authority apart from one instance where the territory of modern-day India just happened to be inside Ashoka's Empire (along with the rest of the subcontinent and beyond).

The idea of India as a unified nation, under one central authority only existed after British India. Before that the landmass was occupied by hundreds of separate countries.

Understanding history is not something that can be googled in 5 minutes.

Both the subcontinent (I would have said 'Indian' - but then the Pakistanis will take it personally) and China have had longstanding civilizations of approximately equal vintage - and both were, and are ethnically homogeneous with some exceptions. I use the word 'civilizations' to denote a long lineage of concurrent religo-ethnic identity - because in both these cases the dominant religion has remained in place for sufficiently long that people do not consciously consider it a 'religion' as such. [In contrast to Islam - which is a religion but not a single civilisation (yet), even Christianity is far from a single civilisation though Judaism is perhaps a civilisation].

Both have seen changes in ruling class - and just as the subcontinent witnessed 'outside' dynasties taking over - such as the Khiljis (Turkish), Lodhis (Afghan) and Mughals (Turk-Mongol), China has it's share of outsider - via the Yuan (Mongols), the Xia (Tibeto-Burmese) and most recently the Qing (Manchus). And just as not all Indian dynasties exercised dominion over all of the subcontinent, very few Chinese dynasties had dominion over all of modern China - and in fact large tracts of northern and western china had little to do with the dynasties (most of which were concentrated over the fertile plains in east-central China). Politically, this continuity has remained intact in the immediate-past and present in the case of China, whereas in the subcontinent the impact of British rule led to the creation of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

 

[LURKER]

See you guys accept it as well, it's just mainstream world history.

The idea of India was one created by Western colonialists. Before that there was no sense that someone from Tamil Nadu and West Bengal were the same people, of the same nation or the same civilization.



Next you'll be claiming the Indus Valley Civilization was a part of Ancient India.

The people who actually live along the Indus River (Pakistanis) will roll on the floor laughing at such an assertion. @Kaptaan.

Yes I accept British Raj acted as catalyst for awakening of Nationalism in India. This is taught in our history books as well. The idea of nation states was the one created by Western world, from which came the ideas of modern nation states of both India and China among others. In case of China too some Uyghur from Xinjinag had nothing in common with someone from Tibet and it made no sense that they are from the same nation or civilization before PRC came up in 1949.

 

[Hammad Arshad Qureshi]

Of course, any sane Pakistani already knows that.

Well can you show me a historical proof that you guys are the owner of Indus Valley civilization. the older civilizations in subcontinent were know by their dynasty names like Gupta, Maruya , Nanda etc. And civilizations in India Pakistan subcontinent started from Indus Valley. So we Pakistani people are much more owner of the entire subcontinent then anyone else

 

[LURKER]

LOL，，
This picture and content is wrong

Which part of it is wrong? I gathered this info from the internet. Perhaps you can enlighten us more.

 

[艹艹艹]

Which part of it is wrong? I gathered this info from the internet. Perhaps you can enlighten us more.

The range and age of the image display is wrong

 

[nature is]

Yes I accept British Raj acted as catalyst for awakening of Nationalism in India. This is taught in our history books as well. The idea of nation states was the one created by Western world, from which came the ideas of modern nation states of both India and China among others. In case of China too some Uyghur from Xinjinag had nothing in common with someone from Tibet and it made no sense that they are from the same nation or civilization before PRC came up in 1949.

Nation-state and state are two different concepts, don't meddle the two.

"State" refers to a single political entity under some centralized rule.

"Nation-state" refers to state with a homogeneous people and culture. (Post British era, India had become a state, but not a nation-state. Never will be, too diverse ethnic and cultural background)

Nation-state is a new concept a few centuries old, but "state" is not. Case in point, the many ancient kingdoms/empires. China has been a single political entity since 221 BC, adding or subtract Xinjiang/Tibet makes no different. Territorial contraction or expansion doesn't define a state.

If USA loses Texas and California back to Mexico, it doesn't alter USA as a political entity that was formed in 1776. If India today add Sri Lanka or loses kashmir, it doesn't change the status of India as a state either.

 

[GS Zhou]

In case of China too some Uyghur from Xinjinag had nothing in common with someone from Tibet and it made no sense that they are from the same nation or civilization before PRC came up in 1949.

Below is the Imperial Edict of the Abdication of the Qing Dynasty Emperor. The content circled in red is: Lands from Manchu, Han, Mongolia, Uyghur and Tibet continues to form an integrated China.