The British Raj in the sub-continent was a good thing for the muslims?

[Developereo]

Thats exactly the point I was trying to make. All the regional kingdoms were not significant enough to match British India(India that was directly under British rule).

And so, unless British divided the India they directly ruled into different piece's, British India was always going to dominate the different kingdoms.

And dividing British India was almost impossible without the support of the people because there was a powerful Congress in the Government.

And even if the British struck a deal with the Kingdoms to make them independent, India would simply have invaded and cajoled them right after independence. Because they were not powerful enough to withstand India. And India did just that after Independence with those kingdoms that did not fall in line when GoI asked them to.

We'll just have to leave it as a difference of opinion.

As I wrote earlier, I wasn't just talking about the princely states, but dividing the whole region into a Bengal and a Gujarat and a TN and a Hyderabad and .... as separate countries.

All you need to find is the right people in the ruling elite of each proposed country, and I don't think the Brits would have hard a hard time finding such partners. You'd be surprised how quickly "national" patriotism evaporates when the right amount of self-interest is involved. Especially in the context where new countries are being created anyway.

Now that we are clear on that. Bharat varsha is not a time of glory. Its a place. We can make it glorious or we can screw it up. Bharat Varsha at different times has been glorious and has been ruled as well.

I was too lazy to type out the whole phrase. It was a time and place -- a (long lasting) event -- which symbolized the golden age of the faithful. In the same way that the old Caliphates (both in terms of duration and their geographical scope) symbolized the golden age.

As I understand it, Bharat varsh sanctity is tied to the Mahabharata and the glorious empire described within.

 

[Fattyacids]

Winston Churchill used to say India is not one nation, so you concluded British had a role. BTW, there is always an ancient basis for nationalism, for us that came from the historical idea of Bharat/Hindustan/India. During last 200 years nationalism had been sweeping all across the world, infact Greece, Italy or Germany were only recently been united.

From 185 BC to 1858, that's 2000 years, there was never an unified/centralized empire until British conquered South Asia. You were never one country, much less a "nation state. " What nationalism are you fantasizing? Inventing your own version of history again!!! Learn the definition of nation stat before spewing garbage. Even today, India is NOT nation state!!!

 

[INDIC]

From 185 BC to 1858, that's 2000 years, there was never an unified/centralized empire until British conquered South Asia. You were never one country, much less a "nation state. " What nationalism are you fantasizing? Learn the definition of nation state before spewing garbage like you always do. West Europeans were nation states, India wasn't even a country until 1947, even today, India is NOT nation state!!!

Our nationalism is multiethnic, Chinese nationalism is only for Han people based on fantasizing the Empire created by a foreign invader against whom you once built great wall. There was no united China before 1949-50 when Mao Zedong unite all of it although he missed Taiwan.

 

[Fattyacids]

Our nationalism is multiethnic, Chinese nationalism is only for Han people based on fantasizing the Empire created by a foreign invader against whom you once built great wall. There was no united China before 1949 when Mao Zedong unite all of it although he missed Taiwan.

You never were one country until Britain created India in 1947, even then you were not a nation state. What 200 years of Indian nationalism are you talking about??? British India nationalism.

Qin unified China 2000 years ago. Seek medical help if you can't get over your complex. Your re-inventing Chinese of history isn't going to help. Stay on topic. Do not degrade the quality of discussion.

 

[INDIC]

You never were one country until Britain created India in 1947, even then you are a nation state. What 200 years of nationalism are you talking about??? British India nationalism.

Seek medical help if you can't get over your complex. Your denial of Indian history, re-inventing Chinese history isn't going to help. Stay on topic. Do not degrade the quality of discussion.

Your skyrocketing high IQ again failed, go read it properly, I was talking about entire world. Pointing to your fake history is not reinventing, China united since 221BC, what a joke.

.
Qin unified China 2000 years ago.

Yes, so called united China which contains a small territory of China and only survived for few years. If Qin was united China, what was rest of territory.

 

[Fattyacids]

Your skyrocketing high IQ again failed, go read it properly, I was talking about entire world. Pointing to your fake history is not reinventing, China united since 221BC, what a joke.

Do not assume everyone is as dimwitted as you, there is a great disparity in intellect. And character as well. You are a well known liar here. Proof?
Post 85

BTW, there is always an ancient basis for nationalism, for us that came from the historical idea of Bharat/Hindustan/India.

Post 77

It was mix of strong nationalism among people and visionary leaders. British were only interested in their divide and rule policy.

Yes, so called united China which contains a small territory of China and only survived for few years. If Qin was united China, what was rest of territory marked as yellow.

Territory changes, but concept of a unified state doesn't. When US was formed in 1776, it's only 1/4 of its current size.

Post reported for derailing the thread.

 

[INDIC]

Do not assume everyone is as dimwitted as you, there is a great disparity in intellect. And character as well. You are a well known liar here:

Post 85

Post 77

I am only saying people look towards their ancient past for inspiration of their nationalism, for us its the idea of Bharata varsha part of our folklore and passed from one generation to other for thousands of years, we look towards it for our nationalism. Even if you have high IQ, you won't understand it.

Post 77

I wrote "It was mix of strong nationalism among people and visionary leaders. British were only interested in their divide and rule policy." So, what surprising in that. We had a strong nationalistic movement under the banner of Indian National Congress and they have presence and support in every corner of India even in Portuguese ruled Goa.

 

[Fattyacids]

I am only saying people look towards their ancient past for inspiration of their nationalism, for us its the idea of Bharata varsha part of our folklore and passed from one generation to other for thousands of years, we look towards it for our nationalism. Even if you have high IQ, you won't understand it.

Mythology is not exactly real history. Two, you were never one country, much less a nation state. Who are you trying to fool?

I am only saying people look towards their ancient past for inspiration of their nationalism, for us its the idea of Bharata varsha part of our folklore and passed from one generation to other for thousands of years, we look towards it for our nationalism. Even if you have high IQ, you won't understand it.



I wrote "It was mix of strong nationalism among people and visionary leaders. British were only interested in their divide and rule policy." So, what surprising in that. We had a strong nationalistic movement under the banner of Indian National Congress and they have presence and support in every corner of India even in Portuguese ruled Goa.

Who are you trying fool? You were referring to nationalism before India was even created in 1947.

 

[INDIC]

As I understand it, Bharat varsh sanctity is tied to the Mahabharata and the glorious empire described within.

There are many countries in the world where origin of the name can be attributed to pagan religious mythology for a fixed territory, even after leaving their religion they still kept those pagan mythology intact.

Mythology is not exactly real history. Two, you were never one country, much less a nation state. Who are you trying to fool?

It may came from Mythology but Bharat varsha was a real territory where people lived and their inhabitants believed in Bharata varsha. And its people's common belief that matters most.

Who are you trying fool? You were referring to nationalism before India was even created in 1947.

Its like asking Chinese didn't believed in Communism before 1949. What a stupid question you just asked.

 

[INDIC]

Territory changes, but concept of a unified state doesn't. When US was formed in 1776, it's only 1/4 of its current size.

Post reported for derailing the thread.

Depends up what kind of fancy words you want to use. If United States was founded by native Americans, I would had understood your comparison of China with United States.

 

[Fattyacids]

It may came from Mythology but Bharat varsha was a real territory where people lived and their inhabitants believed in Bharata varsha. And its people's common belief that matters most.

First, you denied your nationalism refers to India. After I exposed your lie, now you back track. Even then, you failed to come up with a valid argument.

A territory is not the same as an empire or country, a country is not the same as nation state. You were not even one country after 185BC, the only common belief was religion, even then the people were later Islamized. What nationalism crap.

This is what happened when one try to lie and re-invent history.

Its like asking Chinese didn't believed in Communism before 1949. What a stupid question you just asked.

Political ideology and definition of a state are independent of each other. How retarded can your logic get.

 

[INDIC]

First, you denied your nationalism refers to India. After I exposed your lie, now you back track. Even then, you failed to come up with a valid argument.

What do you mean by refers to India. We use both the names Bharat and India. What you really exposed is your high IQ.

A territory is not the same as an empire or country, a country is not the same as nation state.

This is what happened when one try to lie and re-invent history.

I never said it , it were you claiming empires as nations.

Political ideology and definition of a state are independent of each other. How retarded can your logic get.

You were basically talking nonsense.

 

[Fattyacids]

What do you mean by refers to India. We use both the names Bharat and India. What you really exposed is your high IQ.

You just said Bharat = India, how am i wrong? Now go slap your silly.

I never said it , it were you claiming empires as nations.

You are a pathological liar
Post 114.

It may came from Mythology but Bharat varsha was a real territory where people lived and their inhabitants believed in Bharata varsha. And its people's common belief that matters most.

You were basically talking nonsense.

Making such empty statement is an admission that you lost the argument,

 

[INDIC]

You just said Bharat = India, how am i wrong? Now go slap your silly.

If you think so, why you call your country as China in English instead of Zhongguo. Stop making me bored with your stupid logic.

 

[Fattyacids]

Depends up what kind of fancy words you want to use. If United States was founded by native Americans, I would had understood your comparison of China with United States.

The territory of India since 1947 was not the same either. Going by your dumb logic, india was not yet one country until Northeast states formally joined in the 70s.

Spare this forum absurdity, race or ethnicity doesn't define a state

If you think so, why you call your country as China in English instead of Zhongguo. Stop making me bored with your stupid logic.

It's not what I think, it is what you said. Are you intellectually impaired?

Do not make absurd and irrelevant analogy.