The History of South Asia on Changin Map:---There was no India

[NirmalKrish]

Hi,

Enjoy this 10 minutes of history lesson.

At one point in time, we were all single cell organisms on one land mass, your point being?

 

[RealNapster]

prior to Mughlas there were many kingdoms (bigger than Mughal Sultanate) ruling over the country.

Whole of the country ?

 

[MastanKhan]

At one point in time, we were all single cell organisms on one land mass, your point being?

Hi,

That is a handsome dog that you have---I have two babies of my own now almost 5 years old---.

What do you want me to say to your post comments?

 

[Stephen Cohen]

What do you want me to say

You should frankly and Truthfully tell us why Pakistanis have a grudge
against India's SIZE

You being an ELDER member can shed some light

Secondly If India was an Artificial country as is always said by Pakistanis
why is it that All 1.1 Billion
Hindus of India want to live Together inspite of such diversity
amongst us Hindus

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Pakistanis are not the only ones telling---.

Anyone who has any fundamental knowledge about the region knows and understands that there was never anything as " India ".

It is just like the mongols claiming that china and russia and middle east is a larger mongol land.

 

[Tshering22]

Hi,

Pakistanis are not the only ones telling---.

Anyone who has any fundamental knowledge about the region knows and understands that there was never anything as " India ".

It is just like the mongols claiming that china and russia and middle east is a larger mongol land.

India was created by the british.

But the land behind India was always called Bharat or Bharatvarsha - before your identity even existed.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

It is just like the mongols claiming that china and russia and middle east is a larger mongol land.

Mongols may have ruled over China and Russia but their total population was
very less and so they have been confined to Mongolia

Similarly Muslims ruled over South Asia but when they realised that their
population was far lesser than Hindus ; they opted for partition

Partition consolidated Hindus into One BIG country
where as Muslim strength was divided into Three Parts

Anyway claims dont matter

Both China and Pakistan claim Indian territory but we dont give a $hit
to such claims

 

[Sliver]

strange.. there was no pakistan or china or America either!

 

[Stephen Cohen]

India was created by the british.

But the land behind India was always called Bharat or Bharatvarsha - before your identity even existed.

The British Only united this country into one SINGLE Administrative unit

However India was also a single administrative unit under various Kings
and emperors starting with Chandra Gupta Maurya

With the passage of time Kingdoms dissolved and new kingdoms came in their place

The British rule made the HINDUS realise the Foolish mistakes of being
divided in the past which only benefitted the invaders

Cultural and Religious Similarities and Identity always existed

British gave us a Political Identity

 

[Stephen Cohen]

British rule made India and Indians into Paupers and financial destitutes
but they FORGED a nation state out of the 500 Plus Kingdoms that
existed in 1750 AD in South Asia

Otherwise even today Indians would be fighting as in 1750

And there would have been at least 50 countries in South Asia

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

In the U S A---many an american have no concept about AFRICA. Many think that africa is a single nation---a small country from where all the slaves came.

They don't know that africa is a larger continet than north america---that constitutes of many a countries---. They don't understand that these countries have geographic boundaries---they don't know that these countries may have different languages as well---and one african country maybe completely different than the other country---.

For many a black american---taking a trip to south africa is like visiting their home which is farthest from the truth---.

So---what the outsiders or people from other areas may call a certain region---does not mean that it is known as the same by the locals---.

Tell an egyptian, ethiopian, libyan, nigerian, south african that he is an african.

 

[My-Analogous]

I am not sure why it is so difficult to understand the simple fact that ancient India was not a single political unit, rather a geographical entity for its religio-cultural similarities through out the subcontinent to the chroniclers of the West. The Nation-state concept is itself a 19th century phenomenon, so how could India exist as a state two thousand years ago?

And sorry to say, any effort to look down upon this particular expression is never going to work. Indian subcontinent will always be Indian subcontinent and Indian Ocean will always remain as it is called today.

Absolutely correct and it is a fact that word India come from Indus and no body can challenge that.

 

[Thorough Pro]

There was NO ancient india. India came into being on August 15, 1947.

I am not sure why it is so difficult to understand the simple fact that ancient India was not a single political unit, rather a geographical entity for its religio-cultural similarities through out the subcontinent to the chroniclers of the West. The Nation-state concept is itself a 19th century phenomenon, so how could India exist as a state two thousand years ago?

And sorry to say, any effort to look down upon this particular expression is never going to work. Indian subcontinent will always be Indian subcontinent and Indian Ocean will always remain as it is called today.

 

[scorpionx]

Hi,

In the U S A---many an american have no concept about AFRICA. Many think that africa is a single nation---a small country from where all the slaves came.

They don't know that africa is a larger continet than north america---that constitutes of many a countries---. They don't understand that these countries have geographic boundaries---they don't know that these countries may have different languages as well---and one african country maybe completely different than the other country---.

For many a black american---taking a trip to south africa is like visiting their home which is farthest from the truth---.

So---what the outsiders or people from other areas may call a certain region---does not mean that it is known as the same by the locals---.

Tell an egyptian, ethiopian, libyan, nigerian, south african that he is an african.

This analogy in some way is correct, Mastan Sahib. Perhaps India is more diverse than Africa or Europe and can easily termed as a continent altogether in terms of its ethnic, religious diversities. The only difference is, in case of Europe, in all Nationalist movements there were one or more binding factor,language, religion or a common foreign enemy. For the British, it was France; For US, it was common hatred against colonialism and shared language. For small European nations, it was language. From this particular point of view, India is an unnatural Nation that came into being in 20th century.

I know where this difficulty to understand the concept of India stemming from. Unlike Pakistan, where civilian and Military elites have repeatedly since Independence had made efforts to overcome the difficulty of linguistic and cultural diversities by imposing a single gluing factor (just like Europe, only difference is it did not come from the bottom) of religion, India, as one scholar put it, was a 'political Noah's arc which sought to keep every species of Indian on board.' Nehru and Gandhi accepted the diversity of this country before forging it as a single political unit.

The absence of a Nehru and Gandhi, in the political movements of Europe and Africa has made the difference between a 'Natural' Nation State and an unnatural country like India. Our problem, after seventy years of Independence, is not linguistic or religion, as many would presume. Our problem is primarily economic. We are losing men in uniform and civilian lives more by the Maoists and North East insurgents, not 'evil Muslims'. Despite being world's second largest population (?) only a negligible portion have joined the terrorist groups. More than 70% of them have faith in Indian constitutional democracy and the number is rising every year. So, we can safely assume that, this unnatural concept of Nation State is a more or less success, isn't?

Absolutely correct and it is a fact that word India come from Indus and no body can challenge that.

We will happily accept it, My analogous. Indus also falls under OUR cultural realm. We evil expansionists have even included it in our national anthem

 

[MastanKhan]

This analogy in some way is correct, Mastan Sahib. Perhaps India is more diverse than Africa or Europe and can easily termed as a continent altogether in terms of its ethnic, religious diversities. The only difference is, in case of Europe, in all Nationalist movements there were one or more binding factor,language, religion or a common foreign enemy. For the British, it was France; For US, it was common hatred against colonialism and shared language. For small European nations, it was language. From this particular point of view, India is an unnatural Nation that came into being in 20th century.

I know where this difficulty to understand the concept of India stemming from. Unlike Pakistan, where civilian and Military elites have repeatedly since Independence had made efforts to overcome the difficulty of linguistic and cultural diversities by imposing a single gluing factor (just like Europe, only difference is it did not come from the bottom) of religion, India, as one scholar put it, was a 'political Noah's arc which sought to keep every species of Indian on board.' Nehru and Gandhi accepted the diversity of this country before forging it as a single political unit.

The absence of a Nehru and Gandhi, in the political movements of Europe and Africa has made the difference between a 'Natural' Nation State and an unnatural country like India. Our problem, after seventy years of Independence, is not linguistic or religion, as many would presume. Our problem is primarily economic. We are losing men in uniform and civilian lives more by the Maoists and North East insurgents, not 'evil Muslims'. Despite being world's second largest population (?) only a negligible portion have joined the terrorist groups. More than 70% of them have faith in Indian constitutional democracy and the number is rising every year. So, we can safely assume that, this unnatural concept of Nation State is a more or less success, isn't?



We will happily accept it, My analogous. Indus also falls under OUR cultural realm. We evil expansionists have even included it in our national anthem

Hi,

I am talking about something different---. An insider says that I am a Eriterian or Somalian or an ethiopian---the outsider says you are an african---we know of you as an african.

In a similar manner---outside may call the region Hind---from river Sindh or Indh---and attaches great value to it----.

And someone who originates 500---1000 miles away from Sindh---wants to look important---says yeah I am from that region also---even though he has no connection to it---but being in a different country---he claims it to be so---.

Just like the Vietnamese here in the U S are calling themselves ASIANS----1000 years from now---they will say---that is where asia originated from.