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

[scorpionx]

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.

As I said earlier, India's geographical, cultural similarities gave the impression of a supposed homogeneity to the West. With common religious heritage, linguistic and ethnic diversities people in the region lived under different monarchs. One more thing, India was referred to the region beyond Indus, not just the area adjacent to it. For nearly two thousand five hundred years, region from North West Pakistan to Bengal in the East were commonly known as India by the Greeks (Megasthenes wrote Indica, not just Taxila, Patliputra or vanga). Under Turco-Afghan rule, as they proceeded more towards south, the area came to be known as Hindusthan. Although there was no common political or national philosophy present in India, before Congress came into being in the late 19th century, a prevailing sense of commonality always existed in the region.

 

[Tshering22]

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

Technically speaking the British were in favour of keeping all of the princely states independent rather than a large country, which would become its competitor in the future.

It was Sardar Patel who did all the unification; I don't understand why the Brits are credited for it.

I completely agree with the bold part.

 

[S.Y.A]

Hind name was inspired from the River Indus, the region of the Indus Valley,modern Punjab(the entire Punjab region, the one in India as well), and Sindh(again same word different pronunciations) combined(most of what is now Pakistan) was called Hind by foreigners, the regions beyond that, the Gangetic plains etc. were collectively called Bharat(modern India).