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

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Enjoy this 10 minutes of history lesson.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Now you have, deal with it.

 

[Mamluk]

India is basically British-Raj-Lite. More work is needed to completely dismantle this colonial legacy.

 

[scorpionx]

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.

 

[Kabira]

India is something British handed to them in a plate after they left. They had to forcefully occupy many regions and still do.

 

[Mamluk]

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

"India" is a very ill-defined term. Where does it start and where does it end (historically, before British empire)? Who decides?
Who is an Indian - is it only a citizenship or there is more to it (since you guys insist it's ancient term)? If an inhabitant of territories held by India refuses to identify as one, is he still Indian?

India spans the boundaries of three distinct Primary Language families. It cannot be an ethno-linguistic nation. Neither a race based identity, like "white Europe".

It is simply a subcontinent-sized geographic area united by a colonial empire and handed over to new elites when they left. Any other attempt to define India will always require excessive explaining and more scholarly acrobatics than defining natural states like Germany or China.

Pakistan differs from India in that we agree we are five major ethnic groups united as a single federation. We are under no illusion that Pakistan is some ancient concept.

 

[scorpionx]

"India" is a very ill-defined term. Where does it start and where does it end (historically, before British empire)? Who decides?
Who is an Indian - is it only a citizenship or there is more to it (since you guys insist it's ancient term)? If an inhabitant of territories held by India refuses to identify as one, is he still Indian?

India spans the boundaries of three distinct Primary Language families. It cannot be an ethno-linguistic nation. Neither a race based identity, like "white Europe".

It is simply a subcontinent-sized geographic area united by a colonial empire and handed over to new elites when they left. Any other attempt to define India will always require excessive explaining and more scholarly acrobatics than defining natural states like Germany or China.

Pakistan differs from India in that we agree we are five major ethnic groups united as a single federation. We are under no illusion that Pakistan is some ancient concept.

Sir, this had been an extensively researched and debated topic. India has never been an ill defined term as you have stated. To the Persians, from whom Greeks and later all the western world the derived the idea of India it was the unknown region beyond Indus upto whose banks it's remotest Satrapi existed was known as India. Unlike a Nation State which must have a defined territorial integrity and a well established political system, a geographical or cultural entity does not necessarily need to have a starting point and an ending point.

In Europe, first attempts to build states based upon singular Identity based upon language, ethnicity and a common enemy were made only two hundreds years back. Germany before then was just a conglomeration of princely states, so calling it a natural state is a bit irony, isn't it?

If you look at the video, you will notice India from time to time had been united politically under different rulers. British of course defined it's modern boundaries but please note, when they left there were more than 700 hundred disgruntled princely states. So the British united modern India is a bit farcical idea in my opinion.

I will get back after finishing my work.

 

[Mamluk]

Sir, this had been an extensively researched and debated topic. India has never been an ill defined term as you have stated. To the Persians, from whom Greeks and later all the western world the derived the idea of India it was the unknown region beyond Indus upto whose banks it's remotest Satrapi existed was known as India.

This remotest Satrapi was around the region of Sindh. The use of this term has been extended too far, especially by the British.

Germany before then was just a conglomeration of princely states, so calling it a natural state is a bit irony, isn't it?

Not really. Germans are a fairly racially homogeneous ethno-linguistic identity.

British of course defined it's modern boundaries but please note, when they left there were more than 700 hundred disgruntled princely states. So the British united modern India is a bit farcical idea in my opinion.

Politically and militarily subjugated princely states. They were no more independent than the British let them be.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@MastanKhan

Earlier India was called Hindustan by foreign powers

India was the name given by the British

Only the NAME is new ; the land ; civilisation ; the people ; the culture are
5000 years old

India is a Civilisational entity which has now become a Modern nation state

What BINDS India together is Hinduism

More work is needed to completely dismantle this colonial legacy.

When will you give up your delusions and wake up to reality

 

[RealNapster]

Earlier India was called Hindustan by foreign powers

First it was called sindhu. remember that Sindhu was not the name of whole of India but just a Part of current Sindh and Baluchistan and Gujrat areas. Then came Mughals, The one who called hindustan "Hindustan" were the Mughals. and the history of Mughuls is as far as 1500 only. Now, You should remember that it was the Mughuls, who first conquered major Portion of "what is now part of India", Before that this land had only small states of Raja Maharajas. Mughul's made it a Country. Then British continued this and conquered more areas and added them to Mughul territory and called it British-India.

India, or Hindustan [as a country] didn't existed before 11th Century. But it doesn't matter. as It exist NOW. so let's move on.

 

[third eye]

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.

Threads like these are more to reassure posters of their own fallacious opinions, things they say to themselves over & again to reinforce their own views to themselves. The title speaks for itself

How does anything that happened in the past matter today ? The realities of the day are for all to see .

A side note : I have often read posters here thumping their chests with stupid things like "1000 years rule" - not that it matters but the ppt destroys this silly notion.

 

[MandarK]

First it was called sindhu. remember that Sindhu was not the name of whole of India but just a Part of current Sindh and Baluchistan and Gujrat areas. Then came Mughals, The one who called hindustan "Hindustan" were the Mughals. and the history of Mughuls is as far as 1500 only. Now, You should remember that it was the Mughuls, who first conquered major Portion of "what is now part of India", Before that this land had only small states of Raja Maharajas. Mughul's made it a Country. Then British continued this and conquered more areas and added them to Mughul territory and called it British-India.

India, or Hindustan [as a country] didn't existed before 11th Century. But it doesn't matter. as It exist NOW. so let's move on.

Seems like Non-Islamic history is not taught in Pakistan. prior to Mughlas there were many kingdoms (bigger than Mughal Sultanate) ruling over the country.

 

[Acknowledge]

Seems like Non-Islamic history is not taught in Pakistan. prior to Mughlas there were many kingdoms (bigger than Mughal Sultanate) ruling over the country.

No, in Pakistani text books they teach a little about IVC and then jump directly to the Central Asian invasions (in which they then try to pass off Central Asians as 'us'/'Pakistanis').

 

[xairhossi]

No, in Pakistani text books they teach a little about IVC and then jump directly to the Central Asian invasions (in which they then try to pass off in the Central Asians as 'us'/'Pakistanis').

Central Asians (Aryans) gave you your language, religion and everything that comes with it

 

[hussain0216]

India is basically like africa and just as diverse

It just was forced under a union by muslim and then British empires

Without this they would just be mini states warring against each other

Indians/hindus have a deep love for revisionist history however