This Indian Land Is Chinese Land

[Red Dwarf]

As posted earlier in another thread, Indian justification for claims to the dispute land between China and India is base of the British imperial claim and Simla. There had been many dyansties and state in the Indian subcontinent. And certainly there is a distinct Indian subcontinent culture. The one thing that unify the Indian culture through out its history has been Hinduism. But a strong culture history does not represent a nation. The one force that created the Indian nation is the British. So the claims that India makes now is base on British claims.

So you are saying there existed a country named China even before humanity.

 

[faithfulguy]

So you are saying there existed a country named China even before humanity.

We are currently talking about the nation state of India. Not talking about China now. The Indian subcontinent defintely has an unique culture that grew there in history. In it existed many states and languages. The Indian subcontinent can be equate to western Europe, many states united by one past and one religion. The difference is that India is united and western Europe is not. So India is more advance than Europe in this regard.

 

[Invictus]

We are currently talking about the nation state of India.

I fail to see how that is relevant to the topic!!!

This Indian Land Is Chinese Land


If u really want to talk 'bout something else,I think u r free to start an entirely new thread

So India is more advance than India in this regard.

Now,this guy has lost it completely

 

[faithfulguy]

I fail to see how that is relevant to the topic!!!

This Indian Land Is Chinese Land


If u really want to talk 'bout something else,I think u r free to start an entirely new thread



Now,this guy has lost it completely

sorry fo the typo. The reason we are talking about India now is because according to China, India is occupying Chinese land. We were talking about how India as a nation was formed by the British. The key word here is nation as Hindu culture of south asia had been around for a long time but a nation state of India was created by the British Raj.

 

[navtrek]

sorry fo the typo. The reason we are talking about India now is because according to China, India is occupying Chinese land. We were talking about how India as a nation was formed by the British. The key word here is nation as Hindu culture of south asia had been around for a long time but a nation state of India was created by the British Raj.

sorry buddy the princely states u are talking abt came in to existence only after the British came coz the Indian empires started to collapse.

Can u imagine Indians fighting with swords against guns ? anyways that's not the point

1.Epic India is the depiction of Greater India in the Sanskrit epics, viz. the Mahabharata and the Ramayana as well as Puranic literature (the Itihasa). 1500 BC–AD 1200.

The whole subcontinent was conquered by the Maurya Empire during the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE.



Much of India was once again united in the 4th century CE, and remained so for two centuries thereafter, under the Gupta Empire. This period, of Hindu religious and intellectual resurgence, is known among its admirers as the "Golden Age of India."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/IndiaGuptaEmpire.jpg

10th and 15th centuries CE from Central Asia, leading to the formation of Muslim empires in the Indian subcontinent such as the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire.

kingdoms such as the Vijayanagara Empire, the Maratha Empire and the Ahom Kingdom, flourished contemporaneously in Southern, Western and North-Eastern India respectively.

The Mughal Empire suffered a gradual decline in the early eighteenth century, which provided opportunities for the Afghans, Balochis and Sikhs to exercise control over large areas in the northwest of the subcontinent until the British East India Company gained ascendancy over South Asia.

Beginning in the mid-18th century and over the next century, India was gradually annexed by the British East India Company.

that was the gist of it during all this period India was largely united
and the princely states came after the British thanks to there divide and rule policy

India then was known as Bharata

Bharata (emperor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or
Hindustan (Hindi:हिन्दुस्तान Hindustān [ɦɪndʊˈstaːn]), meaning either "land of Hindus" or "land of the Hindu River", is one of the names of India

then we have what u are talking about

The British Raj (rāj (राज, را&#1580, lit. "reign" in Hindustani[1]) is the name given to the period of British colonial rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947

 

[navtrek]

If you are not convinced i can give u an explanation in more detail

And one more thing This Indian land is still Indian coz non of the members could defend it to be Chinese land.

apart from threatening to use military option haven't heard much

 

[faithfulguy]

There were empires through out Indian history just as there were empires through out European history that conquere a large portion of Western European continent. these include, Roman empire, Chalemagne's empire, Holy Roman empire, Hapsburg empre. But this doesn't mean that Europe is one country as its one culture divided by languages and history. That same can be said of India before British rule. So the British united India as a nation state.

 

[faithfulguy]

So you are saying there existed a country named China even before humanity.

The terms Chinese use for China had been around since the 1400s. Prior to that, China has been more united than divided for 2000+ years. When its divided, the rulers of the divided "statelets" claims sovereign over the whole China. So China did has a sense of a nation for over 2000+ years.

 

[navtrek]

The terms Chinese use for China had been around since the 1400s. Prior to that, China has been more united than divided for 2000+ years. When its divided, the rulers of the divided "statelets" claims sovereign over the whole China. So China did has a sense of a nation for over 2000+ years.

Same logic the term Indians use for India is also there from centuries. Only the name British east India came from British that's all.

And for centuries even India was under single rules you can see my previous post with full maps.& this was not like Rome my friend the situation is the same as that of China

You can just see the

The Constitution of India recognizes Bharat as an official name of equal status. The name Bharat is derived from the name of the legendary king Bharata in Hindu Mythology.

Hindustan originally a Persian word for “Land of the Hindus” referring to northern India, is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India.

 

[navtrek]

The terms Chinese use for China had been around since the 1400s. Prior to that, China has been more united than divided for 2000+ years. When its divided, the rulers of the divided "statelets" claims sovereign over the whole China. So China did has a sense of a nation for over 2000+ years.

but i do understand your conclusion based on India's diversity but our diversity is because India was a very rich land both for knowledge & wealth so it is natural that there will be migration.Invasions by Alexander,the Persians etc and hence this diversity.

 

[Iggy]

@Navtrek ..he will not understand it buddy..he is not here to understand and learn .he is here to bash and troll..the picture you shown are shown to him by several members here many times..stilll he came back with same rants...leave it..

 

[faithfulguy]

but i do understand your conclusion based on India's diversity but our diversity is because India was a very rich land both for knowledge & wealth so it is natural that there will be migration.Invasions by Alexander,the Persians etc and hence this diversity.

Yes, and the people of each region do not see themselve as people of one single, whole country if there is not an empire that unite Indian subcontinent together. Empire that do come and go, but unless I'm wrong, one empire do not regard itself as a successor of the previous empire, but the conqueror of the previous empire. So the empire and history of India appear more similar to that of Western Europe than that of China.

 

[faithfulguy]

@Navtrek ..he will not understand it buddy..he is not here to understand and learn .he is here to bash and troll..the picture you shown are shown to him by several members here many times..stilll he came back with same rants...leave it..

I'm trying to use logic. You either refuse to listen to me or you understand me but is impress by the obvious. There is a land call Bharat, like al and called Europe. But Europe is not a country. neither is Bharat. Is there a believe through out Bharat history that the whole Bharat must be under one leader all the time? If not, then the country is not united?

 

[Iggy]

I'm trying to use logic. You either refuse to listen to me or you understand me but is impress by the obvious. There is a land call Bharat, like al and called Europe. But Europe is not a country. neither is Bharat. Is there a believe through out Bharat history that the whole Bharat must be under one leader all the time? If not, then the country is not united?

mate different dyanaties ruled my country at different times in the history..same as any other country..But when British came we were busy fighting each other so they captured all our lands and made it united again.Every country has same story to tell once way or another..The name Bharat is derived from a ruler who ruled the entire country long long ago..Is it satisfactory for you?

 

[faithfulguy]

mate different dyanaties ruled my country at different times in the history..same as any other country..But when British came we were busy fighting each other so they captured all our lands and made it united again.Every country has same story to tell once way or another..The name Bharat is derived from a ruler who ruled the entire country long long ago..Is it satisfactory for you?

The history of India consists of states fighting each other. There could be one of the states or a foreign invader that took over the whole India. But they are still the rule of the state that happen to create an empire in Indian subcontinent. But Bharat refers to a land and a people, not a nation. From what I gather, when an empire ended, there was not a "need" for the rebellion to recreate an impire again and regard the nation as divided unless the empire is reconstituted. This is the definition of a nation.

For example, if there are rebellions all over India today, would the various rebels seek to unite the whole India under their rule? Is because there is a sense of a "nation" call India today that there is a need for this rebels to unite the nation once again. Prior to British rule, is there such a sense of uniting the nation?