This Indian Land Is Chinese Land

[Iggy]

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?

Never mind..

 

[faithfulguy]

Never mind..

Thanks for finally understand the definition of a nation vs a culture.

 

[Iggy]

Thanks for finally understand the definition of a nation vs a culture.

Yeah right !! thanks for making me understand what you are really intend to do here

 

[oceanx]

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?

It's a pity that too many people - some out of ignorance, and others out of expediency - have fallen into the age-old Limey-patented excuse that "India was never a 'unified' country" in order to conveniently justify colonial subjugation.

Japan had said exactly the same about China for there was no China, but a succession of dynasties ...

Is Brazil a nation or a culture, Faithful? Is UK the mother country a nation or a culture?

Is your ROC a nation or a culture? Who cares Faithful? And who cares if the Manchu "united" China and Brits "united" India? The point is: the dynasty that was ROC had passed. But China and India are here today.

 

[faithfulguy]

It's a pity that too many people - some out of ignorance, and others out of expediency - have fallen into the age-old Limey-patented excuse that "India was never a 'unified' country" in order to conveniently justify colonial subjugation.

Japan had said exactly the same about China for there was no China, but a succession of dynasties ...

Is Brazil a nation or a culture, Faithful? Is UK the mother country a nation or a culture?

Is your ROC a nation or a culture? Who cares Faithful? And who cares if the Manchu "united" China and Brits "united" India? The point is: the dynasty that was ROC had passed. But China and India are here today.

Brazil is a country created by portugese. So was UK a country as an English culture, which is part of Western European culture.

The modern countries are countries. The Ming was holding most of China proper, so was the Ching. The difference between India and China through out history is that there is no sense of a nation called India. I'm not saying that India should be spit up. But India today was created by the British empire. China today, actually, was created by Mao and Deng.

 

[faithfulguy]

Yeah right !! thanks for making me understand what you are really intend to do here

what am I trying to do here?

 

[oceanx]

The modern countries are countries.

??? Care to explain the sentence in proper Chinese for a "better understanding", Faithful?

The Ming was holding most of China proper, so was the Ching.

Below is the most credible map of the Ming:



And how was the Ming holding "most of China proper"? Unless you wish to agree with the "colonialists" that iInner Mongolia, Manchuria, North Xinjiang, and most of Tibet are not "China Proper". Then we will have another discussion.

The difference between India and China through out history is that there is no sense of a nation called India. I'm not saying that India should be spit up. But India today was created by the British empire. China today, actually, was created by Mao and Deng.

The difference, I repeat, is one of degree and not type. Is there any point in repeating the mantra that the British "created" India?

Could Mao have created the PRC without Stalinist Soviet Union's material assistance? So didn't Stalin create China then?

Well the Allies created Germany. Germany must not be a "real country" ...

I suggest you quit arguing about the legitimacy of India. There is no green pasture here for an ROC Yank.

 

[faithfulguy]

??? Care to explain the sentence in proper Chinese for a "better understanding", Faithful?




Below is the most credible map of the Ming:



And how was the Ming holding "most of China proper"? Unless you wish to agree with the "colonialists" that iInner Mongolia, Manchuria, North Xinjiang, and most of Tibet are not "China Proper". Then we will have another discussion.




The difference, I repeat, is one of degree and not type. Is there any point in repeating the mantra that the British "created" India?

Could Mao have created the PRC without Stalinist Soviet Union's material assistance? So didn't Stalin create China then?

Well the Allies created Germany. Germany must not be a "real country" ...

I suggest you quit arguing about the legitimacy of India. There is no green pasture here for an ROC Yank.

I'm not argueing about the legitimacy of India nation. I just believe its legitimacy is from that of British empire

 

[navtrek]

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?

To be honest don't worry ill give u all the facts to convince u my friend

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.

And those states u are talking abt am sure every king would have wanted to conquer the whole of China in China i mean those days the same is true here also in India that's why all the battle .

"Bharatha" or "Bharatha varsha" what India called was called centuries ago its called so in the holy book of hindus Bagavat gita and that's way back so from centuries ppl know the existence of India.

Even now in in our national language we call our mother land as Bharath

 

[navtrek]

I'm not argueing about the legitimacy of India nation. I just believe its legitimacy is from that of British empire

We get ur point POV but we only got the name British India i.e India from them and thats what we have retained till today.

 

[navtrek]

This thread is getting little tooo..... deviated so lets come back to Arunachal Pradesh guys

Lets assume both India & China existed that should solve the problem.

 

[navtrek]

??? Care to explain the sentence in proper Chinese for a "better understanding", Faithful?




Below is the most credible map of the Ming:



And how was the Ming holding "most of China proper"? Unless you wish to agree with the "colonialists" that iInner Mongolia, Manchuria, North Xinjiang, and most of Tibet are not "China Proper". Then we will have another discussion.




The difference, I repeat, is one of degree and not type. Is there any point in repeating the mantra that the British "created" India?

Could Mao have created the PRC without Stalinist Soviet Union's material assistance? So didn't Stalin create China then?

Well the Allies created Germany. Germany must not be a "real country" ...

I suggest you quit arguing about the legitimacy of India. There is no green pasture here for an ROC Yank.

Great boss thanks a lot perfect conclusion great

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

That map is deceptive, as it only shows ONE of the many Chinese dynasties at that time. It is like saying USA only encompasses New York State because at that time the current "powers" had only influence over that area, with most of the land "subject to savage attacks".

Also, oceanx is an Indian, so its really pathetic one Indian is stroking another Indian.

Lastly, even today India as a nation is recognized by other countries however, in reality Hindustan does not exist in the minds of the people. You guys got high thinking that the lands that the British invaded was "India proper". The NE does not belong to you, it shares history and ancestry with China much, MUCH more than India. Sikkim doesn't belong to you.

In terms of cultural and ethnic/racial similarities, what you can "claim" is BD, Nepal, SL, and a part of PK. The problem the world has with "Akhand Bharat" is that it pathetically attempts to claim much, MUCH more:
The sick fantasy of Ahkand Bharat doesn't limit itself just to South Asia. Akhand Bharat tries to claim parts of the Persian empire, parts of Middle East proper, Afghanistan even, Chinese land (Tibet, Xinjiang, Yunnan), Myanmar, most of Thailand, parts of Campuchia and Vietnam, most of Malaysia, and parts of Indonesia, and not to mention Singapore.

Nothing can be more ludicrous. I can tell you personally ALL THESE PEOPLES DO NOT WANT TO BE ANNEXED BY INDIA. All these peoples are repulsed by the idea. Even during Zhou En Lai, Mao Zedong, Richard Nixon time, they actually discussed this (see relevant article). Lucky for you guys, many common people don't know this or else they'll throw a riot!

And the good thing is that Ahkand Bharat is NOT going to get its way. China won't stand for it. The people of Bhutan, Sikkim, Myanmar, Iran, Afghan, Middle East, Pakistan, Malaysia, Campuchia, Viet Nam, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, BD, etc will resist with their sweat and blood!


So for any Indian who shares this delusion, it's time to wake up to hard realities! Remember, we are not against the concept of a united India, if and only if it contains only "india proper".

 

[navtrek]

That map is deceptive, as it only shows ONE of the many Chinese dynasties at that time. It is like saying USA only encompasses New York State because at that time the current "powers" had only influence over that area, with most of the land "subject to savage attacks".

Also, oceanx is an Indian, so its really pathetic one Indian is stroking another Indian.

Lastly, even today India as a nation is recognized by other countries however, in reality Hindustan does not exist in the minds of the people. You guys got high thinking that the lands that the British invaded was "India proper". The NE does not belong to you, it shares history and ancestry with China much, MUCH more than India. Sikkim doesn't belong to you.

In terms of cultural and ethnic/racial similarities, what you can "claim" is BD, Nepal, SL, and a part of PK. The problem the world has with "Akhand Bharat" is that it pathetically attempts to claim much, MUCH more:
The sick fantasy of Ahkand Bharat doesn't limit itself just to South Asia. Akhand Bharat tries to claim parts of the Persian empire, parts of Middle East proper, Afghanistan even, Chinese land (Tibet, Xinjiang, Yunnan), Myanmar, most of Thailand, parts of Campuchia and Vietnam, most of Malaysia, and parts of Indonesia, and not to mention Singapore.

Nothing can be more ludicrous. I can tell you personally ALL THESE PEOPLES DO NOT WANT TO BE ANNEXED BY INDIA. All these peoples are repulsed by the idea. Even during Zhou En Lai, Mao Zedong, Richard Nixon time, they actually discussed this (see relevant article). Lucky for you guys, many common people don't know this or else they'll throw a riot!

And the good thing is that Ahkand Bharat is NOT going to get its way. China won't stand for it. The people of Bhutan, Sikkim, Myanmar, Iran, Afghan, Middle East, Pakistan, Malaysia, Campuchia, Viet Nam, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, BD, etc will resist with their sweat and blood!


So for any Indian who shares this delusion, it's time to wake up to hard realities! Remember, we are not against the concept of a united India, if and only if it contains only "india proper".

This is totally off topic pls read oceanx post and lets end this gys no point in arguing anymore. lets come back to Arunachal

 

[Roby]

what am I trying to do here?

Trolling and flaming..but not only here..