Was india a country before it was ruled by the British?

[Indika]

In your opinion, what are the hallmark of nation building that separate Han Dynasty from say Gupta or Maurya Dynasty. Why is it that Han Empire made the modern China but Maurya Dynasty did not. Also, are there legitimate historians -- especially those who are not politically invested in China -- who believe that Han Empire made modern China and since then China is a single unified political entity.



Maurya empire existed till 180 BC or so while Gupta Empire never came in to being before 300 AD or so. These are two different empires separated by around 500 years of time.

As far as Akhand Bharat goes, do you have some reliable historical source to suggest that Gupta empire promoted the concept of Akhand Bharat or they united whole of what region what we call India today into a single political entity. FYI the Gupta empire never had reaches into the area that we call state of Maharashtra today.

applying the same standards even china is not a single country politically. Most of the ppl apply double standards to suit their interests.

Indians need to know that are entitled to their own opinion. But not their own fact, such as British didn't created India. When history clearly shown that British created India is FACT.

British said and chinese accepted. Wow wat a logic. The whole world says SCS does not belong to china but china still insists it belongs to it. So should we follow chinese or the europeans?
Epic double standards, you can start calling females as males & vice versa , we have no issues.

 

[Shajida Khan]

This entire thread reminds me how for a number of people -- especially those who are well educated -- the model of reality in their head is more important than reality itself. Somehow, it is more important that a country should have a single religious, ideological, linguistical and cultural identity to exist nevermind that country has existed and flourished for more than half a century and going strong. It is more important that things should be neatly fit into their idea of reality.

This is not the first time I am seeing this. I remember reading about evolution and how the most erudite of British of that time found it to be so confusing when they saw chimpanzee having a remarkable resemblance with humans that they called it an abomination -- because in their worldview humans were perfect creation of God.

Folks, reality does not owe anyone any dime, it is your headache to put labels on it and it will not follow your labels to suite your worldview. These labels come in many form -- Akhand Bharat, One China, Perfect Creation etc.

 

[Levina]

where is @Levina

Hahah
Levina is around.

To those who still have doubts about if India existed before the British arrived then these old maps of India might help>>>

Map of 1545, recently put for auction.

Map of 1593>>>

Howdy buddy? Don't see you around these days.

 

[Sugarcane]

Heh, Both India and Pakistan have Indus river in their territory. If you insist that Pakistan has more rights to Indus or a name derived from Indus river then that way India can claim that Pakistan should change her name to something non Islamic as India has more Muslims compared to Pakistan.

It originates from Tibet, some part in disputed territory (Ladakh) rest of it flow across all the Pakistan.

How you can say that "Pakistan" is Islamic name? There is no "P" in Arabic.....

 

[faithfulguy]

In your opinion, what are the hallmark of nation building that separate Han Dynasty from say Gupta or Maurya Dynasty. Why is it that Han Empire made the modern China but Maurya Dynasty did not. Also, are there legitimate historians -- especially those who are not politically invested in China -- who believe that Han Empire made modern China and since then China is a single unified political entity.



Maurya empire existed till 180 BC or so while Gupta Empire never came in to being before 300 AD or so. These are two different empires separated by around 500 years of time.

As far as Akhand Bharat goes, do you have some reliable historical source to suggest that Gupta empire promoted the concept of Akhand Bharat or they united whole of what region what we call India today into a single political entity. FYI the Gupta empire never had reaches into the area that we call state of Maharashtra today.

Han dynasty believed that its government succeeded the Qin dynasty of the same country. At the end of Qin dynasty, there were rebellion with multiple leaders claim to be the new emperor of China. They eliminating one another until the emperor of Han is left. He become the successor of the last Qin empire. For this condition to exist, most the competing parties come to accept that

1. Thee is one empire
2. They are competing to be the leader of the empire.

Keep in mind that Chinese empire was formed just 15 years before the event begin and there were forces that wanted to separated China into multiple states. But the forces that unite the country prevail. China has multiple civil wars and separation after that, but when China was separated, the people were self aware that the country were separated. And the separate emperors has competing claims against one another. The best example is right now. Both government of Taiwan and China claim to represent whole China.

As for India, is the leader of Gupta empire see itself as the successor dynasty of Maurya empire. What are the dynasties between Gupta or Maurya? Did Maurya created India as a country while India didn't existed as one before? After Maurya empire, is there continuously a leader that claim to be the leader of India, derived its mantle even from the leader of the first ruler of Maurya empire?

The events in 1940s shows why India is a newly form nation and China was not. India willingly split to two nations of India and Pakistan shows that India is a newly formed country trying to establish itself. Chinese leaders of both the communist and nationalist side believe that they are the legitimate ruler of a continuous and united country that dated back since 221 BC so it's up to them to unite the country.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The truth may be lying somewhere in between. Patel should get some 30 percent credit because although British brought the region under one rule, while leaving they didn’t want India to be united. They carved out Pakistan and Bangladesh from their erstwhile territories, covertly orchestrated secessionist tendencies in various princely states like Hyderabad and others, supported the Portuguese over Goa issue and when their efforts failed their intelligence agency got Patel assassinated.

@PaklovesTurkiye @SarthakGanguly @Gibbs @jbgt90

Nation states is a 18th century phenomena. Not really interested in butthurts wasting their time here. Sorry, mate.

Without the British, we would most likely have been under a Maratha Confederacy+Sikh Empire. The present borders would have included almost all of Pakistan and beyond. Especially because they were in an alliance with the Sikh Empire.

applying the same standards even china is not a single country politically. Most of the ppl apply double standards to suit their interests.


British said and chinese accepted. Wow wat a logic. The whole world says SCS does not belong to china but china still insists it belongs to it. So should we follow chinese or the europeans?
Epic double standards, you can start calling females as males & vice versa , we have no issues.

China is not ONE country EVEN now. There are two Chinas.

This entire thread reminds me how for a number of people -- especially those who are well educated -- the model of reality in their head is more important than reality itself. Somehow, it is more important that a country should have a single religious, ideological, linguistical and cultural identity to exist nevermind that country has existed and flourished for more than half a century and going strong. It is more important that things should be neatly fit into their idea of reality.

Brilliantly put. Now Miss, please depart from this thread. It is of no use. The losers who run and play in this thread are just that - losers. Having lost their land, their religion, their faith, their history, their culture - they set out to cannibalize what others have. Normal human behavior. Let them be.

 

[Bharat Muslim]

Without the British, we would most likely have been under a Maratha Confederacy+Sikh Empire. The present borders would have included almost all of Pakistan and beyond. Especially because they were in an alliance with the Sikh Empire.

Did you get your facts wrong? I think it must have been roughly a Mughal empire.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Did you get your facts wrong? I think it must have been roughly a Mughal empire.

Common misconception. There are plenty of threads here and history resources online with verifiable sources. For one hint, the Mughal 'emperor' was a vassal of the Maratha Empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delhi_(1737)

I won't elaborate. Google is your best friend. The friends here can point you to the directions as well. Our 10th history books omit stuff deliberately to fool us.

 

[XDescendantX]

Twenty years from now people will be saying: "What? India? Oh, you mean that country that didn't even last a century". Lol

 

[Indus Pakistan]

he present borders would have included almost all of Pakistan and beyond.

How would Pakistan have been included? Are you drunk? If British were not there the Maratha and Sikh empire would have been rivals., Anyway alliance does not equal making one country. Then you also have independant Sindh leave alone Balochistan.

@PAKISTANFOREVER Here is a infographic for you that fumigates Indian's who think Pakistan was carved from India. That is a fallacy. British India was carved to make Burma, Indian Republic and Pakistan. Pakistan was NOT carved from Indian Republic. The only way one is qualified more then others is it shares partly the name. Other than that they are equal successor states. John has three children. John Jr, David and Steven. All are equal and just because John Jr has the same name as the parent does not entitle him to greater rights to the father's legacy.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

How would Pakistan have been included? Are you drunk? If British were not there the Maratha and Sikh empire would have been rivals., Anyway alliance does not equal making one country. Then you also have independant Sindh leave alone Balochistan.

I am sorry. Western India. Pakistan did not exist in that timeline.
Alliances merge, as in Italian, French, German, Polish, etc Unification movements in the 19th century. Not interested much to debate would haves and could haves.

Rest of your post is diatribe, rants of an old man that does not deserve a response.

 

[Bharat Muslim]

How would Pakistan have been included? Are you drunk? If British were not there the Maratha and Sikh empire would have been rivals., Anyway alliance does not equal making one country. Then you also have independant Sindh leave alone Balochistan.

@PAKISTANFOREVER Here is a infographic for you that fumigates Indian's who think Pakistan was carved from India. That is a fallacy. British India was carved to make Burma, Indian Republic and Pakistan. Pakistan was NOT carved from Indian Republic. The only way one is qualified more then others is it shares partly the name. Other than that they are equal successor states. John has three children. John Jr, David and Steven. All are equal and just because John Jr has the same name as the parent does not entitle him to greater rights to the father's legacy.

Why are you breaking your head over an India-centric thread? Did anyone tag or quote you? You may simply hit the ignore button. Or shall I start taking potshots at you?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Pakistan did not exist in that timeline.

Neither did Indian Republic. Just because your country used a geographic term as name does not mean anything. Indian Republic came into existance on August 1947 same time as Pakistan. I am not going to waste anymore time with son of a Ganga/Dravidian.

You can spin any stories you like but rest assured the only piece of earth worth anything in South Asia, be it from historical perspective, to genetic stock resides in Indus region and that is in Pakistan. No dances with your name India and dreams of it extending to the Khyber Pass is going to change this ugly reeality for you.

You can call me old or whatever but nothing is going to change the fact that most of India ended up with all the aboriginal junglees numbering in 100s of millions. Have fun with them !

Why are you breaking your head over an India-centric thread?

If you Ganga junglees stayed within your foul smelling Ganga/Dravid land I would not even come near your threads as that would make me dirty by association. The only Indian people I have even the slightest interest in is Sikhs because of their contiguity to Pakistan. They even have a Gurdwara in Hasan Abdal.

But the problem is you Ganga's insist in including our god's chosen land - the Indus in your wet dreams. You stay out of our land in your pipedreams rest assured I don't want nothing to do with you. But you bring Indus region into anything and it becomes my business.

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

No India was not a Country before 1947 . India became a Country in 1947 and Republic in 1950 .

India was a Cultural nation that is in existence for Thousand of years .
India existed in the Mauryan era . India existed in Mughal era , India existed in British era and India still exists now .

 

[faithfulguy]

No India was not a Country before 1947 . India became a Country in 1947 and Republic in 1950 .

India was a Cultural nation that is in existence for Thousand of years .
India existed in the Mauryan era . India existed in Mughal era , India existed in British era and India still exists now .

In another word, India was never a political unit, but a culture before the British united India. You are the first Indian to accept that.