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

[Sugarcane]

Bharat should change her name to clear her confusion, it should be named after Ganga or Brahamputra instead of Indus i.e. Gangia, Gandia, Brandia, Bhindia etc.

 

[faithfulguy]

Transition from monarchy to republic is a change in the form of government, the political entity is still the same. Russia after the revolution is still the same Russia. Different fraction fought for power, Bolshevik led by Lenin won. ROC lost the Chinese civil war to PRC. France after French Revolution is still the same country. They were already a sovereign state/political entity before the transition.

Very good point. The difference was that India was never a political entity. There were empires that encompassed much of Indian subcontinent. But they were empires for itself, not related to A whole India nation. For example, claim India existed since ancient time is like someone claim a country called Europe existed since ancient time because the Roman Empire was in Europe.

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

Balaji Viswanathan wrote this · India · 12am
Was India a country before it was ruled by the British and the East India Company?

Balaji Viswanathan, Indian by Birth. Indian by Thought.
Written 12am
Yes, it was a country before Britain came. Where was Columbus to sailing to, if India didn’t exist? Why did he name the natives of America, Indians?

People often confuse the terms country, nation and a state. Country is a geographical term.

Was India a country as defined by a geography? Yes. Greeks and Persians and Arabs and Europeans used it for thousands of years.

India is also a nation as defined by common cultural norms and behaviors. Outsiders recognized common patterns & thus called the people of the nation Hindus. And the insiders too recognized common patterns and called the nation from Kashmir to Kanyakumari as a single cultural unit called the Bharat. The two ends of India - name Kashmir comes from sage Kashyapa and Kanyakumari comes from the goddess Parvati - both important elements of Hinduism. The Pandits of Kashmir chant the exact same Vedas in the exact same order of words as in any other part of India. And across India we revel in Ramayana and Mahabharata. All of these make us a nation.

Has India been a sovereign state - as defined by common political systems - all the time? No. In fact, none of the major countries of today existed as a nation state a few centuries ago. The concept of a nation state is only about 3 centuries old. There have been rise and fall of empires that have ruled a chunk of the country. Sometimes the political union was made and other times it was unmade. That was true for every other civilization. They just differ on how long they have stayed together in political terms.

While country and nation are fairly static entities, a state is a very fluid entity. Even 70 years ago, we didn’t have many parts of present day India as part of the present political union. We added Kashmir, Hyderabad, Junagadh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa and Sikkim to our political union. Just because the union increased in size since 1947, mean that our union changed in character? We added Sikkim only in the 1970s and Siachen glacier in 1980s. Does that mean our state didn’t exist before then?

For most of Indian history, the political union was not very important. The nation was united more by social systems than political systems. Whoever rules at the top has always been skating at the surface.

Answered by Balaji Vishwanathan on quora

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Awww.

Haters gonna hate.

What is mauryan empire?

What is bharat varsha?

Indian history did not start with British.

There are numerous dynasties that ruled large parts of Indian.

This is the dumbest argument that people come up with.

USA existed only for 200 years yet people call it a country, in reality it was red Indian territory occupied by Europeans of various cultures and linguistics.

And the same guys who accept china and USA as countries come to India and speak these stupid words.

For a country to exist economy and military might plays a key role. As long as the ruling entity stays strong it protects its territories and keep them intact.

I see some cry babies in this thread who are coming up with dumb arguments.

There is no criteria for a region to exist as a single country. If any one do not agree then they can challenge us and face the music.

Who cares?

Losers? Gibbs and Kaptaans? Just enjoy the show.

 

[rustom]

'

Do you even know the basic history of South Asia. In a way, Mugals integrated most of north India into one kingdom. British expanded it to include South.

Before Mugals, South Asia was divided into dozens of kingdoms.

Is what you posted taught in CBSE schools?

For you may be south asia was divided, realty is something else. For us history didnt begin with port qasim, our history predates it.

 

[Kaniska]

<<<
Yes, it was a country before Britain came. Where was Columbus to sailing to, if India didn’t exist? >>>

India is a geographical indicator, you idiot. It is not a country name. If someone says I am going to Europe, it does not mean it is a country, you fool.

2. The Myth of India and Indian Unity

The British conquered the various kingdoms in the Indian subcontinent one by one. Then, for ease of administering (ruling) the conquered territories, the British set up an administrative unit called India. A country or administrative unit called India (or by any other name), comprising of the current territories of India, never existed in all known history, before the British conquest and consolidation.

During the British colonial rule, people of the Indian subcontinent (including those areas now in Pakistan and Bangladesh) had a common purpose and agenda, namely, freedom from British colonial rule. Such a one-ness of purpose never before existed amongst the various peoples of the Indian subcontinent. It brought them together. Finally, in the middle of the 20th century (in the middle 1940s), the British decided to end their rule over the subcontinent. The one-ness of purpose that evolved during the freedom struggle against the British held, with the one exception that most of the Muslim-majority regions in the north became a separate nation called Pakistan at the insistence of the Muslims. Much of the rest of the subcontinent became a country called "India".

India, as a country, by any name, never existed before the British colonial rule in all history, in spite of the oft-repeated false propaganda of the long history, one-ness and unity of India.
---------------- excerpt from Thanjai Nalankilli, Tamil Tribune

You do not leave any chance to spoil your hatred for India....I think, Pakistai friends are more rational than you...

 

[faithfulguy]

Bharat should change her name to clear her confusion, it should be named after Ganga or Brahamputra instead of Indus i.e. Gangia, Gandia, Brandia, Bhindia etc.

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.

 

[kvpak]

What is mauryan empire?



There are numerous dynasties that ruled large parts of Indian.

This is the dumbest argument that people come up with.

USA existed only for 200 years yet people call it a country, in reality it was red Indian territory occupied by Europeans of various cultures and linguistics.

And the same guys who accept china and USA as countries come to India and speak these stupid words.

For a country to exist economy and military might plays a key role. As long as the ruling entity stays strong it protects its territories and keep them intact.

I see some cry babies in this thread who are coming up with dumb arguments.

There is no criteria for a region to exist as a single country. If any one do not agree then they can challenge us and face the music.

What is mauryan empire?

There are numerous dynasties that ruled large parts of Indian.

Mauryans never set foot on Tamil Nadu. Read some real history not the cooked up NCERT and CBSE text books

I was referring to dynasty covering Indian subcontinent but even then I believe Maurya was having more area under their control compared to Chola.

My hasty google search throws this result:

http://empires.findthedata.com/compare/18-47/Chola-Dynasty-vs-Maurya-Empire

Thanksfor the maps.

As the map shows Mauryan empire did not include Tamil Nadu.

Also Mauryans did not have any overseas territory. Cholas had a powerful navy and conquered even parts of Indonesia as your map shows.

 

[Unsakred]

Attaboy baldy .....here is your bone ...... now go fetch some more memes.

 

[hell9214]

What we call as Republic of India was formed on 15th Aug 1947, IMHO. If I remember my history lessons correctly, the term 'Bharat' in terms of geography has represented what we call Indian Subcontinent, politically the two biggest political entities that had existed are Murya Empire and Mughal Empire. Mind you their reign also included modern Afghanistan, Bangladesh etc as well, so it will not be exactly correct to call 'that' as India or Bharat.

That said I find it funny why we are having this discussion in this forum or why we all are so defensive about this issue. Many modern countries have roots in ancient civilizations, heck, Austria-Hungary were one kingdom once and later they split. Modern PRC was also once broken into a number of warring states and lets not even talk about Russia. No one gives this much damn.

First of all I m correcting its not a murya empire its Gupta dynasty or empire...
Second if u know that histroy in that Gupta dynasty they make or give name it to akhand bharat that was tym frm where India have started its as a country...

 

[kvpak]

Gupta dynasty they make or give name it to akhand bharat that was tym frm where India have started its as a country...

Tamil Nadu was not part of the Gupta empire

 

[hell9214]

Mauryans never set foot on Tamil Nadu. Read some real history not the cooked up NCERT and CBSE text books



Thanksfor the maps.

As the map shows Mauryan empire did not include Tamil Nadu.

Also Mauryans did not have any overseas territory. Cholas had a powerful navy and conquered even parts of Indonesia as your map shows.

U know why mauryan never go to tamilnadu coz tamilnadu is the farthest place frm there capital Patna nd also, nd read some histroy they never goes to tamilnadu coz the Tamil kings made peace with ashoka...
In the the past the first king of Gupta dynasty defeated the Tamils king then they made peace with mauryan... nd ru comparing mauryan with Chola u don't know mauryan have more land mass then anyone nd they have invaded more countries Thn any kings..

 

[kvpak]

first king of Gupta dynasty defeated the Tamils king then they made peace with mauryan

Don't try tyo fabricate history. THere is absolutely no evidence mauryans defeated Tamils. Show me evidence from reputable history texts or KEEWP QUIET

 

[hell9214]

Tamil Nadu was not part of the Gupta empire

Thn read some histroy that how much Tamil kings nd its people afraid to Gupta dynasty that's why they make a peace with Thn after the first king samundragupta defeated pallava dynasty king....

 

[kvpak]

Thn read some histroy that how much Tamil kings nd its people afraid to Gupta dynasty that's why they make a peace with Thn after the first king samundragupta defeated pallava dynasty king....

Oh you ignorant fellow. Pallavas ruled parts of Tamil Nadu between 3rd and 9th centuries AD.
Mauryans ruled parts of South Asia (did not include Tamil Nadu) between 322 and 185 BC