Was India Ever a Rich Country in its History?

[IceSage]

No empire ruled 100% of Indian subcontinent even British, and after reaching at peak no empire lasted for long - within 100-200 years they collapsed. They conquered different nations but couldn't hold long enough to transform them into one nation. That's why saying that India was one country since 1000s of years is as much illogical as saying Asia was one country.

No country in this world has been 1 nation for 1000s of years. Germany in 1500s was different geographically then today, France was different in 1700 from today, etc. But there is no doubt that the present day French and German nations inherit the kingdoms these nations had in past, even if the map geographically has been changed due to historical circumstances. Same goes for India.

Also, nationhood of India is based on shared cultural values dating back many thousand years, and not being part of the same empire or being under the same king.

 

[--,-'{@]

Whateve you have been taught since birth, it's impossible to unlearn.

mullah cries some Shitty words into your ears just the moment ure born. since then ure brainwashed. can u plz type those words in reply quote?

 

[Sugarcane]

-
How many empires ruled 100% of this region? None
Right .. why .. because each kingdom is itself a state with huge army ..
the Warrior elephants is destruction machine to name one of the lethal weapon..
War elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
you dont have army who can equally fight in dessert of guj, raj or hills of sahayadris in western ghasts
or in north east dense jungle..
like that it was difficult to rule PAN india or PAN indian subcontinent
How many empires ruled major part of subcontinet and kept it united? You can count on finger tips of one hand, Maurya, Gupta, Mughal, British - any else? out of these 2 were foreigners.
Agreed.
So, In thousands years of history of the region max 1,000 year it was united. that was also by force.
tell me which territory kept under rule by love .. it always force first ..

When you accept that there were multiple kingdoms with their own armies and rules; and agree with that just few empires for shorter period in total history ruled (somewhat) total subcontinent by conquering other kingdoms than you actually are accepting the fact that Indian subcontinent never was one kingdom/nation or country in today's definition.

 

[--,-'{@]

No country in this world has been 1 nation for 1000s of years. Germany in 1500s was different geographically then today, France was different in 1700 from today, etc. But there is no doubt that the present day French and German nations inherit the kingdoms these nations had in past, even if the map geographically has been changed due to historical circumstances. Same goes for India.

Also, nationhood of India is based on shared cultural values dating back many thousand years, and not being part of the same empire or being under the same king.

simple to say but hard to believe these people are not worth of out time, just let them realise that they are not what they think, ull be happy, I've started the charity back home. getting good results. but veeeeeery slowly thick brainwashed heads are not so easy to be calmed or normal-ed

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

No country in this world has been 1 nation for 1000s of years. Germany in 1500s was different geographically then today, France was different in 1700 from today, etc. But there is no doubt that the present day French and German nations inherit the kingdoms these nations had in past, even if the map geographically has been changed due to historical circumstances. Same goes for India.

Also, nationhood of India is based on shared cultural values dating back many thousand years, and not being part of the same empire or being under the same king.

Exactly the point. I laugh when people on this website say " there was no India back then". Well then there was no Greece or China or even Egypt back then. How can there be ? The concept of Nation state itself is new. Just like India, even China, Greece , Egypt etc. all were divided into difference warring states and kingdoms and were united for only brief period in between.

 

[Sugarcane]

mullah cries some Shitty words into your ears just the moment ure born. since then ure brainwashed. can u plz type those words in reply quote?

There is no difference between a Mullah who think that he ruled all India for 1000 years just because Mughals were Muslim and an Indian who think they ruled all India because Guptan and Muryans were Hindus.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

When you accept that there were multiple kingdoms with their own armies and rules; and agree with that just few empires for shorter period in total history ruled (somewhat) total subcontinent by conquering other kingdoms than you actually are accepting the fact that Indian subcontinent never was one kingdom/nation or country in today's definition.

---
i accept because .. as per my knowledge its true...
indian subcontinent was never natation...
before 1947 we were kingdom and princely state
after independence we started journey become nation ..
1. Constitution of India
which is "indestructible union with destructible state " which legitimize idea of ONE NATION
2. Acquiring princely state
3. changing land laws.
4. states based on regional requirement 91956 onwards)

which made INDIA as nation..
but in pak it did not happened

todays definition cant be apply even before 50 yr india as world is changing very fast

 

[Sugarcane]

No country in this world has been 1 nation for 1000s of years. Germany in 1500s was different geographically then today, France was different in 1700 from today, etc. But there is no doubt that the present day French and German nations inherit the kingdoms these nations had in past, even if the map geographically has been changed due to historical circumstances. Same goes for India.

Also, nationhood of India is based on shared cultural values dating back many thousand years, and not being part of the same empire or being under the same king.

In Europe kingdoms evolved into countries, in Indian subcontinent kingdoms evolved into states/provinces. Cultural sharing/overlapping do happen when different people are living side by side - what's big thing in this?

---
i accept because .. as per my knowledge its true...
indian subcontinent was never natation...
before 1947 we were kingdom and princely state
after independence we started journey become nation ..
1. Constitution of India
which is "indestructible union with destructible state " which legitimize idea of ONE NATION
2. Acquiring princely state
3. changing land laws.
4. states based on regional requirement 91956 onwards)

which made INDIA as nation..
but in pak it did not happened

todays definition cant be apply even before 50 yr india as world is changing very fast

You are running in circles

 

[pursuit of happiness]

There is no difference between a Mullah who think that he ruled all India for 1000 years just because Mughals were Muslim and an Indian who think they ruled all India because Guptan and Muryans were Hindus.

--
muslim/mughal rule in india
start - Babur wining - battle of panipat - 1526
end - Battle of Buxar - loosing to british - 1726
200 yrs....
max if iextend to 1857 when Bahadur shah deported and end of MUGHAL as instituion in india
325 yrs max

SO even muslim /mugha rule not more than 350 yr in INDIA .. same as other g8 of gupta and maurya
where from that 1000 yr came ?

 

[SrNair]

Riaz Bhai completely ignored India at that times means entire Indian subcontinent including both Pakistan and Bangladesh.
But that time is long gone and vanished in the history.Both China and India lost all of its wealth.But India dont have time to worry about our lost wealth.Now our efforts is to convert India in to a developed country.Good intelluctual like Riaz Haq must work for the betterment of pakistani society.Calculating the lost wealth of ancient India will not bring prosperity to present world and its men.It is a waste effort

 

[pursuit of happiness]

In Europe kingdoms evolved into countries, in Indian subcontinent kingdoms evolved into states/provinces. Cultural sharing/overlapping do happen when different people are living side by side - what's big thing in this?



You are running in circles

-- i said 1947 india was not nation state ..
we indian made it nation after independence ..
was china -quing dynaty was nation?
was Persian umpire was nation?
even greeks who had parliament like system had king to rule..so it was kingdom?
nation state came after frech revolution .. if i am not wrong
Nation state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sugarcane]

--
muslim/mughal rule in india
start - Babur wining - battle of panipat - 1526
end - Battle of Buxar - loosing to british - 1726
200 yrs....
max if iextend to 1857 when Bahadur shah deported and end of MUGHAL as instituion in india
325 yrs max

SO even muslim /mugha rule not more than 350 yr in INDIA .. same as other g8 of gupta and maurya
where from that 1000 yr came ?

Religious fanatics with their twisted version of history are same no matter which religion they belong.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Riaz Bhai completely ignored India at that times means entire Indian subcontinent including both Pakistan and Bangladesh.
But that time is long gone and vanished in the history.Both China and India lost all of its wealth.But India dont have time to worry about our lost wealth.Now our efforts is to convert India in to a developed country.Good intelluctual like Riaz Haq must work for the betterment of pakistani society.Calculating the lost wealth of ancient India will not bring prosperity to present world and its men.It is a waste effort

--
that beauty of riaz bhai.. always controversial..
hope he goes to world bank or Treasury secretary of USA./china

 

[SrNair]

LOL sorry but you can spin it whatever way you want but there was no such thing as 'India' before 1947.

As the founding father of 'India' Winston Churchill said, 'India' is merely a geographical expression.

Repeating that idiotic rant will give some relieve to you.But now India is a reality like any other nations

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Religious fanatics with their twisted version of history are same no matter which religion they belong.

--
can you give me corret fact then please do

Religious fanatics with their twisted version of history are same no matter which religion they belong.

how relgion came in this?
i gave you facts
Battle of Buxar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Panipat (1526) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia