Was India Ever a Rich Country in its History?

[Sugarcane]

Sir, there is a big difference in my opinion. The Guptas and Mauryas were ethnically the same as most Indians and Indians probably had ancestors involved. The same can't be said about Muhamed Bin Quasim who represented a foreign Empire whose people had very little to do with the people of the sub continent at the time.

How they were ethnically the same as most of Indians when Indians themselves are ethnically deserve? Being a Punjabi for me Ashoka was also an invader just like Abdali - As both were outsider for the locals.

 

[GorkhaPride]

How they were ethnically the same as most of Indians when Indians themselves are not ethnically deserve. Being a Punjabi for me Ashoka was also an invader just like Abdali - As both were outsider for the locals.

I understand what you are saying but I think Indians should be allowed to have claim on Maurya and Gupta Empire as part of there history.
And I'm sorry but how were they ethnically diverse?

 

[Sugarcane]

I understand what you are saying but I think Indians should be allowed to have claim on Maurya and Gupta Empire as part of there history.
And I'm sorry but how were they ethnically diverse?

I never objected on claim of these empires, they are part of the history and nobody can challenge it. I object the concept that India was one entity/country or nation whatever just because Muryans empire spread almost all over Indian subcontinent on it's peak time. I don't know details of Gupta but Muaryan empire rose from UP - Bihar region - So, they were ethnically different from most of Indians unless you say that all/majority population of India is ethnically Biharis.

 

[GorkhaPride]

I never objected on claim of these empires, they are part of the history and nobody can challenge it. I object the concept that India was one entity/country or nation whatever just because Muryans empire spread almost all over Indian subcontinent on it's peak time. I don't know details of Gupta but Muaryan empire rose from UP - Bihar region - So, they were ethnically different from most of Indians unless you say that all/majority population of India is ethnically Biharis.

Oh okay sorry I understand now.
Bihari isn't really an ethnic group, loads of different tribes and clans live there from all across India. Might have been different back then but I don't think there is any Bihari ethnic group. And Maurya Empire also had generals from all across India.
Back on topic, I think the conception of the idea of Hind and Bharat have been around for centuries. So yes India hasn't been a united entity for MOST of it's history but the concept has always been there and that's why I think it was so easy in 1947 for the various states and kingdoms to come together.

 

[scholseys]

no such thing as India existed before 1947

 

[Sugarcane]

Oh okay sorry I understand now.
Bihari isn't really an ethnic group, loads of different tribes and clans live there from all across India. Might have been different back then but I don't think there is any Bihari ethnic group. And Maurya Empire also had generals from all across India.
Back on topic, I think the conception of the idea of Hind and Bharat have been around for centuries. So yes India hasn't been a united entity for MOST of it's history but the concept has always been there and that's why I think it was so easy in 1947 for the various states and kingdoms to come together.

I don't think that region would have been that much diverse in Muaryan times.
Concept of Bharat is based on Hindu religious scripture and thousands of years history proved that it remained limited to religious concept only as most of the time kingdoms of this region used to fight against each other and foreign invader came they joined them against each other, so if that religious concept had that much bound than they would have been united and no foreign force could have conquer but anyway i don't want to go into religious debate. Re: 47 making India & Pakistan became easy because states were not given third choice - they were forced to join either Pakistan or India. Had British gave the choice of Pakistan, India or Independence than there would have been dozens of countries like in history instead of India & Pakistan.

 

[Beidou2020]

As all the non-Indians have said, there was no such thing as 'India' until 1947.
This is a FACT.
No amount of Indian propaganda can change facts.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

As all the non-Indians have said, there was no such thing as 'India' until 1947.
This is a FACT.
No amount of Indian propaganda can change facts.

--ok.. was china was nation before 1949?
yes//no?

 

[pursuit of happiness]

I don't think that region would have been that much diverse in Muaryan times.
Concept of Bharat is based on Hindu religious scripture and thousands of years history proved that it remained limited to religious concept only as most of the time kingdoms of this region used to fight against each other and foreign invader came they joined them against each other, so if that religious concept had that much bound than they would have been united and no foreign force could have conquer but anyway i don't want to go into religious debate. Re: 47 making India & Pakistan became easy because states were not given third choice - they were forced to join either Pakistan or India. Had British gave the choice of Pakistan, India or Independence than there would have been dozens of countries like in history instead of India & Pakistan.

---
1.Concept of Bharat is based on Hindu religious scripture and thousands of years
hinduisam come much later than ancinet vedic literature. sam ved, rug ved soo on
No. no vedic literature called it HINDU RELIGIOUS BHARAT..no n in 4 vedas ...
if you know any of the ancient literature please show ..
we hear many think which are way away from facts..... dadi ma ki kahaniya ...

2. so if that religious concept had that much bound than they would have been united and no foreign force could have conquer
Chandragupta was shruda converted to jainisam..
Ashoka again shrudra (same clan )converted to buddihsam... he sent his son and daughter to srilanka to spread Buddhism ..
so your religion bonding theory needs some review ..
Shivaji was maratha and vocal advocate of HINDU rashtra... but not HINDU relgion.
he respected all religion..(when his military captured queen of kalyan whos ruler of was muslim.. he made sure she would be respected and given high regards as of the other women
Religion was never biinding force for the indian land..
religion was and is still part of DNA of indians.. but it does not take control of body....
its teaching of thousand yrs... thats why so many relgion came under one geography called INDIA..

3. independence
British is cunning . they gave 3 option on independence..
1. Pakistan
2.India
3. Right to decision for princely state ..
(its not becuase of love of freedom and fairness but make sure india as nation never come in to existence)
i agree with it may countires in india about 570 + princely sates ...was ther in india itself..
it becuase of statesman like Neharu, Patel who made ONE INDIA.....
which pakistan fails to do so..
still pakistanis are more of punjabis, sindhis, baluch first than pakistanis ..
(just to compare )
in india we mostly indian first then southy, nothy, north eastern guys
Wins churchil was right that time when he said india will disintegrate becuase they made those condition and strcture..
but it due to people of india .and leaders who made his wrong consistently for last 60yrs
and will be for next 1000 yrs..
that why we call it
INCREDIBLE INDIA

..

 

[scorpionx]

As all the non-Indians have said, there was no such thing as 'India' until 1947.
This is a FACT.
No amount of Indian propaganda can change facts.

Oh, yes off course. Just as there was no China untill 1949

 

[thesolar65]

I agree, Arab has always beaten India in Camel Racing. Islamic nations have coexisted peacefully since the time of dinosaurs.

Well, Dinosaurs could not take so much peace in their mind, it was unbearable. That's why they decided to get themselves extincted!!

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Oh, yes off course. Just as there was no China untill 1949

--
you made blunder....now china will send JETS .j10,abcedefg
as per old map of quing dynasty whole world was china..proclaimed by CCP.

How they were ethnically the same as most of Indians when Indians themselves are ethnically deserve? Being a Punjabi for me Ashoka was also an invader just like Abdali - As both were outsider for the locals.

--
Sir.. india is more about idea of nation less about ethnicity..
as per ethnicity india cant be ONE nation..
but ethnicity as criteria of nation made hilter mad...

Well, Dinosaurs could not take so much peace in their mind, it was unbearable. That's why they decided to get themselves extincted!!

dinasorus and arabs.. deadly combination...

 

[jbond197]

Nopes never!! What ever little that India got today was brought by Pakistanis who came riding on horses from Saudi!!

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Nopes never!! What ever little that India got today was brought by Pakistanis who came riding on horses from Saudi!!

--
dont put themm.. or trolls will come on horse , dianasourus and J10 -ABCDEFG

 

[Beidou2020]

Oh, yes off course. Just as there was no China untill 1949

China was a country since 220 BC. In 1949 a different government ruled China. But China as a country was existent since 220 BC. ROC was the government of China before 1949. Before that was the Qing dynasty. Before that was the Ming dynasty. Before that was the Yuan dynasty. All rulers of China the country.

There was no central government for a country called 'India'. India became a country in 1947. Before that India was just a continent. Like Africa is a continent.

Your founding father Winston Churchill said 'India is merely a geographical expression'. I think he knows more about India that any Indian since he founded your country.