Was India Ever a Rich Country in its History?

[pursuit of happiness]

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.

---
when mongal came?

(2.30 min see mongal)

how you describe country?
gupta and maurya were centrality administerr kingdoms..
india was continent ? you in which std?
your founding father - THE JAPANESE
we dont have w.Chuchl DNA ( for that you need to do what Japanese did .. )
do you have any close connection with W.C
you have very much affection to WC as Father

 

[Beidou2020]

---
when mongal came?
how you describe country?
gupta and maurya were centrality administerr kingdoms..
india was continent ? you in which std?
your founding father - THE JAPANESE
we dont have w.Chuchl DNA ( for that you need to do what Japanese did .. )
do you have any close connection with W.C
you have very much affection to WC as Father

Mongols were the Yuan dynasty, they overthrew the previous rulers of China and became the new rulers of China.

That's why we had a central government.

India never had a country, just small kingdoms which the British colonised and united under one government.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Mongols were the Yuan dynasty, they overthrew the previous rulers of China and became the new rulers of China.

That's why we had a central government.

India never had a country, just small kingdoms which the British colonised and united under one government.

-- educate yourself..
yuan dynasty claim cant came dynastic rule a NATION
read histroy.. british never united any kingdom..
links given
thanks

 

[Beidou2020]

-- educate yourself..
links given
thanks

I don't need a bunch of western created propaganda to tell me facts.

I know facts.

Western propaganda distorts facts to suit their own agenda.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

I don't need a bunch of western created propaganda to tell me facts.

I know facts.

Western propaganda distorts facts to suit their own agenda.

--
I don't need a bunch of Chinese created propaganda to tell me facts.

I know facts.

Chinese propaganda distorts facts to suit their own agenda.
---
till now you was giving reference of W. Churchill ..was he Chinese ?
now suddenly when FACT is agents you its western propaganda .. typical CCP behavior .. are you been to north korea for some time

We dont claim other countries land/ right based on some map made by some dynasty..

so dear please be neutral
you are from g8 civilization dont come to so low...

 

[scorpionx]

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.

You are horribly misinformed about India and its ancient History. For starters like you it is imperative to take a note on the vast expanse where the inscriptions of the Mauryans have remained scattered over the last 2200 years. From Lamghan,Kandahar in the mountains of North West to the Southern plains of Yeraguddi, Sidhhapura,Brahmagiri in the Deccan the remnants of rock edicts are Ashoka are still found in abundance.

Before commenting on Indian History, you should have taken a short course on the Satbahanas, the Kushanas and off course the Gupta Empire in the later ADs. The empire of Samudragupta comprised almost entire Northern India, extending towards Assam and Orissa in East and far south beyond Chingleput. I take it for granted that you distantly never heard of Chalukyas, the Cholas or the Pandyas consisting a large portion of the history of Southern India. Again the vital factor common among all these kingdoms and empires over different regions and ages was the predominance of a "cultural India" which stretched beyond present day Vietnam and Combodia. So, ignorant like you in world history who knows nothing beyond "China existed since 220 BC" should read about other countries too if making fool of yourself in front of others in an internet forum does matter least to your morale.

And Churchill did not found India. It will be like saying a Mongol was the founding father of your country. Do you like it this way or should I rephrase it in some other way?

 

[pursuit of happiness]

You are horribly misinformed about India and its ancient History. For starters like you it is imperative to take a note on the vast expanse where the inscriptions of the Mauryans have remained scattered over the last 2200 years. From Lamghan,Kandahar in the mountains of North West to the Southern plains of Yeraguddi, Sidhhapura,Brahmagiri in the Deccan the remnants of rock edicts are Ashoka are still found in abundance.

Before commenting on Indian History, you should have taken a short course on the Satbahanas, the Kushanas and off course the Gupta Empire in the later ADs. The empire of Samudragupta comprised almost entire Northern India, extending towards Assam and Orissa in East and far south beyond Chingleput. I take it for granted that you distantly never heard of Chalukyas, the Cholas or the Pandyas consisting a large portion of the history of Southern India. Again the vital factor common among all these kingdoms and empires over different regions and ages was the predominance of a "cultural India" which stretched beyond present day Vietnam and Combodia. So, ignorant like you in world history who knows nothing beyond "China existed since 220 BC" should read about other countries too if making fool of yourself in front of others in an internet forum does matter least to your morale.

And Churchill did not found India. It will be like saying a Mongol was the founding father of your country. Do you like it this way or should I rephrase it in some other way?

--
if china read history neutrally then ,
aksai chin gone
tibet gone
claim of island in south china -- question does not arise ..
i just got proof ...

I don't need a bunch of western created propaganda to tell me facts.

I know facts.

Western propaganda distorts facts to suit their own agenda.

--
you know one of our neighbor also think same that
world is against them ..
and making evil plan everyday to destroy them.. as if other dont have any other thing to do....and you are so imp to world

 

[faithfulguy]

You are horribly misinformed about India and its ancient History. For starters like you it is imperative to take a note on the vast expanse where the inscriptions of the Mauryans have remained scattered over the last 2200 years. From Lamghan,Kandahar in the mountains of North West to the Southern plains of Yeraguddi, Sidhhapura,Brahmagiri in the Deccan the remnants of rock edicts are Ashoka are still found in abundance.

Before commenting on Indian History, you should have taken a short course on the Satbahanas, the Kushanas and off course the Gupta Empire in the later ADs. The empire of Samudragupta comprised almost entire Northern India, extending towards Assam and Orissa in East and far south beyond Chingleput. I take it for granted that you distantly never heard of Chalukyas, the Cholas or the Pandyas consisting a large portion of the history of Southern India. Again the vital factor common among all these kingdoms and empires over different regions and ages was the predominance of a "cultural India" which stretched beyond present day Vietnam and Combodia. So, ignorant like you in world history who knows nothing beyond "China existed since 220 BC" should read about other countries too if making fool of yourself in front of others in an internet forum does matter least to your morale.

And Churchill did not found India. It will be like saying a Mongol was the founding father of your country. Do you like it this way or should I rephrase it in some other way?

Did the Gupta's or the Mughals ever regard themselves as successor empires of the Ashoka's empire? Did the emperor of Gudptas or Mughals ever regard that they sit in the same seat as Ashoka or were their empires a totally different empires unto themselves. History clearly shown that its later. Many kingdoms and empires rise and fell in the Indian subcontinent, but there was never a continuous empire made up of various dynasties like Ancient Egypt or China since 220BC.

 

[scorpionx]

--
if china read history neutrally then ,
aksai chin gone
tibet gone
claim of island in south china -- question does not arise ..
i just got proof ...

Most of these ultra nationals don't have firm grasp over their own history, how can I expect them to come here and talk some sense. I feel pity for these noobs.

Did the Gupta's or the Mughals ever regard themselves as successor empires of the Ashoka's empire? Did the emperor of Gudptas or Mughals ever regard that they sit in the same seat as Ashoka or were their empires a totally different empires unto themselves. History clearly shown that its later. Many kingdoms and empires rise and fell in the Indian subcontinent, but there was never a continuous empire made up of various dynasties like Ancient Egypt or China since 220BC.

Continuation of empires are not necessary to define a nation state. It will be utterly ridiculous to mock India and it's complex history just because the empires were not immediately successive to each other as there were hundreds of small monarchs and kingdoms ruled in between two comparatively larger reigns, divided by political boundaries but always united with a common thread of religion,art and culture. The idea of Indianness is hidden in it's vast,rich culture. To define it with respect to political boundaries would be an imbecile and featherbrained approach.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Most of these ultra nationals don't have firm grasp over their own history, how can I expect them to come here and talk some sense. I feel pity for these noobs.

--
they have been programed in C++

Did the Gupta's or the Mughals ever regard themselves as successor empires of the Ashoka's empire? Did the emperor of Gudptas or Mughals ever regard that they sit in the same seat as Ashoka or were their empires a totally different empires unto themselves. History clearly shown that its later. Many kingdoms and empires rise and fell in the Indian subcontinent, but there was never a continuous empire made up of various dynasties like Ancient Egypt or China since 220BC.

---
dear one dynasty rule cant give you nation status..
india cant have one dynasty rule as india is diffrent case altogether..

 

[faithfulguy]

--
they have been programed in C++


---
dear one dynasty rule cant give you nation status..
india cant have one dynasty rule as india is diffrent case altogether..

That is why India has always been a geographical location until British united it as a country.

 

[scorpionx]

dear one dynasty rule cant give you nation status..
india cant have one dynasty rule as india is diffrent case altogether..

Exactly.Just hitting the nail.

@faithfulguy

It was the British who defined and secured your boundary too if you take the History of China in late nineteenth century and the history of World War take into account. How much do you know about the British and American policy on China especially during 40's?

 

[pursuit of happiness]

That is why India has always been a geographical location until British united it as a country.

--
ok let me put straight..
was india was nation before 1947 - No
was india golden goose in the world - Yes .. else why british came.
britsh got todays fame due our money and INDIGO.. read about it..

1. British united india..
it big falacy ...no one unite their enemy..
do you think a island country men ever, ever united india so that they get eaten by them .. plese read indian history
british till end made sure india will not survive..
that why W.churchil said india will disintegrate in 10 yr..
is it mean british dont have faith in their own ability as they united india if i accept your theory.
even under british there was 500 kingdom of which governance was with king and external affaired, defence , communication is with british .
read 1857 and chnage of policy of British ..
after that british made sure by design hindu and muslim should not be together
thas why we fight with our bros in pak..

2. united india.
india was under many kingdom but cant term as ONE INDIA
but these kingdom shaped the way india runs today..
ahoka , akbar, maharana pratap, shivaji ( to name a few ) molded in basic of peple of india..
their adminstration , policy made people unit
that why after still 60 yrs despite so much contradiction we are up and running ..

 

[notsuperstitious]

To define it with respect to political boundaries would be an imbecile and featherbrained approach.

There you have it, unfortunately when you deal with featherbrained imbeciles, their ridiculous rants and chestthumping comes with the incredible power of repetition without any ability to learn or understand another point of view.

For example, tell the senior idiot that when the british left, there were 600 princely states with the option of sovereignty that indians had to ''unite'', then it will come up another piece of retarded self serving logic just to regurgitate his deep personal sorrows on a website.

 

[Thirdfront]

india only thrived under the Islamic rule. For about 1000+ year, Islamosphere remained the most dominant superpower of the globe..like U.S was in 1990's or British in 19th century etc. It was only after Islamic take-over that india found stability, organization, effective tax-collection system crafted by Akbar and so on.

Before that, india was usually bunch of hindu kindgoms invading and killing each other.

Even today, Islamic World vastly outperforms india in almost every aspect...

Wrong. India prospered despite couple of centuries muslim rule. muslim invaders were nothing but looters and even they could not loot the country fully.