Was India Ever a Rich Country in its History?

[pursuit of happiness]

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

--
his 1000yrs maths itself is wrong not more than 200 yr
from battle of panipat 1st when babur / muhgal came i n india in 1526 to last battle of buxar when british control started in 1756
max 350 yr
when mughal officially close down after 1857 ..
so net not more than 350 yr in india of muslim rule
i am not addind lodhi , tughalak ,suri.. let him ask why

 

[Gibbs]

@RiazHaq What do you mean by "India" here? Indian sub-continent? because country "India" was born on 1947

This whole piece becomes null and void, given that India became a single political entity as a result of colonialism in 1947, The concept of "India" was a mere vague geographical concept that did not encompass a boundary, a system of governance nor a homogeneous society

All religious based or arguments based on mythology to the contrary does not hold water either

 

[pursuit of happiness]

This whole piece becomes null and void, given that India became a single political entity as a result of colonialism in 1947, The concept of "India" was a mere vague geographical concept that did not encompass a boundary, a system of governance nor a homogeneous society

All religious based or arguments based on mythology to the contrary does not hold water either

bravo.. i cant able to explain same even with so many post
but i second with this statement
vague geographical concept
can u elaborate..

 

[sincity]

India was never rich throughout 60 years of India history after gaining independent from the British.

Was South Asia rich before British invasion and colonized the region, you get better clairty and proper answer to the question being ask.

 

[Sugarcane]

---
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
View attachment 19800
..

Professor - Your post is no doubt INCREDIBLE, but as i suggested to you earlier - spend more time here.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Professor - Your post is no doubt INCREDIBLE, but as i suggested to you earlier - spend more time here.

--
thanks
suggestion are always welcome..and acted upon if found suitable

 

[notsuperstitious]

This whole piece becomes null and void, given that India became a single political entity as a result of colonialism in 1947, The concept of "India" was a mere vague geographical concept that did not encompass a boundary, a system of governance nor a homogeneous society

All religious based or arguments based on mythology to the contrary does not hold water either

A boundary, a system of governance or a homogeneous society has very very little to do with economy. The modern concept of nation states never even existed back then, so your argument sounds like a hurried ''india did not exist'' kind of typical rant from a certain kind of posters than a comment on topic.

 

[INDIC]

They referred to India as an geographical area, like what Europe is today. There was no kingdom/empire named India back then.

Then why they used the term Asia.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

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.

The thing is many people tend to see India on the basis of Empires. A small thing to be noted is, Various empires, irrespective of Clans, Kingdoms from ancient India to medivial Indian, considered themselves, the son of Land "Bharat". Some 1000 years ago, a tamil saint wrote a song on the explaining the beauty of the land called "Bharatham" (Bharat in Tamil).
While there was unanimous in accepting various empires considered themselves "Bharatis" , they were not necessarily united as a single entity as a Empire.

 

[Fattyacids]

A boundary, a system of governance or a homogeneous society has very very little to do with economy. The modern concept of nation states never even existed back then, so your argument sounds like a hurried ''india did not exist'' kind of typical rant from a certain kind of posters than a comment on topic.

Without a boundary, how do you definite what is "domestic" in computing Gross Domestic Product?

Do you even know the definition of a nation state? Even today, India is NOT a nation state. You don't have to be a "nation state" in order to be "one country."

The definition of one country, a single political entity, is different to that of a nation state.
Learn the proper terminology before using them.

 

[INDIC]

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

What do you mean by a geographical expression, city, village, town, country, continent everything is a geographical expression.

 

[INDIC]

Without a boundary, how do you definite what is "domestic" in computing Gross Domestic Product?

Do you even know the definition of a nation state? Even today, India is NOT a nation state. You don't have to be a "nation state" in order to be "one country."

The definition of one country, a single political entity, is different to that of a nation state.
Learn the proper terminology before using them.

You mean the concept of nation state existed since 221BC.

 

[faithfulguy]

You mean the concept of nation state existed since 221BC.

The concept of a kingdom with defined boundaries also existed in India. That is why there were Ashoka's empire. But Ashoka's empire is an empire that existed in geographical India, its not India per say. Like how Charlemagne empire is not Germany today, even though it existed in the same geographical location.

 

[Fattyacids]

You mean the concept of nation state existed since 221BC.

Are you illiterate or intellectually retarded?

You don't have to be a "nation state" in order to be "one country."
The definition of one country, a single political entity, is different to that of a nation state.
Learn the proper terminology before using them.

221 BC was a centralized political entity, one empire.

 

[INDIC]

The concept of a kingdom with defined boundaries also existed in India. That is why there were Ashoka's empire. But Ashoka's empire is an empire that existed in geographical India, its not India per say. Like how Charlemagne empire is not Germany today, even though it existed in the same geographical location.

Our concept of nation comes from Bharata Varsha since antiquity which was passed on for generations as folklore as it initially originated from Hinduism, that strong identity lived on throughout history. So, we Indian believed we belonged to a country called Bharata Varsha and saw outsiders as foreigners, that enough to prove that India was a country. Even Chinese don't have such strong idea of nationality originating from their culture, that's why they look from their identity from some brutal Empire.

Are you illiterate or intellectually retarded?

221 BC was a centralized single political entity.

But China wasn't always a united political entity and China also never had a fixed geography thoughout history. Modern United China only came in 1949-50 after Mao Zedong united China from warring states of warlords. Chinese nationalism started with formation of KMT which led the movement against the Qing Dynasty.