im refering to a geopolitical enetity called india, which when not under one rule was still considered one single entity politically, and several times united under one rule,
I'm not disputing that it was forcibly held together at several times, just as Britain was under the Romans or the Normans. But even today, if you suggest the Welsh and the Cornish and the Scots are the same geopolitical entity.... well try it and see. Indeed, Britain is dependent on several centres of devolution in terms of geopolitics in order to survive as a united nation.
When was India any different except when under some imperial yoke?
"Ambhi ascended to throne of
Takshasila after his father Ambhiraj.
[4]He sent an embassy to
Alexander along with presents consisting of 200
Talents of silver, 3,000 fat oxen, 10,000 sheep or more, 30 elephants and a force of 700 horsemen and offered for surrender.
[4]He appears to have been on hostile terms with his neighbour,
Porus, who held the territories east of the
Hydaspes.
[5][6]"
The Mauryans whom you refer to themselves had to depose the Nandas violently. Chandragupta had to later war against the Greek vassals in the west to subdue them.
The Aryans themselves were invaders from central Asia who spread aggressively across India in ancient times well before chronicled history, ravaging established cultures as they went. In fact, some believe the Aryan tribe destroyed the IVC, which would be ironic since bhakts constantly imply some perpetual victimhood of Hindus at the hands of invaders - but that's another thread.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_battles
This list mentions numerous INTERNALLY warring factions but no united Indian nation at war against an external threat until possibly the Ghurid invasion. Even then, it wasn't all of India vs the Ghurids, just as Alexander quite easily allied with some "Indians" against other "Indians" - they never regarded themselves as feuding members of a single house to begin with. All these tribes warred with and against each other.
Why did the marathas fight with the British against Tipu? Simply because they never once considered Tipu was an "Indian" like they were "Indian". Both were sons of coterminous Indian soil but never regarded each other as "Indians like them".
There's simply no eternal and united nation of Hindustan. To suggest otherwise is a deception that Chanakya himself would be proud of.
These Indian empires you refer to don't even align with or unify the whole subcontinent geographically and this wasn't the case until the British brought these warring tribes together under the artificial construct of the Raj.
Even still... Even still, it depended on powerful Nizams, chieftains etc and local vassalised but disparate and independent city states to remain peaceful and arbitrarily unified.
You present some great facts and knowledge and it's informative reading your threads. Yet you clearly have an overarching narrative in your mind, which you try to push onto the reader. That narrative - which serves hindutva fantasies of some eternal saffron Reich like no hindutva ever could - just doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny.
I'm no historian like you so please do explain if you strongly feel otherwise as I would like to see this evidence of "India" as a willingly united single nation prior to 1947.
