British India - Myth

[kalu_miah]

Perhaps it is you who needs to focus what scholars mean by the term 'India' and not what some 'disillusioned' Indians believe. NO one claims that all parts of British India are part of India, a political state. What everyone agrees with is that modern Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and parts of South East Asia were in fact part of a greater India, a cultural entity and a geographic expression as well.From the Buddhist art, stupas in the Swat valley in the West to the Java in the East, everything was considered as a generalized expression called 'India' from which Pakistan and Bangladesh chose to part away as a separate political entity, not a separate cultural one. Is that clear enough?

I think Atanz already answered this question in OP:

1. First you got to clarify are we talking about geographic India or the colonial India or Indian Republic. Three of these terms although all sharing the name"India" are not the same just as David Junior, David Senior would not be the same person.

2. The Geographic India refers to a region the boundary of which is loosely defined and is rather subjective. This geographic India includes today's Pakistan, Indian Republic, Bangladesh. I won't bother mentioing Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka. No one country has a especial claim to this geographic India.

This India is comparable to say Europe, Scandanavia, Iberia, Balkans, Maghreb etc. These are all geographic regions each with many countries occupying these regions. AS a geographic region the land has been there since before written history.

We now move on to British India. Let us make this clear. British India was a colony and was part of a empire that streched all over the world. We the people were colonized did not choose to be part of this colony. We were in fact enslaved by the British. This the definition British India.

 

[scorpionx]

I think Atanz already answered this question in OP:

Yes. He answered his own query but yet keeps on beating the dead horse just like the hyper-nationalist Indians in this thread. What I was merely pointing out that, the name India was not a bad choice either (as you said it represents the colonial legacy) when the name itself has a pre-historic importance to the land that it covered.
Regards

 

[SarthakGanguly]

So Pakistan invented Ganga river and its valleys and plains? and primitive settlements around it?

Wow!

Where did you read this bhai?

Where the heck did you read this?


p.s. Ganga valley settlements do show up as "stone age". so you are right.

Ganga is not a 'Valley'. It is called Ganga Plains.

 

[wiseone2]

Often Indian's will talk of Pakistan having been created in 1947 from India. This carries a arrogant presumption that their India (Indian Republic) was unnaturaly carved and a country was fabricated on basis of religion. This conveys the organic nature of India and the artificial nature of Pakistan. I want to address this issue. This way of looking at 1947 is so accepted that even most Pakistani's even go along with the premise of this. So let us look at this carefully.

Pakistan was carved in un-natural and illogical manner.

Why are there 150 million Muslims living in India if religion was the basis for the partition ?

Why was Pakistan and Bangladesh clubbed together as one independent entity in 1947 ? If the Muslim League was really far sighted they would have created two countries.

I am not whining about any of the above - just stating the obvious

 

[third eye]

This carries a arrogant presumption that their India (Indian Republic) was unnaturaly carved and a country was fabricated on basis of religion.

Do you contest the part in bold above ?

 

[Steve781]

The term "India" is supposed to refer to the Indian subcontinent. Many areas of the Raj such as Assam, Balochistan and the Pashtun areas were not part of historical India.
Even the Aden colony in Yemen was administered as part of British India.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Ganga is not a 'Valley'. It is called Ganga Plains.

Depends on which part of Ganga you talk. All major rivers eventually flow through some kind of plain. but we still associate "River Valley".

Sindh River (Indus) too becomes a plain once it reaches central plains.

the oldest archeological site Moenjodaro is located in "plains" of Sindh river, not a valley.

Please update your knowledge beyond the government school history books they use in grade 5.

Thank you

Pakistan was carved in un-natural and illogical manner.

Major Hindu leader(s) discussed the following natural partition.

West: Half Punjab, Frontier, Sindh, Balochistan
East: half Bengal

Why?
These Hindu leaders knew that they must present UP/Bihar Muslims as their own vote base. Therefore UP/Bihar was never discussed as part of partition.

So please do not spread your ignorance here. Learn something about your own country as a grown up.

Thank you

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Depends on which part of Ganga you talk. All major rivers eventually flow through some kind of plain. but we still associate "River Valley".

Sindh River (Indus) too becomes a plain once it reaches central plains.

the oldest archeological site Moenjodaro is located in "plains" of Sindh river, not a valley.

Please update your knowledge beyond the government school history books they use in grade 5.

Thank you

Still, there is no Ganga Valley Civilization. I can understand the attraction of the term as opposed to the IVC for instance, but wishes don't count. If the intention is to mock the Indians, please use 'Ganga Plains Civilization' (even though that term does not exist yet). With continuous use you may be able to get it in the dictionary and historic/geographic lingo. Plus, the civilization on the Indus and the Ganga even today is the same, except in the former 99% of the people follow Islam.

Major Hindu leader(s) discussed the following natural partition.

They were forced to do so. After the Direct Action Day of your Qaid taught us valuable lessons in Hindu Muslim amity, Hindus and Sikhs in Bengal and Punjab decided to minimize the damage. Before that Hindus (mainly) were sheep who blindly followed Gandhi to their doom.

Before that almost no Hindus supported a partition on religious lines.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Do you contest the part in bold above ?

The "bold part" is childish and naive argument.

In reality, Pakistan was formed based on "Muslim Majority Provinces"
while, Bharat was formed on the basis of "Hindu Majority Provinces".

There were two exceptions to this rule.

Even though Punjab and Bengal were Muslim majority, they were chopped into two halves. Each half for Bharat and the other half to Pakistan.

This is what Hindu leaders wanted and thus struggled for since 1920s.

Please use some critical thinking.

@scorpionx can teach you even more.

 

[wiseone2]

The term "India" is supposed to refer to the Indian subcontinent. Many areas of the Raj such as Assam, Balochistan and the Pashtun areas were not part of historical India.
Even the Aden colony in Yemen was administered as part of British India.

Even Burma was a part of British India

 

[OrionHunter]

Ok, so what's the point of this thread? Is it a History lesson or a conspiracy theory? Whatever, I care a frikkin' fig.

Get on with life guys. There are more important things to do..

 

[wiseone2]

The "bold part" is childish and naive argument.

In reality, Pakistan was formed based on "Muslim Majority Provinces"
while, Bharat was formed on the basis of "Hindu Majority Provinces".

There were two exceptions to this rule.

Even though Punjab and Bengal were Muslim majority, they were chopped into two halves. Each half for Bharat and the other half to Pakistan.

This is what Hindu leaders wanted and thus struggled for since 1920s.

Please use some critical thinking.

@scorpionx can teach you even more.

Why would the Urdu speaking Muslim elite in India go with "Muslim Majority Province" argument especially when Urdu Muslims were in a minority everywhere ?

I can draw some conclusions - one or more may be true
they did not care about their community
they were bargaining with the Congress Party - hoping to get more power within United India
they had no clue what they were doing

 

[Jayanta]

The term "India" is supposed to refer to the Indian subcontinent. Many areas of the Raj such as Assam, Balochistan and the Pashtun areas were not part of historical India.
Even the Aden colony in Yemen was administered as part of British India.

Assam was a part of historical as well as cultural India...it has been referred in the Mahabharata several times....the Pandavas spent a lot of their exiled life in Assam. Bhima got married to Hidimba in a place now known as "Dimapur"(remember was in news few days back). Ghatotkas the son of Bhima and Hidimba was a force to be reckoned with .... another least known ruler was Maharaja Baan (asura) who fought in support of Kauravas.
Then there is the infamous love story of Aniruddha (grandson of Lord Krishna) and Usha the princess of Tezpur.
Rulers of Kamrupa (now Assam) had friendly relations with Harshvardhana...
Yes Assam has never been a part of those big modern Indian empires like the Marathas, Mughals etc.The Mughals attacked Assam and lost miserably losing in almost 17 successive attempts. Lachit Borphukan lead the Ahom army which ensured that the Mughals never set their foot into Assam. Maniram Dewan lead the unrest against the British invaders way back in 1850 and played a crucial role in 1857,Sepoy mutiny (first revolt for independence)..(was hanged in 1858 by the Brits). There are many such historical aspects which most Indians don't study or know as it has always been neglected.

 

[Luca1]

Pakistani's makes their own theory and history to feel good and happy. Hahaha LOL

His view of Indian subcontinent history is exactly how it's taught outside if India.

 

[third eye]

Please use some critical thinking.

Tell this to the author not me.