China’s border row with India has misfired, says regional security expert

[Nisha]

Ashoka didn't unify anything, all he did was wage bloody wars on innocent people and their governing bodies. That so called empire of his was short lived and soon disappeared after he passed away. Our region of Pakistan was one his victims.

Pakistan was a center of Vedic Culture. Ashoka did unify South Asia and there was dynasty that lasted for about a 100 yrs. Plz educate yourself.

 

[LURKER]

India was a name given to the British colony in the subcontinent, it was artificially created by the British. British have left but their colonial legacy in the subcontinent still lingers on known as India. Many nations fell victim to India, Kashmir is just one fatelity of it.

I hope there comes a peaceful day when this curse on subcontinent known as India remains no more, and the states of subcontinent become free again.

From the Greek sources :

"The whole region from Phrygia to the Indus was subject to Seleucus. He crossed the Indus and waged war with Sandrocottus [Maurya], king of the Indians, who dwelt on the banks of that stream, until they came to an understanding with each other and contracted a marriage relationship."

The geographical position of the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae, above whom lies the Paropamisus mountain: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next, towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard; and the Indus lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander [III 'the Great' of Macedon] took these away from the Arians and established settlements of his own, but Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus [Chandragupta], upon terms of intermarriage and of receiving in exchange five hundred elephants. — Strabo 15.2.9"

"Most geographers, in fact, do not look upon India as bounded by the river Indus, but add to it the four satrapies of the Gedrose, the Arachotë, the Aria, and the Paropamisadë, the River Cophes thus forming the extreme boundary of India. According to other writers, however, all these territories, are reckoned as belonging to the country of the Aria. — Pliny, Natural History VI, 23"

Pliny the Elder, The Natural History (eds. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S., H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A.)

Pakistan was a center of Vedic Culture. Ashoka did unify South Asia and there was dynasty that lasted for about a 100 yrs. Plz educate yourself.

Ashoka only conquered kalinga , rest of the territories were already under the Mauryas . Chandragupta Maurya had acquired lands upto eastern persia by defeating Seleucus Nicator.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

This is where u shut ur trap once and for all.

Shut my trap?

The bottom line is that according to you, Chinese soldiers were 20 km inside Indian territory for several weeks. While all of India went into panic mode, with countless articles moaning about how they had no guts to kick out the Chinese soldiers.

And in the end, India was the one who backed down, by destroying an entire set of strategic bunkers on their side, by halting all infrastructure work in the region, and by stopping all troop patrols in Chumar.

While we had to do nothing at all. If you think that is your victory then go ahead, I'm used to seeing twisted logic in this forum anyway.

 

[faithfulguy]

They did.

Their ability to absorb the others differed from age to age.

Further, the administrative arrangements were unilinear. We still retained the administrative systems of the Guptas 1200 years after they had departed.

I repeat, it is foolish to try and compress these issues within the few paragraphs allowed in this kind of forum. Learning from such, also from glib and fluent but necessarily limited magazine articles is not a good basis for anything other than an entertaining Sunday afternoon read. Acquiring a knowledge of ancient and mediaeval India this way is difficult. Sincere study is a better alternative.

Any prove that Hasha or Gupta rulers regard itself as the sole legitimate ruler of the whole India? I actually was reading Wikipedia and come up on this line.

"In 399, Fa-Hsien, a Chinese Buddhist, went to India to study the sacred writings of Buddhism.In the 10 years he was there, he wrote about life under the Gupta emperors. His writings form one of the most important sources for the history of this period."

Its sad that at such an important period of India's golden age that the writing of a obscure Chinese monk would be regarded as one of the most important source of the period. Granted, this is from Wikipedia. But I am curious about how Indians kept historical record in the ancient times. Is it thorough and complete?

As for the history of India, nothing you post here suggest that Gupta empire form the beginning of India or created the Indian state. I would stand by the belief that India was a geographical expression before British India and the nation of India was created by the British. So India was created in the same way as Pakistan after the departure of the British.

 

[President]

Any prove that Hasha or Gupta rulers regard itself as the sole legitimate ruler of the whole India? I actually was reading Wikipedia and come up on this line.

"In 399, Fa-Hsien, a Chinese Buddhist, went to India to study the sacred writings of Buddhism.In the 10 years he was there, he wrote about life under the Gupta emperors. His writings form one of the most important sources for the history of this period."

Its sad that at such an important period of India's golden age that the writing of a obscure Chinese monk would be regarded as one of the most important source of the period. Granted, this is from Wikipedia. But I am curious about how Indians kept historical record in the ancient times. Is it thorough and complete?

As for the history of India, nothing you post here suggest that Gupta empire form the beginning of India or created the Indian state. I would stand by the belief that India was a geographical expression before British India and the nation of India was created by the British. So India was created in the same way as Pakistan after the departure of the British.

we have kept record from the time of Mahabharata when dinosaurs roamed china and you talk up gupta period..ask any gupta in India and he will tell you all about his great great great great grand uncle...

 

[faithfulguy]

From the Greek sources :

"The whole region from Phrygia to the Indus was subject to Seleucus. He crossed the Indus and waged war with Sandrocottus [Maurya], king of the Indians, who dwelt on the banks of that stream, until they came to an understanding with each other and contracted a marriage relationship."

The geographical position of the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae, above whom lies the Paropamisus mountain: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next, towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard; and the Indus lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander [III 'the Great' of Macedon] took these away from the Arians and established settlements of his own, but Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus [Chandragupta], upon terms of intermarriage and of receiving in exchange five hundred elephants. — Strabo 15.2.9"

"Most geographers, in fact, do not look upon India as bounded by the river Indus, but add to it the four satrapies of the Gedrose, the Arachotë, the Aria, and the Paropamisadë, the River Cophes thus forming the extreme boundary of India. According to other writers, however, all these territories, are reckoned as belonging to the country of the Aria. — Pliny, Natural History VI, 23"

Pliny the Elder, The Natural History (eds. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S., H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A.)





Ashoka only conquered kalinga , rest of the territories were already under the Mauryas . Chandragupta Maurya had acquired lands upto eastern persia by defeating Seleucus Nicator.

There were certainly Indian kings. Just as there were European kings. The borders among the kingdoms of India changes constantly throughout time.

At the time of Mauryans, there is one single Indian kingdom and people of called it ruler Indian king. But this would be similar to someone calling Napoleon emperor of Europe by a none Europeans in 1807. After Mauryans disappeared from history, India reverted back to its original make up of various kingdoms.

 

[President]

Shut my trap?

The bottom line is that according to you, Chinese soldiers were 20 km inside Indian territory for several weeks. While all of India went into panic mode, with countless articles moaning about how they had no guts to kick out the Chinese soldiers.

And in the end, India was the one who backed down, by destroying an entire set of strategic bunkers on their side, by halting all infrastructure work in the region, and by stopping all troop patrols in Chumar.

While we had to do nothing at all. If you think that is your victory then go ahead, I'm used to seeing twisted logic in this forum anyway.

The logic is that your premier had to show its bulwark in his cadres and this is what he did before coming to India..India already knew about this nuicance and knew about this beforehand..there is politics everywhere and everybody knows about it..except for the countries citizens...

 

[faithfulguy]

we have kept record from the time of Mahabharata when dinosaurs roamed china and you talk up gupta period..ask any gupta in India and he will tell you all about his great great great great grand uncle...

if an obscure Chinese monk can provide an important record for the golden age of India. Than Indians are not keeping its historical records very well.

 

[President]

if an obscure Chinese monk can provide an important record for the golden age of India. Than Indians are not keeping its historical records very well.

he may be obscure in china..but any monk in India even though chinese is revered and respect..God bless him..Hail Buddha!!

 

[LURKER]

There were certainly Indian kings. Just as there were European kings. The borders among the kingdoms of India changes constantly throughout time.

At the time of Mauryans, there is one single Indian kingdom and people of called it ruler Indian king. But this would be similar to someone calling Napoleon emperor of Europe by a none Europeans in 1807. After Mauryans disappeared from history, India reverted back to its original make up of various kingdoms.

So ? the borders of chinese kingdoms also changed constantly throughout time, what are you trying to prove here ?

As for your second statement those regions and people who were indic (or Indianized) were referred to as Indians and the place they lived as India by the ancient greeks.

You may like to read about the "Indian" king of Kabul .Sophagasenus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Polybius 11.34: "He (Antiochus) crossed the Caucasus Indicus (Paropamisus) and descended into India; renewed his friendship with Sophagasenus the king of the Indians..."

India was always culturally a single entity, politically it may have been fragemented and united at different times in history.

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।
"The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

But the Fact is China is Made by British/ Japs/US/ Mangols etc
US is made by British/French
Aus is made by British

But the problem some Chinese and US are not able to digest things that Indian rules the land long before their ancestors were born and they thing history starts from the time when their ancestors were born and before that their is not history.

but when they face the fact they not able to digest it.

 

[faithfulguy]

So ? the borders of chinese kingdoms also changed constantly throughout time, what are you trying to prove here ?

As for your second statement those regions and people who were indic (or Indianized) were referred to as Indians and the place they lived as India by the ancient greeks.

You may like to read about the "Indian" king of Kabul .Sophagasenus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Polybius 11.34: "He (Antiochus) crossed the Caucasus Indicus (Paropamisus) and descended into India; renewed his friendship with Sophagasenus the king of the Indians..."

India was always culturally a single entity, politically it may have been fragemented and united at different times in history.

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।
"The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."

I totally agree with you that India is united as a culture, just like Western Europe. Its also politically fragmented, like Europe. So its fragmentation is its natural state. And people of India today would be better off if the Indian subcontinent is politically in its natural state.

 

[LURKER]

I totally agree with you that India is united as a culture, just like Western Europe. Its also politically fragmented, like Europe. So its fragmentation is its natural state. And people of India today would be better off if the Indian subcontinent is politically in its natural state.

India was most well off when it was politically united both against foreign aggression as well in case of better governance, be it under the mauryas, the guptas or the mughals. Only at times when central power got weak the smaller states propped up and the foreigners got the opputunity to attack India. When culturally we are same what is need to be divided politically. Why repeat the mistakes of the past?

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

I totally agree with you that India is united as a culture, just like Western Europe. Its also politically fragmented, like Europe. So its fragmentation is its natural state. And people of India today would be better off if the Indian subcontinent is politically in its natural state.

ancient India was bonded culturally, politically it has been big or fragmented at different periods. But after independence India has been united culturally as well as politically, so today's India is not equal to European union but much above that when it comes to unity, so take your dream of fragmented and weaker India elsewhere.

 

[faithfulguy]

India was most well off when it was politically united both against foreign aggression as well in case of better governance, be it under the mauryas, the guptas or the mughals. Only at times when central power got weak the smaller states propped up and the foreigners got the opputunity to attack India. When culturally we are same what is need to be divided politically. Why repeat the mistakes of the past?

A united India is a British creation. As prior to the British, there were empires that rule most of India. But they were empire for themselves. Once the particular empire break up, the successive government do not claim as a continuation of that previous government.