What's new

How Much Area Indian Sub-Continent lost in Last 400 years Especially Last 100 Years

As an American (a native English speaker), your English skills leave much to be desired. :(
Ipad has not only seems to have hijacked your words but also your thought processes !
How does any of that matter? By the way, I have been around long enough to know that you are using the word "we" inappropriately.;)

USA was a lot of things before it was a British colony. So was India. If your contention is that India should go back to being several kingdoms, the same logic dictates that America should do the same - revert to the native civilizations of the cherokees and and Waccamaws and Houmas and Lenapes and...

That's what existed before the British came, and the manner of getting independence is irrelevant. (BTW we did no beg for it either - as if any subjugator ever left because the subjects begged.)

@Luca1 is @faithfulguy , he has changed his user name but couldn't change his attitude.
 
.
So I an new here but seeing the rants of this luca guy, I've had a look at his profile and surprisingly you'd find most of his ill informed rants are in this part of the board - isn't that a proof enough for him being a false flagger.
 
.
He's a South Asian. In almost all of his posts you can notice the very typical flaws that only South Asians or Japanese are prone to commit, while no one born in the US would ever do that. Even in the last few posts his redundancy mistakes (ex. "this also came to my mind as well" - just to put some extra stress) clearly show where he is coming from.

The IPad one was a pretty cool catch though :lol:

He is a Chinese.
 
. .
Everyone knows India begged for independence instead of fought for it
Some Armed Movements were running but not on large scale for peaceful Indians if begging would have failed then i think snatching would have worked because British Indian Army changed the course of two world wars.

Expansion Of Indian Culture
940px-Indian_cultural_zone.svg.png

Dark orange: The Indian subcontinent. Light orange: Other countries culturally linked to India, notably Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Champa (Southern Vietnam), Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore. Yellow: Regions with significant Indian cultural influence, notably Afghanistan, Tibet, China's Yunnan Province, the Philippines, Korean Peninsula, and Japan.

From about the 1st century, India started to strongly influence Southeast Asian countries. Trade routes linked India with southern Burma, central and southern Siam, lower Cambodia and Champa (modern day Southern Vietnam) and numerous urbanized coastal settlements were established there.

For more than a thousand years, Indian Hindu/Buddhist influence was therefore the major factor that brought a certain level of cultural unity to the various countries of the region. The Pali and Sanskrit languages and the Indian script, together with Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, Brahmanism and Hinduism, were transmitted from direct contact as well as through sacred texts and Indian literature, such as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata epics.

From the 5th to the 13th centuries, South-East Asia had very powerful Indian colonial empires and became extremely active in Buddhist architectural and artistic creation. The Sri Vijaya Empire to the south and the Khmer Empire to the north competed for influence.

A defining characteristic of the cultural link between South East Asia and the Indian subcontinent is the spread of ancient Indian Vedic/Hindu and Buddhist culture and philosophy into Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaya, Laos and Cambodia. Indian scripts are found in South East Asian islands ranging from Sumatra, Java, Bali, south Sulawesi and most of the Philippines.

Cultural commonalities

Atashgah of Baku, a natural fire temple in Azerbaijan used by both Hindus and Zoroastrians
The diffusion of Indian culture is demonstrated with the following examples:

Religion, mythology and folklore
Architecture and monuments

A statue of Hindu deity Murugan at the Batu Caves in Malaysia
Cultural_expansion_of_Hinduism_in_Southeast_Asia.png

Map showing cultural Expansion into South East.

From River Indus Urban settlements Indian culture was expanded a lot into Central Asia.After coming in contact with Europeans Indian culture was to some extant taken in to Europe.After british came a lot of Indian culture was merges and those lost it's true shine.Vedic religion to lot of extant has been destroyed.
@SarthakGanguly


Thread starter, you forgot the extent of our land into Southeast Asia upto Malaya and Java.
I have posted that's not land but cultural expansion.
 
. .
Whatever is the object of discussing land lost in past. What matters is that in present scenario we respect each other's sovereignty and move on.

Exactly.. There is no question about the common cultural bond of South Asia or even South East Asia or even Central Asia.. But there is a huge discrepancy in the OP's suggestion on Area's lost.. If it is a question of a geographical Area, Then i guess it's quite a hilarious statement
 
.
"Indian Subcontinent" ? Pakistan is in South Asia ! How about calling Europe as Russian continent since Russians are in majority. How about Brazilian subcontinent instead of South America. Earth could be Chinese planet since Chinese is largest ethnicity on earth.
no sir Al bakistan is in mid of Arabian penisula !
 
.
The discussing is regarding land which has been lost by Indian Sub-Continent due to which reasons and why of course I will be posting only Maps and few details for discussion.
Whether called the Indian subcontinent or South Asia, the definition of the geographical extent of this region varies. Geopolitically, it had formed the whole territory of Greater India, and now it generally comprises the countries of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.Prior to 1947, the three nations were historically combined and constituted British India. It almost always also includes Nepal, Bhutan, and the island country of Sri Lanka and may also include Afghanistan and the island country of Maldives. According to anthropologist John R. Lukacs, "The Indian Subcontinent occupies the major landmass of South Asia. while according to political science professor Tatu Vanhanen, "The seven countries of South Asia constitute geographically a compact region around the Indian Subcontinent".

Using a more expansive definition – counting India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives as the constituent countries – the Indian subcontinent covers about 4.4 million km² (1.7 million mi²), which is 10% of the Asian continent or 3.3% of the world's land surface area. Overall, it accounts for about 45% of Asia's population (or over 25% of the world's population) and is home to a vast array of peoples.

source:Indian subcontinent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Mughal Empire during the reign of Aurangzeb c. 1700
View attachment 181956
source:Mughal Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
India 1700-1792
View attachment 181960 Map After decline of Indian Empire started depicting different fictions.



View attachment 181962 1864 Mitchell Map of India published by USA.


View attachment 181963
Map of British Indian Empire 1909.


My Opinion:
India was known as Golden sparrow in it's peak.Ancient India was no doubt a great civilization which invented use of sewerage system and advance building and measuring techniques. Decline of India started after British Landed on its coasts, the main advantage of British over Indians was nor technological nor civilization, but there fox type cunning to kill and fear locals, most of time subcontinent has been a home to peaceful peoples. Majority of Area India Sub-continent lost after British and fall of Delhi crica-1857. Parts of Afghanistan, China and Burma were taken as soon as empire lost it's power. British on the other hand no affiliation with this land so they divided it into small raj's and exploited it day and night Example koh-e-noor diamond.Through All time of there rule British lost Parts of Afghanistan and Iran.And in last ditch they cultivated a lot of hatred in hearts of Hindus and Muslims for each other so India can never be united.
It was never Indian Subcontinant. only subcontinant.. the name cud be hindustan and it was never remain a one country under rules of muslims. but before that it never consider one place always had smaller stats who had their kings and queen. complicated but never remain one country

'Subcontinent' is a geographically existing reality, arising due to plate tectonics. The Indian subcontinent is distinct from the rest of Asia or even South Asia, since it exists on one tectonic plate that split off from Gondwana 50 million years back.

In short, 'Subcontinent' is not a geopolitical term, like countries or provinces. It has a physical meaning. China having the biggest population or Russia the biggest area among all countries, has no relevance whatsoever. There is no such thing as 'Brazilian subcontinent', because although Brazil is politically a nation state, geographically it is not a distinct landmass on a distinct tectonic plate.

Indian Plate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of tectonic plates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

exactily there was never such a thing called Indian Subcontinent..
 
.
as student of geography I am of the opinion that Burma ( Myanmar) also falls in the Indian Subcontinent , however I don't know the actual reason as to why it was excluded

@Kaniska @scorpionx @sandy_3126

one of my reason being that the Japanese invasion of India as we know it , here in the west , was started form Burma & ended with the Japanese Air raids of Calcutta , & this was such an important event of WW2
this gives my opinion some weight what's your take on this
 
.
So what about Pakistan? Is that a god ordained natural entity?:azn:

What about the USA for that matter? Shouldn't it revert to the native civilizations of old, instead of the rectangular states of today?
America itself was founded by Columbus by mistake, when he was in search of Indian subcontinent...

It was never Indian Subcontinant. only subcontinant.. the name cud be hindustan and it was never remain a one country under rules of muslims. but before that it never consider one place always had smaller stats who had their kings and queen. complicated but never remain one country



exactily there was never such a thing called Indian Subcontinent..
since the age of Mauryan Empire "Bharat" or India was present (Around 322 BC)... This empire is said to be one of the largest empires of the world which was extended till Kandhar (present Gandhar). So until you are confirmed about something, do not approach on an international forum with your stupid and silly comments...
Maurya Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
It was never Indian Subcontinant. only subcontinant.. the name cud be hindustan and it was never remain a one country under rules of muslims. but before that it never consider one place always had smaller stats who had their kings and queen. complicated but never remain one country



exactily there was never such a thing called Indian Subcontinent..

first of all work on your spelling
& secondly there was always a term called the Indian subcontinent , just like the Arabian peninsula . Africana's, Americana's , Canada is situated in north American , but that doesn't mean U.S & Canada is one country , stop being so narrow in your approach , & broaden your vision , there is a difference between Geo-political & Geographical terminologies
 
.
as student of geography I am of the opinion that Burma ( Myanmar) also falls in the Indian Subcontinent , however I don't know the actual reason as to why it was excluded

@Kaniska @scorpionx @sandy_3126

one of my reason being that the Japanese invasion of India as we know it , here in the west , was started form Burma & ended with the Japanese Air raids of Calcutta , & this was such an important event of WW2
this gives my opinion some weight what's your take on this
I maybe wrong but isn't burma- culturally and ethically rather very different from the rest so how does its inclusion makes sense. Even the Britishers were privy to this fact
 
.
America itself was founded by Columbus by mistake, when he was in search of Indian subcontinent...


since the age of Mauryan Empire "Bharat" or India was present (Around 322 BC)... This empire is said to be one of the largest empires of the world which was extended till Kandhar (present Gandhar). So until you are confirmed about something, do not approach on an international forum with your stupid and silly comments...
Maurya Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what a rubbish info. 322 BC there wasnt even enough people. its pure hindu mentality to change history what ever suits them..and then change it again and again..
 
.
what a rubbish info. 322 BC there wasnt even enough people.
its pure hindu mentality to change history what ever suits them..and then change it again and again..
You are saying that wikipaedia is wrong and you are right?
Can you quote me a link for 'such Hindu mentality' ???? cause I can quote multiple links for 'Such Pakistani Mentality'...
Hint - 'Murder of History'
 
.
Back
Top Bottom