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

[Tshering22]

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
View attachment 181987
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

• Hinduism is practised by the majority of Bali's population.
• Garuda, a Hindu mythological figure, is present in the coats of arms of Indonesia, Thailand and Ulan Bator.
• Kaharingan, an indigenous religion followed by the Dayak people of Borneo, is categorised as a form of Hinduism in Indonesia.
• Philippine mythology includes the supreme god Bathala and the concept of Diwata and the still-current belief in Karma—all derived from Hindu-Buddhist concepts.
• Malay folklore contains a rich number of Indian-influenced mythological characters, such as Bidadari, Jentayu, Garuda and Naga.
• Wayang shadow puppets and classical dance-dramas of Indonesia, Cambodia, Malaysia and Thailand took stories from episodes of Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Architecture and monuments

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

• The same style of Hindu temple architecture was used in several ancient temples in South East Asia including Angkor Wat, which was dedicated to Hindu god Vishnu and is shown on the flag of Cambodia, also Prambanan in Central Java, the largest Hindu temple in Indonesia, is dedicated to Trimurti — Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma.
• Borobudur in Central Java, Indonesia, is the world's largest Buddhist monument. It took shape of a giant stone mandala crowned with stupas and believed to be the combination of Indian-origin Buddhist ideas with the previous megalithic tradition of native Austronesian step pyramid.
• The minarets of 15th- to 16th-century mosques in Indonesia, such as the Great Mosque of Demak and Kudus mosque resemble those of Majapahit Hindu temples.
• The Batu Caves in Malaysia are one of the most popular Hindu shrines outside India. It is the focal point of the annual Thaipusam festival in Malaysia and attracts over 1.5 million pilgrims, making it one of the largest religious gatherings in history.
• Erawan Shrine, dedicated to Brahma, is one of the most popular religious shrines in Thailand.

View attachment 181988
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



I have posted that's not land but cultural expansion.

A fine post, buddy.

For the rest, there is always Akhand Bharat.

 

[Sine Nomine]

For the rest, there is always Akhand Bharat.

That's know a religious term..

 

[KalaGhoda]

How much area did the same "mughal empire" lose to the Indian subcontinent in the last 50 years ?

About the size of Bangladesh.

 

[Indo-guy]

That's know a religious term..

You could say it is an historical or socio-cultural term ...

It is definitely not a religious term ...although it has been hijacked by right wing parties to espouse nationalistic agenda.

when hitler pushed for a expansion of German empire iften touted as Fatherland ..was it a religious term ? Nopes ..

similarly Akahnd bharat is not a religious term ...

 

[T90TankGuy]

Begged? That a little harsh. They had their methods and we had ours. Both were successful so who's to say which one was better? Civil disobedience and peaceful protests are the norm today. MLK did the same thing. Are you calling that begging too?

You assume he know about MLK? he is a south Asian pretending to be white.

 

[PakGuns]

No territory lost its still on the earth..Believe me I watch national geo graphics asia...

 

[Luca1]

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

Roman empires covered all the Mediterranean world. Does that make the Mediterranean region one country?

 

[ArsalanKhan21]

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.

South America is a distinct landmass on a distinct tectonic plate !!!! It was attached to Africa and due to plate tectonics broke and floated to its current position and attached to North America with Central American peninsula.You have selected memory about plate tectonics !!!

South American Plate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ayesha.a]

South America is a distinct landmass on a distinct tectonic plate !!!! It was attached to Africa and due to plate tectonics broke and floated to its current position and attached to North America with Central American peninsula.You have selected memory about plate tectonics !!!

South American Plate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes that's right, S America is a distinct tectonic plate. How does that contradict anything I said? You asked why that continent cannot be called the Brazilian subcontinent, and that's what I was answering.

BTW S America is also a continent, and hence spoken of in terms of being a continent, which is easier for most people to visualize than a tectonic plate. But the Indian subcontinent is only a small part of Asia that is tectonically distinct from the rest of Asia.

Roman empires covered all the Mediterranean world. Does that make the Mediterranean region one country?

At that time, it did. Now it isn't.

Is Jordan a country? Saudi Arabia? Canada? Kuwait? Yemen? Zambia? Tanzania? Pakistan?

Did any of these places have a unified existence before recent times?

I'm especially curious about your take on Pakistan - I asked you that earlier, when you called India an artificial country. Would you say the same about your taller than mountains friend? Surely there is more of a case to be made to apply that description to Pakistan that to India? It's very telling that you won't say the same thing about any other country.

India has been politically united for hundreds of years, and culturally united for thousands. I can't say the same thing for most countries on earth, including the USA which you pretend you are from.

 

[ArsalanKhan21]

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

There are two other plates in Asia, the Arabian plate and Australian plate. Why would Europe be another continent if its part of Eurasian plate ? Its political agenda calling Europe another continent. If you want talk in plate tectonic terms then lets have continents based on plates. Why should subcontinent plate be mentioned politically and not others. Basically its British and Indian emphasis.

These seven plates comprise the bulk of the continents:

African Plate
Antarctic Plate
Eurasian Plate
Indo-Australian Plate
North American Plate
Pacific Plate
South American Plate

 

[Kaniska]

Thanks for initiating an interesting thread. I believe, there are 2 ways to look at it..Whenever we wish to include certain geographical area under an ambit of certain sphere of influence, then we have analyze about what is the basis of this inclusion or exclusion..Culturally, myanmar is still influenced by Hindustani culture to some extent...Like influence of Hindusim, Budhism and Islam is in place...Apart from that if you talk about cultural aspect, definitely it is little bit different than than central or Western part of Indian subcontinent....But if you go by the history, then of course, Burma shares a shared histroy with us in multiple ways in the past.

 

[ayesha.a]

There are two other plates in Asia, the Arabian plate and Australian plate. Why would Europe be another continent if its part of Eurasian plate ? Its political agenda calling Europe another continent. If you want talk in plate tectonic terms then lets have continents based on plates. Why should subcontinent plate be mentioned politically and not others. Basically its British and Indian emphasis.

These seven plates comprise the bulk of the continents:

African Plate
Antarctic Plate
Eurasian Plate
Indo-Australian Plate
North American Plate
Pacific Plate
South American Plate

That's right, and that is why Europe is never called a "subcontinent". The modern terminology is the Eurasian continent, since both are part of the same continent. Europe though, is a politically and culturally identifiable entity, just like the middle east, South Asia, East Asia etc. Why is the middle east used so frequently, although it is neither a continent nor a tectonic plate?

The Indian subcontinent is a subcontinent for geographic reasons - it drifted and joined Asia some 50 million years back. Geographically, it is distinct from the Eurasian continent.

The Arab plate is also tectonically existant, and the term is widely used, as is "Arab peninsula" (which roughly corresponds to the same area.)

To be brief, the geographically independant nature of some parts of the world's continents is what first caused such terminologies to arise. That is why there is an "Arabian peninsula", but no Perisan one, why there is an Indian subcontinent but no Chinese subcontinent, why there is a South American continent but no "Brazilian continent", as you earlier asked. There is a Korean archipelago, and a Korean peninsula, and my guess is that those names will stay, even if one of the two Koreas changes their name. There will be no Chinese subcontinent even though China is the largest country there. The republic of India came into being only in 1947 - before that, the entire region was called India, whether you like it or not. Today, geographically the subcontinent is still called "Indian subcontinent", but politically there is the Republics of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.

 

[$@rJen]

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.

Why Mughals were not able to capture the 2 southern Indian states (currently known as TN, Kerala) ???

 

[ArsalanKhan21]

That's right, and that is why Europe is never called a "subcontinent". The modern terminology is the Eurasian continent, since both are part of the same continent. Europe though, is a politically and culturally identifiable entity, just like the middle east, South Asia, East Asia etc. Why is the middle east used so frequently, although it is neither a continent nor a tectonic plate?

All the plates have floated since the Gondwanaland supercontinent broke up. All other smaller plates are never given special status except subcontinent especially by the Indians. Nonetheless Pakistan is in South Asia.

 

[axisofevil]

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..

There was no such thing as Pakistan and Islam at the time. If Islam is so great why do you need to forcefully convert ppl to your great religion. Typical Mental