How Much of Indian History Is Really True?

[Stephen Cohen]

Who's is denying all these? All I m saying that there were no homogeneous nations in sub continent ever....

But there was a continuos Hindu Civilisation ALL through out SOUTH Asia till 1947

The migration after 1947 only changed the demographics ; NOT the history of SOUTH ASIA

Hindus lived from Peshawar in the West upto Chitagong in the East till 1947

After Partition It was Hindus who CONSOLIDATED as India

The civilisational and cultural unity ;sameness and commonalities HELPED
to form INDIA

India -- the STATE is a political entity which was FORMED from the existing
Land and people who were UNITED by Hinduism

 

[Brickwall]

Who's is denying all these? All I m saying that there were no homogeneous nations in sub continent ever....

History shows us time is only constant ,Empires,kingdoms or even nations are just temporary.

How many modern nation states you can boast of continuous rules for than 500 years, you will hardly get some, borders keeps on changing.

How many nation states you say has homogeneous culture or religion stretching to 5000 years , even 2000 years?

 

[Grevion]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, of usually absurd posts from your good self this one is in a league of its own, so as if kashmiris or punjabis say 500 years back were caling themselves bharatis or hindustanis , and what the hell has aryavat got to do with tamil nadu , bangals etc, honestly @Stephen Cohen before you embarrass your self any further why do you not delete your post as even your fellow contrymen must be exactly.Kudos

@Zibago @PaklovesTurkiye @The Sandman @Moonlight
this @Stephen Cohen chap needs to try for some standup, he seems to have talent, what do you folks thing of his hilarious post.Kudos

Actually he's quite correct.
The name India was given by the British(British East India company). Which came from Greek or Persia(Sindhu/Hindu/Indus and then India).
British East India(except Sri Lanka and maybe Bhutan) was under a single empire many times before the Britishers, including Mughals, Ashokan empire and the great king Bharata(Bharatvarsha).

India is also known as Bharat(officially Bharat Ganarajya in the Indian Constitution) which came from Bharatvarsha.

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

But there was a continuos Hindu Civilisation ALL through out SOUTH Asia till 1947

The migration after 1947 only changed the demographics ; NOT the history of SOUTH ASIA

Hindus lived from Peshawar in the West upto Chitagong in the East till 1947

After Partition It was Hindus who CONSOLIDATED as India

The civilisational and cultural unity ;sameness and commonalities HELPED
to form INDIA

India -- the STATE is a political entity which was FORMED from the existing
Land and people who were UNITED by Hinduism

I pretty much agree with you. No one is claiming Hindus and their civilization/culture in Sub continent is irrelevant or not significant...However, I don't have much grab on history - such far history which is travelling from thousand of years, let alone these names , ashoka et al....Absolutely new thing for me....

History shows us time is only constant ,Empires,kingdoms or even nations are just temporary.

How many modern nation states you can boast of continuous rules for than 500 years, you will hardly get some, borders keeps on changing.

How many nation states you say has homogeneous culture or religion stretching to 5000 years , even 2000 years?

Exactly...That is why and from where countries are born....Subcontinent despite being one in land connectivity/geography was never one culturally, religiously or ethnically....Too much clashes/differences in ideologies hence bound to break up after significant time...

 

[pakdefender]

very little , mostly exaggerated claims , the poems and hymns that india bases it's historical claim are all myth. They could be counted as work of literature but not histotical account

 

[django]

Their version of history is just not understandable for me....I don't know where are they going and bringing terms like ashoka or other stuff....No clue I have and I also suspect their version of history is highly influenced by Hindutuva RSS ideology....

His posts are flying above my heads....

I believe this following is the right one and close to reality.....A comment I saw on different forum....

Pakistan and India came into being in 1947. Before partition, there was no INDIA but SUBCONTINENT. So, Pakistan and India are both in Sub Continent, just a line was drawn in 1947.
Remember there was no such nation called India before the British came but semi autonomous to autonomous regions and kingdoms. The region West of the Indus has always been separate by virtue of ethnicity culture language and faith from East of the Indus. Even with the nations along the Ganges there are a variety of cultures, ethnicities, languages and even within the Vedic faiths there are vast differences but one common theme polytheism hence why the British classified all the different vedic faiths with their thousands of ways as Hinduism.

Now going back to the Muslims, the West of Indus referred as Mughal Empire at one stage had one third of the sub continent which is East of the Indus. Jehanghir the Mughal King right the way to Aurangzaib were among the richest men in the world for their time. The British East India company sought to capitalize on the ailing aging Mughal empire which was pretty much on its knees and Crumbling.

So thus the campaign of divide and conquer began and the British colony in the sub continent was referred to as India. Remember Dutch India was Ceylon and the Pacific and Portugese India was Goa and Spain found its Indies in the Americas. By this I am inferring there was no monolithic entity known as India.

The history of subcontinent shows you it was never monolithic the two most dominant empires which controlled the vast majority were the Mughals and The British the rest is unverified history.

Pakistan is liberated lands belonging to Muslims. Punjab was Muslim way before the dawn of Sikhism....

Excellent post @PaklovesTurkiye they bring in confusingly the immemorial Asoka, for invading different parts of south asia hence those parts are somehow india for eternity, what they forget is that the mauryans were smashed by tribes from the north lol, just how is asoka historical claim stronger to north end of the sub-continent stronger than say, the Kushans, Persians, Durrani empire.............. and the list can go on and on, is this the best claim they have that just because Asoka at one time invaded what is now Punjab, Punjab belongs to Patliputra for eternity

The comments from that other forum sum up the situation perfectly, as they say " I could not have said it better" .Kudos

Tell me was there any land before British or mughals arrived?

Yes their was many diverse lands made up of very diverse people who never saw themselves ever as one country.Kudos

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

Excellent post @PaklovesTurkiye they bring in confusingly the immemorial Asoka, for invading different parts of south asia hence those parts are somehow india for eternity, what they forget is that the mauryans were smashed by tribes from the north lol, just how is asoka historical claim stronger to north end of the sub-continent stronger than say, the Kushans, Persians, Durrani empire.............. and the list can go on and on, is this the best claim they have that just because Asoka at one time invaded what is now Punjab, Punjab belongs to Patilputra for eternity

The comments from that other forum sum up the situation perfectly, as they say " I could not have said it better" .Kudos


Yes their was many diverse lands made up of very diverse people who never saw themselves ever as one country.Kudos

Thanks.......Since your history seems to be well good, I wll like to quote you in any future thread regarding history of Sub Continent or of Kashmir...Al right?

 

[django]

But there was a continuos Hindu Civilisation ALL through out SOUTH Asia till 1947

The migration after 1947 only changed the demographics ; NOT the history of SOUTH ASIA

Hindus lived from Peshawar in the West upto Chitagong in the East till 1947

After Partition It was Hindus who CONSOLIDATED as India

The civilisational and cultural unity ;sameness and commonalities HELPED
to form INDIA

India -- the STATE is a political entity which was FORMED from the existing
Land and people who were UNITED by Hinduism

I doubt the polytheism practiced in the north end is the same as the polytheism that was practiced in the south ie a polytheist from Peshawar valley must have practiced a very different form than the one in tamil nadu, all this polytheism has loosely been generalised in to a common term hinduism.Kudos
@Kaptaan @Zibago @The Sandman @PaklovesTurkiye

 

[Kaniska]

They have 21 insurgencies which are not going to go away anytime soon, I hope we have our own Kulbudashan Yadavs in place to add fuel to the fire.Kudos


They did and we are proud of it, if their was no demand for separation Brits would have done jack....we fought for our rights and got our rights and God willing other states in hindia will follow suit.kudos


My grandfather did not move away, we live in the land of our ancestors, do not tell us about leaving our lands, we got independence from artificial British entity, and we are thankful for it, ask the Muslims of Gujrat when they had to watch their daughters ,mothers, sisters, wives get raped and burned alive in front of their eyes by RSS raam laals, if they are in a good situation......exactly.


So India is one natural homogeneous State with a common history?


Too be honest I did not even watch the video, and your comments are very accurate.Kudos bhai.


Are you truly delusional man, historically speaking their is no such thing as your so called mighty India.


Who cares what you say, their was no such concept of nationhood for India prior to the British arrival, from Pakistan to Bangladesh their are many diverse nations which have zilch in common which have been part of different empires over the millennia yet somehow you are trying to project them as one homogeneous nation, man you are truly and utterly delusional like that fool Tarek Fatah who makes the most bizarre historical claims ie Afghanistan is also Indian nation lol.

Ok dear friend...you are in your own land ...Happy now...My intent is not bargain who initiated the separation rather to congratulate Mr Jinah for making us separate with each other. And whatever word that describes to appriciate Mr Jinah for his thought to get his own land or separated from India, I am thankful to him..

 

[django]

History shows us time is only constant ,Empires,kingdoms or even nations are just temporary.

How many modern nation states you can boast of continuous rules for than 500 years, you will hardly get some, borders keeps on changing.

How many nation states you say has homogeneous culture or religion stretching to 5000 years , even 2000 years?

the only frequent rule you have had is a 1000 years of monotheistic rule, so judging by your criteria your country should be called Islamdesh.Kudos

Thanks.......Since your history seems to be well good, I wll like to quote you in any future thread regarding history of Sub Continent or of Kashmir...Al right?

Thank you for the kind words, I am humbled, the blogger @Kaptaan is most knowledgeable on these issues.Kudos

 

[Stephen Cohen]

I doubt the polytheism practiced in the north end is the same as the polytheism that was practiced in the south ie a polytheist from Peshawar valley must have practiced a very different form than the one in tamil nadu, all this polytheism has loosely been generalised in to a common term hinduism.Kudos

If Hindus were so different as YOU think they were or are

India would have split by now

Before British rule there was no sense of affiliation between Hindus
of north east west or south

Because of the CONSTANT conflicts happening and territories changing hands

British rule brought peace and stability and then people started THINKING

The intellectuals and other leaders of various Hindu communities realised
that Hindus have had civilisational and cultural similarities
BUT politically we have been divided and hence suffered

SO this was the reason for a HAPPY and willing Merger of all Hindu majority
provinces into one Giant INDIA which you DO NOT LIKE obviously

 

[django]

Actually he's quite correct.
The name India was given by the British(British East India company). Which came from Greek or Persia(Sindhu/Hindu/Indus and then India).
British East India(except Sri Lanka and maybe Bhutan) was under a single empire many times before the Britishers, including Mughals, Ashokan empire and the great king Bharata(Bharatvarsha).

India is also known as Bharat(officially Bharat Ganarajya in the Indian Constitution) which came from Bharatvarsha.

Now what the hell has sindh/indus got to do with the bengalis, tamils etc lol, your post is self defeating lol.Kudos

 

[Stephen Cohen]

the only frequent rule you have had is a 1000 years of monotheistic rule, so judging by your criteria your country should be called Islamdesh.Kudos

That 1000 rule thing is Misleading and propoganda

There were several Hindu kingdoms and later Sikhs always at war with Delhi sultans

That is why Islam could not convert entire India and even after 1000 years
Hindus were in a majority

 

[django]

If Hindus were so different as YOU think they were or are

India would have split by now

Before British rule there was no sense of affiliation between Hindus
of north east west or south

Because of the CONSTANT conflicts happening and territories changing hands

British rule brought peace and stability and then people started THINKING

The intellectuals and other leaders of various Hindu communities realised
that Hindus have had civilisational and cultural similarities
BUT politically we have been divided and hence suffered

SO this was the reason for a HAPPY and willing Merger of all Hindu majority
provinces into one Giant INDIA which you DO NOT LIKE obviously

The artificial union did split into 3, as for how come it has not split since its revamped inception in 47, my dear chap it is because of the tactics of rape and murder that your troops have used throughout your artificial nation, just look what you guys have done in kashmir valley and all those other 20 insurgencies where your troops have become infamous for using rape as a terror weapon, do you want me to embarrass you and put the evidence up, or is amnesty and other similar organisations inherently opposed to your state as you will surely argue. The lengths you are going to too justify the existence of your artificial nation is actually staggering.kudos Stephen

 

[Jaga Badmash]

That 1000 rule thing is Misleading and propoganda

There were several Hindu kingdoms and later Sikhs always at war with Delhi sultans

That is why Islam could not convert entire India and even after 1000 years
Hindus were in a majority

If they wish they could easily convert all of you but since they are Muslim and Islam does't allow force conversion so only those who inspired by Muslim values and culture converted by themselves.