India has NEVER been a unified entity.

[Kompromat]

Good map. I agree with it. It also shows Tibet is independent and Islam does not exist

This is from 500 AD - need a psychologist?

 

[third eye]

Whats the point?

The poster is attempting to collect brownie points citing a map with no explanations.

Had he attempted to find some he would have found that large countries like USA , Australia too did not exist back then as we now know them.

The very concept of a nation itself did not exist back then with a possible exception of Greece so whats the point ?

Immaturity at best thats all.

 

[Kompromat]

Moderator opening a thread just to vent his desperation and frustration

Indian myths and folklore needs to be put to rest with hard historic evidence.

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

This is from 500 AD - need a psychologist?

No but it seems that you do since it took you so long to understand this is from 500 AD

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

The difference is that China as a nation has existed for thousands of years. The borders have not always been the same of course, but the nation existed.

CCP certified history, the concept of a nation came in 1648 with Treaties of Westphalia , but yet China can exist as a nation 1000 years ago.

Whereas the concept of India is a relatively new one, named after the Indus River which existed in British India, not in modern India. Today, the Indus River flows almost entirely through Pakistan.

We can understand Greek history must be banned in China as part anti-democracy education, as CCP cannot tolerate independent thought from its citizens.

Go research on google on Megasthenes and don't Baidu it.

Yet the British Empire named many different people across the planet with the name Indus, not only Indians, but Red Indians, West Indians etc. that also existed within the British Empire.

Wow! even after over 20 years the after Hong Kong became part of China, a Hong kong Hanjian's affinity for British imperialist perception is not lost.

 

[kaykay]

The difference is that China as a nation has existed for thousands of years. The borders have not always been the same of course, but the nation existed.

Whereas the concept of India is a relatively new one, named after the Indus River which existed in British India, not in modern India. Today, the Indus River flows almost entirely through Pakistan.

Yet the British Empire named many different people across the planet with the name Indus, not only Indians, but Red Indians, West Indians etc. that also existed within the British Empire.

So 1000s of years back china's name was 'CHINA'?? Right??

 

[Ajatashatru]

That's just one map of a particular date. India ha been unified under Mauryans and large parts were unified under Guptas, Palas, Mughals, Marathas and many others. Furthermore, when do Indians claim that India has been a unified entity throughout its history? When it is said that countries like India and China are very old, it means their civilization and culture are very old not necessarily a political union. India was for most of its history divided among kingdoms all of which were part of Indian civilization. But Pakistanis will not understand it. After all they don't have a culture and civilization of their own. Whatever they have has mostly come from India and a little from Iran and Arabia.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

So 1000s of years back china's name was 'CHINA'?? Right??

The name China is derived from the Qin (Chin) Dynasty, which existed in 221 BC.

Which, needless to say, was over 2000 years ago.

The Indus on the other hand, is a River in Pakistan. Yet Indians, Red Indians, and West Indians were named after this river, even though it is not their River, but Pakistan's river. They were named so by the colonialists, since at that time the Indus existed within their Empire.

This new found identity and unity was not a domestic phenomenom, but a foreign one.

 

[joekrish]

The OP just puked on the title to start with.

 

[SpArK]

So 1000s of years back china's name was 'CHINA'?? Right??

Was called Qin-a and was the only nation with membership of UN.

 

[kaykay]

The name China is derived from the Qin (Chin) Dynasty, which existed in 221 BC.

Which, needless to say, was over 2000 years ago.

The Indus on the other hand, is a River in Pakistan. Yet Indians, Red Indians, and West Indians were named after this river, even though it is not their River, but Pakistan's river. They were named so by the colonialists, since at that time the Indus existed within their Empire.

This new found identity and unity was not a domestic phenomenom, but a foreign one.

If china is chinese then what is 'zhong Guo'?? Middle country right?? China is nothing but named by english people.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

If china is chinese then what is 'zhong Guo'?? Middle country right?? China is nothing but named by english people.

Yeah in 200 BC there was a global British Empire, you're right.

And Qin/Chin is not a Chinese word, you're right again.

/sarcasm

The Qin/Chin first emerged in 778 BC, people weren't even speaking English back then. Not that logic is any concern in this topic.

 

[kaykay]

Yeah in 200 BC there was a global British Empire, you're right.

China is named by english. mandarian is Ghong Guo.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

China is named by english. mandarian is Ghong Guo.

LOL what is "Ghong guo", that is not even a word.

The state of Qin/Chin existed in 778 BC.

Whereas the English language emerged more than 2000 years later, in 1550 AD.

How can Qin/Chin be named after a language that only came about two thousand years later? Do you have no sense of logic?

 

[MohitV]

Indian myths and folklore needs to be put to rest with hard historic evidence.

bro your history is our history and vice versa

Maurayan empire-

just look at it...

Maurya Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and for those losers who think wiki is shyt source -

Mauryan empire (ancient state, India) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Mauryan Empire (ca. 323–185 B.C.) | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

tatz it......if u think u r not a loser then plzz dun reply back to me as i dun wanna argue( not for u aeronaut).....

thank you