India, Iran cradles of great civilizations: Iranian envoy

[notsuperstitious]

This discussion is still ongoing?

Follow the news, the identity crisis has only gotten worse.

Funny thing is this cultural terrorism is as illogical as the military terrorism. Brahmagupta's work states that he wrote it in Bhilamala. The next available reference to Brahmagupta is Alberuni's Tarikh Al-Hind, that clearly states Brahmagupta, son of Jishnu - was from the town of Bhillamala between Multan and Anhilwara. Now these Zaid Hamid type cultural terrorists only picked up ''Multan'' from that sentence, as is their SOP, and now claim Brahmagupta was from Multan!!!

While I have sympathy for the cursed ones, maybe they should try to find another way out of this problem, terrorism does not pay.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Follow the news, the identity crisis has only gotten worse.

Funny thing is this cultural terrorism is as illogical as the military terrorism. Brahmagupta's work states that he wrote it in Bhilamala. The next available reference to Brahmagupta is Alberuni's Tarikh Al-Hind, that clearly states Brahmagupta, son of Jishnu - was from the town of Bhillamala between Multan and Anhilwara. Now these Zaid Hamid type cultural terrorists only picked up ''Multan'' from that sentence, as is their SOP, and now claim Brahmagupta was from Multan!!!

While I have sympathy for the cursed ones, maybe they should try to find another way out of this problem, terrorism does not pay.

Seeing from the discussions here, seems like people, are trying to take credit for whatever cultural heritage there is for their respective countries, and see which one is more superior overall.

Which country has a more powerful cultural heritage and history? India or Pakistan? It's a really loaded question if you ask me.

Although, I'd have to say, much of the credit goes to Iran. South Asia generally has important cultural links with Iran spanning thousands of years, even before the Persians ever became Muslims.

As far as we Desis are concerned, if it were not for the British, we'd probably still be going to our schools and offices wearing lungis. We have come a long way through many changes.

 

[iMohammed]

Seeing from the discussions here, seems like people, are trying to take credit for whatever cultural heritage there is for their respective countries, and see which one is more superior overall.

Which country has a more powerful cultural heritage and history? India or Pakistan? It's a really loaded question if you ask me.

Although, I'd have to say, much of the credit goes to Iran. South Asia generally has important cultural links with Iran spanning thousands of years, even before the Persians ever became Muslims.

As far as we Desis are concerned, if it were not for the British we'd probably still be going to our schools and offices wearing lungis. We have come a long way through many changes.

That theory of Indian Despotism had long been refuted in the early 20th by both Indian and European Historians.
Just for the fun of it Try reading the article for democracy in Wikipedia(Earliest democratic models and states).

 

[iMohammed]

Seeing from the discussions here, seems like people, are trying to take credit for whatever cultural heritage there is for their respective countries, and see which one is more superior overall.

Which country has a more powerful cultural heritage and history? India or Pakistan? It's a really loaded question if you ask me.

Although, I'd have to say, much of the credit goes to Iran. South Asia generally has important cultural links with Iran spanning thousands of years, even before the Persians ever became Muslims.

As far as we Desis are concerned, if it were not for the British, we'd probably still be going to our schools and offices wearing lungis. We have come a long way through many changes.

All the desis in the forum:

when it comes to culture, history and heritage India is a super set and all the neighboring countries are in a way sub sets with newer elements after 1947. It's because all the Political heads and intelligentsia of sub continent(and outsiders) have always thought of it as a single unit and tried to conquer all the territory for themselves during ancient, medieval and modern times up until 1947. Present day nation states Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri lanka, Nepal, Afghanistan, Tibet, Bhutan, all have common cultural, racial ties with present day India.

Pakistani Punjab sindh more like Indian Gujarat, Punjab than the rest of India.
Bangladesh more like West Bengal than the rest of India
Sri Lanka more like Tamil Nadu for Tamils, Northern India and Kerala for Sinhalese.

The point is: like a mathematical axiom "whole is greater than the sum of its parts".

BTW
Indus Valley Civilization and Ancient India are two different things. some folks here are mixing them up.

IVC- Bronze Age India

Ancient India - Iron Age India the so called 'Golden age of India' (romantics call it, could be myth)

And folks also need to understand the theories for Decline of IVC. It did not happen in a night. People just moved Eastward with time and changes in the mansoon.(check the rainfall data for sub continent.) That's probably the reason why Gangetic basin became the center of culture in the Ancient period.(You know, the Hindi Belt)

And so, People need to shut their Ancient Pakistan and Ancient Bangladesh BS up.
Yes, you can refer to it as ancient history of Pakistan
And don't do these India Vs (any subcontinent nation) in cultural aspects. It's stupid.

Thank you.

 

[jatt+gutts]

^ nailed it. pakistani civilisation, bangla civilisation and alll other civilisations of subcontinent are part of greater indian civilisation. and indian cultural sphere is expanding even further with bollywood and growing indias power

 

[r3alist]

In what context are we using India?

Hindu?
Nation state?
Or just a vast region?


If it's just a vast region then you can call it sub continent or refer to sub regions, because no one refers to European history, each country will have unique histories.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Seeing from the discussions here, seems like people, are trying to take credit for whatever cultural heritage there is for their respective countries, and see which one is more superior overall.

Which country has a more powerful cultural heritage and history? India or Pakistan? It's a really loaded question if you ask me.

Although, I'd have to say, much of the credit goes to Iran. South Asia generally has important cultural links with Iran spanning thousands of years, even before the Persians ever became Muslims.

As far as we Desis are concerned, if it were not for the British, we'd probably still be going to our schools and offices wearing lungis. We have come a long way through many changes.

Buddy, we Indians are comfortable in our jeans, thanks. We are not the ones in an identity crisis you see, we never were. We have always interacted with all, learned from them, accepted and absorbed, from the persians, from turks, from chinese, from tibetans, from central asians from burmese, from thais and protuguese and british and french and arabs, and we gave back to these cultures too.

The very insecure, narrow minded, small hearted, jealous, little people - they need to introspect on what they are wearing, not us. We don't care if we are not wearing lungis (lots of us still do), nor do we care about what indian food the brits are eating.

 

[jatt+gutts]

like european history indian history is combination of histories of various regions of subcontinent. north indian being dominant region

 

[r3alist]

Buddy, we Indians are comfortable in our jeans, thanks. We are not the ones in an identity crisis you see, we never were. We have always interacted with all, learned from them, accepted and absorbed, from the persians, from turks, from chinese, from tibetans, from central asians from burmese, from thais and protuguese and british and french and arabs, and we gave back to these cultures too.

The very insecure, narrow minded, small hearted, jealous, little people - they need to introspect on what they are wearing, not us. We don't care if we are not wearing lungis (lots of us still do), nor do we care about what indian food the brits are eating.

We 1.5 billion people?? ROFL

 

[Tshering22]

like european history indian history is combination of histories of various regions of subcontinent. north indian being dominant region

You're quite wrong. History has been uniform to all regions of our country, mate. Southern side is the reason why our country once stretched to as far as today's Indonesia (Malaya). Same goes for east. It was for our culture that Himalayan belt remains under our power. Not to mention the many failed attacks of the Turkic tribes that tried to do an Afghanistan with us and got their behinds whopped all the way back to their yurts in central Asia.

Northern history is just a part of it all.

 

[r3alist]

like european history indian history is combination of histories of various regions of subcontinent. north indian being dominant region

What does Indian mean in this context?
It can only mean REGION, nothing else, no pan identity, no proto Hindu wet dreams, just a region in s.Asia.

 

[iMohammed]

In this context what dies India mean?

Hindu?
Nation state?
Or just a vast region?

If i understood Your question properly:
Constitution of India states that India (Republic of India) is a union of states.

If you are talking about more of an academic terms, then India is the Indian sub continent, merely a piece of land on the planet.

In this context what dies India mean?
If it's just a vast region then you can call it sub continent or refer to sub regions, because no one refers to European history, each country will have unique histories.

Well, that's not a standard for us, right? WE choose what we want to call it or see it as.

BTW
'Hindu' isn't always about the 'so called' religion Hinduism.
There was no term 'Hinduism' up until the early 1800s. it's just a umberalla term for god-related things and beliefs native to India(sub continent).
The accurate term would be 'Santana Dharma'
For that matter anyone who is indic can call himself Hindu without actually believing in any form of god or religion.

 

[alphamale]

In what context are we using India?

Hindu?
Nation state?
Or just a vast region?


If it's just a vast region then you can call it sub continent or refer to sub regions, because no one refers to European history, each country will have unique histories.

when someone say ancient india it means a vast area i.e indian subcontinent & not any hindu state. we Indians are not stuck to one religion when mentioning our history.

 

[notsuperstitious]

We 1.5 billion people?? ROFL

I specfically excluded some million to our west and east when I mentioned the following you see, so your hollow laughter is as hollow as you ancient pakistan

The very insecure, narrow minded, small hearted, jealous, little people

LFMAO!

 

[r3alist]

If i understood Your question properly:
Constitution of India states that India (Republic of India) is a union of states.

If you are talking about more of an academic terms, then India is the Indian sub continent, merely a piece of land on the planet.





Well, that's not a standard for us, right? WE choose what we want to call it or see it as.

BTW
'Hindu' isn't always about the 'so called' religion Hinduism.
There was no term 'Hinduism' up until the early 1800s. it's just a umberalla term for god-related things and beliefs native to India(sub continent).
The accurate term would be 'Santana Dharma'
For that matter anyone who is indic can call himself Hindu without actually believing in any form of god or religion.

This is all neither here nor there. What I want to know is what does ancient India mean, and what specific boundaries does it have?

Once you realise you cannot apply the idea of nation state to 5000 year old history Indians talk about pan Indian identity, which is something I don't put much stock in, just because people 1000 years ago lived in a comparable way means nothing, clutching at straws, IMO.


We can split up the sub continent any way you want, according to people's, languages and regions.

THE USE OF THE WORD INDIAN IS ARBITRARY AND INTERCHANGABLE.