All your BS excuses cant hide you fools intention and claim on the neighbours.Wumao, for the n'th time, thats the Mural of Ashokan empire.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All your BS excuses cant hide you fools intention and claim on the neighbours.Wumao, for the n'th time, thats the Mural of Ashokan empire.
Well one can argue that, civilizations even without external effects do change over time, and I mean on their own. Which means staying the same start to end, cannot be possible as stagnation isn't something possible in human life.He made this a criteria of being a "civillization" , you have to stay the way you're from the beginning to the end to e considered a civillization
If not you're not one
- following "Abrahamic" relgions have "degraded" you from being a "civillization" - that means India is more of a civillization than Europe, Gulf & US at this point in time
& In history is a greater civillization than others cause of Thier relgious beliefs
Quote "There are only 2 civilizations left"
No gangadesh in Pakistan - I would die for Kashmir not gangaland
In bolded part I was presenting looney toons argumentWell one can argue that, civilizations even without external effects do change over time, and I mean on their own. Which means staying the same start to end, cannot be possible as stagnation isn't something possible in human life.
Aside internal changes and external which you mentioned, Indian territories have stayed the course more or less .. so the civilizational continuity remains in my opinion.
The bolded part am not sure what you wanted to write, did you mean India is 'no' more a civilization than the rest?
India is not a specific civilisation, it is merely a geographic expression, like the Equator or Africa.
Aren’t you by this logic then favouring the vision of a single monolith Bharat ? Obviously invaders whether European Mongol Turkish or Muslim were able grab land mass because they were small and separate kingdoms. Once integrated into India that weakness is eliminated. So May be they are right in that visionIndia as it is today did not exist prior to the arrival of the British. It was made up of multiple independent states like continental Europe their unique languages, cultures and Ethnicity. So the hindutvas having a big dream to create something which never existed.
There is no logic just a statement there. India as it is never existed in the past including with what is now Sri Lanka Pakistan Bangladesh, Afghanistan and other countries so not sure how you conclude a single monolith from that.Aren’t you by this logic then favouring the vision of a single monolith Bharat ? Obviously invaders whether European Mongol Turkish or Muslim were able grab land mass because they were small and separate kingdoms. Once integrated into India that weakness is eliminated. So May be they are right in that vision
All of these areas you list were part of one or other Indian kingdoms. But that’s beside the point that I am making.There is no logic just a statement there. India as it is never existed in the past including with what is now Sri Lanka Pakistan Bangladesh, Afghanistan and other countries so not sure how you conclude a single monolith from that.
Wumao, for the n'th time, thats the Mural of Ashokan empire. There's a reason why all names written over it are ancient names of those cities and not the modern ones.
Usko dihadi milti hai roz ki bakwas karne ki CCP se, kahi social credit down na ho jaye bechare ka .
We can see how your country is doing wonders while cow piss drinking streetshitters are going down the drain...
Ashoka never existed, show me the skeleton.Why do Indian lie so much?
No way an ancient map of Ashokan can be so accurate. Show the original.
They were not "indian" kingdoms but other kingdoms in patches here and there, one did hold a large area like 2000 years ago but that is also meaningless in today's time.All of these areas you list were part of one or other Indian kingdoms. But that’s beside the point that I am making.
They were called different names ofcourse but the land mass we generally call India had other names in the past. Bharatvarsh is one of themThey were not "indian" kingdoms but other kingdoms in patches here and there, one did hold a large area like 2000 years ago but that is also meaningless in today's time.