India third largest economy by 2028: CEBR

[BJP*]

There was no single empire known as India when Mughals ruled South Asia in Delhi. It was just indian subcontinent with a myriad of different kingdoms.

Yes, because in India we never give that much importance to names. Even today, 'India' is used mainly by foriegn countries, and english media. We the citizens rarely call our country as 'India' in our normal talks rather we call it as 'Bharat'. Even our neighbours call us as 'Hindustan', which is again a different name. Our ancient texts refer our country as 'Aryavrat'. It may be possible after 100 years our country is refereed by different name.

Even if I accept Mughals as Indian empire, there is no political continuity from Muarya empire. Mughals were muslims, completely culture and people to local south Asians. How could India lost the status of a country to British? For 2000 years, since 185BC, there was not a single country/empire. The present border of India was drew by the British.

It happens after every 200-300 years. Maurya empire lacks continuity with Gupta empires. Gupta empire lacks continuity with mughals empire. even in 2001 India was ruled by NDA now it is ruled by UPA there lacks continuity. It dosent mean India was not a country before but now it is?. Even now the head of Ruling party is from Italy. Will you say after 150 years that India was not a country in 2013 because it was ruled by Italian and not Indian? Mate, consider the fact that external boundaries of India were more or less same since 300 BC. Even the Capital is same.

One sovereign empire or one country is completely different concept from "unified country"
Two, there can only be an unification only if there exists two different entities, like East and West Germany. Taiwan is not recognized by UN as a country, and it's size is not even 0.5% of China landmass

yes. apply the first logic in Indian context. There was always a 'sovereign empire' throughout Indian history, but there existed small kingdoms which resolves around 'sovereign empire' in the center. For the second point, not being acknowledge by some one dosent mean the country dosent exists?
Hence, china was never been united and is still not united as single country.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

800 years ago China was the part of Mongol Empire.



Was China centrally ruled throughout history, the modern idea of China is based on an empire left by foreign invaders against whom Chinese once built Great Wall of China There were many Greek states so you mean there was no Greek civilization or idea of Greece.

Yuan does not sound Mongolian to me.

It's not about being centrally ruled without breaks in between, otherwise the break between the First and Second and Third Reich would mean that Germany was not a country since the 9th. century.

Again, civilisation doesn't equal country. Is that so hard for you to understand. There was a Germanic civilisation prior Charlemagne but there was no country called Germany unitl Emperor Karl der Großer.

The EU in total is a Western civilisation but that does not equate to a country, albeit we are more a country than India in most of it's history since we have EU laws, EU Parliament and many other central institutions within the EU.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

You want me to give you an example closer to home loser? Between 1st and 2nd world war, fatherland did witness beautiful calls for dismemberment because Baarian Culture was different from Prussian Culture and whatnot. Sure Hitler did another Bismarck style unification through the rise of Nazism. He gave perpetual unity of the German people and sacrificed several millions somewhere along the way...beautiful history I must say. Now tell me how states 'existed' for several centuries and India is just a 'geographic' entity.

What? Bavaria became independent between WWI and WWII? FYI Hamburg culture is also different than Saxonian culture, Scottish culture is different than English culture. Heck Gaelic is not even a Germanic language. Does that means GB is not a country?

Loser, don't talk about matters that you have zero knowledge!

India has always been a geographic entity with a loosely connected civilisation until the Brits unified "India". That's the common understanding of all historians except delusional Indians.

BTW, go to the German Wiki and read what they write about Indian history. It's quite interesting, since the pre-colonial part is much shorter than the British colonial part: Indien – Wikipedia

LOL

 

[BJP*]

The present border of India was drew by the British.

Look at the map below, this map was of the time when Britishers were leaving India. The pale yellow part were ruled by Indian rulers. The colored were ruled by britishers. The territories of Jammu & Kashmir, Rajputana, Hyderabad, Mysore, Baluchistan, nepal, bhutan were not under British Empire.

Now look at the second map, and see the changes made to Indian map after 1947. In the below map you will notice Pakistan and bangladesh are no longer the part of India. The Independent territories of Jammu & Kashmir, Rajputana, Hyderabad, Mysore have now become part of India.

Britishers did not unified India. Unification of India was done in 1950, and in the same year India became republic. Also notice that map of India constantly changed till 1975.

 

[Fattyacids]

Yes, because in India we never give that much importance to names. Even today, 'India' is used mainly by foriegn countries, and english media. We the citizens rarely call our country as 'India' in our normal talks rather we call it as 'Bharat'. Even our neighbours call us as 'Hindustan', which is again a different name. Our ancient texts refer our country as 'Aryavrat'. It may be possible after 100 years our country is refereed by different name.

Mythology is not real history. Whatever the name, the fact is there was no single empire when Mughals conquered South Asia. It's fact.

It happens after every 200-300 years. Maurya empire lacks continuity with Gupta empires. Gupta empire lacks continuity with mughals empire. even in 2001 India was ruled by NDA now it is ruled by UPA there lacks continuity. It dosent mean India was not a country before but now it is?. Even now the head of Ruling party is from Italy. Will you say after 150 years that India was not a country in 2013 because it was ruled by Italian and not Indian? Mate, consider the fact that external boundaries of India were more or less same since 300 BC. Even the Capital is same.

Maurya ended in 185BC, Gutpa was around 700 AD. It's almost 1000 years. Not 200-300 years

NDA and UPA analogy is invalid. The country India has been formed in 1947. Political party are not like monarchy of ancient times who ruled empire.

Size of territory changes and it doesn't define sovereignty of an empire. Question is who defined the border, it was the British, not an Indian empire.

yes. apply the first logic in Indian context. There was always a 'sovereign empire' throughout Indian history, but there existed small kingdoms which resolves around 'sovereign empire' in the center. For the second point, not being acknowledge by some one dosent mean the country dosent exists?
Hence, china was never been united and is still not united as single country.

I just tried, but didn't apply. There was not one sovereign empire since 185 BC. One sovereign empire mean ONE emperor, not 20 smaller ones with their own emperors. Roman was a big empire with smaller kingdoms too, but there was only ONE Roman emperor.

On second point, you failed again. The concept of one sovereign country is not the same as one unified single country. China is one sovereign country, Taiwan is not, it has no official status in UN. Geographically, Taiwan is an island, not in mainland China.

 

[Fattyacids]

Look at the map below, this map was of the time when Britishers were leaving India. The pale yellow part were ruled by Indian rulers. The colored were ruled by britishers. The territories of Jammu & Kashmir, Rajputana, Hyderabad, Mysore, Baluchistan, nepal, bhutan were not under British Empire.

Now look at the second map, and see the changes made to Indian map after 1947. In the below map you will notice Pakistan and bangladesh are no longer the part of India. The Independent territories of Jammu & Kashmir, Rajputana, Hyderabad, Mysore have now become part of India.

Who are you trying to fool? Mysore Tipur sultan lost to the British. The princely states were under the suzerainty of British Raj. In other words, they are not sovereign states.

The fact that you mentioned so many states show that there was Never a single Indian empire!

Nepal and Bhutan are not India. South Asia doesn't equal to India. There was no India until 1947.

Britishers did not unified India. Unification of India was done in 1950, and in the same year India became republic. Also notice that map of India constantly changed till 1975.

British created India in 1947. One sovereign country is already formed. Whatever happened after 1947 is inconsequential and irrelevant.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Without British, India would have been way larger, Pakistan would not have been in being and some Maratha Chief would have been the Constitutional Monarch.

I think you forget how Maratha a** got kicked Forget about Marathi chamars ruling subcontinent. They only won against their own kind, mughal army was full of local hindus and muslims.

Without British Subcontinent would have been divided in dozen countries or even more.

 

[BJP*]

Mythology is not real history. Whatever the name, the fact is there was no single empire when Mughals conquered South Asia. It's fact.



Maurya ended in 185BC, Gutpa was around 700 AD. It's almost 1000 years. Not 200-300 years

I have not referred to any mythology, I have given you plain and simple facts. Texts do not come under Mythology. Otherwise your history also comes under mythology

NDA and UPA analogy is invalid. The country India has been formed in 1947. Political party are not like monarchy of ancient times who ruled empire.

Size of territory changes and it doesn't define sovereignty of an empire. Question is who defined the border, it was the British, not an Indian empire.

Exactly, Country was formed in 300 BC, but ruled by different empires and religions. Had the country was different its Political capital would also be different, but thats not the case. Now eat your words. and look at the post #214.

I just tried, but didn't apply. There was not one sovereign empire since 185 BC. One sovereign empire mean ONE emperor, not 20 smaller ones with their own emperors. Roman was a big empire with smaller kingdoms too, but there was only ONE Roman emperor.

On second point, you failed again. The concept of one sovereign country is not the same as one unified single country. China is one sovereign country, Taiwan is not, it has no official status in UN. Geographically, Taiwan is an island, not in mainland China.

For the first, Whats the different I said? You are saying the same thing using different words. Look at the Indian history, There is never said that Two emperors ruled India at any given point of time. There is always an emperor and rests were small kingdoms who evolve around that empire.

For second point, If you consider China=Mainland + Taiwan, then china is not a sovereign country as one part is ruled by a govt who do not follows the order from Beijing. Therefore, there are two capitals of china i.e Beijing and Taipei. Hence, China is not unified country. Again, I said not recognizing does not mean that entity does not exists.

Who are you trying to fool? Mysore Tipur sultan lost to the British. The princely states were under the suzerainty of British Raj. In other words, they are not sovereign states.

The fact that you mentioned so many states show that there was Never a single Indian empire!

Nepal and Bhutan are not India. South Asia doesn't equal to India. There was no India until 1947.

Mate, face the facts read out on the map. It is clearly written "INDIA at the end of British Period". What ever you are saying is due to lack of knowledge and confusions. This map is present on wikipedia. File:India at end of British period 1947.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that I mentioned so many states show that there were always many small kingdoms which evolve around a single empire. This time it is with British empire.

British created India in 1947. One sovereign country is already formed. Whatever happened after 1947 is inconsequential and irrelevant.

No, we attained sovereignty only in 1961. Only thing happened in 1947 was withdrawal of Britishers from India and creation of Pakistan.

 

[Fattyacids]

I have not referred to any mythology, I have given you plain and simple facts. Texts do not come under Mythology. Otherwise your history also comes under mythology

Exactly, Country was formed in 300 BC, but ruled by different empires and religions. Had the country was different its Political capital would also be different, but thats not the case. Now eat your words. and look at the post #214.


For the first, Whats the different I said? You are saying the same thing using different words. Look at the Indian history, There is never said that Two emperors ruled India at any given point of time. There is always an emperor and rests were small kingdoms who evolve around that empire.

For second point, If you consider China=Mainland + Taiwan, then china is not a sovereign country as one part is ruled by a govt who do not follows the order from Beijing. Therefore, there are two capitals of china i.e Beijing and Taipei. Hence, China is not unified country. Again, I said not recognizing does not mean that entity does not exists.

You mentioned ancient text, which I get the impression of mythology. Every country has mythology including China, but I'm educated enough to know it is not real history.

Your logic failed again. The empire that was formed by Maurya was disintegrated from 185BC, there was no continuity for 2000 years. Mughals was not the successors of Maurya, neither was the British. The land was lost. Please make sound and logical argument.

The smaller kingdoms were all sovereign kings or emperor, they were never a part of ONE big empire. Who are you trying to fool???

For second point. You are still confused with sovereign country and unified country.

China is a sovereign country regardless of Taiwan. It sits in UN security council

When you talk about unification, the other entity has to be a sovereign country too, coming together as one, like East and West Germany. But Taiwan is NOT a sovereign country, it is a renegade province!!! Taiwan has no status in UN. 99.5% of the world doesn't consider Taiwan as a country.

Your logic is no different from saying India is not a sovereign and unified country until Kashmir become an official State of India. How stupid does it sound?? Kashmir is not a country is it?

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

British created India in 1947. One sovereign country is already formed. Whatever happened after 1947 is inconsequential and irrelevant.

Calling South Asia as one country is like saying Europe was one. Common civilization thanks to Aryan invaders? Yes but thats about it. Just like western civilization is product of Greeks and Roman empires. Infact there are two major groups, indo-aryan and Dravidian.

You mentioned ancient text, which I get the impression of mythology. Every country has mythology including China, but I'm educated enough to know it is not real history.

Your logic failed again. The empire that was formed by Maurya was disintegrated from 185BC, there was no continuity for 2000 years. Mughals was not the successors of Maurya, neither was the British. The land was lost. Please make sound and logical argument.

The smaller kingdoms were all sovereign kings or emperor, they were never a part of ONE big empire. Who are you trying to fool???

For second point. You are still confused with sovereign country and unified country.

China is a sovereign country regardless of Taiwan. It sits in UN security council

When you talk about unification, the other entity has to be a sovereign country too, coming together as one, like East and West Germany. But Taiwan is NOT a sovereign country, it is a renegade province!!! Taiwan has no status in UN. 99.5% of the world doesn't consider Taiwan as a country.

Your logic is no different from saying India is not a sovereign and unified country until Kashmir become an official State of India. How stupid does it sound?? Kashmir is not a country is it?

You dont get retarded baniyas logic, for them common linguistic group or religions which had origin in South Asia mean one country or empire in ancient times.

 

[Fattyacids]

Mate, face the facts read out on the map. It is clearly written "INDIA at the end of British Period". What ever you are saying is due to lack of knowledge and confusions. This map is present on wikipedia. File:India at end of British period 1947.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that I mentioned so many states show that there were always many small kingdoms which evolve around a single empire. This time it is with British empire.

No, we attained sovereignty only in 1961. Only thing happened in 1947 was withdrawal of Britishers from India and creation of Pakistan.

Mate, understand what is academically defined fact, not just a few words on the random map and called it facts.
Nepal and Bhutan are not India. South Asia doesn't equal to India. There was no India until 1947.

You're lying again. It was not always the case, British conquered the entire South Asia hence the princely states were under British. But from 185 BC to 1850, there was no single empire that ruled south asia. The kingdoms were all independent and sovereign.

According to UN and historians, India was founded in 1947. When you gained independent, you're a sovereign country. So its 1947, not 61. Don't embarrass yourself!!!

Calling South Asia as one country is like saying Europe was one. Common civilization thanks to Aryan invaders? Yes but thats about it. Just like western civilization is product of Greeks and Roman empires. Infact there are two major groups, indo-aryan and Dravidian.

You dont get retarded baniyas logic, for them common linguistic group or religions which had origin in South Asia mean one country or empire in ancient times.

Going by this retarded logic, Saudi arabia can start claiming the entire Middle East, Greece and Italy can claiming the former territory their empires. Now we know why the hegemonic intention of India in south asia.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Fun fact, Pakistan region has been under control of "Indian" empires for total of 440 years. Maurya Empire 80 years, Gupta Empire 280 years and Pala empire 80 years. Only Maurya Empire covered whole Pakistan. Now lets see persian empires pre islamic era.

Achaemenic Empire 220 years, Seleucid 249 years, Indo-Sassanid 170 years. Total of 639 years!

History of Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[liall]

Why are people discussing empires in economy thread?

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Going by this retarded logic, Saudi arabia can start claiming the entire Middle East, Greece and Italy can claiming the former territory their empires. Now we know why the hegemonic intention of India in south asia.

Discussing with many Indian members in this forum is like talking to people from a parallel universe. Whenever they lose an argument, they start to insult you, going off topic, claiming that it's useless (PISA) and comparing coconut with crocodile (PISA vs. GMAT or other tests).

LOL

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Going by this retarded logic, Saudi arabia can start claiming the entire Middle East, Greece and Italy can claiming the former territory their empires. Now we know why the hegemonic intention of India in south asia.

Dont blame them to much, inferiority complex is the reason behind their retardedness and denial. The reason is Aryans homeland was Pakistan for 1000 years before some of them moved east in to India and gave them civilization, religion and infamous caste system. Why do you think they claim South Asia as one country or empire in ancient times? So they can say look everything is indigenous to India, even aryan invaders