Indian double standard on Kashmir issue. From Kashmir to Junagarh

[DESERT FIGHTER]

first give me name I know about Afghan pashtun

Lmao.. And many of the so called afghan Pashtun were born in modern day Pak.. And most of those tribes are settled in Pakistan ..

As for Baluch .. No we didn't rule the entire India but we did form states in modern day north India and were part of the Pashtun governments.

 

[nik141993]

The last Chinese Emporer;

View attachment 323202


View attachment 323201

He was Manchu not Han

 

[khakhi_chaddi]

The last Chinese Emporer Puyi .. Office abolished in 1915;

View attachment 323202


View attachment 323201

That was for 100-200 years in history of 2000 years.

Indian subcontinent was also ruled by Maurya Dynasty for few centuries.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

He was Manchu not Han

And Manchus are European ? Indians etc?
Today Manchus themselves assimilated into Hans.. Go figure.

That was for 100-200 years in history of 2000 years.

The first Emporer of unified China;

Indian subcontinent was also ruled by Maurya Dynasty for few centuries.

Bullshyt ... Mauryan rule over entire South Asia didn't even last half a century. And even at its peak didn't include entire South Asia or sub continent.

 

[khakhi_chaddi]

And Manchus are European ? Indians etc?
Today Manchus themselves assimilated into Hans.. Go figure.



The first Emporer of unified China;

Bullshyt ... Mauryan rule over entire South Asia didn't even last half a century. And even at its peak didn't include entire South Asia or sub continent.

Thats why I say make a excel sheet for both India & China with ruler; area ruled and period.

You will not find any difference in India and China.

He was Manchu not Han

Yes. So a unified China was formed by a minority Manchu but usurped by majority Han.

In Indian context it is like an unified India formed by Muslims but usurped by Hindus.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Thats why I say make a excel sheet for both India & China with ruler; area ruled and period.

You will not find any difference in India and China.

Yes. So a unified China was formed by a minority Manchu but usurped by majority Han.

And Manchu were European and non natives of China and ruled for thousands of years till 1915?

While Ashoka was a hybrid of hundreds or thousands of ethnic groups of South Asia and didn't rule entire region and his empire was finished after his death?

In Indian context it is like an unified India formed by Muslims but usurped by Hindus.

Don't you boast how even Mughals never ruled entire modern day India?

 

[khakhi_chaddi]

And Manchu were European and non natives of China and ruled for thousands of years till 1915?

While Ashoka was a hybrid of hundreds or thousands of ethnic groups of South Asia and didn't rule entire region and his empire was finished after his death?

Don't you boast how even Mughals never ruled entire modern day India?

Manchus were Chinese. But it goes against you logic that China is a nation of majority of Hun people because it was ruled by a single ruler who is a Manchu.

So as per you logic as Maurya Dynasty was the largest dynasty to rule south asia, lets have a nation as defined by maurya dynasty. but then too pakistan will be part of india as it was part of maurya dynasty. we dont mind giving independence to south india to get a chance to rule over pakistan.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Manchus were Chinese. But it goes against you logic that China is a nation of majority of Hun people because it was ruled by a single ruler who is a Manchu.

It's ironic how stupid you are..

I never even mentioned any ethnicity .. Had I mentioned ethnic factor even you can't claim the short lived rule of Ashoka over some parts of South Asia.

We are discussing unified national state not ethnicity of rulers .. You too slow to understand.

So as per you logic as Maurya Dynasty was the largest dynasty to rule south asia, lets have a nation as defined by maurya dynasty. but then too pakistan will be part of india as it was part of maurya dynasty. we dont mind giving independence to south india to get a chance to rule over pakistan.

And Ashoka rule lasted how many years or decades?


Going by your logic Pakistan has more authority and case to claim half of your Indian territory that was ruled by our forefathers from Delhi.. Bend over.

 

[nik141993]

It's ironic how stupid you are..

I never even mentioned any ethnicity .. Had I mentioned ethnic factor even you can't claim the short lived rule of Ashoka over some parts of South Asia.

We are discussing unified national state not ethnicity of rulers .. You too slow to understand.




And Ashoka rule lasted how many years or decades?


Going by your logic Pakistan has more authority and case to claim half of your Indian territory that was ruled by our forefathers from Delhi.. Bend over.

here yours unified China in 200 BC qin dynasty in yellow

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

here yours unified China in 200 BC qin dynasty

And;

By the end of the day India was never a unified single national state..

 

[Globaltracker81]

It's ironic how stupid you are..

I never even mentioned any ethnicity .. Had I mentioned ethnic factor even you can't claim the short lived rule of Ashoka over some parts of South Asia.

We are discussing unified national state not ethnicity of rulers .. You too slow to understand.




And Ashoka rule lasted how many years or decades?


Going by your logic Pakistan has more authority and case to claim half of your Indian territory that was ruled by our forefathers from Delhi.. Bend over.

Ashoka was not the first and last ruler of Mauryan dynasty. He was the third ruler. The empire lasted for 150 years.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Ashoka was not the first and last ruler of Mauryan dynasty. He was the third ruler. The empire lasted for 150 years.

But it was under him that the Mauryan empire reached its peak and included all the territory and after him .. Came the demise.

 

[nik141993]

And;

View attachment 323233

LMAO there is a difference between qin & qing

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

LMAO there is a difference between qin & qing

Sure but there is also a difference between dynasties ruling a national state and 1 guy in the recorded history ruling parts of South Asia for less than a few years and indians boasting/lying about the existence of a 5000000000 trillion year old national state.





P.S; the last ruler was from the Qing dynasty not Qin.

 

[weqi]

By your own logic no single ruler ruled Pakistan at a single time. So Pakistan should not be a nation but be divided into Sindh, Punjab, Balochistan. Kashmir, Pashtun etc.

it has been now merged. values have gaining common acceptance especially in cities