Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
What ever you trying to convey is beyond me..............
-- Crown Colony on India existed from 1858 onwards.............OK
-- India existed within British legislation......................eh, from when Nations or state states existed from legislation of other nations......?
That is how colonies were governed. From 1858 to 1947, India was not a nation-state, she was a colony.
-- In fact, India existed from the time of 1498................. ek, what if Vasco Day Gama has not come, then India has not existed?
LOL.
Droll, very droll.
The mention of da Gama was to remind you of the explicit mention of India at that time. Even though she had existed for nearly 2100 years by then.
Why is that, you are trying to show the existence of nation of India, by this report of a visitor, or to a historical reference in books of Greeks etc.
Because the name India was never used by Indians to describe themselves. They used Bharat first, Hindustan for the northern portions thereafter; India, and a variation, Hind, was the word used by the rest of the world for what an Indian would have called Bharat.
A convoluted response; I asked that "People (mostly Indians) say that Pakistan didn't exited before 1947; and in same breath, also say; India or Kashmir existed for thousands of years" .When asked, how so, one would say, Greeks mentioned in this b.c. the Kasperia; the Indus: the Indica:
There would be 1.3 billion Indians that would say India existed from thousands of years.
Follow the below link for "5000 year of Pakistan"
https://www.amazon.co.uk/5000-Years-Pakistan-Archaeological-Outline/dp/B003UI5EY6
Yes, I have come across this and similar mistakes before.
What you have sent a link for is the record of archaeological discoveries spanning 5000 years in the territories that now constitute Pakistan. You must not make the elementary mistake of thinking that an administrator's use of a consolidation of a scientific field represents a country.
Yes I am ignorant to peoples claims that two countries came into being by carving a single state (British India), how come one existed from "ancient time'' and other existed from 1947.
If you read the India Independence Act (not, it might be noted, the India and Pakistan Independence Act), you will find out for yourself.
Here is a brain injection:
Indus river is flowing for millions of year, and only recently, about the vedic time', land of the seven rivers (Indus+ 5 rivers of Punjab+now dried-up Saraswati) was called Sapta-Sindhu- roughly Area roughly now Pakistan: Few centuries down, the Mahabharata time...We have Mahajanapadas and now Area under consideration is extended up to present day Bengal, and in south the to vindhya range (that is, present peninsular India excluded).
and further few centuries later, here came the Greeks and there history; again they called the land on both sides of Indus called the Indica (not the eastward of Indus only);
Further down the time line, the Persians called the land adjacent to their Kingdom, present day Baluchistan and Sindh, as Sind, which became as Hind etc..
Main point is that all nomenclature used was to refer to certain different geographical locations during different times, Not to a state or nation or any other political entity....
So your assertion "was" is totally absurd and ridiculous. as for your "will be" go ahead and rewrite the history books.
You may get for yourself a dozen brain injections from Joe Shearer, surely at a discount.
I am sorry, that is only an 'addled' idea of what happened. Here a brain injection will not do, major neurological surgery, perhaps, as a last resort, lobotomy is called for.
- There was no Sapta-Sindhu prior to the Indo-Iranian/Indo-Aryan time. If this is seen as a backward extension of the Mahabharata period, which belongs to proto-history, not to history, certainly; if this is intended to convey that the Indus Valley Civilisation, for instance, knew the great river as the Indus, the Sindhu or the Hindu, that is wrong.
- There were several centuries at least, assuming Pargiter was correct, between the Mahabharata, assuming a date of between the 15th century BC and the 9th century BC for it, and the Mahajanapadas.
- The Mahajanapadas spanned the Vindhyas, so why India south of the Vindhyas is considered distinct is not clear.
- The people of the Mahabharata, if we assume for a moment that some history was involved in writing it, never called the lands they lived in anything but Bharata. Their geography extended to almost all of India, if we go by their internal king-lists.
- The Persians came first, the Greeks came later. The Greeks came there as merchants and explorers for nearly a century before Alexander's armies turned up. The Persians, under the Achaemenids, were in Europe in the 5th century BC. Alexander's attack was a revenge attack, in the 4th century BC.
- The Persian name for a river and the Indian name for the same river were identical; their pronunciation differed.
- It was the Greeks, from the 5th century BC onwards, who started using the name Indika, giving rise to a European and generally western practice of calling the land India.
- There were no nation-states in the 5th and 4th century BC, so it is not clear what point you are making. That there were political units is clear from Megasthenes. Since you seem to have done some cursory digging around with less than satisfactory results, you might have encountered this name; you might even have encountered the name of his description of his journeys.
- Please try to get this clear: India was a name given by foreigners for what Indians themselves called Bharat. Bharat had several points of political coalescence, just like Persia did; Bharat was an entity with shifting boundaries, just like Persia; throughout the period, there was a recognisable separate culture, religious system, high language and shared literature throughout the extent of the country.
- Bharat, that is India, went through colonial rule in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which brought the different political entities of that time into the same framework.
- When independence came, the original unit reminded everyone that it was Bharat that is India. The same colonial act that gave India independence defined India as the Crown Colony that was India, except for the portions to be excluded, to be called Pakistan. And that was the first mention of Pakistan in legislation, after an undergraduate had proposed the name some years previously.