What's new

State of India was never partitioned - It was created in Aug, 1947.

There's no point in arguing as it's really saddening to see that ancient BHARAT civilization and heritage is being robbed / stolen here in broad daylight.....

I confirm my below points....

1) BHARAT VARSH is the most ancient civilization and country....

2) It spanned from Gandhar, Afghanistan till SAYAM, Thailand....

3) BHARAT gifted YOGABHYAS, AYURVEDA, ZERO and 4 VEDAS to this planet....

BTW ancient BHARAT VARSH had 8 universities in ancient times where students used to learn, gain knowledge when rest of the world was killing each other's over a one time meal....

I rest my case.....
 
.
The trouble with members like you is that you enter an argument with very little knowledge and information, and then are swamped by opposing members with only slightly better knowledge and information. By the time a couple of score posts have been posted, there is so much misinformation, so much addled or deliberately distorted evidence that a clean-up is almost impossible. Look at the utter bilge that has been posted here; where would anyone trying to set things right even begin?

Something about this made me laugh....clean-ups haha. :angel:

I rest my case.....

BOOM. You da man!
 
.
@AgNoStiC MuSliM
ask him to tell me exactly where it is mentioned. you told me to ask you if I were not clear about something, then promptly put me on ignore, it seems.

please do not stay quiet this one time or respond like few others do to me e.g
  • what's it got to do with you
  • Why are you crying
  • it's not a peer reviewed paper hence he is allowed to express an "opinion" (it isn't an opinion, it is likely a false claim)

You have Hindutva trolls with established IDs and a history of Islamophobic posts, who suddenly have done a 180 and pretend to be Muslims. I have seen two recently. This adonis and ghalib.

Trolling is getting weaker and weaker, day by day. They don't even try to hide anymore.
 
.
@AgNoStiC MuSliM
ask him to tell me exactly where it is mentioned. you told me to ask you if I were not clear about something, then promptly put me on ignore, it seems.

please do not stay quiet this one time or respond like few others do to me e.g
  • what's it got to do with you
  • Why are you crying
  • it's not a peer reviewed paper hence he is allowed to express an "opinion" (it isn't an opinion, it is likely a false claim)
Are you saying I put you on ignore?

I think the mod team mentioned that we are moving away from responding to member tags, and I have been swamped with alerts that last week or so to where I can't check all my alerts (and that is where the tags show up).

What I don't understand here is why I have to ask @Adonis to support his claim that 'Ghazwa-e-Hind is mentioned in the Quran' - isn't that something you or any other member that disagrees with him can do?

If he refuses to provide the Surah:Ayah number, call him out on it and if he continues to push that claim, report the post.

Indus valley too was part of BHARAT which spanned from Afghanistan till SAYAM.....
The Indus Valley was also part of many empires that arose in the West.

I'll post some of the images from the following thread on twitter. Please reference it for additional details:

EX67_klXQAQL1Yy



EX68LlpX0AAMl4N


EX68Q-rWkAAidK9


EX68VaoXQAAJAdZ


EX68aCBX0AYH_zA


EX684bMXQAAcr1O



EX69fPtXsAEWML1


EX6-zDLX0AEg-m7


EX6_PfGWkAE715N
 
.
.with Chandragupta the one who expanded this empire till Afghanistan....He was born in present day Bihar (India).



Based on Plutarch's evidence, historians state Sandrokottas Maurya(belonged to the Ashvaka (q.v.) or Assakenoi clan of Swat/Kunar valley (modern Mer-coh or Koh-I-Mor — the Meros of the classical writings).




Dr D.B. Spooner, the official excavator of Pataliputra Bihar ,also believes that Mauryas (Chandragupta, Ashoka) were Iranic ( Journnal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1915, (Pt.II) , p.406, Dr D.B. Spooner).He talks about Zoroastrian-Parsi lineage of Mauryas in his articles extensively, where he calls modern excavations at Pataliputra (Patna) pointing to an actual dominion of ancient lranians in the east, further than Punjab.

J. W. McCrindle calls Chandragupta as Panjabi. North-west frontiers, the land of the Ashvakas, constituted part of greater Panjab, which in ancient times also included regions west of Indus and encompassed Swat/Kunar territories and Kabol river. It is very important that Dr J. W. McCrindle who re-translated the ancient classical works of Arrian, Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch, Justins etc relating to Alexander's invasion of India, has identified Chandragupt as hailing from the north-west. This is what B. M. Barua, the greatest Buddhist scholar, also states (Asoka and His Inscriptions, 1968, p 51, Beni Madhab Barua, Ishwar Nath Topa). Dr McCrindle has further reconciled and corrected several errors in the copies of the transcripts and has corrected Justin's story about Chandragupta having met Alexander and offending the latter (See: The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, 1896, pp 405, Watson M'Crindle).

Dr. V. A. Smith on the influence of Iran upon India. Smith, who is one 'of the best authorities on the History of Ancient India , is of opinion, that the Achremenian Persians had a great influence upon Mauryan India . '
Dr. Smith as pointed out several evidences to show, that Achremenian Iran had a strong influence on Mauryan India . Some of these are the following :
1. Influence of Iranian architecture on Indian archilecture.
2 . . The Achremenian practice of inscribing on pillars and rocks and the style of the inscriptions, which were followed by ~soka in hi inscriptions.
3· The Kharoshthi script came to India from the Armaic clerks of the Achremenians.
4 . Some of the features of the Mauryan administration and polity were taken from the Achmmenians.
5· Some of the Mauryan court customs were taken from the Achremenian Iranians.
http://crossasia-repository.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/3331/1/Modi_Ancient Pataliputra.pdf


Dr Seth refers to Sasigupta---Sisikottus of the Greek chroniclers, whom he connects with the Ashvaka clans of the Swat/Kunar valleys or to other branches of the Asvakas ruling west of river Indus, in the region falling between Hindukush and Kabul river.

Dr B. M. Barua: Dr Barua bases his theory of the north-west origin of Chandragupta on the very important fact that "Chandragupta’s education, military training and military/political alliances were all in that part of the India. And moreover, some of Asokas’ more important rock edicts also are located there--- After adoption of Buddhism by Asoka, the entire sources of his vast empire were harnessed to the drive of propaganda in the north-west " (Indian Histocal Quartely, 1963, p 159, B. M. Barua). Dr Barua observes: “To me, Chyandragupta was a man of Uttarapatha, or Gandhara, if not exactly of Taxila. His early education, military training, and alliances were all in that part of India and that some of Asoka's scribes were habituated to Kharosthi and few of his artists were well versed in the traditions of Persipolis. Furthermore, the Greek writers did not connect Chandragupta with the Maurya family.... He added the whole of province of Gandhara and the surrounding tribal states (Punjab and North-West Frontier Province) to the growing Magadha empire to gather with the territories ceded to him by Selecus Nicator” (Indian Culture, Vol X, p 34, B. M. Barua). There is a force in the above arguments of B. M Barua.

Dr Chandra Chakraverty: In his interesting book entitled "The Racial History of India", Dr Chandra Chakraverty connects Chandragupta Maurya initially with Ujjanaka Uddyana/Oddyana, or Swat valley and calls him a ruler of this territory at the time of Alexander's invasion. He writes: Massaga, the stronghold of the Assaakenians (asskanoi) was stormed with great difficulty, and when the defenders were treacherously massacred, the women, according to Diodorus, taking up arms of the fallen fougHt heroically, side by side with their men. The Assakenians had an army of 20,000 cavalry, 30,000 infantry and 30 elephants but when defeated, they were given over as a reward to Sasigupta (Sisikottos). From Bajaur (i.e. Asvaka country), Alexander’s swollen army entered into Ujjanaka, the Mauriya kingdom of Chandragupta (Ujjanaka = Woo-chang of Fa-hsien, U-chang-na of Hiuen Tsang, Uddyana---the Swat Valley...i.e Aornos country of the eastern Asvakas). Here the resistance was as stubborn as in Bajaur and Alexander received a serious wound in the ankle. Then Poros (Porus) resisited the invaders on the banks of Hydaspes i.e Jhelum (See: Racial History of Ancient India, 1944, p 814-15, Chandra Chakraverty). It is notable that Chandra Chakraverty connects Sasi-gupta with Malakand area and Chandragupta with Uddyana/Swat valley (Prakrit Ujjana or Ujjanaka = Woo-chang of Fa-hsien U-chang-na of Hien Tsang, = Sanskrit Uddyana/Udyana---the Swat Valley...i.e Aornos country of the eastern Asvakas) both localities being located in north-west frontiers and constituted the land of the famous Asvakas (which means expert horsemen and breeders of notable horses).

Legend recorded by Hiuen Tsang (in 629-645)
Hiuen Tsang to a Mayura-raja (MORA-RAJA/MAURYA-RAJA?) and MAYURAS (MORAS/MAURYAS?) locate him/them in north-west frontiers of India (eastern Afghanistan, northern Pakistan), the very heart of Swat valley/Udyana, the ancient land of the Ashvakas (i.e. the Kambojas section, specialised in horse culture). The information from Hiuen Tsang seems to be very interesting and revealing. It seems to hold a veiled clue to the fact that there indeed may have been a section of people in Swat/Udyana region known as Mayuras, Moras (Moriyas) and their king was also nicknamed as Mayura-raja or Mora Raja (Maurya Raja).

Dr Jiyālāla . It appears to be a historical fact that the Meryas of Ceylon inscriptions who are listed there with the Kabojas or Kambojas are same as Mauryas and they came to Ceylon from Patala after second c BCE. They appear to be connected with the Kambojas and after their migration from Kabul/Swat valley Patala in 4th c BCE (under pressure from Alexander) a section of them later also reached to Ceylon and thus finds references along with kambojas in ancient inscriptions of the island. Being originally from the region of MOR in lower Swat valley, they got their name as Moriyas or Mauryas and were, in all probabiliyty, a branch of the Ashvakas, who in turn, were a section of the greater Kamboja tribe located anciently in north-eastern Afghanistan/and Tajiksttan. Thus Mauryas and Kambojas appear to be related people and the Mauriyas rulers of Magadha are probably traceable to north-west India and probably to Kamboja lineage


The Indian Historical Quarterly, 1963, p 422; Ancient India, 2003, p 285, Dr V. D. Mahajan; Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 236, Dr H. C. Raychaudhuri). If Megasthenes and the Greek historians have correctly recorded the lineages of the Assaekenoi/Ashvakas and Sandrokottos/Chandragupta, then Chandragupta should have belong to north-western India, especially the Swat/Kunar region, west of Indus, rather than to the Suryavasmi Moriya clan residing anciently in Eastern India.
The above makes it evident that the Mauryan movement was West to East and not the other way around
 
Last edited:
.
Brother...in this forum when people can say so much filth laden things for other religion quoting their religious texts, traditions...without knowing even 50% of it...why such condition for one specific religion?




I should be asking your version of History then. I provided you a link as well and still you are saying Mauya was born in Swat?...Do you know who was Maurya?.....It was a dynasty...with Chandragupta the one who expanded this empire till Afghanistan....He was born in present day Bihar (India).
If Sikhs were Pakistanis...why you don't teach about them in your history books to that extent?



Please give some insights on where you get this reality......Who were Marathas? Cholas? Read...
Marathas, cholas, nandas, mysoreans the rest of them... Distinct city states. Often rivalling and at war with one another. There was no true "India" except on the banks of the Indus. The city states that fought each other but then unified under hindutva's false construct of the secular republic of india are no more "Indian" than Europeans, Australians or Americans are. It's a ruse, a deception that is so in-grained that we fail to see it in front of our eyes.

India the republic is held together under false pretences. It was cunning and clever. Delhi has usurped and absorbed other people's histories and legacies into its own Borg-like collective. Yet at the same time, Delhi is deliberately selective. Delhi seeks to annul the Muslim city states, their legacies and bastardise the history of Islamic invaders while continuing to glorify and indeed worship the original Aryan invaders.

Time to sit and reflect for all of us. We already have the relevant knowledge. We just fail to apply it either deliberately or due to lack of understanding of its nuances.
 
.
Sure, the Republic of India was created in 1947. But the idea of republican nation states is rather new. with the first of its kind being the United States. There are several precedents to the ROI, that include most territory that is now the ROI.
1200px-ImperioDeChandragupta269aC.svg.png



Gupta empire

iu



iu


And its hilarious to try and see Pakistanis claim the Mauryans. Most historians believe Chandragupta was born in Bihar, but he was exiled by the Nanda empire, which is why he ended up in Taxilla.
 
.
Sure, the Republic of India was created in 1947. But the idea of republican nation states is rather new. with the first of its kind being the United States. There are several precedents to the ROI, that include most territory that is now the ROI.
1200px-ImperioDeChandragupta269aC.svg.png



Gupta empire

iu



iu


And its hilarious to try and see Pakistanis claim the Mauryans. Most historians believe Chandragupta was born in Bihar, but he was exiled by the Nanda empire, which is why he ended up in Taxilla.

You have only shown a few large empires in the 2500+ history of India.
That is like me showing the Mongol empire and saying "see Asia is a country, look at this mongol Empire"

Besides, most of these empire were destroyed from within as rebellions and wars were quite normal.
I don't know too many countries that keep breaking up due to civil war but are "meant to be a country"
 
. .
India is a huge land mass, it is just impossible to control entire land mass by one kingdom except like Magadha and Maurya kingdoms... barbaric invaders may be ruled some parts but overall modern India created in 1947.
 
. .
I DON'T BELIEVE INVADER British invented theories .... as we don't have a culture of WORSHIPING INVADERS AND THEIR filthy RELIGIONS ... as we have many native kings and religions.
But you sure to believe in invader British giving you a country :rofl:

And I can easy reply in kind but I rather the Mods ban you then me.

Either way, you are worshiping a filthy religion by Invaders, but being an Indian and hypocrite are almost the same thing.
 
.
Can you list down the filthy religions you are referring to in your post?

one of those barbaric invaders were the Aryans who gave you your Religion.
Please don't bring religion into the discussion.

=========================================================

All decent posters are requested to not stoop so low in the heated exchanges.

Anyone found insulting any religion will be handed an infraction.
 
.
This topic has been derailed by ignorant RSS "educated" revisionist fanatics. They are literally the laughing stock of the academic world. Nobody, and I repeat nobody takes their fantasies seriously. Everything about them has been thoroughly debunked. I am all for engaging Indians in historical debate, but there is nothing reasonable or intelligent about an RSS fanatic. Their ideology goes a lot further than historical revisionism. It ultimately denies nationhood or an identity to everyone around them. The only identity they believe to be legitimate is a Hindu identity. The same tired arguments are applied to reject and deny Buddhists, Sikhs, ancient Tamils their own unique origins.
Its pointless arguing here. They believe in a religious identity that supersedes everything else. Whereas Pakistan in reality is based on ethnic and linguistic lines who just happened to accept religious migrants in 1947. We have our own religious fundamentalists, but thankfully they stay away from topics like this.

In case anyone was wondering why I handed out negative ratings like candy. RSS propaganda will not be entertained.
 
.
Sure, the Republic of India was created in 1947. But the idea of republican nation states is rather new. with the first of its kind being the United States. There are several precedents to the ROI, that include most territory that is now the ROI.
1200px-ImperioDeChandragupta269aC.svg.png



Gupta empire

iu



iu


And its hilarious to try and see Pakistanis claim the Mauryans. Most historians believe Chandragupta was born in Bihar, but he was exiled by the Nanda empire, which is why he ended up in Taxilla.


Im sure your folks made those maps while passing stool on a railway track.

your lies are evident from the fact that maratha was never an empire but a confederacy..and it was far off from present day pakistan

your history revisionism has failed to gain a global consented opinion and you can only be laughed upon gangoo for propagating lies here.

Marathas, cholas, nandas, mysoreans the rest of them... Distinct city states. Often rivalling and at war with one another. There was no true "India" except on the banks of the Indus. The city states that fought each other but then unified under hindutva's false construct of the secular republic of india are no more "Indian" than Europeans, Australians or Americans are. It's a ruse, a deception that is so in-grained that we fail to see it in front of our eyes.

India the republic is held together under false pretences. It was cunning and clever. Delhi has usurped and absorbed other people's histories and legacies into its own Borg-like collective. Yet at the same time, Delhi is deliberately selective. Delhi seeks to annul the Muslim city states, their legacies and bastardise the history of Islamic invaders while continuing to glorify and indeed worship the original Aryan invaders.

Time to sit and reflect for all of us. We already have the relevant knowledge. We just fail to apply it either deliberately or due to lack of understanding of its nuances.

Basically they tell the world they are the owners of their history and they will define it as per their rig vedas, the world has to agree to it ..a blatant revisionism of history that started back in early 19th century when British started excavating indus and afghan lands.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom