Turkey wants 'stolen' artifacts back from British Museum

[INDIC]

British should return kohinoor diamond and Sultanganj Buddha back to India.

 

[faithfulguy]

British should return kohinoor diamond and Sultanganj Buddha back to India.

The British had done plenty for India, such as created your nation.

 

[Rusty]

The British had done plenty for India, such as created your nation.

very true, but get ready to be trolled out of existence

 

[faithfulguy]

very true, but get ready to be trolled out of existence

I know. They always come with the same craps instead of accepting the facts

 

[Rusty]

I know. They always come with the same craps instead of accepting the facts

They honestly think that India is a 4000 year old country.
Which makes it even more funny when they accuse Pakistan of breaking up India.
Breaking from what? the British Raj? even that wasn't a country.
How do you break from something that doesn't exist?

 

[PlanetWarrior]

^^ Some 70 years later and the colonial Master mentality is yet to be erased. I guess that the same can be said of South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ireland, the USA etc. The Brits after all did "create" their nation.

 

[Vibs]

They honestly think that India is a 4000 year old country.
Which makes it even more funny when they accuse Pakistan of breaking up India.
Breaking from what? the British Raj? even that wasn't a country.
How do you break from something that doesn't exist?

I suppose the names the Greeks gave people coming to this region (Indoplectus - the one who visited India), or Columbus searching for a route to India through the Atlantic were looking for something that never existed!
Wow! I am enlightened!

The British had done plenty for India, such as created your nation.

Actually, they created your country. All they did was partition ours.

 

[Rusty]

^^ Some 70 years later and the colonial Master mentality is yet to be erased. I guess that the same can be said of South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ireland, the USA etc. The Brits after all did "create" their nation.

Don't get mad at me for exposing you to the truth. If you want to bury your head in the sand and believe in fantasies then please get off the internet.

You cannot deny that India was never ever a country in it's history until 47

I suppose the names the Greeks gave people coming to this region (Indoplectus - the one who visited India), or Columbus searching for a route to India through the Atlantic were looking for something that never existed!
Wow! I am enlightened!



Actually, they created your country. All they did was partition ours.

They were also looking for Antarctica and Africa
According to Indian logic those are now countries too.

Really? please show me where in history was India ever a country....yeah you can't

 

[neutral_person]

The British had done plenty for India, such as created your nation.

Not really, the foundations of Bharat was laid by the great Hindu King (after whom whic it is named) Bharata:

Bharata (Sanskrit: भरत, Bharata, means "The Cherished") or Bha = Bhava (Expression), Ra = Raga (Melody Notes) and Ta = Tala (Rythmic pattern). Bharata [1][2] was a legendary emperor of India, and is referred to in Hindu and Jain theology. He was son of King Dushyanta of Hastinapura and Queen Śakuntalā and thus a descendant of the Lunar Dynasty of the Kshatriya Varna. Bharata had conquered all of Greater India, uniting it into a single political entity which was named after him as "Bhāratavarṣa".

India has always existed as a cultural entity for many millenia. India the political nation state entity with the current international borders was created in 1947, but is based on the principles and foundations of cultural India which goes back many millenniums.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Don't get mad at me for exposing you to the truth. If you want to bury your head in the sand and believe in fantasies then please get off the internet.

You cannot deny that India was never ever a country in it's history until 47

Who cares whether India was a country or a sub-continent of people known as "India" with various sub-kingdoms prior to the arrival of the British. That was debated to death between Mr Jinnah and Mr Nehru during the partition era. If it was just a continent (which I am more inclined to believe since history says so) then it is similar to the African continent. Therefore by that logic, Pakistan , Bangladesh etc are all part of the Indian sub-continent. My point however is that you should not have given credit to the colonialists for the creation of the current day world map. Aspirations to create a country were developed by the people of that country for some unifying bond or another. A good example would be Pakistan. Can credit be given to Gandhi for the creation of Pakistan? Can the same argument be used in saying that if Gandhi did not take up the cudgels of the independence movement then Pakistan would have remained a non-entity? Or would it be more apt to say that the people who now compromise Pakistan decided on an independent nation and choose to determine their own destiny for a common nationalistic reason?

 

[Vibs]

Really? please show me where in history was India ever a country....yeah you can't

I suppose you will disregard any reference to ancient Indian literature under the guise that it is "Hindu"

Sp do you want me to to quote India as a name or where the Westerners quoted the kingdom as India?
I could quote Jambudipa, the region known during Buddha's time covering an area from Afghanistan to Indonesia.

Or would you like me to quote from the time of the Mughals?

I could also quote for the Mauryans?

Ofcourse you will never accept this fact even if the ancient Greeks, Romans and Arabs did.

Your logic of a country is restricted to the geographical boundaries left behind by the British. Never will you accept that you are a part of the heritage of the region!

 

[RajputWarrior]

Oh man another pakistani with an inferiority complex and identity crisis decides to derail the thread

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Not really, the foundations of Bharat was laid by the great Hindu King (after whom whic it is named) Bharata:


India has always existed as a cultural entity for many millenia. India the political nation state entity with the current international borders was created in 1947, but is based on the principles and foundations of cultural India which goes back many millenniums.

With respect, one cannot go back to thousands of years in history to determine the foundations of a nation as being the rationale for a current day country. By that argument, can certain portions of the Roman empire of say 92AD demand that a new country be carved into one single nation? Or perhaps can the independent nations of Africa including the northern Arabs be held dictate to a few countries who demand that Africa be one nation since the Roman general Africanus mapped Africa as one large country starting from the "seas of wild" (Cape) to Cairo ? The Indian sub-continent did consist different people with different cultures and different beliefs known to the outsiders as Indians. But the concept of a large country known as India is just as strange as the concept of a large country known as Africa. To give credit to the British however for the creation of India is equally as mind boggling as any of those reasons

 

[Rusty]

Who cares whether India was a country or a sub-continent of people known as "India" with various sub-kingdoms prior to the arrival of the British. That was debated to death between Mr Jinnah and Mr Nehru during the partition era. If it was just a continent (which I am more inclined to believe since history says so) then it is similar to the African continent. Therefore by that logic, Pakistan , Bangladesh etc are all part of the Indian sub-continent. My point however is that you should not have given credit to the colonialists for the creation of the current day world map. Aspirations to create a country were developed by the people of that country for some unifying bond or another. A good example would be Pakistan. Can credit be given to Gandhi for the creation of Pakistan? Can the same argument be used in saying that if Gandhi did not take up the cudgels of the independence movement then Pakistan would have remained a non-entity? Or would it be more apt to say that the people who now compromise Pakistan decided on an independent nation and choose to determine their own destiny for a common nationalistic reason?

The whole world cares. Countries have legal standing, geographic areas don't. Germany can declare war, the equator cannot.
And no one is denying that Pakistan is part of the subcontinent, what we are saying is that Pakistan has never been part of the ROI. Trust me, I hate the British as much as anyone else, but what is truth is truth. When they arrived "India" was many kingdoms that were fighting each other, when they left it was 4 distinct countries. No matter what you think about they, they created unity in the people that lead to these countries.

actually I give credit to Nehru for Pakistan. Jinnah wanted weak central government and strong state governments but Nehru being a socialist could not accept it so he decided to create Pakistan then give up some power.
Pakistan only exits because for the first time in history there was a monolithic Hindu majority country in South Aisa, and this was a direct threat to our heritage, culture and religion. If the British had left India like they found it, many warring states then Pakistan would never have had to exist because the Hindus would be too disjointed to present a threat to us.

 

[INDIC]

The British had done plenty for India, such as created your nation.

India was already a huge country under Mughals and Marathas before British took over. Before leaving they actually gave all princely state great power not to join either India or Pakistan