Was india a country before it was ruled by the British?

[scionoftheindus]

Balaji Viswanathan wrote this · India · 12am
Was India a country before it was ruled by the British and the East India Company?

Balaji Viswanathan, Indian by Birth. Indian by Thought.
Written 12am
Yes, it was a country before Britain came. Where was Columbus to sailing to, if India didn’t exist? Why did he name the natives of America, Indians?

People often confuse the terms country, nation and a state. Country is a geographical term.

Was India a country as defined by a geography? Yes. Greeks and Persians and Arabs and Europeans used it for thousands of years.

India is also a nation as defined by common cultural norms and behaviors. Outsiders recognized common patterns & thus called the people of the nation Hindus. And the insiders too recognized common patterns and called the nation from Kashmir to Kanyakumari as a single cultural unit called the Bharat. The two ends of India - name Kashmir comes from sage Kashyapa and Kanyakumari comes from the goddess Parvati - both important elements of Hinduism. The Pandits of Kashmir chant the exact same Vedas in the exact same order of words as in any other part of India. And across India we revel in Ramayana and Mahabharata. All of these make us a nation.

Has India been a sovereign state - as defined by common political systems - all the time? No. In fact, none of the major countries of today existed as a nation state a few centuries ago. The concept of a nation state is only about 3 centuries old. There have been rise and fall of empires that have ruled a chunk of the country. Sometimes the political union was made and other times it was unmade. That was true for every other civilization. They just differ on how long they have stayed together in political terms.

While country and nation are fairly static entities, a state is a very fluid entity. Even 70 years ago, we didn’t have many parts of present day India as part of the present political union. We added Kashmir, Hyderabad, Junagadh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa and Sikkim to our political union. Just because the union increased in size since 1947, mean that our union changed in character? We added Sikkim only in the 1970s and Siachen glacier in 1980s. Does that mean our state didn’t exist before then?

For most of Indian history, the political union was not very important. The nation was united more by social systems than political systems. Whoever rules at the top has always been skating at the surface.

Answered by Balaji Vishwanathan on quora

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

@Kaptaan ....... Your opinion?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Your opinion?

My name is Khan. I was a man before I was even born. Khan is a idea. Khan is a concept. Khan was there leading the mongol Hordes - Gengiz. Khan was there ruling China - Kublai. Khan was there leading the Pashtun as Khushal Khattak. Khan was there leading the Shia as the Agha. Khan was there leading Pakistan as President Ayub. Khan was there leading on the cricket field as Imran.

My name is Khan and I have always been there before time even began because I am a idea. A idea is never born and it never dies. I am Khan something to everybody. I am Khan like water that has no shape or form but takes the shape of whatever receptacle your pour me into.


Here is Khan

Here is Khan

Here is Khan

See? I take any shape you want Khan to be in?

 

[kvpak]

<<<
Yes, it was a country before Britain came. Where was Columbus to sailing to, if India didn’t exist? >>>

India is a geographical indicator, you idiot. It is not a country name. If someone says I am going to Europe, it does not mean it is a country, you fool.

2. The Myth of India and Indian Unity

The British conquered the various kingdoms in the Indian subcontinent one by one. Then, for ease of administering (ruling) the conquered territories, the British set up an administrative unit called India. A country or administrative unit called India (or by any other name), comprising of the current territories of India, never existed in all known history, before the British conquest and consolidation.

During the British colonial rule, people of the Indian subcontinent (including those areas now in Pakistan and Bangladesh) had a common purpose and agenda, namely, freedom from British colonial rule. Such a one-ness of purpose never before existed amongst the various peoples of the Indian subcontinent. It brought them together. Finally, in the middle of the 20th century (in the middle 1940s), the British decided to end their rule over the subcontinent. The one-ness of purpose that evolved during the freedom struggle against the British held, with the one exception that most of the Muslim-majority regions in the north became a separate nation called Pakistan at the insistence of the Muslims. Much of the rest of the subcontinent became a country called "India".

India, as a country, by any name, never existed before the British colonial rule in all history, in spite of the oft-repeated false propaganda of the long history, one-ness and unity of India.
---------------- excerpt from Thanjai Nalankilli, Tamil Tribune

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I am off to the Balkans. Can somebody tell me where is this country?

 

[kvpak]

Balkans in not a country! It is a geographical locator.

I know you posted it to make a point. Good one,

 

[Gibbs]

India was a geographical entity, With a common civilization given that unique geography, It was never a country till 1947.. If the British colonists didn't amalgamate parts of that subcontinent and and some islands in the middle of the Indian ocean of a vast multitude of different people, The Country known today as India would never exist

 

[damiendehorn]

Not a nation state in the way we see nation states now. It was more a geographical region with fluid states....

 

[Guynextdoor2]

India was a geographical entity, With a common civilization given that unique geography, It was never a country till 1947.. If the British colonists didn't amalgamate parts of that subcontinent and and some islands in the middle of the Indian ocean of a vast multitude of different people, The Country known today as India would never exist

british didn't amalgamate. Patel did. Before that by virtue of a common civilization it was ideologically similar but not politically united.

 

[Shajida Khan]

What we call as Republic of India was formed on 15th Aug 1947, IMHO. If I remember my history lessons correctly, the term 'Bharat' in terms of geography has represented what we call Indian Subcontinent, politically the two biggest political entities that had existed are Murya Empire and Mughal Empire. Mind you their reign also included modern Afghanistan, Bangladesh etc as well, so it will not be exactly correct to call 'that' as India or Bharat.

That said I find it funny why we are having this discussion in this forum or why we all are so defensive about this issue. Many modern countries have roots in ancient civilizations, heck, Austria-Hungary were one kingdom once and later they split. Modern PRC was also once broken into a number of warring states and lets not even talk about Russia. No one gives this much damn.

 

[Gibbs]

british didn't amalgamate. Patel did. Before that by virtue of a common civilization it was ideologically similar but not politically united.

Sorry if not for what the British created Patel would not have a chance of an idea what India would look like, From Kashmir to Peshawar and Nagaland and the North East, Andaman islands or Himachal Paradesh, Or even going to the extent of the Southern Dravidian states would never have been any part of what is now called India

To Patel it was given on a platter.. So to speak

 

[kvpak]

Idiots posting here, haven't read history. Bharat existence predates crappy Muslim invaders, who only contributed to backwardness to this land dividing into various kingdoms, which British took advantage of .Life comes full circle, with positive side effects of British taking over the subcontinent re-uniting Bharat again.

'

Do you even know the basic history of South Asia. In a way, Mugals integrated most of north India into one kingdom. British expanded it to include South.

Before Mugals, South Asia was divided into dozens of kingdoms.

Is what you posted taught in CBSE schools?

 

[Gibbs]

That said I find it funny why we are having this discussion in this forum or why we all are so defensive about this issue.

Exactly the very reason for Indians themselves find reasons to justify his point of view from time to time, Clearly shows it's a infactual argument.. No historical nation state ever has to do that

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Sorry if not for what the British created Patel would not have a chance of an idea what India would look like, From Kashmir to Peshawar and Nagaland and the North East, Andaman islands or Himachal Paradesh, Or even going to the extent of the Southern Dravidian states would never have been any part of what is now called India

To Patel it was given on a platter.. So to speak

Well said mate, well said. The huge infrastructure that had been built by British including the 'teeth' (army) was placed at disposal of Patel. Ditto for Jinnah in Pakistan.

The only exceptionalism India has is the name was in use before 1947. Other than that in law both Pak and Indian republic are 'successor states of British India which was dissolved in 1947'. It is a fallacy to claim Pak was made from India. Pak was carved from British India with the larger portion go onto make Indian Republic.

Fallacy - British India > Indian Republic > Pakistan.


------------------------------------------ > Pakistan
Reality - British India
--------------------------------------------> Indian Republic

@Gibbs

 

[Shajida Khan]

'

Do you even know the basic history of South Asia. In a way, Mugals integrated most of north India into one kingdom. British expanded it to include South.

Before Mugals, South Asia was divided into dozens of kingdoms.

Is what you posted taught in CBSE schools?

Actually Maurya Empire did that before Mughals back in Iron Age, but I agree with the idea that what we call Republic of India today was not there.

IIRC my school lessons, Bharat in ancient texts was more on lines of Bharat Ksetra or Khanda meaning the geographical area which included modern day India, Pakistan, Bangldesh, Nepal, Afghanistan etc.