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

[kvpak]

politically the two biggest political entities that had existed are Murya Empire and Mughal Empire. .

I am not blaming you for your ignorance. You are a product of history books used in Hindi states and Indian-gov controlled CBSE school text books.

Chola dynasty held more land than Mouryans or Mugals extending all the way to parts of Indonesia and Malaysia.,

 

[Shajida Khan]

I am not blaming you for your ignorance. You are a product of history books used in Hindi states and Indian-gov controlled CBSE school text books.

Chola dynasty held more land than Mouryans or Mugals extending all the way to parts of Indonesia and Malaysia.,

I was referring to dynasty covering Indian subcontinent but even then I believe Maurya was having more area under their control compared to Chola.

My hasty google search throws this result:

http://empires.findthedata.com/compare/18-47/Chola-Dynasty-vs-Maurya-Empire

 

[Indus Pakistan]

If Pakistan renames itself 'Islamic Republic of Asia' that would not entitle us to claim we have been there since time began because the name Asia was mentioned by Greek historiians 3000 years ago. Or that Asia was mentioned by xyz writer in middle ages. Or that Asia as a land or geography has exited since continents formed.

dynasty covering Indian subcontinent

A dynasty ruling a region in the remote past means nothing for today. The Roman Empire ruled a huge region. There is a country called Romania today but it does not mean Romania has been around for ever.

If a single dynasty had ruled what is India today for major portion of last 2000 years then that argument holds water - for example like China but these dynasties you mention only ruled for a tiny sliver of time in South Asia. The default setting in our part of the world was lots of tiny fractured kingdoms.

 

[Gibbs]

Note: Even the though the Chola empire did control much of South, South East India, Northern and Eastern parts of Ceylon and even some parts of South East Asia, It was for a very brief period of time in regard and was a much smaller land mass compared to both Maurya and Moghul empires

@Shajida Khan

Also despite some Tamil supremacists try portray the Sri Vijaya empire in Indonesia to be of South Indian origin it's a complete fallacy, Sri Vijaya was indigenous to South East Asia and was a pillar of the Mahayana sect of Buddhism, Although they had strong trade and diplomatic relations with the Cholas

 

[faithfulguy]

It look like this should settle the debate that India was created by the British. Prior to that, India was a geographical expression. We should make this a sticky thread so we can reference it easily.

 

[Shajida Khan]

If a single dynasty had ruled what is India today for major portion of last 2000 years then that argument holds water - for example like China but these dynasties you mention only ruled for a tiny sliver of time in South Asia. The default setting in our part of the world was lots of tiny fractured kingdoms.

Now sir you are misquoting me and taking my words out of context and selectively. No where in my posts I have even implied that modern Republic of India existed for 5000 years or like wise. Actually I will find it arbitrary to call Modern People Republic of China existing since antiquity.

 

[Srinivas]

What is mauryan empire?

What is bharat varsha?

Indian history did not start with British.

There are numerous dynasties that ruled large parts of Indian.

This is the dumbest argument that people come up with.

USA existed only for 200 years yet people call it a country, in reality it was red Indian territory occupied by Europeans of various cultures and linguistics.

And the same guys who accept china and USA as countries come to India and speak these stupid words.

For a country to exist economy and military might plays a key role. As long as the ruling entity stays strong it protects its territories and keep them intact.

I see some cry babies in this thread who are coming up with dumb arguments.

There is no criteria for a region to exist as a single country. If any one do not agree then they can challenge us and face the music.

<<<
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

 

[Shajida Khan]

Fallacy - British India > Indian Republic > Pakistan.


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

@Gibbs

Totally agree with this. Had this not been there, entire question of two nation theory would have not formed and partition would have been even bloodier.

 

[faithfulguy]

Now sir you are misquoting me and taking my words out of context and selectively. No where in my posts I have even implied that modern Republic of India existed for 5000 years or like wise. Actually I will find it arbitrary to call Modern People Republic of China existing since antiquity.

China existed with succession of dynasties that believe that they are the government of China. The majority of time, there is one government. Other times, there are competing claims for the legitimacy to rule. But there were no times when the leader that just rule a portion have an understanding that the country of China is now split and would try to unite it. For example, China is not united now as both ROC in Taiwan and PRC in China both claim to be the legitimate government of China. So Chinese has a conscience that China is one political unit that should be united. This understanding was created around 221 BC when China became a country, a political unit. Prior to 221 BC, China was not a unified country. It consisted of various kingdoms, more like how India was before British unified India.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

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

my @$$. Your ignorance of history sparkles in every sentence. The British never considered this one country. Their incompetence and stupidity meant they ruled over a hodge podge of princely kingdoms that they lived leeching off. Even during the meetings in Simla mountbatten presented a three tiered formula- India, Pak or independence. It was Nehru who asked him to screw himself. So it was whittled to 2 options- India or Pakistan. After the Brits left Patel got the kings to accede and when they didn't invaded (Hyderabad) to complete the integration. His achievements were greater than Bismarcks.

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

Lol. Like you know a thing about history.

where is @Levina

 

[911]

No country existed before the concept of nations. There were only regions and India was one.

 

[Khan_patriot]

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?

I wish I could give you a high five right now wrora

 

[Shajida Khan]

China existed with succession of dynasties that believe that they are the government of China. The majority of time, there is one government. Other times, there are competing claims for the legitimacy to rule. But there were no times when the leader that just rule a portion have an understanding that the country of China is now split and would try to unite it. For example, China is not united now as both ROC in Taiwan and PRC in China both claim to be the legitimate government of China. So Chinese has a conscience that China is one political unit that should be united. This understanding was created around 221 BC when China became a country, a political unit. Prior to 221 BC, China was not a unified country. It consisted of various kingdoms, more like how India was before British unified India.

Actually your answer is at complete odds with what is even written in Wikipedia. For instance, you assert that around 221 BC China was united in one country and one political unit. However, the famous three kingdom period was a tripartite division of China into three Kingdoms which happened during AD 220 - 280, each of the kings calling himself emperor of China and successor of Han dynasty.

That said, my knowledge of Chinese history is not good enough and I will like to see someone else with more deeper understanding of Chinese history comment on your claim, possibly in a separate thread.

What I am certain of is this: In 1912 China transitioned from dynastic rule into a republic, from where the modern state of China; both republic and people's republic of China stem from and this is perhaps the beginning of what we call today as modern nation state of China. Republic of China and PRC are usually accepted as two governments fighting for legitimacy. One wants to call the country RoC and other PRC. But the current world events seem to suggest that RoC may look to declare itself as independent. That is a discussion for a separate thread.

 

[faithfulguy]

Actually your answer is at complete odds with what is even written in Wikipedia. For instance, you assert that around 221 BC China was united in one country and one political unit. However, the famous three kingdom period was a tripartite division of China into three Kingdoms which happened during AD 220 - 280, each of the kings calling himself emperor of China and successor of Han dynasty.

That said, my knowledge of Chinese history is not good enough and I will like to see someone else with more deeper understanding of Chinese history comment on your claim, possibly in a separate thread.

What I am certain of is this: In 1912 China transitioned from dynastic rule into a republic, from where the modern state of China; both republic and people's republic of China stem from and this is perhaps the beginning of what we call today as modern nation state of China. Republic of China and PRC are usually accepted as two governments fighting for legitimacy. One wants to call the country RoC and other PRC. But the current world events seem to suggest that RoC may look to declare itself as independent. That is a discussion for a separate thread.

You see how the emperor of each of the three kingdoms claim to be the actual emperor of the whole China. That is because they believe that there is only one emperor for one country. And that each of them claims that all other emperors as illegitimate.

 

[nautilaceae]

Actually your answer is at complete odds with what is even written in Wikipedia. For instance, you assert that around 221 BC China was united in one country and one political unit. However, the famous three kingdom period was a tripartite division of China into three Kingdoms which happened during AD 220 - 280, each of the kings calling himself emperor of China and successor of Han dynasty.

That said, my knowledge of Chinese history is not good enough and I will like to see someone else with more deeper understanding of Chinese history comment on your claim, possibly in a separate thread.

What I am certain of is this: In 1912 China transitioned from dynastic rule into a republic, from where the modern state of China; both republic and people's republic of China stem from and this is perhaps the beginning of what we call today as modern nation state of China. Republic of China and PRC are usually accepted as two governments fighting for legitimacy. One wants to call the country RoC and other PRC. But the current world events seem to suggest that RoC may look to declare itself as independent. That is a discussion for a separate thread.

Transition from monarchy to republic is a change in the form of government, the political entity is still the same. Russia after the revolution is still the same Russia without the monarch. Different fraction fought for power, Bolshevik led by Lenin won. ROC toppled the emperor, but later lost the Chinese civil war to PRC. France after French Revolution is still the same country. They were already a sovereign state/political entity before the transition.