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

[Gibbs]

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.

Hahaha.. So despite your little rant i guess we dont disagree on the core aspect of this discussion that India essentially became a country in 1947, Now who made that possible is the crux of the issue for you i see, Weather it was Patel that paved the way for the union or the Brits.. Now my argument is simple if it was Patel or Gandhi or Nehru that got the various diverse groups in to the fold of independence under the Indian identity, It was the Brits that created this union territory that now you call India, Without the Brits that never would have been possible.. They may have pacified the Mahajara's in to their fold or got the East India company to buy off loyalties/land or militarily conquer or annex hitherto territory that had no affiliation to the Indic people of the subcontinent like the North Eastern people, Tibetan, Tribal or even the Dravidians, But it was the British Raj that created the entity which all these people were physically connected and governed under a single umbrella of sorts

Btw on another note I wont waste my time trying to reply to the usual suspects that resort to personal attack because they dont have the capability to counter argue facts, And to those who post quasi mythical mumbo jumbo and make this discussion satirical (Not you)

 

[rustom]

Bharat should change her name to clear her confusion, it should be named after Ganga or Brahamputra instead of Indus i.e. Gangia, Gandia, Brandia, Bhindia etc.

Wow, where you think your ancestors from? Ganges plain or Al saudi arabia?

 

[Sugarcane]

Wow, where you think your ancestors from? Ganges plain or Al saudi arabia?

My ancestors are from Indus Valley, you should find roots of yours instead of changing them from ganges to indus.

 

[ito]

Useless discourse...the same rants from both sides.

 

[rustom]

My ancestors are from Indus Valley, you should find roots of yours instead of changing them from ganges to indus.

you are clueless with your identity.

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

India comes from the word 'Hind' (with the common affix -a at the back to denote a noun)

So where is this land called 'Hind'

 

[faithfulguy]

India comes from the word 'Hind' (with the common affix -a at the back to denote a noun)

So where is this land called 'Hind'

That would be the Indus River. India is a name given by the ancient Greeks or Persians.

 

[Shinigami]

That would be the Indus River. India is a name given by the ancient Greeks or Persians.

and china is the name given to you by indians

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

That would be the Indus River. India is a name given by the ancient Greeks or Persians.

So the whole country that is India today is named after a river flowing through Pakistan's Sind province and having it's source in China. So does that means India belongs to China too?

and china is the name given to you by indians

ok. then tell me, where is the name 'chin' derived from then? your grandfather's name?

thats right- go google it

 

[Shinigami]

So the whole country that is India today is named after a river flowing through Pakistan's Sind province and having it's source in China. So does that means India belongs to China too?



ok. then tell me, where is the name 'chin' derived from then? your grandfather's name?

thats right- go google it

Portuguese China is thought to derive from Persian Chīn (چین), and perhaps ultimately from Sanskrit Cīna (चीन).[31] Cīna was first used in early Hindu scripture, including the Mahābhārata (5th century bc) and the Laws of Manu (2nd century bc).

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

Portuguese China is thought to derive from Persian Chīn (چین), and perhaps ultimately from Sanskrit Cīna (चीन).[31] Cīna was first used in early Hindu scripture, including the Mahābhārata (5th century bc) and the Laws of Manu (2nd century bc).

china = chin-a. where the '-a' is a common affix to refer to a noun, in this case- a place

bharat-a
asi-a
arab-ia
russ-ia

u cannot read what i said? where is 'chin' in sanskirt derived from then

 

[Indus Pakistan]

and perhaps ultimately from Sanskrit Cīna

Indus River flows through entire length of Pakistan along a north south axis discharging into Arabian Sea. The source is in China. Indus is to Pakistan exactly like nile is to Egypt. Pakistan's capital Islamabad is only 20 miles east of Indus and over 80% of population of Pakistan lives adjacent to the Indus River.

More here > https://defence.pk/threads/indus-basin-pakistan.372053/

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

china = chin-a. where the '-a' is a common affix to refer to a noun, in this case- a place

bharat-a
asi-a
arab-ia
russ-ia

u cannot read what i said? where is 'chin' in sanskirt derived from then

Inability to give an answer(because both I and you know you cant anyway)

So regardless whether u wanna admit it or not:

'India' comes from Sindh province in Pakistan, and Sindh province comes from the Indus(Sindhu) river coursing through it- with its source in China.

So India belongs to Pakistan and China

End of story hahahhaa.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Hahaha.. So despite your little rant i guess we dont disagree on the core aspect of this discussion that India essentially became a country in 1947, Now who made that possible is the crux of the issue for you i see, Weather it was Patel that paved the way for the union or the Brits.. Now my argument is simple if it was Patel or Gandhi or Nehru that got the various diverse groups in to the fold of independence under the Indian identity, It was the Brits that created this union territory that now you call India, Without the Brits that never would have been possible.. They may have pacified the Mahajara's in to their fold or got the East India company to buy off loyalties/land or militarily conquer or annex hitherto territory that had no affiliation to the Indic people of the subcontinent like the North Eastern people, Tibetan, Tribal or even the Dravidians, But it was the British Raj that created the entity which all these people were physically connected and governed under a single umbrella of sorts

Btw on another note I wont waste my time trying to reply to the usual suspects that resort to personal attack because they dont have the capability to counter argue facts, And to those who post quasi mythical mumbo jumbo and make this discussion satirical (Not you)

Maybe at some point you should actually read some history. British didn't cause any nation formation, that was done by Indian nationalists starting with Gokhale, M G Ranade, Tilak etc. to counter British efforts to keep India continually divided to keep it under their control. Rest of what've you've written is called verbal dhiorrhea. Over time the congress took over completely.

 

[Indika]

Maybe at some point you should actually read some history. British didn't cause any nation formation, that was done by Indian nationalists starting with Gokhale, M G Ranade, Tilak etc. to counter British efforts to keep India continually divided to keep it under their control. Rest of what've you've written is called verbal dhiorrhea. Over time the congress took over completely.

Ignore him , hes simply does not have any facts other than babbling over patel. Fact is even if the british had left the states would have realigned to form one entity. 18th century realignment in europe took place as europeans jostled for land outside europe hence had to unify themselves instead of remaining in their own cocoons.

So despite your little rant

you cant see beyond patel or british due to your limited knowledge. Your are analogy is at the best equal to saying humans are born as adults.

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

Inability to give an answer(because both I and you know you cant anyway)

So regardless whether u wanna admit it or not:

'India' comes from Sindh province in Pakistan, and Sindh province comes from the Indus(Sindhu) river coursing through it- with its source in China.

So India belongs to Pakistan and China

End of story hahahhaa.

Come on dear Bharatis, just admit it

'Indians' are essentially Pakistanis(but never the other way round) because Indo-Aryans spread out from the Indus valley in the west to almightly-ly conquer the rest of 'India' all the way to the east where the Ganga basin is.

 

[Khanate]

Every human migration model and all the evidence shows that you cannot habitat India without first inhabiting Pakistan.

See: Riwat people (A 45,000 years-old Paleolithic site located in Rawat, Murree of Pakistan's Punjab province)

Despite overwhelming evidence, Indians continue to delude themselves with fairy tales. They would rather believe in a mythical spaceship (Read) than actual evidence which suggests Pakistan as their origin and the source of civilization in South Asia.