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

[hell9214]

Don't try tyo fabricate history. THere is absolutely no evidence mauryans defeated Tamils. Show me evidence from reputable history texts or KEEWP QUIET

Read some post of balaji vishwanathan who was enterprenur frm Tamil nadu lives in Bangalore who it self told it...

 

[kvpak]

Read some post of balaji vishwanathan who was enterprenur frm Tamil nadu lives in Bangalore who it self told it...

1) give me link to this viswanathan.

2) quote some history book. Not some fellow posting nonsense in a blog

Did this viswANAthjan say Mauryans defeated Pallava (Pallavas ruled parts of TN 100s of years after Mauryans. (Pallavas ruled parts of Tamil Nadu between 3rd and 9th centuries AD.
Mauryans ruled parts of South Asia (did not include Tamil Nadu) between 322 and 185 BC

So much for the credibility of your source!!

 

[hell9214]

[Qvpak, post: 9088121, member: 142862"]Oh you ignorant fellow. Pallavas ruled parts of Tamil Nadu between 3rd and 9th centuries AD.
Mauryans ruled parts of South Asia (did not include Tamil Nadu) between 322 and 185 BC[/QUOTE]

Correct ur self ndread man pallava dynasty ruled upto 275CE to 879CE nd Guptadynasty ruled upto 320CE to 550CE don't make false statements

1) give me link to this viswanathan.

2) quote some history book. Not some fellow posting nonsense in a blog

Did this viswANAthjan say Mauryans defeated Pallava (Pallavas ruled parts of TN 100s of years after Mauryans. (Pallavas ruled parts of Tamil Nadu between 3rd and 9th centuries AD.
Mauryans ruled parts of South Asia (did not include Tamil Nadu) between 322 and 185 BC

So much for the credibility of your source!!

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-powerful-Mauryan-empire-capture-the-land-of-Tamils

Nd I never says mauryan have ruled then I m saying they make a peace with mauryan that's why mauryan never capture them nd u still thinking a some country able to stop mauryan who r of this size....

 

[kvpak]

[

Correct ur self ndread man pallava dynasty ruled upto 275CE to 879CE nd Gupta dynasty ruled upto 320CE to 550CE don't make false statements


https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-powerful-Mauryan-empire-capture-the-land-of-Tamils

....

Do you understand the difference between CE and BCE? CE - Christian Era. BCE - Before Christian Era.
You write "Gupta dynasty ruled upto 320CE to 550CE". WRONG. Guptadynasty ruled upto 320 BCE to 550 BCE
Pallavas ruled in the CE. 100s of years after Maurya. You are making a fool of yourself.

How can Guptas defeat Pallavas who lived 100s of years later?

 

[Manidabest]

india was never a country it was a region with many countries and ethnic groups

 

[hell9214]

[


Do you understand the difference between CE and BCE? CE - Christian Era. BCE - Before Christian Era.
You write "Gupta dynasty ruled upto 320CE to 550CE". WRONG. Guptadynasty ruled upto 320 BCE to 550 BCE
Pallavas ruled in the CE. 100s of years after Maurya. You are making a fool of yourself.

How can Guptas defeat Pallavas who lived 100s of years later?

U r an truely a idiot who born brainless nd u r jst an uneducated....
CE means common era not crist era nd BCE before common era nd nd ur talking about BC before crist nd both ruled at CE era here is link....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallava_dynasty
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta_Empire
Nd now stop making nonse go to schools nd study again idiot...

india was never a country it was a region with many countries and ethnic groups

No kid Hindustan was known as a region bt after gupta dynasty they make it a country named akhand bharat nd bharat in English means India....

 

[Shajida Khan]

Very good point. The difference was that India was never a political entity. There were empires that encompassed much of Indian subcontinent. But they were empires for itself, not related to A whole India nation. For example, claim India existed since ancient time is like someone claim a country called Europe existed since ancient time because the Roman Empire was in Europe.

In your opinion, what are the hallmark of nation building that separate Han Dynasty from say Gupta or Maurya Dynasty. Why is it that Han Empire made the modern China but Maurya Dynasty did not. Also, are there legitimate historians -- especially those who are not politically invested in China -- who believe that Han Empire made modern China and since then China is a single unified political entity.

First of all I m correcting its not a murya empire its Gupta dynasty or empire...
Second if u know that histroy in that Gupta dynasty they make or give name it to akhand bharat that was tym frm where India have started its as a country...

Maurya empire existed till 180 BC or so while Gupta Empire never came in to being before 300 AD or so. These are two different empires separated by around 500 years of time.

As far as Akhand Bharat goes, do you have some reliable historical source to suggest that Gupta empire promoted the concept of Akhand Bharat or they united whole of what region what we call India today into a single political entity. FYI the Gupta empire never had reaches into the area that we call state of Maharashtra today.

 

[kvpak]

U r an truely a idiot who born brainless nd u r jst an uneducated....
CE means common era not crist era nd BCE before common era nd nd ur talking about BC before crist nd both ruled at CE era here is link....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallava_dynasty
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta_Empire
Nd now stop making nonse go to schools nd study again idiot...

....

here is the correct information
Much is known of the reign of the Buddhist Mauryan emperor Ashoka (reigned c. 265–238 bce or c. 273–232 bce) from the edicts inscribed on exquisitely executed stone pillars.

source https://www.britannica.com/place/Mauryan-Empire
it is a reliable source

 

[Shajida Khan]

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.

Heh, Both India and Pakistan have Indus river in their territory. If you insist that Pakistan has more rights to Indus or a name derived from Indus river then that way India can claim that Pakistan should change her name to something non Islamic as India has more Muslims compared to Pakistan.

 

[Srinivas]

Mauryans never set foot on Tamil Nadu. Read some real history not the cooked up NCERT and CBSE text books



Thanksfor the maps.

As the map shows Mauryan empire did not include Tamil Nadu.

Also Mauryans did not have any overseas territory. Cholas had a powerful navy and conquered even parts of Indonesia as your map shows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanghamitta

The influence of Mauryans spread all across the Asia. These are dharmic lands and they will remain so.You need to read the real history not those fairy tales which only create confusion about your race and ancestors.

What kind of logic you are talking?

Mauryans did not conquer southern most region but today people of Tamil nadu are with Indian union.

Do one thing, declare Tamilnadu as a separate nation and try to invade India.

why whine with dumb arguments?

 

[Indika]

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.

Nation state is concept advocated by europeans. As such they tend to look it that way. They simply lacked diversity. Thats why they are in awe to see some thing so diverse that really works.

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

For an outsider it always looks like this. Bcos all the info you have is from whom ? again the british or the upstarts.

Dravidian refers to a cultural term it is not related to land in any way. proper southern India refers to land below vindhya & satpura mountain ranges.

Sangam literature which is historically considered as the oldest literature of tamil was infact started by agastya again not a southerner but infact some one who is from outside southern India.

Instead of going by text book definition as taught by whites (aka europeans) , I wish you apply scientific rationale on to historical & literary facts to come to conclusion. Cant fault your thinking like a european where bismarck or garibaldi are considered as examples in modern nation building.

Most of the denials here come from upstart backward barbarian tribes or ppl who have a axe to grind against India.

You are better of asking your own king Ravana if at all if you remember your own history.

It consisted of various kingdoms, more like how India was before British unified India.

British did not unify India but conquered India. All along the Indian princess fought among themselves but when they saw external threat they united. It is similar to japan or mongol invasion of china. To say that china dint exist prior to the invasion is laughable.

 

[hell9214]

In your opinion, what are the hallmark of nation building that separate Han Dynasty from say Gupta or Maurya Dynasty. Why is it that Han Empire made the modern China but Maurya Dynasty did not. Also, are there legitimate historians -- especially those who are not politically invested in China -- who believe that Han Empire made modern China and since then China is a single unified political entity.



Maurya empire existed till 180 BC or so while Gupta Empire never came in to being before 300 AD or so. These are two different empires separated by around 500 years of time.

As far as Akhand Bharat goes, do you have some reliable historical source to suggest that Gupta empire promoted the concept of Akhand Bharat or they united whole of what region what we call India today into a single political entity. FYI the Gupta empire never had reaches into the area that we call state of Maharashtra today.

Mauryan empire is the empire who promotes akhand bharat...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire

 

[GR!FF!N]

Nation concept came around 18th century.Before and even till 20th Century,the concept was,Kingdom.

Asking "Before British Empire,was India a country" is ignorance.Rather ask,"Even when British left in 1947,was India a country"??

The answer was NO.Those so called PDF experts who are arguing that Britain united India,having nearly 600 Princely States are not a "Reunification".In fact there are states who joined India way after 1947.

During British India,it was not a "Country".It became one after 1947,when India was formed.

 

[Bharat Muslim]

The truth may be lying somewhere in between. Patel should get some 30 percent credit because although British brought the region under one rule, while leaving they didn’t want India to be united. They carved out Pakistan and Bangladesh from their erstwhile territories, covertly orchestrated secessionist tendencies in various princely states like Hyderabad and others, supported the Portuguese over Goa issue and when their efforts failed their intelligence agency got Patel assassinated.

@PaklovesTurkiye @SarthakGanguly @Gibbs @jbgt90

 

[hell9214]

Mauryan empire is the empire who promotes akhand bharat...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire

http://www.mapsofindia.com/my-india/history/chandragupta-maurya-the-greatest-ruler-in-indian-history