Was India Ever a Rich Country in its History?

[GorkhaPride]

India's concept of unity has been around for ages while China's was much more recent.

 

[INDIC]

How they were ethnically the same as most of Indians when Indians themselves are ethnically deserve? Being a Punjabi for me Ashoka was also an invader just like Abdali - As both were outsider for the locals.

All of them spoke same language and had same culture.

Prakrit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW you can start with Allama Iqbal's poems about his proud Indian identity.

Allama Iqbal Poetry کلام علامہ محمد اقبال: (Bang-e-Dra-042) Hindustani Bachon Ka Qaumi Geet

 

[GorkhaPride]

This whole piece becomes null and void, given that India became a single political entity as a result of colonialism in 1947, The concept of "India" was a mere vague geographical concept that did not encompass a boundary, a system of governance nor a homogeneous society

All religious based or arguments based on mythology to the contrary does not hold water either

For most of its history Sri Lanka was always ruled by outsiders and had the convenience of being an island, you know nothing about India so your half knowledge answers are not required.

 

[Thirdfront]

This whole piece becomes null and void, given that India became a single political entity as a result of colonialism in 1947, The concept of "India" was a mere vague geographical concept that did not encompass a boundary, a system of governance nor a homogeneous society

All religious based or arguments based on mythology to the contrary does not hold water either

Why? India was single political entity during Mauryan times... What is "single political entity" means anyway? What defines a nation in your opinion?

 

[Gibbs]

Why? India was single political entity during Mauryan times... What is "single political entity" means anyway? What defines a nation in your opinion?

Nope the Mauryan empire constituted only certain parts of the Northern sub continent in what is known as India today, they could never extended the influence beyond the southern Ghats.. Actually the Moghuls ruled even a larger part.. But the geographical area was never a nation state nor a homogeneous society to be called a single political entity.. The argument here is the impossibility of measuring wealth of a nation.. When one never existed at that given time.. Mythological arguments or personal views on the matter clearly does not matter... If the wealth of "India" needs to be measured it has to be taken after 1947, When India was formed

 

[INDIC]

Nope the Mauryan empire constituted only certain parts of the Northern sub continent in what is known as India today, they could never extended the influence beyond the southern Ghats.. Actually the Moghuls ruled even a larger part.. But the geographical area was never a nation state nor a homogeneous society to be called a single political entity.. The argument here is the impossibility of measuring wealth of a nation.. When one never existed at that given time.. Mythological arguments or personal views on the matter clearly does not matter... If the wealth of "India" needs to be measured it has to be taken after 1947, When India was formed

Southern ghat? what is that. BTW The Maurya Empire contains large part of South India, the Chola Emperor became friend of Chandragupta Maurya. Just before British conquest Marathas controlled most of India until British-French interfere destroyed them by 1818 and thus one by one they British conquered the fragmented princely states.

As for mythological part, India is not just the only country which gots its name from the mythology, how can a name of territory became mythology if its named on a mythological emperor, if people strongly believed in Bharata Varsha, you can simply reject it.

 

[faithfulguy]

India's concept of unity has been around for ages while China's was much more recent.

Its a concept of unity of one religion, but not as a country or kingdom. If that were the case, India would have been one country for a long time.

 

[GorkhaPride]

Its a concept of unity of one religion, but not as a country or kingdom. If that were the case, India would have been one country for a long time.

If it was off religion then Nepal would have also come under it since Nepal was also Hindu. And India did in intermittent parts of history come together. Don't chat about thing you have no knowledge off.

 

[Beidou2020]

There was no country called 'India' before 1947.

 

[Thirdfront]

Nope the Mauryan empire constituted only certain parts of the Northern sub continent in what is known as India today, they could never extended the influence beyond the southern Ghats.. Actually the Moghuls ruled even a larger part.. But the geographical area was never a nation state nor a homogeneous society to be called a single political entity.. The argument here is the impossibility of measuring wealth of a nation.. When one never existed at that given time.. Mythological arguments or personal views on the matter clearly does not matter... If the wealth of "India" needs to be measured it has to be taken after 1947, When India was formed

Go back to school and learn some geography. There is no southern ghats in India. Either western ghats or Vindya range. Mauryan empire ruled them and beyond. India was known as India by 400 BCE. Moghuls actually rule less area than Mauryans. Sadly, you have no idea about what a nation means. Nation is not equal to state. So, get some education before blurting out whatever comes to your mind... India was formed at the latest by sindhu-sarsvati civilization...

 

[bronxbull]

Nope the Mauryan empire constituted only certain parts of the Northern sub continent in what is known as India today, they could never extended the influence beyond the southern Ghats.. Actually the Moghuls ruled even a larger part.. But the geographical area was never a nation state nor a homogeneous society to be called a single political entity.. The argument here is the impossibility of measuring wealth of a nation.. When one never existed at that given time.. Mythological arguments or personal views on the matter clearly does not matter... If the wealth of "India" needs to be measured it has to be taken after 1947, When India was formed

India exists.yugoslavia died n pak exists only cuz india exists.

 

[Gibbs]

India exists.yugoslavia died n pak exists only cuz india exists.

Never said it doesn't exist.. But not before 1947 and certainly not as a geographical, political or societal entity to corroborate wealth of a nation as the OP suggest

 

[Thirdfront]

Never said it doesn't exist.. But not before 1947 and certainly not as a geographical, political or societal entity to corroborate wealth of a nation as the OP suggest

So India became geographical entity after 1947? earlier whole geography were islans far apart? lol....

 

[Foot12]

There is no doubt that India existed since ancient times. The Indians considered themselves
as part of Bharat which was the name for India in the past. The Indians described the foreigners
who came from outside of the Indian subcontinent as Mlecchas.

 

[Foot12]

Did the Gupta's or the Mughals ever regard themselves as successor empires of the Ashoka's empire? Did the emperor of Gudptas or Mughals ever regard that they sit in the same seat as Ashoka or were their empires a totally different empires unto themselves. History clearly shown that its later. Many kingdoms and empires rise and fell in the Indian subcontinent, but there was never a continuous empire made up of various dynasties like Ancient Egypt or China since 220BC.

The Gupta Kings did consider themselves as successors of the Maurya Empire which is proven by the
fact that the Gupta kings Samudragupta and Chandragupta II made records on the pillars of Ashoka Maurya
after conquering whole northern India. The Indian text mudrarakshasa was written during the Gupta period to celebrate the achievements of the Maurya Emperor Chandragupta and one part of the text compares Chandragupta II of the Gupta Empire with the Maurya Emperor Chandragupta. Akbar of the Mughal Empire also considered himself a successor of the Maurya Empire as he ordered to install one of the pillars of Ashoka in his fort to legitimize his rule.