6 ms·

With so many variances (I have seen most of them), I just wonder if India was suppose to be like Europe with smaller countries rather then one big country with

With so many variances (I have seen most of them), I just wonder if India was suppose to be like Europe with smaller countries rather then one big country with all these variances.

cstross 14y ago
India was a bunch of smaller countries before John Company came along and conquered it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
- tejaswiy 14y ago
  Well, that's just not true. India was unified all the way from Afghanistan to Andhra Pradesh for very long periods of time[1]. After the Mughal invasion, pretty much the entire North India was unified under the Mughals. The end of the mughal empire was when things started getting a little fragmented and the East India company was there to take advantage of it playing one king against the other. But to say that India was a bunch of smaller countries all the time is false. EDIT: Wiki actually has a pretty good summary with pictures and the like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India#Early_Middle_Kingdoms_.E2.80.94_The_Golden_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India#Early_Middle_K... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maurya_Dynasty_in_265_BCE.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maurya_Dynasty_in_265_BCE....
- srean 14y ago
  Depends on what time you are looking at it. India has had several large empires established before. Maurya, Gupta, Mughal, Pala, Maratha. But you are right, India as a nation state came into being as a consequenc of the British raj and yes Europe is not a bad metaphor at all.
- kamaal 14y ago
  This is the common ploy by the English to hide all their doings in the name of doing the 'greater good'. Mainland India has been largely united throughout many 1000's of years throughout history.
  - srean 14y ago
    I usually like your illuminating comments about India, but here I think emotion got the better of you. There is no such sinister ploy or conspiracy (English or otherwise) going on here and neither is it unfair to claim that India has existed as many smaller kingdoms in its historical trajectory.
    - kamaal 14y ago
      >>There is no such sinister ploy or conspiracy (English or otherwise) going on here and neither is it unfair to claim that India has existed as many smaller kingdoms in its historical trajectory. I am not claiming it either. But the British didn't come here to unite us and do the 'greater good' as often claimed. Was India made up of smaller states, yes it was. But you need to study the geographical boundaries of Mainland India throughout history. They extend all the way till Iranian borders. To southern tips of Russia. Afghanistan was once a part of India(Kandhahar was basically Gandhara, Remember the Gandhari from Mahabharatha?). In this mammoth period of time(lasting several millenniums). India has been ruled by people of varying ethnicity, language, color, culture, heritage etc. Therefore you have so many religions, languages, traditions etc. Sometimes the whole mainland India was united, sometimes it got split. The difference between British and somebody like Mughals is the difference between. Mohammed Ghazni and Mughals. They are both foreign invaders. But Ghazni came here to loot and go back. Mughals came, captured, and stayed here and contributed a lot. So did many people who ever came to India. Including Aryans, they all came from outside stayed and contributed things back. Apart from native Dravidians everybody else came to India and stayed here through some form of wars and conquering. But many of those stayed here. Many looted and went back to their native lands. British just belong to Ghazni kind of invaders who went back.
      - srean 14y ago
        I would say calm down, no one here is disagreeing with you, or with the history or the geography of India, nor is anyone here claiming the opposite of any of those things that you are worked up about. You probably read too much into cstross's comments, maybe you didn't, but your comment reads like you are very angry about what he said and are admonishing him/us for getting India's history wrong and giving us a history lesson.

With so many variances (I have seen most of them), I just wonder if India was suppose to be like Europe with smaller countries rather then one big country with all these variances.

cstross 14y ago

India was a bunch of smaller countries before John Company came along and conquered it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

tejaswiy 14y ago
Well, that's just not true. India was unified all the way from Afghanistan to Andhra Pradesh for very long periods of time[1]. After the Mughal invasion, pretty much the entire North India was unified under the Mughals. The end of the mughal empire was when things started getting a little fragmented and the East India company was there to take advantage of it playing one king against the other. But to say that India was a bunch of smaller countries all the time is false. EDIT: Wiki actually has a pretty good summary with pictures and the like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India#Early_Middle_Kingdoms_.E2.80.94_The_Golden_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India#Early_Middle_K... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maurya_Dynasty_in_265_BCE.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maurya_Dynasty_in_265_BCE....
srean 14y ago
Depends on what time you are looking at it. India has had several large empires established before. Maurya, Gupta, Mughal, Pala, Maratha. But you are right, India as a nation state came into being as a consequenc of the British raj and yes Europe is not a bad metaphor at all.
kamaal 14y ago
This is the common ploy by the English to hide all their doings in the name of doing the 'greater good'. Mainland India has been largely united throughout many 1000's of years throughout history.
- srean 14y ago
  I usually like your illuminating comments about India, but here I think emotion got the better of you. There is no such sinister ploy or conspiracy (English or otherwise) going on here and neither is it unfair to claim that India has existed as many smaller kingdoms in its historical trajectory.
  - kamaal 14y ago
    >>There is no such sinister ploy or conspiracy (English or otherwise) going on here and neither is it unfair to claim that India has existed as many smaller kingdoms in its historical trajectory. I am not claiming it either. But the British didn't come here to unite us and do the 'greater good' as often claimed. Was India made up of smaller states, yes it was. But you need to study the geographical boundaries of Mainland India throughout history. They extend all the way till Iranian borders. To southern tips of Russia. Afghanistan was once a part of India(Kandhahar was basically Gandhara, Remember the Gandhari from Mahabharatha?). In this mammoth period of time(lasting several millenniums). India has been ruled by people of varying ethnicity, language, color, culture, heritage etc. Therefore you have so many religions, languages, traditions etc. Sometimes the whole mainland India was united, sometimes it got split. The difference between British and somebody like Mughals is the difference between. Mohammed Ghazni and Mughals. They are both foreign invaders. But Ghazni came here to loot and go back. Mughals came, captured, and stayed here and contributed a lot. So did many people who ever came to India. Including Aryans, they all came from outside stayed and contributed things back. Apart from native Dravidians everybody else came to India and stayed here through some form of wars and conquering. But many of those stayed here. Many looted and went back to their native lands. British just belong to Ghazni kind of invaders who went back.
    - srean 14y ago
      I would say calm down, no one here is disagreeing with you, or with the history or the geography of India, nor is anyone here claiming the opposite of any of those things that you are worked up about. You probably read too much into cstross's comments, maybe you didn't, but your comment reads like you are very angry about what he said and are admonishing him/us for getting India's history wrong and giving us a history lesson.