Some people may repeat that india was never one country, but it is the english logic - call him a dog and hang him. Bharat was always a culturally united nation; one has to read (and understand) what our scriptures, literature and people say to understand what is 'bharatavarsha'.
In the same way, the statement india never invaded must be read. In any conquest by a foreign power, the locals after defeat were enslaved, and the victor became the supreme ruler. It was never so in bharat. Lanka was given to vibhishana, rama did not keep it. Kishkinda was given to sugriva. Even after rajasuya yagnas, the kingdoms were not annexed, but given to the current rulers. Even in our chola pandya mini wars, the defeated king's rightful heirs were made kings. Even the cholas did not put their reps in the land they conquered across seas. There may be exceptions, but generally the kings followed smruti dharma, and allowed the locals to live the way they wanted. Enforced conversion and culturalisation was never done. Yagnavalki smruti enjoins the king not to enforce his views on his conquered subjects.
Two hundred years of english has vitiated cultural history of bharat. We have also ignored willingly enormous manuscript literature available with us. Hope we rescue whatever is safe and bring it to public domain, so that we learn and see things and events as our people saw, and not through biased english eyes.
Every word we use - dharma, atma, acharam, ritual etc must be understood the way our elders meant it, not what coat-suit walas want us to understand.
