• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Was India a country before it was ruled by the British and the East India Company?

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Indian (particularly those brainwashed by RSS) believe that there was an Akhand Bharat. This is not a fact it is a myth.

No. It was not. At least not for real, even if it might have existed as a pure concept for millennia.

In order to be called a country, India needed a stable political geography spanning the entire landmass under one and only one banner (flag) and one and only one name (India). The regional rulers of India always fell short of this accomplishment.

In order to be called a natural nation, India needed a natural coherence of culture, language, ethnicity and lifestyle of its inhabitants across the entire landmass. That never happened, neither would it ever happen. India has always been an epitome of diversity. To be called an architected federal nation, there had to be an architecture of nationality where all local regions must had been given equal rights under the central ruling authority and it had to must have a constitution that established the spirit of nationality using various definitions called citizen rights and duties. The kings, rulers and emperors of India never succeeded in establishing a nationality. They always craved loyalty for themselves.

The very first wave of Indian Nationality sentiment came only during the British rule. And that was just that, a wave of sentiment which simply got stronger with time that eventually became a reality.

There was no country called India before 15th August 1947. There was no nation called India before 26th January 1950.

 
Last edited:
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
However, if you are an Indian and are capable of thinking beyond the narrow concepts of politics such as country, nation and nationalism, you may actually cherish and take pride in the fact that,

India has always been something far greater than a country or nation, it has remained as the oldest of all the intelligent and cultured human civilizations that live to this day for real. No myths. Seriously.

The following are the logical evidence of the existence of India as a collective landmass of civilization.

  1. Mathematics: The number system we use today originated in India, especially ‘Zero’. Arabs learned it from us because they needed it badly to do business with the (as documented by the Arabs) ‘Indian’ markets that were rich with resources.
  2. Science: A few key concepts in modern Surgery, Medicine, Astronomy, Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, and Technology have got Indian roots and they originated as a culture of an Intelligent civilization undoubtedly documented as ‘India’.
  3. Philosophy: I don’t think there is any other civilization other than India that has been documented especially for its philosophical richness and diversity.
  4. Mughals attacked INDIA. They never said they wanted to rule Haryana or Punjab or Kerala, etc. For example, their emperor used to wear the title Sultan-e-Hind, meaning (the emperor of India).
  5. The British, the French, the Portuguese and a few other foreign visitors turned invaders were crazy to get to INDIA. And India was so famous they all succeeded in their quest to find new and effective routes to INDIA. Even if some of them failed in finding India, they discovered undiscovered landmasses and mistakenly named them after ‘INDIA’. That’s why the West Indies are called the ‘West Indies’ and not West Punjab or West Gujarat or West Haryana or West Rajasthan. Even the aboriginals of the now called the United States of America are called Indians. That’s because whosoever discovered them was actually looking for India. Not Punjab, not Haryana, not Rajasthan.
  6. Try getting your hands on any of the western ancient global maps, you shall definitely find the name INDIA on it, although the location and scale would be most likely wrong.
India may not have been a country or a nation before the British left it as so, it has always been something much more important to the entire world.

India is a vision. Indian is an Identity.


 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
No, there was no country called India or there was no sense of a united nation before British rule. People refusing to accept this shows example of different ancient dynasties. What they ignore to see is that with decline of those empires all regions again became independent which were conquered by Ashoka, Samudragupta or Kanishka. This is not a characteristics of a country. There is a difference between country and dynasty.

Now think about modern India. If central govt topples today or there is political instability at centre like that of ’90′s is it possible for states to break away from the nation. No…. because Constitution doesn’t allow so. It describes India as Union Of States which is indestructible in nature. There is a central administration, a constitution, a national flag, a national emblem of India today. These are all main and associate features to define a country which were absent in those ancient dynasties. Lets remind people that there were 16 Mahajanpads and countless small independent territories in ancient India. They had their different types of administrative machinery. Some were kingdom some were oldest republic of world. This happened because there was no common constitution. Lets also remind people that before muslim invasion in 13th century there were 36 clans of Rajput all over India and they were always fighting among themselves. This thing doesn’t happen in a COUNTRY. It basically paved easier way for Muslims to invade India.

The basic foundation of central administration was laid down by British East India Company in 1773 by regulating act. Consequently they brought other acts like Pitt’s act, Charter act, Indian council’s act and made it stronger.

 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
No.

Here are some excerpts from a book by the brilliant historian R.C Majumder.

See this

main-qimg-59d6c68ff024acfeb1a9502b724eef37

During that time, when the British solely operated as a trading company and had not yet seized political power or were in the process of doing so, there was no concept of India as a country. “There was Bengalis, Hindustanis, Sikhs, Rajputs and Marathas, but no Indian”. Bengalis regarded North Indians as much as a foreigner as the British, and vice versa. Worse still, the relationship between these local “foreigners” was not that of brotherhood and cordiality, but of enmity and animosity, to the extent that the hatred “found expression even in lullaby”.

Which is why when the British fought against their fellow locals, the Bengalis in important positions “offered regular prayers to God for the success of the British arms” and even went to the extent of actively supporting the British cause.

Also, see this

main-qimg-a488240617e772cdf8afac27a1d2a6e5

Another aspect of the division and hatred was the aversion of Hindus towards the hitherto Muslim rulers. As said by Raja Rammohan Roy, (who was a “sound scholar in Arabic and Persian and adopted Muslim dress and food; so nobody can accuse him of anti Muslim bias”), the greater part of the erstwhile Hindustan having been subject to centuries of Muslim rule, had seen a systematic trampling of the civil and religious rights of the populace and excessive oppression. The Marathas and the Sikhs revolted against the Muslim yoke and achieved independence, but the Bengalis were unable to do so and remained under Muslim rule, and witnessed huge levels of plunder and insults towards their religion.

See this

main-qimg-9dcc86dd53eebf856fce6f8dc74258dc

So the situation at that time was not of a sovereign nation, but of divisions and fractures on the lines of region Vs region, ruler Vs ruler, race Vs race and of course religion Vs religion. This ruled out the chances of development of any nationalistic and patriotic feeling. This condition also made the Hindus in Bengal, allow and accept the substitution of the local despot sitting 1 km away with another imported despot from 1000 kms away.

“It is one thing to come under foreign yoke for the first time and quite a different thing to exchange one foreign yoke for another”.

Also see this

main-qimg-dd90fac58e9540a65b44472f3d07fc83

This inconvenient bit of history was subdued by the political leaders of the 20th century (like Lajpat Rai and Subhash Chandra Bose), as by that time the conception of India had formed and people en masse were crying for relief from the British tyranny.

Which is completely reasonable, as the freedom fighters of that period were totally committed towards national liberation and independence, and stuff like regional or religious divisions and animosity didn't interest them in the least.

But history is history, and the fact remains. There was no India (as in the present shape and form) at that time, and the subcontinent was divided on the lines as mentioned above.

 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
No. Some claim that Indians are united by Hinduism. Having fairly traveled the country i could say with conviction that rural Indian practices are branded as Hinduism but they are pre vedic practices. Even Hinduism is not culturally same across India. Given that Tamilnadu was never a single country continously(the place I am from), how could I extrapolate that India was a homogenous country.

There are two type of Hinduism: Vedic and Non-Vedic. The Non-Vedic is pre historic with simple less sophisticated rituals.

I do not believe the Claim that India Existed from pre-historic period. The Name India and Hindustan were not prevalent in Southern India leave out the greeks and others. As some one pointed out land route to current india through the river sindh gave us the name. But Ancient trade routes were sea based. I based my opinions on them few European and Chinese accounts below. I can source multiple indian versions as well. But believe the foreign versions would strengthen the base further.

  1. The Roman historian Strabo (c. 1st century BCE) mentions the embassies sent by the Pandyas to the court of Augustus, along with a description of the ambassadors from Dramira. He also gives various details about the trading relationship between the Tamil kingdoms and Rome. Pliny the Elder (c. 77 CE) refers to many Tamil ports in his work The Natural History. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (c. 60–100 CE) gives an elaborate description of the Tamil country and describes the riches of a 'Pandian Kingdom'
  2. Muziris (Cranganore, Kerala) and Puhar (in Cholamandalam) were major sea-ports and foreign settlements.
 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member

If The British Had Never Ruled Our Country, This Would Be India Today​


The British ruled the Indian subcontinent for 200 years starting with the East India Company in 1757 after Robert Clive's forces won the Battle of Plassey, and the British Empire which crushed the Revolt of 1857. But what if the English explorers had never come to Indian shores or failed to conquer the peninsula? What would India have been like now?

These are just some amateur predictions of the future of the sub-continent, and were inspired by inputs from Quora. You are most welcome to have your own theories on it.

1. A fragmented nation​

The British rule may have united India, but in their absence, the result is the presence of 60-100 princely states that co-exist as rivals or alliances. The big boys in this political set up would probably be the Sikh rulers in the north west, the Marathas in western and central India, and the Mysore Kingdom of Tipu Sultan.

map


 

ekaputra

Active member
The great king Krishna Deva Raya conceived the east to west (virtual) wall. He strategically spread his forces from the East coast to the West coast to check the advance of the Muhammedans further south and his aim was to gradually push them more and more North and finally out of the land of Bharathavarsha. Unfortunately, his successors were useless.

At a young age, Chhatrapati Shivaji was taught by his father that Muhammedans were mlechas and had to be overthrown and that all of the land that had once been ruled by Hindu kings should once again be a Hindu Rashtra.

There may have been others like them.

Even before the British rule, there were kings who thought of uniting the country in the name of Hindu religion.

Of course, the British gave the diverse and divided native people a common language and common cause to unite. My appeal to the politicians is to not keep calling English a foreign language. More than any other language, English has played a very great part in the freedom movement and the creation of India.
 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
The misconception that the Indian subcontinent was a country before British Raj is so prevalent among Indians, that is laughable.

I guess we are taught the wrong information to infuse Nationalistic sentiment.

 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
While doing research for this post, I am appalled that I agree with Saif Ali Khan.

Saif Ali Khan's 'No Concept Of India Before The British' Comment Expectedly Offends Some People
 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
British India was the unifying force in the Indian subcontinent.

Before British Indian Subcontinent was like Europe. Each principality was separate and fighting against each other. Bengal was fighting with its neighbors. The Marathas would consider the Mughals, The British, the French, or the Andras. They would make convenient alliances with others.

british India 1914.jpg


India 1750.jpg
 
Indian (particularly those brainwashed by RSS) believe that there was an Akhand Bharat. This is not a fact it is a myth.

No. It was not. At least not for real, even if it might have existed as a pure concept for millennia.

In order to be called a country, India needed a stable political geography spanning the entire landmass under one and only one banner (flag) and one and only one name (India). The regional rulers of India always fell short of this accomplishment.

In order to be called a natural nation, India needed a natural coherence of culture, language, ethnicity and lifestyle of its inhabitants across the entire landmass. That never happened, neither would it ever happen. India has always been an epitome of diversity. To be called an architected federal nation, there had to be an architecture of nationality where all local regions must had been given equal rights under the central ruling authority and it had to must have a constitution that established the spirit of nationality using various definitions called citizen rights and duties. The kings, rulers and emperors of India never succeeded in establishing a nationality. They always craved loyalty for themselves.

The very first wave of Indian Nationality sentiment came only during the British rule. And that was just that, a wave of sentiment which simply got stronger with time that eventually became a reality.

There was no country called India before 15th August 1947. There was no nation called India before 26th January 1950.

 
Mr Prasad is confused between History, RSS and todays' World. Definition of country varied from day to day. Hate for RSS is clouding certain Hindus who never follow Sanatana Dharma or their own father/family traditions but talk as if they are real Hindus?
Regions not countries are mentioned in our age old literature and sacred books. Dear Vasudev, read some books before giving statements.
 

Iyest

Active member
Mr Prasad is confused between History, RSS and todays' World. Definition of country varied from day to day. Hate for RSS is clouding certain Hindus who never follow Sanatana Dharma or their own father/family traditions but talk as if they are real Hindus?
Regions not countries are mentioned in our age old literature and sacred books. Dear Vasudev, read some books before giving statements.

Not directed at any individual. But I have come across a few people who put forth such views. They have probably have never heard of Ashoka etc and the size of their kingdoms and how much area of India they covered. It is only when discussing India that homogeneity suddenly become important. I have travelled in Switzerland where one comes across three distinct linguistic areas (German, French, Italian) all within a 2-3 hour jouney. But everyone is Swiss. Homogeneous? What is that?

Best to let people live with their views.
 

cmdeswami

Member
Indian (particularly those brainwashed by RSS) believe that there was an Akhand Bharat. This is not a fact it is a myth.

No. It was not. At least not for real, even if it might have existed as a pure concept for millennia.

In order to be called a country, India needed a stable political geography spanning the entire landmass under one and only one banner (flag) and one and only one name (India). The regional rulers of India always fell short of this accomplishment.

In order to be called a natural nation, India needed a natural coherence of culture, language, ethnicity and lifestyle of its inhabitants across the entire landmass. That never happened, neither would it ever happen. India has always been an epitome of diversity. To be called an architected federal nation, there had to be an architecture of nationality where all local regions must had been given equal rights under the central ruling authority and it had to must have a constitution that established the spirit of nationality using various definitions called citizen rights and duties. The kings, rulers and emperors of India never succeeded in establishing a nationality. They always craved loyalty for themselves.

The very first wave of Indian Nationality sentiment came only during the British rule. And that was just that, a wave of sentiment which simply got stronger with time that eventually became a reality.

There was no country called India before 15th August 1947. There was no nation called India before 26th January 1950.

Country does not mean ruled by one ruler. Bharat was one entity from time immemorial, same philosophy, culture, arts and history. Different shades does not break up the glory of a company. AADI SANKARA, from Kerala walked across the length and breadth of our country and established Veda pada Salas. The celebration of life in lts multifarious forms has one underlying theology. Hinduism. Kindness and tolerance to different people following different faiths. See the literature in different regions of India, you will see one Maha Bharat!!!!
 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Not directed at any individual. But I have come across a few people who put forth such views. They have probably have never heard of Ashoka etc and the size of their kingdoms and how much area of India they covered. It is only when discussing India that homogeneity suddenly become important. I have travelled in Switzerland where one comes across three distinct linguistic areas (German, French, Italian) all within a 2-3 hour jouney. But everyone is Swiss. Homogeneous? What is that?

Best to let people live with their views.
I would not question your wisdom, but you fail the basic test. Was Ashok's kingdom called India? NO.
It was Magadha empire, and I have posted that elsewhere. Did Ashok not attack another part of India? It was like Bihar attacking Odisha, does that sound like India as a country. Please just fresh up your knowledge of English, and History.

1622634271224.png



Please note it is not called India, it did not include "kashmir" and the southern states.

Of course, you can stay ignorant and propagate the myth that there was a country called Inda before the British.
 
Last edited:

GNANA SUNYAM

Active member
Country does not mean ruled by one ruler. Bharat was one entity from time immemorial, same philosophy, culture, arts and history. Different shades does not break up the glory of a company. AADI SANKARA, from Kerala walked across the length and breadth of our country and established Veda pada Salas. The celebration of life in lts multifarious forms has one underlying theology. Hinduism. Kindness and tolerance to different people following different faiths. See the literature in different regions of India, you will see one Maha Bharat!!!!
"Kindnes and tolerance to different peoplo following different faiths...." HYPOCRITIC STATEMENT. Recollect the gruesome murder of non-hindus in Orissa, the torching of churches in Gujarat, the aftermath of Godhra, the persecutions perpetrated on individuals of non-hindu faiths in souther states, the savage attacks on non-hindus etc etc etc
 

GNANA SUNYAM

Active member
The Imperialists, when referring to India, did not cover the entire of what is NOW India. They conceived only a part of what is NOW NORTH INDIA.
 

GNANA SUNYAM

Active member
Please note even what is NOW referred to as Tamil Nadu, came into existence only after independence when the provinces were re-politicized and borders designated based on languages. What is now Tamil Nade was a conglomerate of Chera, Chola, Pandya and Pallava kingdoms. Let alone India was a country or a nation before Independence. This requires only common sense to understand and comprehend, not an indepth knowledge of history.
 

vgane

Well-known member
"Kindnes and tolerance to different peoplo following different faiths...." HYPOCRITIC STATEMENT. Recollect the gruesome murder of non-hindus in Orissa, the torching of churches in Gujarat, the aftermath of Godhra, the persecutions perpetrated on individuals of non-hindu faiths in souther states, the savage attacks on non-hindus etc etc etc
The problem is Conversions that is the main stay of the Churches and missionaries..If they declare that they will not proselytize then there will be eternal peace. Do you know that Church played an active role in the Kudangulam potests against the Nuclear plant as well as the Thottukudi violence. They played an active role in defeating AIADMK & bringing the outright communal DMK with its anti Hindu and anti Brahmin agenda to power...Why are you not seeing both sides. You are building your own narrative with jaundiced eyes!
 

Iyest

Active member
"Kindnes and tolerance to different peoplo following different faiths...." HYPOCRITIC STATEMENT. Recollect the gruesome murder of non-hindus in Orissa, the torching of churches in Gujarat, the aftermath of Godhra, the persecutions perpetrated on individuals of non-hindu faiths in souther states, the savage attacks on non-hindus etc etc etc

Maybe there is some misunderstanding here. I think the poster was talking about the past history. No doubt the spirit of tolerance has diminished in the last century.
 
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoynumerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks