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

[GNANA SUNYAM]

Share:

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Share Link

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!

I do not wish to digress from the topic of this forum. Perhaps Prasad is tolerant, you are tolerant and I am tolerant. "Oru paani sotrukku oru soru padham" does not have weightage/relevance here. I cannot make a general statement about tolerance collectively representing all Indians. Admitting truth/fact is integrity.

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

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.

"Sarukki vizhundhaalum en meesaiyil man ottavillai" enbadhu polonno irukku

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

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!

A third person converts a fourth person. What does it matter to you and I!!! Let us mind our own business. So what if someone is anti-brahmin. There are always some group antagonistic to some other group in the entire world. There are anti-dravidans too. It should matter little here. It is not pro-community or anti-community which decides who comes to power. It is the electorate who decide using their discretion. It is a matter of numerics and numbers game. I can go on and on about this but it would be irrelevant to this thread. Also I do not wish to waste my precious time on this of little value.

 

[Mohan Parasuram]

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.

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

Answer (1 of 35): A very interesting question. Before answering that lets just take a look at the respective definitions for Nation and Country – Country - * Has internationally recognized land and borders even if border disputes exist; * Has permanent residents; * Has sovereignty so that...

www.quora.com

Why if one takes the same logic what about uk usa or european union. Earlier india covered a large land mass of the subcontinent. It was economically rich with a glorice culture. Many travelers glorified india. Many wanted to come to india

 

[prasad1]

Why if one takes the same logic what about uk usa or european union. Earlier india covered a large land mass of the subcontinent. It was economically rich with a glorice culture. Many travelers glorified india. Many wanted to come to india

Should you read the opening post you will see that we ascribe a lot of adjectives to non-entity.

We say that "India" was prosperous before the British. That statement is a lie. India as a country did not exist before the British. Before the British, we had smaller kingdoms that were in a state of war with each other all the time. We had prosperous businessmen from the Indian subcontinent. A little bit of Honesty will show that claims we ascribe to Indians before the British are a myth. Give credit where it is due. For Instance, Ashoke of Magadh Kingdom achieved success, Note that it was not called India.

 

[vgane]

A third person converts a fourth person. What does it matter to you and I!!! Let us mind our own business. So what if someone is anti-brahmin. There are always some group antagonistic to some other group in the entire world. There are anti-dravidans too. It should matter little here. It is not pro-community or anti-community which decides who comes to power. It is the electorate who decide using their discretion. It is a matter of numerics and numbers game. I can go on and on about this but it would be irrelevant to this thread. Also I do not wish to waste my precious time on this of little value.

I am bothered because we are in a Brahmin forum...The moment I talked about conversions you are digressing from topic

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

I am bothered because we are in a Brahmin forum...The moment I talked about conversions you are digressing from topic

Sir, discussing about conversions is also irrelevant to this thread. Hence I mentioned in my post mine was irrelevant too.

 

[Suresh ente sure]

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.

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

Answer (1 of 35): A very interesting question. Before answering that lets just take a look at the respective definitions for Nation and Country – Country - * Has internationally recognized land and borders even if border disputes exist; * Has permanent residents; * Has sovereignty so that...

www.quora.com

India was princely and warring state among themselves. India is modelled after uk