Turkey wants 'stolen' artifacts back from British Museum

[neutral_person]

With respect, one cannot go back to thousands of years in history to determine the foundations of a nation as being the rationale for a current day country. By that argument, can certain portions of the Roman empire of say 92AD demand that a new country be carved into one single nation?

I am simply saying that the foundations of "cultural" India are thousands of years old, and India the "nation state political entity" is based on those foundations. There were other parts of this thousands of years old "cultural" India that are no longer based on those foundations, and as a result are different political nation state entities, like Nepal/Bhutan/Pak/Bd/Tibet/small parts of Eastern and Southern Afghanistan, etc.

 

[Rusty]

I suppose you will disregard any reference to ancient Indian literature under the guise that it is "Hindu"

Sp do you want me to to quote India as a name or where the Westerners quoted the kingdom as India?
I could quote Jambudipa, the region known during Buddha's time covering an area from Afghanistan to Indonesia.

Or would you like me to quote from the time of the Mughals?

I could also quote for the Mauryans?

Ofcourse you will never accept this fact even if the ancient Greeks, Romans and Arabs did.

Your logic of a country is restricted to the geographical boundaries left behind by the British. Never will you accept that you are a part of the heritage of the region!

instead of quoting this and that I just want you to show me where all of India was ruled by a dynasty like China.

And I am sorry that I am constrained by logic and definitions, but unlike Indians I can't believe that one = many and many = one.
Even if I use the loosest term for a country, you still have to show me where India was run by 1 government for more than 1 generation. I don't deny that a few strongmen in history conquered most of India, but that only lasted for a few years and when they died India went back to being warring states.

If I use your definition for country then I can make anything a country, the equator is a country, Antarctica is a country, mars is a country.

 

[Iggy]

This thread is no fun!!

Lets have a flame bait!!

If Britishers decided to return the Kohinoor, who should they give it to??

India, Pakistan or Bangladesh??

 

[Rusty]

This thread is no fun!!

Lets have a flame bait!!

If Britishers decided to return the Kohinoor, who should they give it to??

India, Pakistan or Bangladesh??

Bangladesh has no claim to it, so I say India and Pakistan should play Qabadi and the winner gets it.

 

[neutral_person]

This thread is no fun!!

Lets have a flame bait!!

If Britishers decided to return the Kohinoor, who should they give it to??

India, Pakistan or Bangladesh??

Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar were a part of British India too

 

[Iggy]

Bangladesh has no claim to it, so I say India and Pakistan should play Qabadi and the winner gets it.

Belive me, they will have claim!! You will see weird logic for their claims soon!!

 

[INDIC]

Bangladesh has no claim to it, so I say India and Pakistan should play Qabadi and the winner gets it.

Kohinoor Pakistan ka kaise hua. Logic batao, .

 

[RajputWarrior]

instead of quoting this and that I just want you to show me where all of India was ruled by a dynasty like China.

And I am sorry that I am constrained by logic and definitions, but unlike Indians I can't believe that one = many and many = one.
Even if I use the loosest term for a country, you still have to show me where India was run by 1 government for more than 1 generation. I don't deny that a few strongmen in history conquered most of India, but that only lasted for a few years and when they died India went back to being warring states.

If I use your definition for country then I can make anything a country, the equator is a country, Antarctica is a country, mars is a country.

You do have instances of Indian Empires gaining greater than or equal to what the former empires had controlled. For an example the three main empires that can be said to have controlled the subcontinent would be the Mauryans the Mughals and the then the British. However there is also proof in Vedic texts of tribes and cities that have been discovered and conquered all throughout the Indian subcontinent.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

This thread is no fun!!

Lets have a flame bait!!

If Britishers decided to return the Kohinoor, who should they give it to??

India, Pakistan or Bangladesh??

I believe that it is from Andra Pradesh so it should be returned to India. But then again, since we have to thank the Brits for creating our country, perhaps we should just let them retain it as a form of ex gratia payment

 

[Rusty]

Actually Pakistan is more artificial NWFP was leased by Afghanistan juat like Hongkong while Balochistan was never the part of Delhi sultanate or Mughal empire.

Man, Pakistan is the most fake country on earth, in fact it's so fake that it doesn't even exist

That still does not change the fact that India was never a country until 47
Now run along troll and maybe read a book or two about history.

 

[RajputWarrior]

Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar were a part of British India too

Nepal and Bhutan were the two countries that were never part of the British empire. They remained independent kingdoms.

 

[INDIC]

I believe that it is from Andra Pradesh so it should be returned to India. But then again, since we have to thank the Brits for creating our country, perhaps we should just let them retain it as a form of ex gratia payment

Kohinoor belonged to Kakatiya Dynasty of Telangana, lastly it was with Sikh Empire.

 

[neutral_person]

Nepal and Bhutan were the two countries that were never part of the British empire. They remained independent kingdoms.

They did have certain amount of autonomy, but I think they were protectorates, so they were still kind of part of the British Empire.

 

[Rusty]

You do have instances of Indian Empires gaining greater than or equal to what the former empires had controlled. For an example the three main empires that can be said to have controlled the subcontinent would be the Mauryans the Mughals and the then the British. However there is also proof in Vedic texts of tribes and cities that have been discovered and conquered.

How long did the first two rule all of India? 100 years? 200? remember, we are talking about a 4000 year history. I hardly call that the basis of a country. THe roman empire existed for a 1000 years and they were a real country but even that doesnt mean they are a country now.
The British never gave India country status, it was a federation of directly ruled areas and princely states.
And Vedas and tribes proves nothing. To be a country you must be under a single government for at least a few generations.
By sharing cultural links, you are no more a country than Europe or Africa

 

[PlanetWarrior]

You do have instances of Indian Empires gaining greater than or equal to what the former empires had controlled. For an example the three main empires that can be said to have controlled the subcontinent would be the Mauryans the Mughals and the then the British. However there is also proof in Vedic texts of tribes and cities that have been discovered and conquered.

I think that the point made in the post to which you replied is that there were brief periods in history when large portions of the land mass known as current day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc were unified under one ruler but that would have been too short and brief a period to dictate it as being nationhood. Once the ruler died, then the large kingdom created reverted to fragmented states. A good example is the rule of Ashoka. But the issue remains whether India was ever a nation as large as its current day state or was it just a large part of a continent? And should the Brits take all of the credit for the creation of the current day India?