Comments on: Myth About British Creating India

By: srikanth

srikanth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:43:48 +0000

India as a cultural entity existed like Europe or Arabian peninsula or Indo-China etc
But it was the british who created India the country.

In many senses India is much more diverse than Europe and its the British who created the Country called Indian Union.

What explains hindu Nepal not in India but mongoloid Mizoram in India?

The answer is BRITISH.

By: Roger Williams

Roger Williams — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:07:11 +0000

Clearly, you don’t understand the difference between a region and a nation. We speak of Asia. Is Asia one nation? One culture? One ethnicity?

Grow a brain!

By: Shrirang Gadrey

Shrirang Gadrey — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:38:55 +0000

Guys!!! Lets set some basic definitions…

There are 2 ways of describing a region (analogous to maps) : a physical definition and a political definition. A physical definition is just a description of the area (eg by describing rivers etc) and a political definition pertains to units of jurisdiction. Please keep these distinctions in mind before arguing animatedly!!

The India that columbus dreamt of was a physical description!! The vedas describing the rivers is a physical description!! These are no evidence of any “”unity”" because the concept of “”unity”" or “”one nation”" are essentially political!!

It will be easy to realize if u keep these distinctions in mind that u can never think of a united India if u envisage an india based on vedic or medieval physical descriptions of the region!! The political equivalent term for the ancient descriptive term “”India”" or “”Bharat”" is the term “”Indian subcontinent”".

Thus, never was the indian subcontinent politically united nor is it today!!! Similarly, the region was described as one before and can still be described as one today!!

Your arguement is futile and stems from a loose usage of terms!! The british neither united nor partitioned the indian subcontinent!! The got it partitioned and left it partitioned!!!

By: Dr. Nayyar Hashmey

Dr. Nayyar Hashmey — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:32:35 +0000

Have seen a good number of comments ur blog but not all. Seem interesting but one thing I would very much wish to say is that thinking now India in terms of a great India that once was is simply a utopian approach.
A study of history reveals that India itself derives its name from river Indus, which is the lifeline of present Pakistan. The ancient Greek called the people of this subcontinent as Hindus as they could not pronounce I so they instead H. As you feel very proud of being Indian we too feel very proud of being Pakistanis. But this doesn’t mean we should always be standing in eyeball to eyeball position. Size-wise, population-wise, economy-wise India is no doubt a great nation and nobody would deny that. But that doesn’t mean in today�s world India or its leaders should start behaving as great chakrvartys vis-a-vis our nation.
I personally believe and I am sure millions of Pakistanis (the common Pakistanis) believe too that both India and Pakistan should work together to transform this subcontinent into a region, a commonwealth of peace, friendship and progress. This very charter have I set upon myself (and am striving through ma friends, different forums in Lahore and through my blog) and I strongly advocate turning areas such as Siachen, Wahga and Kohokhrapar as �Inter-national Peace Parks�where people from both countries could visit each other, celebrate together and then move back home in their respective countries.
I am sorry I have digressed from the main theme your blog is working upon but keeping in view the animosity between India and Pakistan, I firmly believe the time has now come for both nations to forget the past and start a new chapter. However it will be possible only when our extremists will stop thinking in terms of raids on Red fort of Delhi or for that matter any part of India and Indian extremists in terms of an Akhand Bharat. What has happened in Europe in the form of a common economy should be an eye opener for both nations.

Nayyar Hashmey
wondersofpakistan.blogspot.com
Email: wondersofpakistan@gmail.com

By: stevenjoseph

stevenjoseph — Sat, 31 May 2008 03:03:08 +0000

europe also has many diverse cultures and languages … they too faught like crazy … and now they are forming the european union …
maybe we could have had an indian union if the british had not ruled … maybe in a parallel universe

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:19:54 +0000

You seem to view the sovereign nation of Pakistan as a British plot. There are hundreds of millions of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who would disagree with you. I think this really gives you away as an extreme Indian nationalist, which also explains many of your unreasonable anti-British outbursts. The ML was a real grass roots Muslim political movement; the British certainly never controlled it, nor Jinnah. The British actually expanded the cultural scope and land mass of India. Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Sikkim, the Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Meghalaya had NEVER been ruled from India before the Britsh arrived – they had never even been controlled by an Indian ruler, also the British took land from Nepal, which is now part of the Republic of India. Parts of Nagaland had been fully independent from India until the 1920′s! These British land grabs were greedily kept on by the Republic of India. (There were no local referendums, to give such “”annexed”" peoples any choice in the matter, and India has been fighting separatist rebels ever since.)

When the British started taking over in the mid 18th century, India had already split up into many independent territories, and the Mogul empire was smashed up by the Persian invasion (1739) – decades before the British started their conquests. Would India have re-unified itself without the British? Maybe, maybe not – that’s pure conjecture.

Before the British, at times India was 1 nation, at other times it wasn’t – India’s history is very complicated. Mostly the name “”India”" was used just as a geographical and cultural concept, in the same way as people talked about “”Africa”".

By: Avadhooth

Avadhooth — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:06:48 +0000

“”gange ca yamune caiva godavari sarasvati narmade sindhu kaveri jale’smin sannidhim kuru”"

If we know the above seven rivers and where they are located then we know that Bharath is well defined thousands of years back.

By: Gururaj

Gururaj — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 06:27:08 +0000

http://us.rediff.com/news/2007/oct/22paksc.htm

Pak supreme court praising Indian polticians for a change.

key points are indian army/intelligence doesn;t interfere in internal politics and most importantly Indian politicians know how to share power and I think this directly relates to the concept of ‘akhanda bharat’ or a feeling of indianness which is very subtle but definitely not imaginary and helps to share power.

again goes to show that bharatvarsha or concept of India was not actually a british thing.

By: I=Indian

I=Indian — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:10:57 +0000

and Kalai, Phd in Historical Interpretation, what an astonishing stupid person you are?
History is not interpreted, it is just presented as it is.

Only if you want to give your own twists and cook up stories people like you start interpreting it.

By: Kalai

Kalai — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:17:48 +0000

What a astonishing stupid article….
Can’t bear the comments validating it ..
You should know how to interpret history….