Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Was ancient India a united country or a just collection of princely states?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    हम वासी उस देश के &#23
    Posts
    212
    Rep Power
    326

    Was ancient India a united country or a just collection of princely states?

    Saying that India is an ancient country is like saying Europe is an ancient country. The British for their administrative reasons united the princely states and created what is Modern India, other than that India was never a united country. So it is the British who actually created a united India. Without British there could never have been a united India, isn’t it?
    Can anyone provide proofs & their views against this fact?
    Sanskrit quotes will be preferred
    तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्नेन सेवया ।
    उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्वदर्शिनः ॥

    उस ज्ञान को तू तत्वदर्शी ज्ञानियों के पास जाकर समझ, उनको भलीभाँति दण्डवत्* प्रणाम करने से, उनकी सेवा करने से और कपट छोड़कर सरलतापूर्वक प्रश्न करने से वे परमात्म तत्व को भलीभाँति जानने वाले ज्ञानी महात्मा तुझे उस तत्वज्ञान का उपदेश करेंगे. श्रीमद्*भगवद्*गीता-4.34

  2. #2

    Re: Was ancient India a united country or a just collection of princely states?

    Quote Originally Posted by dhyandev View Post
    Can anyone provide proofs & their views against this fact?
    Sanskrit quotes will be preferred
    It would be far more easier to provide proof in support of this statement. Also, it is not clear why you would be seeking proof against a "fact"?

    There was no India (as a country) until the time of the British and no Pakistan until 1948. Before the time of the British, we had various kingdoms in the sub-continent which was collectively called India (Greeks) or Hindustan - almost always by people who lived outside the sub-continent.

    At times, some kings (Chandragupta Maurya is the first such king in known history, followed by his grandson Ashoka and then later the Guptas, Mughals, etc.) managed to acquire control over large areas and held emperor status, but there was no time when a single king ruled over all of India as one country - the British being the first.

    We have mythology where mythical kings like Bharata, etc. ruled large areas (or the entire world!), but this is not history.
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  3. #3

    Re: Was ancient India a united country or a just collection of princely states?

    Quote Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar View Post
    It would be far more easier to provide proof in support of this statement. Also, it is not clear why you would be seeking proof against a "fact"?

    There was no India (as a country) until the time of the British and no Pakistan until 1948. Before the time of the British, we had various kingdoms in the sub-continent which was collectively called India (Greeks) or Hindustan - almost always by people who lived outside the sub-continent.

    At times, some kings (Chandragupta Maurya is the first such king in known history, followed by his grandson Ashoka and then later the Guptas, Mughals, etc.) managed to acquire control over large areas and held emperor status, but there was no time when a single king ruled over all of India as one country - the British being the first.

    We have mythology where mythical kings like Bharata, etc. ruled large areas (or the entire world!), but this is not history.
    You've nailed it in succinct yet utterly apt fashion, and I'll merely add my full agreement to what you wrote.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    April 2012
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Age
    32
    Posts
    348
    Rep Power
    586

    Re: Was ancient India a united country or a just collection of princely states?

    Vannakkam

    The name Bharat was used for the northern areas of India, as well as countries in the north of the present-day Indian subcontinent, including Afghanistan. I don't think there were any names to include Southern India. Instead, the southern areas had their own names, e.g: Dravida Nadu, Tamilakam, etc. This is the reason as to why both areas still maintain a distinct set of cultures.

    Both North and South India had their own kingdoms with yet smaller kingdoms within, each with their own set of rival clans and warring dynasties of all imaginable levels, and yes, were never quite unified until the British came visiting. Ironically, some parts were also separated and became completely different countries due to them. These were Punjab and Bengal, part of which became the countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh(formerly East Pakistan) which we know of today.

    Strangely enough, the Malay word for "west" is Barat, which could only have its origins in the Bharat of ancient India, no doubt.


    Aum Namah Shivaya
    Last edited by Equinox; 19 February 2013 at 08:06 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    हम वासी उस देश के &#23
    Posts
    212
    Rep Power
    326

    Re: Was ancient India a united country or a just collection of princely states?

    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् |
    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.




    We have such shlokas which always have seen a complete India from Himalayas to Oceans
    तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्नेन सेवया ।
    उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्वदर्शिनः ॥

    उस ज्ञान को तू तत्वदर्शी ज्ञानियों के पास जाकर समझ, उनको भलीभाँति दण्डवत्* प्रणाम करने से, उनकी सेवा करने से और कपट छोड़कर सरलतापूर्वक प्रश्न करने से वे परमात्म तत्व को भलीभाँति जानने वाले ज्ञानी महात्मा तुझे उस तत्वज्ञान का उपदेश करेंगे. श्रीमद्*भगवद्*गीता-4.34

  6. #6

    Re: Was ancient India a united country or a just collection of princely states?

    Quote Originally Posted by dhyandev View Post
    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् |
    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.




    We have such shlokas which always have seen a complete India from Himalayas to Oceans
    Isn't that line written by Bankim Chandra Chatopadhyay? He lived just a century ago - well after the formation of British India.

    I recommend you look up Aryavarta, Dravida, the Mauryan empire, etc.
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    January 2007
    Location
    duhkhalayam asasvatam
    Posts
    1,450
    Rep Power
    92

    Re: Was ancient India a united country or a just collection of princely states?

    Pranam

    Quote Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar View Post

    We have mythology where mythical kings like Bharata, etc. ruled large areas (or the entire world!), but this is not history.
    I wonder what constitute history, we have, still even after occupation whose sole aim was to destroy us, yet our way of life remains intact, preserving the Vedas and reciting the stories from Mahabharata and Ramayan and Puranas. I don't need any outsider to tell me what our history is. I guess what I am saying is our way of life is proof enough not to doubt the shastra.

    I don't mean you an outsider as I don't know you.

    Jai Shree Krishna
    Last edited by Ganeshprasad; 21 February 2013 at 03:42 PM.
    Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated, worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals,
    Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
    The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    October 2012
    Location
    Bhaarath
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,113
    Rep Power
    1502

    Re: Was ancient India a united country or a just collection of princely states?

    Namaste Ganeshprasadji and Dhyandevji,

    I never had the opportunity to read Vaalmiki Raamayan in Sanskrit. I think Vaalmiki should have described the boundaries of Raam Raajya.
    EVR gang from the south never accept Ramayana, otherwise Karunanithi wouldn't had the guts to question the existence of Raam and Raamsethu.

    We should also look for the territory covered by the horse that was used Ashwamedha Yagna.

    These two will tell us whether Sree Raam ruled entire subcontinent or not.
    Anirudh...

  9. #9

    Re: Was ancient India a united country or a just collection of princely states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad View Post
    Pranam
    I wonder what constitute history, we have, still even after occupation whose sole aim was to destroy us, yet our way of life remains intact, preserving the Vedas and reciting the stories from Mahabharata and Ramayan and Puranas. I don't need any outsider to tell me what our history is. I guess what I am saying is our way of life is proof enough not to doubt the shastra.
    I don't mean you an outsider as I don't know you.
    Jai Shree Krishna
    Here we go again with the outsider vs. insider accusations. Anyone who does not align with our own views has got to be an outsider with an ulterior motive.

    No one tells us what our history is. On one side, we have archaeology, philology and above all, common sense. On the other hand, we have religious texts with talking moneys, human presence going back billions of years, people with lifespans as high as 20000 years - none of which can be corroborated by any other means. You make your choice.

    People should be clear the the Mbh and Ramayana, in their present form are not about history, but about religion and more specifically - Vaishnavism. It is possible that they started out as history works a long time ago, but have changed form drastically since then and can no longer be relied on for historical material. This should be evident to anyone who has some time reading them, even if just the abridged forms.
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  10. #10

    Re: Was ancient India a united country or a just collection of princely states?

    The socio-political scene before the mughal invasion was not that different from what has been described in mahabharatha. There were many kings and kingdoms, many languages, many family customs etc just like today. But the uniting factor was the religion, just like today. It is interesting to note that, before Zoroastrianism, the big chunk of land that is today's Iran and Syria and parts of eastern Europe were following the hindu religion, ie the varna system. They were called the Daiva worshipers. There are some similarities with the names of gods too like mitra. But soon, Zoroastrianism took over the whole of Iran, which interestingly proposed the supremacy of single god over other non significant gods. Although hinduism seemed to exist in these countries in some form or the other which is referred to as indo-iranian vedic religion, India was restricted from kanyakumari in the south to kashmir in the north, bengal in the east to the hindukush mountains in the west which is in present day afghanistan.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 18 March 2012, 09:38 PM
  2. A Personal Hindu Library
    By saidevo in forum Dharma-related Websites
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 17 March 2009, 12:31 AM
  3. Dr.L.K.Advani's beautiful article...MUST READ!
    By TatTvamAsi in forum Hot Topics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10 October 2008, 03:33 AM
  4. Extrapolating Christianity--to What End?
    By saidevo in forum Christianity
    Replies: 178
    Last Post: 12 May 2008, 12:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •