6 ms·

India as a whole didn't even exist back then. Why don't historians describe only in terms of ancient kingdoms or whatever geographical entities existed back the

India as a whole didn't even exist back then. Why don't historians describe only in terms of ancient kingdoms or whatever geographical entities existed back then and then describe what current political boundaries contains that area today?

reil_convnet 4y ago
> India as a whole didn't even exist back then. Given the only entity you think of India to be is a Nation State, it didn't. Which for most "west" educated people is the only type of state that can exist. But entities can exist beyond concept of a Nation State. Unfortunately, its not very easy to unlearn years of "one good way" to think. Did Germany exist during Roman Empire or during Holy Roman Empire ? It did not as a nation state, but the people almost always felt connected. India had much stronger bonds among people than say typical Germany, the religion/culture had elements from the entire nation, created by leaders from different parts of continent. Hinduism has verses conveying rivers and Gods from around the subcontinent as important aspects of life. Adi Shakaracharya, the religious teacher who is considered the person who made Hinduism the dominant form from among other existing interpretations of "Dharma" belongs to the southernmost tip of the region and created hindu institutions in all corners of subcontinent. Bhakshali Manuscript is one of the oldest Indian documents with use of Zero in Maths written by Buddhist scholars in Sanskrit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhshali_manuscript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhshali_manuscript . This was discovered in modern day Pakistan [then British India]. You could argue that this is a part of Pakistan's history, but what is Pakistan's History then ? You can somewhat imagine if a Mesopotamian state survived till today, parts of it unconverted to Islam in a sub area of fertile crescent. Would you call it the successor state to entire Mesopotamia or you would say Uruk history is not their history because the region is now part of nation state of Iraq. That is the case with India as well ! There is a reason we read Mesopotamian history as a composite and as a different topic than say Egyptian History, because Mesopotamia was a different and connected civilization. Institutions like that don't survive now and hence a modern western scholar has no ontology to relate it to, but India exists as an outlier. That is the reason what most orientalists write and what we observe on ground about India are super disconnected.
thowieuro2343 4y ago
[flagged]
woweoe 4y ago
This is one of the points I always bring up with people discuss Islam, Kashmir or Pakistan. The current incarnation of India with the current borders was an invention of the British, even with Pakistan and Bangladesh included, and nothing about the country's borders are native. There is generally a "civilization" akin to Europe that starts somewhere in North-West India and south to the various islands off the southern coast of India, but was never and has never been united under the western concept of "nation state" and has only at the most been united under an imperial hegemony where one entity dominates the continent, and hence it is really silly to argue about the borders of India.
simonh 4y ago
Ok, when people back then referred to India, which they did, what do you think they meant? Were they talking about somewhere that didn't exist?
- bodhiandpysics1 4y ago
  They were referring to a region, like europe! Even the name India indicates this: it's the greek pronunciation of the Iranian word Hindu, which is the Iranian pronunciation of the river Sindhu, which is the traditional western border between India and the Iranian lands.
drieddust 4y ago
> India as a whole didn't even exist back then... Vishnu Puran composed circa 400 BCE to 900 CE says. उत्तरं यत् समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् | वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र सन्ततिः || Land that lies north to the sea and south of Himalaya is called Bharat(India) and it's people Bharti (Indian) Political system was diffrent from what we see today. But that doesn't mean land called Bharat didn't exist culturally and politically.

reil_convnet 4y ago

> India as a whole didn't even exist back then. Given the only entity you think of India to be is a Nation State, it didn't. Which for most "west" educated people is the only type of state that can exist. But entities can exist beyond concept of a Nation State. Unfortunately, its not very easy to unlearn years of "one good way" to think. Did Germany exist during Roman Empire or during Holy Roman Empire ? It did not as a nation state, but the people almost always felt connected. India had much stronger bonds among people than say typical Germany, the religion/culture had elements from the entire nation, created by leaders from different parts of continent. Hinduism has verses conveying rivers and Gods from around the subcontinent as important aspects of life. Adi Shakaracharya, the religious teacher who is considered the person who made Hinduism the dominant form from among other existing interpretations of "Dharma" belongs to the southernmost tip of the region and created hindu institutions in all corners of subcontinent. Bhakshali Manuscript is one of the oldest Indian documents with use of Zero in Maths written by Buddhist scholars in Sanskrit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhshali_manuscript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhshali_manuscript . This was discovered in modern day Pakistan [then British India]. You could argue that this is a part of Pakistan's history, but what is Pakistan's History then ? You can somewhat imagine if a Mesopotamian state survived till today, parts of it unconverted to Islam in a sub area of fertile crescent. Would you call it the successor state to entire Mesopotamia or you would say Uruk history is not their history because the region is now part of nation state of Iraq. That is the case with India as well ! There is a reason we read Mesopotamian history as a composite and as a different topic than say Egyptian History, because Mesopotamia was a different and connected civilization. Institutions like that don't survive now and hence a modern western scholar has no ontology to relate it to, but India exists as an outlier. That is the reason what most orientalists write and what we observe on ground about India are super disconnected.

thowieuro2343 4y ago

[flagged]

woweoe 4y ago

This is one of the points I always bring up with people discuss Islam, Kashmir or Pakistan. The current incarnation of India with the current borders was an invention of the British, even with Pakistan and Bangladesh included, and nothing about the country's borders are native. There is generally a "civilization" akin to Europe that starts somewhere in North-West India and south to the various islands off the southern coast of India, but was never and has never been united under the western concept of "nation state" and has only at the most been united under an imperial hegemony where one entity dominates the continent, and hence it is really silly to argue about the borders of India.

simonh 4y ago

Ok, when people back then referred to India, which they did, what do you think they meant? Were they talking about somewhere that didn't exist?

bodhiandpysics1 4y ago
They were referring to a region, like europe! Even the name India indicates this: it's the greek pronunciation of the Iranian word Hindu, which is the Iranian pronunciation of the river Sindhu, which is the traditional western border between India and the Iranian lands.

drieddust 4y ago

> India as a whole didn't even exist back then... Vishnu Puran composed circa 400 BCE to 900 CE says. उत्तरं यत् समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् | वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र सन्ततिः || Land that lies north to the sea and south of Himalaya is called Bharat(India) and it's people Bharti (Indian) Political system was diffrent from what we see today. But that doesn't mean land called Bharat didn't exist culturally and politically.