[tacomonstrous]

To be fair, there really was no 'India' before the British cobbled one together. Unlike China, there never was one power that controlled the whole subcontinent. It's hard to know how things would have ended up politically if not for British hegemony. Would there be a country like India, or would its various disparate parts have continued as distinct sovereign entities? Part of the miracle of the whole Indian project is that it has remained basically intact since independence. This isn't something one would have taken for granted a few decades ago.

[shardinator]

India was like Greece, China like Rome. China had central control while India had independent states that didn't control each other politically but were unified in terms culture, communication, roads, infrastructure and importantly commerce.

Today it wouldn't make sense to say "there really was no 'Greece'". Same for India.

[tacomonstrous]

The Greeks at least had a common language, from what I understand. That's far from true for India.

[shardinator]

If you said it's not 'strictly true for India', you'd be correct, but when you say it's 'far from true' then not so much. India has two ancient languages Tamil and Sanskrit and modern languages are derived from these (but I am def not an expert). The modern forms are considered different languages, but they are quite close to each other, easy to learn one from the other e.g.the grammar is the same and words are usually just different pronunciations/intonations of a common root. It's easy to see that in the ancient past they would have had more similarity.

The original point was "there really was no 'India' before the British cobbled one together". If so, then where was Columbus trying to go? Of course there was 'an India', it just wasn't structured like a modern nation state, which is true for every other modern country as well.

[tacomonstrous]

Everything you say applies just as well to all of Western Mediterranean Europe. In fact, even more so, since you're dealing with just one branch of a larger language group (the Latinate/Romance languages) rather than two completely disparate ones (Indo-Aryan and Dravidian). No one now thinks of this area as a nation-state.

Western Europe, through the British conquest of the subcontinent, was woefully unaware of the internal differences. That Columbus ill-advisedly thought of India as a monolithic entity is no marker of anything.

[shardinator]

>> Everything you say applies just as well to all of Western Mediterranean Europe.

The language thing sure does. But the only time in ancient history Western Mediterranean Europe has been part of a single state was during the Roman period. the rest of the time they evolved separately and uniquely. In contrast each part of modern India has been politically linked to the other parts multiple times through history resulting in a common culture but with some obvious diversity. E.g. Indian festivals are largely common throughout the country, a marker of commonality stretching back through history.

>> That Columbus ill-advisedly thought of India as a monolithic entity is no marker of anything.

He said nothing about it being monolithic, just that there was a place called India, and it was worth a visit.

Your original comment was "there was no 'India' ...".

There has been an India through most of history. But of course the borders of the modern state were drawn relatively recently. These are two different things.

[jalayir]

> there never was one power that controlled the whole subcontinent

There were several - indeed, the British had it easier because the Mughals had dissipated within living memory, and all their bureaucracies and systems were still functioning.

[tacomonstrous]

The Mughals never controlled most of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and big segments of the North East. To claim that India as it exists today was inevitable is a shaky proposition.

[morekozhambu]

That is the point. I guess in Western ideology definition of CONTROL over a land is through swords, guns and bloodshed.

The Mughals never had the south because their culture was alien to most of the uninvaded south of india.

But before them the whole of India, Pakisthan, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Burma, Indonesia, Tibet, China were all culturally the same. I would even go further to say considerably most of the regions are still culturally the same.

[lenkite]

You truly need to read some real Indian history. The Mughals and their predecessors won North India by bloody conquest that make the British look like saints. I won't document the extraordinary slaughter during this period. See wikipedia for what Timur did to Delhi (after it surrendered) for example. He proudly describes the slaughter in his autobiography: https://www.ibiblio.org/britishraj/Jackson5/chapter09.html http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415485432/19.asp

Due to the powerful Vijaynagar empire, South India remained free for some time. At this time, you actually had Queens ruling Kerala (Attingal Queens). When the Vijaynagar empire weakened, the Deccan and Delhi sultanates united and thanks to the betrayal of two Muslim generals was thoroughly defeated in the Battle of Talikota. The massacre and rapine that occurred after defeat is still known to the local historians of the area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talikota

Modern day Kerala was invaded by Haider Ali (Sultan of Mysore) though he faced very stiff resistance. He then decided to slaughter entire civilian populations. Believe it or not, it is thanks to the East India Company who supplied weapons to the Malabar Hindus who made constant guerrilla style attacks from the forests that Haider Ali backed off!

The princely states that comprised Modern Kerala never truly had a problem with the British. Travancore and Kochi were extremely rich and sovereign monarchies who gave their alliance to the Queen, retaining their rule and benefiting from the British in trade.

[fellellor]

Study of history requires careful study, a balanced mind and a proper perspective. Many people fall into a trap of good vs bad, or similar simplistic conclusions.

The British did enormous harm to the subcontinent, but it's egregious to say that the Mughals were benevolent rulers. They after all built beautiful self aggrandizing monuments by basically looting and massacring the populace. The same thing holds true for Marathas as well, who were known to patronize looting and raids via the pindaris.

As for Haider Ali, his son, who was similarly disposed, paid the ultimate price thanks to the machinations of the Maharaja's minister whom Hyder Ali had earlier dethroned. So what went around, came around, eventually.

[morekozhambu]

You truly need to read my comment again. As you yourself accept in yr reply.. I mentioned the UNINVADED south of India.

PS. I do know about the Turk and Mughal works in India. Also the Portuguese British and French occupations.

[nyolfen]

> I guess in Western ideology definition of CONTROL over a land is through swords, guns and bloodshed.

there is nothing uniquely western about this definition of 'control'. it's the historical norm everywhere.

[morekozhambu]

Contrary to your confirmation bias, India has seen cultural movements without swords guns or bloodshed.

[tacomonstrous]

>But before them the whole of India, Pakisthan, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Burma, Indonesia, Tibet, China were all culturally the same. I would even go further to say considerably most of the regions are still culturally the same.

That is a pretty radical claim, and I hope you have some good evidence to back it up.

[vacri]

There are significant cultural differences to be found within each of China and India alone; I'm not sure how you can say that they're culturally the same.

[zht]

in what way is the culture of Sri Lanka and China similar?

[mindentropy]

Buddhism?

[jalayir]

Yes, but they did hold a lot more of Afghanistan than the British.

[viyyer]

I am not sure how you separate these two instances. What is considered as China now has been together in history in one or two instances whereas India as a whole has had 5-10 instances where there have being reigns having the whole of India together . Update your knowledge of history before commenting .

[tacomonstrous]

Please give me one period in Indian history where the full subcontinent was ruled by the same power.

Edit: For what it's worth, the contrast with China is probably flawed. I know very little about Chinese history, but I stand by the rest.

[winter_blue]

Well, take a look at the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire

It's larger in total area under one power (at circa 5 million sq. km vs. 3 million sq km. today), but it doesn't cover some of the southern-most and eastern-most parts.

[winter_blue]

Also, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires_in_Ind...

[douche]

The Mongols captured all of modern China, but couldn't master all of the indian subcontinent. Until the EIC, nobody else came closer.

[shivaodin]

Um, wrong. Mauryan Empire was bigger than present-day India. Even Mughal Empire under Akbar was bigger. So, no. Also, the forms of control of British were different than those of previous empires.

[morekozhambu]

To be even fairer, Could you please enlighten us on for what country or region where the British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French were searching for, further to the African tip the 'cape of good Hope' perhaps?