Sorry for being so ignorant on this subject. I was just thinking which is the oldest inscription / verse in tamil which mentions about "India". Now, the boundaries of the country is defined; but earlier, I would think it would be their respective country Chola, Pandya, Chera, othe dynasties in North/Central India.
Or, did they know know about India (Bharath) being a single country, etc? If not in Tamil, is this mentioned in Vedas saying the boundary from Himalayas to Kanyakumari? Perhaps, historians termed India as a country by the common culture / religion?
Sorry for being so ignorant on this subject. I was just thinking which is the oldest inscription / verse in tamil which mentions about “India”. Now, the boundaries of the country is defined; but earlier, I would think it would be their respective country – Chola, Pandya, Chera, othe dynasties in North/Central India.
Or, did they know know about India (Bharath) being a single country, etc? If not in Tamil, is this mentioned in Vedas saying the boundary from Himalayas to Kanyakumari? Perhaps, historians termed India as a country by the common culture / religion?
புலவர் சொல்றாரு அந்தியில், அந்தணர் செய்யும் முத்தீ வழிபாட்டில் இமயமும் பொதிகையும் உறங்க செல்கின்றன. அதாவது இந்த முத்தீ ஓம்பல் இமயம் முதல் குமரி வரை இருந்தது.
Thanks for quoting that from Puranaanooru. That means, people knew that Himalayas existed. I’m still wondering how they are connected to as a single country called “India” and its people. Do the people living at that time have the bond, or the feeling where saying “we are indians”? Is there any references to that sir?
Sakthisree,
Thanks for the reply. So, can we assume “India” is something created / united by the foreign invaders (Mughals, British)? They brought everything together, thus uniting us? Not sure if I thinking this in the correct way. Need some thoughts around this as well.
Dear Member India was not definitely created as one nation by foreign invaders. As an Indian you dont have to read foreigners' texts for evidances. There are lot of references in our old literature. In Mahabharatha, Bhishma Parva in its first two chapters Jambhu Kanda Nirmana Parva and Bhoomi Parva (total 12 chapters) tells the divisions of world and Bharthavarsha which contains 56 countries and its sub kingdoms and kings totalling 171 and their boundaries. Vishnu Purana and some other puranas are also gives these details.
Pretty much what I said sir (though I didn't have the references on hand as you do).
My reference to non-Indian sources is for corroboration only. And I used examples from the rest of the world to draw parallels to similar situations from other places also, in an effort to convince the questioner that this is not unique to India alone. Non-Indian sources also tell us that India was treated as a whole by outsiders. This is important, because it tells us that it's not just the pipe-dreams of a single king. We can't be biased in our selection of sources. The more sources we have, the more we can accept.
Having 56 kingdoms and 171 total divisions explicitly shows us that the land was *not* politically united, but that it had a certain encompassing identity that didn't arise from just politics. I generally don't like the term "nation" - it comes with too much baggage. I think "country" or "land" are perfectly viable terms for the concept. That's why I keep saying "identity" and not "nationality".
Dear Shashwath Sir It is little difficult for me to understand what you are arriving at. I responded to your statement in the third para.
As for our internal identity...
First of all, recall the phrase "Bhaarata varshe, Bharata Kante". The key word here is "Varshe", signifying the monsoon winds. If we apply this classification, Bharata Varsha is the land where the monsoon winds blow - a very obvious definition of the subcontinent, since the bounding factor for the monsoons are the Pamir Knot mountains - the Himalayas, the Hindu Kush and so on. So, there's also an ancient identity of India as a whole. I'll call this the "Geographic identity".
Politically, I guess you could claim that we were not united through history, at least until we were invaded. But then, which country was so united? Historically, the fundamental identity of peoples has always been regional or local; city states, tribes, etc. An identity as a nation, something bigger than regional differences is only imposed externally, by factors such as geography and, yes, invasions. I tried to tell you that Bharat was already identified to mark a portion of the world with geographical divisions, with many kingdoms with their own history and not by invasions.
There was a history before Kajini's invasion in north. A history in south before Muslim invasions. Our people were identified regionally and locally at every portion of the country. Previously the kingdoms in south didnt worry about the problems in north and similarly in north. Now after we became one nation, our people in south joins the army and goes to fight in the northern border. And we care about something happening in distant north. Is this you wanted to tell about a nation and country?
I understand that your thoughts fly at a higher values, but I feel little difficult to grasp to say anything. Kindly explain a little more. please.
It seems to be the the hindusthana was the first notification as the present Indian territory which starts from Sutlej river in Punjab.
The indian scholars before freedom, notifies kabulisthan which is present afganisthan, sindhusthan which is present pakistan, hindusthsan as present India.
It cannot be assumed as the the regions were united by invaders.
I could say " the regions were parted by the invaders."
As it is said in the books the whole baratha varsha starts from the yavana desa and ends at cape komarin. Some islands were included in this baratha varsha.
Chandra dwipa - east Bengal Naga dwipa - Sri lanka Swarnadwipa - malaysia Savakadwipa - java, Indonesia
Sir, I think you understood most of what I was trying to say.
Basically, my argument is that it can be said that we became politically united only after various invasions. But also, that there was a cultural unity, on top of the political and regional diversity. We may or may not be called a "nation" in the way that France or Germany are called "nations" (as in, we have multiple languages, multiple ethnicities and so on), but in our own, very special way, we're definitely a "country" with a unity that cannot be only the product of invasions.
I was trying to explain that the original questioner was correct in terms of politics, but the concept of belonging isn't a product of politics in the first place.
Thanks all for the kind replies. It is definitely wonderful to think about how people would have identified us in the past. So, what I understood by these discussions is : Regions existed in those days, not countries. And, all these foreign invasions brought these regions as a country ruled by a king/ruler be it Mughals or British. But as well those invasions created more countries – such as Pak, SL, etc since all were a part of so-called India region. And, all the patriotism which we have now are for the country “India”, which in the past each kingdom had it’s own like “Chola”, “Chera”, etc.