Raja wrote, [on 3/9/2009 7:52 PM]: > That seems like an extensive discussion. Actually it seemed more like an > ugly fighting contest in the undergrounds of Thailand. Was there some > specific point that you were pointing me to?
Primarily, this (in the context of the tired meme of "India as a nation dates from 1947"): <quote> >It's a nation because this is all the Brits managed to conquer and keep. >Had they managed to grab and keep Tibet for example, we'd have had Mt. >Kailash in the anthem as well. Don't go all mushy on me; it's tedious. What is tedious is tendentious writing based on a misreading of the historical facts. Eccentricity is fine, illiteracy and ignorance not so. The British had little to do with it. If you are not averse to a little reading, go look up the texts, all the way back. Sapta-Sindhu, or Hapta-Hindu, as the unable-to-sibilate Iranians pronounced it, is a very old construct. Right through the previous 2,500 years, there has been a general agreement on the general shape and size and extent of India, which term itself is a derivative of Sindhu and Hindu (not the religion, but the place). Until very recently, Afghanistan, and parts slightly further north of that, were also part of the extended area. If anything, the British brought bits of South India and East India into the general mill. </quote> -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
