Which country has the most complex history?

Why?

I don't think I am the one triggered. I see Indians for what they are. Fake, insecure people hellbent on proving just how awesome they are. Its understandable though, considering how much they have been owned in history.

>t. Paki
Say what you want about Indians, at least they're practicing their native religion and customs.

Indian national identity is fabricated from the British, not from a response to the Muslims

>"it all started, when i was born."

If you ask them, their religion originated in the Indus Valley, i.e Pakistan. Not so native.

The modern Indian nation, yes. I was referring to Hinduism earlier, which is just as fabricated. These people have nothing besides what Muslims gave them. For the rest, they leech off Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nepal.

What they went through with the Turks.

The United States

>be located on a relatively flat terrain located on the crossroads of west europe, south europe, east europe and asia
>everyone wants to fight you for control of the area
>you fight back
>when you lose, you become a country again then fight back again
not that complicated, fuck outta here with your reddit tier answer

The Chinese, Iranians and Indians went through the same stuff with the Muslims/Mongols.

There was almost literally no difference between modern-day North India and Pakistan before partition. All you're doing is nitpicking.

You're also trying to attribute one thing to Indians when the idea of India as a single nation is flawed and only there because of modern developments. You're arguments make no sense when you realize the small differences there are between North India and Pakistan.

Also the idea that Hinduism was not a religion is laughable. I don't disagree that it was quite diversified among cultural groups, but all of these groups tended to have a core set of common beliefs or texts. Give me some scholars, conservative, liberal, Indian, non-Indian, or whatever that corroborate your claims on this matter and I might actually give them some thought.

Fuck me, what are your ridiculous opinions on Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism?

>There was almost literally no difference between modern-day North India and Pakistan before partition

Except for 1200 years of Islam, and Pakistani ethnic groups exclusively linked to the Indus river basin for the last 5000 years.
Just because you dont know your own history doesnt mean you can tag along others.

>Fuck me, what are your ridiculous opinions on Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism?
Indian government considers Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism as branches of Hinduism. I.e one religion. Which brings me back to my original point. Hindus make shit up as they go along. Sikhs go abroad to get married according to Sikh customs, because India refuses to recognize it as a separate religion

>Except for 1200 years of Islam and Pakistani ethnic groups
You're telling me that the modern day Northern India had no Muslims before partition? No Punjabis? And you're also saying that modern day South-Eastern Pakistan had no Hindus?

>Indian government considers Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism as branches of Hinduism
Got a source on this? Sounds hard to believe but it'd be pretty interesting to read and it'd definitely make your argument a lot more convincing.

How long has Pakistan existed, goat fucker? Are you just frustrated because you can't leave your religion or else your father will throw acid on you?

fpbp

India is more interesting than Pakistan. Nobody cares about Pakistan.

>good thread going on
>no shitposting happens, fairly informative
>this retard tries derailing it

>thread is about the history of India
>goat fucking paki tries to steal it's glory
brings attention back to India

>hurr durr, you're derailing xD

great post

>You're telling me that the modern day Northern India had no Muslims before partition? No Punjabis?
I am telling you that Indus Valley has its own identity. There is some overlap in Punjab, but the majority of Indians are not from the Indus region. It all stems down to the fact that the other Pajeets dont know their own history.
Indus valley muslim history differs from Hyderabad muslims which differs from Bengali muslims.
The thing is that Muslims know their history so they dont pull this insecure "we are the same" shit that hindus do when they are stumped.

>How long has Pakistan existed, goat fucker?
I am pretty sure all land on this fucking planet has existed the same duration of time. India is not magically a million years older. British India existed for a 200 years or so. Modern India is a day younger than Pakistan. Unlike India however, Pakistani/Indus region has 5000 years of heritage

...

how can indians be practising their native religion when the most revered hindu gods came from steppe invaders?

dravidian india was ooga booga african tier before the aryans from the north civilized them

wew wrong person
i was replying to you

>Modern India is a day younger than Pakistan.

lol no.

India

The name India is derived from Indus, which originates from the Old Persian word Hinduš. The latter term stems from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, which was the historical local appellation for the Indus River. The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi, which translates as "the people of the Indus".

Bharat

The geographical term Bharat, which is recognised by the Constitution of India as an official name for the country, is used by many Indian languages in its variations. The eponym of Bharat is Bharata, a theological figure that Hindu scriptures describe as a legendary emperor of ancient India.

Hindustan

Hindustan was originally a Persian word that meant "Land of the Hindus"; prior to 1947, it referred to a region that encompassed northern India and Pakistan. It is occasionally used to solely denote India in its entirety.

You read that, suicide bomber? The Porkistan region was once referred to as "Hindustan" (land of the Hindus) prior to 1947.

WE

Show proof and evidence that the Gods in the Vedas are also practiced elsewhere.

take a guess where the indus river is

...

Those names are meaningless you raging tard, since Arabs, Persians and Greeks had entirely different definitions

Arabs differentiated between Sindh and Hind
Greeks at first only referred to Indus Valley as India
Persians referred to everything from Afghanistan as Hindoostan.

So which is it?

Thats the problem with imaginary nations. You have no fucking idea.
At least Pakistan is clearly defined in terms of Indus, Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir, Ghandara.

India like Churchill stated, is as much a country as the equator.

More interesting

>dravidian india was ooga booga african tier before the aryans from the north civilized them
But the Aryan migration is proven to have come after or near the end of the civilization- not before lmao.

...

>19th century british map

if you knew your own 'native' religion, you wouldn't be asking such a silly question

surya - sun god who happens to be riding a chariot

hmmm...notice any similarities to any other gods from other regions?

Perfect point. India at best is defined by the British empire. You literally have no other clear definition.

Pakistan is defined again and again by various empires, from the Indus valley, Kushuns, Afghan empire, and the two nation theory, which you are seeing in action to this day in Kashmir. Enjoy cunts

>Thats the problem with imaginary nations
You mean Pakistan?

Surya means Sun, not sun God.

>300ce

irrelevant

the indus valley civilization ranks as one of the world oldest civilization along the euphrates, nile delta and yellow river civilization

so why do hindus give the sun human traits?

Never existed. Indians define Maurya empire according to what they see as Buddhist and Hindu reach. I have seen versions of this shitty map include Tibet and South east Asia too.
Its meaningless when Hinduism as a religion didnt exist back then. A single stone statue discovered in Russia will see that map expand 3000km to the north.

Sikh Empire too

Country?
>Russia
Region?
>Iberian Peninsula
>Anatolia

Pakistan is defined as Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Baluchistan. Its pretty fucking clear.
India is whatever British conquered, named after a Pakistani river.

Thats an awesome fucking identity you have there

>What is symbolism?

>A river that predates Pakistan is a Pakistani river

lol

there's some interesting symbolism going on there
to draw away from your pathetic attempt at deflecting, does that symbolism remind you of any other solar deities?

So what? Old is not better. I'm interested in Indians like Bhaskara II, Panini, Aryabhata, etc...

>indians

i don't think they existed back then

Every river predates humans in general. Pakistani people have lived off the river for 5000 years. Explain to me why pajeets are claiming it?

the point is the indus valley developed civilization way before india while the ""indians"" were still flinging shit at each other

>Panini
Taxila, Ghandara. Not India.
The place even had a name. I know Indians are not used to this concept.

Pakistanis are indians in denial.

modern nation states is a meme, this goes for pakistan too but they at least got the mughals and islam is unfying factor

modern india is pure british colonial construct though, just like those former british colony meme states in the middle east

>the indus valley civilization ranks as one of the world oldest civilization along the euphrates, nile delta and yellow river civilization

Indus Valley Civilisation - 3,300 BCE

(Pic related) The Edakkal Caves are pictorial writings believed to date to at least 6,000 BCE, from the Neolithic man, indicating the presence of a prehistoric civilisation or settlement in Kerala.

Pakistanis are people who know their ancient history and can name it as such.

Pajeets have no such thing, and need to tag themselves to Pakistanis to feel relevant.

> When you are desperate enough to demand being associated with your enemy.
lol

Is the river called Indus, or Pakistanindus?

Pakistanis are inbred Muslims who wish they were Persian that take credit for another nation's civilization.

>oog a booga cave painting = civilization now

you need to learn more about the definiton of civilization, does it have archeological evidence of an urban settlement?

>only urban settlements can be classified as a civilization

Actually yes.

If no settlement is found, it is considered a culture named after the site it was discovered

Generally yes, but all provinces of Pakistan with the exception of Baluchistan shared a major river which defined their cultures and identities.

Except a carving is proof that a settlement took place.

I'm not Indian. You don't get it. Nobody thinks of Pakistan. We think of India. Most westerners don't care about Pakistan. When we think of Pakistan we think "Oh those muslim indians".

>we

poojeet please

Pajeet is triggered.
Another nations civilization??? lol. Muh ancestors indeed.

Then who was Ganges

I am not an Indian but this is BS.
Pataliputra/Patna was the most important city in ancient times (that we know something of), we dont even know if the Indus Valley script was actual writing or just accounting seals.
Taxila itself was many times directly controled by the Persians.

Alexander knew of the Kingdoms in the Ganges, wanted to conquer them, and his army revolted forcing him to end his conquests.

And the most developed part of historical India (which includes Pakistan) is Dravidian Southernn India, the Tamil region, not Pakistan, and not North India.

Sure Pajeet. Its called basic fucking geography, but lets go with your shitty explanation.
The ignorant westerners dont even see India as having any Muslims. No idea what point you are making

whitey here the mughal empire is pretty fascinating desu

kek, i guess all those cave print in africa and australia means civilizations too right?

lol inbred Paki who's ancestors were raped and submitted to follow Islam is trying to claim vedic civilization only when its convenient for him.

this is what you goat fuckers in that region think of ancient Indian civilization

youtube.com/watch?v=B17lAVteRKk

Not an advance civilization, but a civilization nevertheless.

>ancient Indian

no such thing desu

Ok Pajeet. Only an Indians would ever bring up those names.

Whats historical India then...

Is it Indus river region ca. 300 b.c (greek definition)
is it British India ca.1848
or is it British India, ca. 3000 bc to 1947 AD

Most Indians will go with the last option.

>buddhist structure in afghanistan
>built by mythical ancient poo in loos

no

civilization is defined by urban settlement, the words youre looking is culture

>only Indians would ever

Oh no it's retarded and proud of it's ignorance

Culture is a component to civilization

Indian History is easy, just turn off the meme that it is one country and consider it as basically Europe: a region in the world where a culturally similar, yet diverse, people lived.

Now this is fucking complicated.

Indus valley....Vedic

A lot of fucking assumptions for a language and culture that remains undeciphered.

Pajeet historians strike again.

Why the fuck are pakistanis so condescending towards Indians? They're literally pajeet with nuclear weapons.

Indian has a higher GDP too. We have BRICS and not BRPCS

Why does it seem like nobody talks about the Indo-Greeks? They were descended from the Greco-Bactrians, who themselves were from Afghanistan after Alexander the Great conquered it. Greco-Indian art is believed to have resulted in the first statue depictions of the Buddha, and their king Menander I supposedly converted to Buddhism and achieved Nirvana.

So, Muslim or commie?

Jealously, oh and they're still buttmad how India treated them like a little bitch in their failed "East Pakistan" state in Bangladesh.

Indians will always be better than Pakis because Pakis are Indians who converted to Islam.

They should stop killing people for blaspheming before criticizing India.

Very interesting topic

Do Indian girls do massage?

Yes, but only to women.

>Wherever superior races have absorbed large doses of inferior blood, the results have been tragic. Egypt is one case--& India presents a still more loathsome extreme. The Aryans in India were too late in establishing their colour-based caste system, so that today the culture of the Hindoo is probably the most thoroughly repulsive on our planet. The more one learns about India, the more one wants to vomit. Aside from a few professional minds, the Indian people represent such an abyss of degeneracy that extirpation & fumigation would seem to be about the only way to make Hindoostan fit for decent people to inhabit.

is india the most cucked country in history?

>get invaded by Aryans
>get invaded by kushans
>get invaded by Scythians
>get invaded by Greeks
>get invaded by Turks
>get invaded by Arabs
>get invaded by Persians
>get invaded by Mongols
>get invaded by Afghans
>get invaded by Portuguese
>get invaded by French
>get invaded by Brits