Why Wasn't India United Before?

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,320
USA
It's baffling to me that no one actually checked his claims. I just typed in "Jahnu Rajputs" on google and nothing came up. He went as far as to create a hoax Wikipedia page to support his fake identity lol!
There was a site in wiki for Jahnu Rajputs, but it looked dubious when I looked it up. Glad that they clean such stuff. I contribute yearly to the wiki, and it seems the money is well used.
 
Oct 2018
45
Bangalore,India
Simply put,the concept of unification and such was obscure to Indians until the Industrial era or so. Most of India was agricultural and rural though urban settlements also existed. The India has deep roots of the rural culture. A particular village usually ruled itself with being accountable to a smaller kings,village headmen or religious leaders or an emperor if part of an empire. Also,the chance given was also less. You need some reason to urbanize or some strong community with a strong motivation to do it and hence developed only in some situations. For that matter,even Medieval Europe was fairly rural in culture but governed by a larger emperor or kings.
 
Oct 2018
45
Bangalore,India
A fairly unified Empire needs significant urban community to build up. But Indians simply had no motivation for that. If you are an Indian living in the ancient/Medieval Village,why would you want to live your lands,villa/house,cows,respect,religion,etc and go to a place faraway if you are already getting this plenty in your village system? There was of course no electricity,technological and industrial developments then to give you a good opportunity. So thats what is one reason.
 
Oct 2018
45
Bangalore,India
Also,the first ingredient in building an empire is invasion and conquest. That's the hard truth. So for a unification of India,you need to have a significantly powerful and stable Invader empire. Don't believe me? See how much the extent of the Roman Empire and the origin point of its founders in distributed in three provinces of Italy. Tuscany,Umbria and Lazio. So for an empire to take shape,you need the ingredient first.
 
Apr 2018
1,318
Mythical land.
Also,the first ingredient in building an empire is invasion and conquest. That's the hard truth. So for a unification of India,you need to have a significantly powerful and stable Invader empire. Don't believe me? See how much the extent of the Roman Empire and the origin point of its founders in distributed in three provinces of Italy. Tuscany,Umbria and Lazio. So for an empire to take shape,you need the ingredient first.
India had a lot of strong empires throughout history, even before british marathas ruled more than 70 percent of modern india in their peak, although they became decentralized and quite unstable by the end of 18th century.
 
Oct 2018
45
Bangalore,India
India had a lot of strong empires throughout history, even before british marathas ruled more than 70 percent of modern india in their peak, although they became decentralized and quite unstable by the end of 18th century.
Maratha Empire was mostly a response that occured due to an Invaders. That's what was the strongest motivation. So that would not qualify to our challenge. Kushans and Indo-Greeks were 'invaders' or immigrants who created large empires. Kushans created a large empire but they were a Nomadic empire mostly. So the administration would still be local town/village. If they did create a settled empire like Rome,India might have looked different. Indo-Greeks were invaded by Scythians and Kushans but if not they were also a good candidate. Mauryas also I think were decentralised mostly like other locally made empires.
 
Jul 2017
386
Sydney
Maratha Empire was mostly a response that occured due to an Invaders. That's what was the strongest motivation. So that would not qualify to our challenge. Kushans and Indo-Greeks were 'invaders' or immigrants who created large empires. Kushans created a large empire but they were a Nomadic empire mostly. So the administration would still be local town/village. If they did create a settled empire like Rome,India might have looked different. Indo-Greeks were invaded by Scythians and Kushans but if not they were also a good candidate. Mauryas also I think were decentralised mostly like other locally made empires.
Kushans were Indic to begin with. Please refer to Prof Luders' research with Stein on this topic.

They've shown that Rouzhi (Yuechi) of Kanishka were migrants into Tarim Basin from the Indus valley, very specifically a place called RorukA

The name Loulan, famous for its mummies, is a corrupt form of RorAn (RorukA)
 
Oct 2018
45
Bangalore,India
Kushans were Indic to begin with. Please refer to Prof Luders' research with Stein on this topic.

They've shown that Rouzhi (Yuechi) of Kanishka were migrants into Tarim Basin from the Indus valley, very specifically a place called RorukA

The name Loulan, famous for its mummies, is a corrupt form of RorAn (RorukA)
Indic? Not at all! Indic is a sub branch of the Indo-Aryans who themselves in their original form were related to the Tocharians. The mummies have Indus valley DNA as you said. Thats only in part and those are mostly of Western Eurasian in origin. Tocharians are of a different date and may not be related to the Tarim Mummies at all though very less is known of the Pre Buddhist religion of the Tocharians. Also,Indus valley isn't Indic. Indo-Aryans were still at Andronavo then.

In this link,it's explained in detail and also citations are attached.
Tarim mummies - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
45
Bangalore,India
Kushans also neither spoke any Indo-Aryan language initially. They first spoke Bactrian,Greek and probably Scythian along with Tocharian. The only Indo-Aryan language documented in the Tarim Basin is Gandhara language which was an administrative language of the Khotan, which was established by the Scythians(Iranian). Gandhara was not an Indication language. Heck,Indic would come only after tens of centuries.
 
Jul 2017
386
Sydney
Kushans also neither spoke any Indo-Aryan language initially. They first spoke Bactrian,Greek and probably Scythian along with Tocharian. The only Indo-Aryan language documented in the Tarim Basin is Gandhara language which was an administrative language of the Khotan, which was established by the Scythians(Iranian). Gandhara was not an Indication language. Heck,Indic would come only after tens of centuries.
You are only guessing about the language bit here. Just FYI, Loulan has yielded many copies of Vedic content but none related to Avesta. That should inform us directly that Sanskrit was known much better than Iranic dialects by Tarim Basin people