Exiled: What made you think I was serious? You really thought that Long John and Magellan thing was me being serious?
As for the concept of India starting in 1947, do a google search for 'BharatVarsh'. It came from the name of a mythical King Bharat who ruled much before 3000 BC and was supposed to contain the land between "North of the sea (i.e. the Indian Ocean) and exactly south of the snowy mountain (i.e. the Himalayas)". The concept has been a part of epic and folklore eons before columbus stumbled on America.
As for British uniting India, yes they did, but they did not leave it as one country. In 1947, they gave independence and along with it, a mandate for all 600 princely states to decide whether they wanted to secede or unite. They did not leave 'INDIA' behind. What they left behind was civil war,chaos and uncertainity. What they left was 600 princely states. It was the work of Sardar Vallabhai patel (called the Iron Man of India) and V.K .KrishnaMenon that resulted in annexation of all those princely states and formation of the Republic of India. A herculean but largely unrewarded, unsung task which is still being put in the credit of British.
dashing: Quite a sad truth, that. But sorry to disappoint you, quite a large population of India does get well along with each other inspite of caste and all. There are black spots where the country still seems to be in dark ages, but India is a country with more realities than one. You find a whole spectrum. and every reality is an integral part of the spectrum. Isolating one band and saying 'this is India' would be quite like the story of Blind men meeting the elephant.( ;)pun intended). People not getting along with each other based on color and occupation is a global phenomena. Regret to inform you that Indians cant claim complete credit for that.
Exiled: What made you think I was serious? You really thought that Long John and Magellan thing was me being serious?
As for the concept of India starting in 1947, do a google search for 'BharatVarsh'. It came from the name of a mythical King Bharat who ruled much before 3000 BC and was supposed to contain the land between "North of the sea (i.e. the Indian Ocean) and exactly south of the snowy mountain (i.e. the Himalayas)". The concept has been a part of epic and folklore eons before columbus stumbled on America.
As for British uniting India, yes they did, but they did not leave it as one country. In 1947, they gave independence and along with it, a mandate for all 600 princely states to decide whether they wanted to secede or unite. They did not leave 'INDIA' behind. What they left behind was civil war,chaos and uncertainity. What they left was 600 princely states. It was the work of Sardar Vallabhai patel (called the Iron Man of India) and V.K .KrishnaMenon that resulted in annexation of all those princely states and formation of the Republic of India. A herculean but largely unrewarded, unsung task which is still being put in the credit of British.
dashing: Quite a sad truth, that. But sorry to disappoint you, quite a large population of India does get well along with each other inspite of caste and all. There are black spots where the country still seems to be in dark ages, but India is a country with more realities than one. You find a whole spectrum. and every reality is an integral part of the spectrum. Isolating one band and saying 'this is India' would be quite like the story of Blind men meeting the elephant.( ;)pun intended). People not getting along with each other based on color and occupation is a global phenomena. Regret to inform you that Indians cant claim complete credit for that.