Muloghonto Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, Vilander said: seats are based on population at the time of the republic formation. and the population density has been relatively the same to each other for various regions of India for the last 3000 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Vilander said: two things. One South India was not a satellite civilization it was Dravidian the pre eminent civ. False. Its a satellite of the Indus-Ganges-brahmpautra region. Civilization in Indian subcontinent began there, spread elsewhere. That is a basic fact. There is no such thing as a dravidian civilization. Quote and more important point Ganges - yamuna is the real Indian civilization, Bramaputra is basically a satellite. Sure. The Ganges-brahmaputra region i said is a geographic region, not a political/cultural one. If you want to nitpick, then all of India is a satellite of Bihar-UP-Haryana-Punjab-Rajasthan-Sindh, particularly the first three. Edited May 28, 2019 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 Just now, Muloghonto said: They are itty bitty as they have no relevance to whole of India they are not because they are fully relevant to the state they are in.And the only state that has them is TN, other south Indian states dont have dravidian parties left to central DMK vs Right to center ADMK. Kerala votes communist/congress , KA votes Congress/BJP , Andhra votes local parties with populist agenda. you need to educate yourself more before engaging your superiors, its wasteful. Stan AF 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gattaca Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 If an idiot like Stalin can divide the ICF. Now you can only imagine what he can do to the common folk. Detonator and beetle 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Muloghonto said: False. Its a satellite of the Indus-Ganges-brahmpautra region. Civilization in Indian subcontinent began there, spread elsewhere. That is a basic fact. nope. you are wrong sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 Just now, Vilander said: they are not because they are fully relevant to the state they are in.And the only state that has them is TN, other south Indian states dont have dravidian parties left to central DMK vs Right to center ADMK. Kerala votes communist/congress , KA votes Congress/BJP , Andhra votes local parties with populist agenda. you need to educate yourself more before engaging your superiors, its wasteful. If they are not relevant to India in a national election, then they are itty bitty to india. They are not itty bitty to the state when it comes to the state elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 Just now, Vilander said: nope. you are wrong sorry. history proves otherwise. There is no civilization in peninsular India prior to IVC and PGW civilizations of the Indus-Ganges region and neither is there any civilizational distinctiveness in the south - who were all Hindu for the most part ( with some jain and buddhist influence). There is no such thing as a dravidian civilization anymore than there is a punjabi civilization or a bihari civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Muloghonto said: If you want to nitpick, then all of India is a satellite of Bihar-UP-Haryana-Punjab-Rajasthan-Sindh, particularly the first three. a satellite civ needs economic, military, cultural// religious dependency on the primary civilization. Now economically, South was sea based. Militarily India was fractured and never dependent on any one region for security for extended periods of time, even Ashoka did not provide security to whole of India. A good definition of a satellite civ is Bengali civ to Indian civilization a subset, Dravidian civ is part contributor to Indian civ as a pre eminent one that gave way to a more acceptable more powerful civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: If they are not relevant to India in a national election, then they are itty bitty to india. They are not itty bitty to the state when it comes to the state elections. if there is a hung assembly there will be relevance. Again rookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: history proves otherwise. There is no civilization in peninsular India prior to IVC and PGW civilizations of the Indus-Ganges region and neither is there any civilizational distinctiveness in the south - who were all Hindu for the most part ( with some jain and buddhist influence). There is no such thing as a dravidian civilization anymore than there is a punjabi civilization or a bihari civilization. sorry not interested in stating obvious matters, research more on sangam period. If you are talking ethnic identity southern indian Tamil/Kannadiga/Telugu identities are some of the most early ones so are part contributors to Indian civilization. Stan AF 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 Just now, Vilander said: a satellite civ needs economic, military, cultural// religious dependency on the primary civilization. Not necessarily. What you are describing is a colony, not a satellite. A satellite is simply one who revolves around the main body: where its the smaller partner to all things- theological, technological, economic, military and such. The rest of India is a satellite of the Ganges valley. Just now, Vilander said: Now economically, South was sea based. Militarily India was fractured and never dependent on any one region for security for extended periods of time, even Ashoka did not provide security to whole of India. Yet, the # of times the polities from Ganges valley that exercised control over most of the peninsula, including Tamil country, is numerous. Ashoka, Guptas, Mughals, Delhi Sultans - all based on the Ganges. The number of times any polity south of the Narmada has exerted power anywhere north of it, is thrice- twice during the Rashtrakutas and once under the cholas when they vassalized a tiny part of the ganges region ( Bengal) Just now, Vilander said: A good definition of a satellite civ is Bengali civ to Indian civilization a subset, Dravidian civ is part contributor to Indian civ as a pre eminent one that gave way to a more acceptable more powerful civilization. Bengal is pretty much as relevant to any south civilization, if not more. We hosted way more universities, until industrial revolution we were consistently the richest part of India. The entire south is bigger than Bengal in size, but approximately the same population historically. Where the south outscores Bengal is in military field, thats it. We outscore you in education, technological advancement and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, Vilander said: if there is a hung assembly there will be relevance. Again rookie. king-maker is opportunism of unique circumstances, not national relevance. We will visit that If, when a regional party actually becomes the king-maker. For now, its a moot point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Vilander said: sorry not interested in stating obvious matters, research more on sangam period. If you are talking ethnic identity southern indian Tamil/Kannadiga/Telugu identities are some of the most early ones so are part contributors to Indian civilization. Sangam period started in 500s BC at the earliest. Back when Tamils barely knew anything more than just rice farming and huts. Tamils, Kannadigas, Telegus were far later than Magadh, which rose to prominence by uniting it with Bengal & Orissa in the first place. South is nothing more than a historical satellite of the ganges valley. Those are the basic facts, i am sorry if shoving nonsensical dravidian theories down your throat for years has made you think otherwise. If you require historical proof, i am ready to meet that challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 There is no such thing as a dravidian civilization. Not once till the last 100 years did the words 'dravidian civilization' or any such have presence in India in any language. Dravidian civilization is the 'boonies of Indian civilization', which is pretty much everything outside of Haryana-UP-Bihar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: A satellite is simply one who revolves around the main body: where its the smaller partner to all things- theological, technological, economic, military and such satellite main body -- ?? some self concept then you are talking theology, technology they are derivative. lots of rant there so i leave it. learn more and come back. 8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Yet, the # of times the polities from Ganges valley that exercised control over most of the peninsula, including Tamil country, is numerous. irrelevant. Control is based on military strength at a point in time. 8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Bengal is pretty much as relevant to any south civilization, if not more. We hosted way more universities Bengal is pretty much less relevant than south till modern ages when India was a fully defined concept. Universities ?? talk about formative periods. your definition of irrelevancy is more relevant for bengal now we are able to see that very clearly. Edited May 28, 2019 by Vilander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: later than Magadh, which rose to prominence by uniting it with Bengal & Orissa nope pretty much most of India was united and they were in a pissing trip when they found uncovered barbarians round about bengal area thats when bengal was pretty much united. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: For now, its a moot point For now is the operative point, still much to learn rookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Vilander said: satellite main body -- ?? some self concept then you are talking theology, technology they are derivative. lots of rant there so i leave it. learn more and come back. Main body: Haryana, UP, Bihar. Satellite: The rest. 1 minute ago, Vilander said: irrelevant. Control is based on military strength at a point in time. And for most of Indian history, the ganges valley has exerted far more control over most of the peninsula than the peninsula having exerted any control in the ganges valley whatsoever. 1 minute ago, Vilander said: Bengal is pretty much less relevant than south till modern ages when India was a fully defined concept. Universities ?? talk about formative periods. your definition is irrelevancy is more relevant for bengal now we are able to see that very clearly. Pffft. Bengal hosted the second most number of universities in ancient India after Bihar. Bengal alone combined for greater combined knowedge than entire south till modern times. Foreign monks who came to study in Bengal and left accounts are 10x more than those who went to the boonies of the south. What formative periods ? The formative periods belong to UP, Bihar and Haryana if you look post IVC and add Punjab, Rajasthan and Sindh while subtract Bihar if you wanna look pre IVC period. This is the formative period of Indian civilization. And I can prove via Mughal and British tax collections that bengal was far richer than South India till the last 70 years and contributed approximately the same revenue as entire south India did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Muloghonto said: And I can prove via Mughal and British tax collections lolz..means bengal was more *ed by muslims and goras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, Vilander said: nope pretty much most of India was united and they were in a pissing trip when they found uncovered barbarians round about bengal area thats when bengal was pretty much united. False. Magadh conquered Bengal during the reign of Bimbisara. They hadn't even conquered all of Bihar till his son Ajatshatru died ( who conquered the north bank of Ganges in Bihar), from which they went conquering rest of India. By the time of Ajatshatru's death, only eastern UP was a vassal of Magadh, while entire Bihar and Bengal (up to the Brahmaputra) were integrated into Magadh. This is pretty easy to show in History. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts