Why is India a subcontinent and Europe a continent?

Homepage    About me      Contact me    Privacy policy

Disclaimer: **I love Europe but some questions need to be answered and by India I mean South Asia because most of the present day countries of South Asia were parts of India earlier.**

You might have wondered sometime 'Why India is a subcontinent and not a continent?' If you try to convince yourself by saying that India is connected to Asia then you really need to read this article.

Of the seven most globally recognized continents, only Antarctica and Australia are completely separated from other continents by ocean. Asia and Africa are joined by the Isthmus of Suez, and North and South America by the Isthmus of Panama. In both cases, there is no complete separation of these landmasses by water (disregarding the Suez Canal and Panama Canal, which are both narrow and shallow, as well as artificial). What separates Europe from Asia? Ural hillocks.. And what separates Subcontinent from Asia? The mother of all mountain ranges, the legendary, the impenetrable, the gigantic, HIMALAYAS! Which separation is stronger?


Across the world, different types of models are taught:

• The seven-continent model is usually taught in China, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, parts of Western Europe and most English-speaking countries, including Australia^[22] and the United Kingdom.
• The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is mostly used in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan.
• The six-continent combined-America model is often used in France and its former possessions, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Latin America and Greece.
• A five-continent model is obtained from this model by excluding Antarctica as uninhabited. This is used, for example in the United Nations and in the Olympic Charter.

Also before 60 to 70 million years ago this Indian Landmass was not a part of Eurasian landmass. This Indian Subcontinent drifted from southern hemisphere and collided with Eurasian plate to lift these tallest mountain ranges. So, don't you think we qualify to be called as a continent? 

Calling Indian subcontinent a "Subcontinent" and Europe a full continent is a pure euro-centric mindset and has nothing to do with logic. We are much more diverse when compared to the rest of Asia. 

There are only two types of religions in world: Abrahamic(Islam, Christianity, Jew) and Dharmic (Hindu, Jain, Buddhism). We have an entirely separate SET of religions, not just a separate religion. Both Kashmiri and Keralian cuisines are spicy. But differently spicy. Is English food differently bland than Hungarian food?

So if India is more drastically different from Asia culturally, geographically, racially, spiritually, linguistically, culinarily, sartorially and on every other imaginable fronts; Why is it not a continent and Europe is?

Answer : Because Europeans wrote the geography books and not Indians.

Read more articles:

Home

Is Napoleon Europe's Samadragupta?

Homepage       About me    Contact me   Privacy policy

First of all, I doubt that you guys know about Samudragupta. Even most of the Indians don't know about this great conquerer because as far as I remember only a single page is devoted to him in our 'school history books' and in that he is referred to as India's Napoleon. But is Napoleon worthy enough to be called as Europe's Samudragupta?

4th century AD, India was once again divided into numerous kingdoms. The great Mauryan empire (Ashoka's empire) which was once created by the immense hardships of the great Mauryan kings had shattered. For nearly 500 years after the death of Ashoka, the numerous small kingdoms warred with each other. Finally a new empire started to take shape in the Northern India. The 'empire of Guptas' started to take shape which was going to provide political stability to India once again.

Samudragupta was the younger son of the founder of the Gupta empire. The small empire founded by his father started to take a gigantic shape under him. His indefatigable energy and strong determination along with his brilliant strategies and diplomatic skill and shrewdness made him the 'king of kings'. His policy of conquest and liberal attitude towards the defeated kings earned him a place in the list of the greatest Indian kings. His diplomatic triumph opened new way for cementing friendliness with the foreign rulers of southeast Asia and middle East. He commanded the biggest army of the world at that time.
He was also a great administrator. The reforms brought by him formed the basis of administration of the later Indian rulers.

But Samudragupta was more than a fighter; he was also a lover of the arts. He set the stage for the emergence of classical art, which occurred under the rule of his son and successor Chandragupta II. Samudragupta is also known to have been "a man of culture". He was a patron of learning, a celebrated poet and a musician. Several coins depict him playing on the Indian lyre (veena). He gathered a galaxy of poets and scholars and took effective actions to foster and propagate religious, artistic and literary aspects of Indian culture. Though he favoured the Hindu religion like the other Gupta kings, he was reputed to possess a tolerant spirit for other religions. His reign is rightly called as the 'Golden Age' of India.

According to professor Dr. HC Roychowdhury, Samudragupta was more versatile than King Ashoka. Ashoka was proficient in scriptures only, but the versatility of Samudragupta lies in the fact that Samudragupta was proficient in all facets of art and culture.


Comparison with Napoleon:

Samudragupta never lost a single battle during his entire reign. Napoleon on the other hand faced numerous defeats throughout his career which ended with his ultimate defeat at Waterloo. Napoleon’s forces regularly plundered and pillaged the territories which he conquered. His rule which consisted of wars spread over 17 years supposedly left 6 million people dead across Europe, led to the loss of overseas French territories and the great nation of France became bankrupt. He also emancipated the Jews across Europe, the Catholics in Protestant majority countries and the Protestants in Catholic countries.

On the contrary, Samudragupta was a man of honour. He treated his opponents with respect. He established relations with almost all kingdoms in India and cemented them through matrimony. He was a man of culture and his court was filled with some of the greatest intellectuals. He was a Hindu by faith but encouraged all faiths. At the request of the Sri Lankan king and the Buddhist monks from over there, he allowed the construction of a large monastery at Bodh Gaya one of the holiest sites for Buddhists. Nalanda University was founded during this Golden Age. This center of Buddhist learning was built in a place that the Buddha himself had visited a number of times, and was patronized by the Gupta kings. He left behind a great legacy which is rightly called as The Classical Age in Indian history.

There is absolutely no similarity between Samudragupta and Napoleon yet European exceptionalism creates that similarity and the much superior Samudragupta is called as Indian Napoleon, a man who was nowhere near his standards.

More Articles:
Home

Untouchability- Is this a problem present only in Hinduism?

Home          About            Contact me             Privacy policy

Whenever India's achievements are discussed on world stage, someone always pops up a question that maligns India's name- 'Untouchability'.
The caste system of India remains a dark spot in the otherwise vibrant history of India. But is it exclusive only for India?

Innocent uneducated folks have always suffered because of some educated groups who were able to climb the social ladders using the shoulders of the fellow masses as the steps of ladder. It is not just a matter of history. Even today, the less educated masses work as labourers and drain-cleaners while the more educated people continue to hold big lofty posts. The division of work is essential for the function of any society. This is called the 'varna system' in Hinduism. The original varna system was just like the present day division of work. It was a mobile system where the son of a potter could become the head of the Republic while the son of a chieftain could learn and teach others. The problem began with the increase in power of some particular groups who destroyed the mobility of varna system.
Still, there have been many instances in the history of India where people from the 'oppressed classes' became rulers though I won't state their names because this will start a new caste claiming debate. According to the Hindu mythologies, there are many instances where Gods took birth even in the 'oppressed class' families. One of the supreme Hindu dieties, Lord Krishna was born in a yadav family which is now considered as another backward community by the government of India. So, it was not always the case that some castes were always excluded from the mainstream society of Indians. This was the nature of the caste system or the varna system of India. Now, let's talk about the other societies of the world.

To begin with, let's talk about the western society which constantly ridicules India for its caste system:
Cagots- Cagots were the dalits( which means 'the oppressed') of France and Spain. They were made to live in outskirts of town. Cagots were excluded from all political and social rights. They were not allowed to marry non-Cagots, enter taverns, hold cabarets, use public fountains, sell food or wine, touch food in the market, work with livestock, or enter the mill. They were allowed to enter a church only by a special door, and during the service, a rail separated them from the other worshippers. Either they were altogether forbidden to partake of the sacrament, or the water stoup was reserved for their exclusive use. They were compelled to wear a distinctive dress.
Their cruel treatment lasted through the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Industrial Revolution, with the prejudice fading only in the 19th and 20th centuries. These types of castes were present in almost all the societies that existed. Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Tibetans, Middle Eastern and Africans all had such kind of a caste system. However, only the Indian caste system seems to be highlighted every now and then. If you try to give an explanation for this prejudice by saying that it still exists in the Hindu society, then you need to need to know that even other religions have this kind of divisions. Islam has Ashrafs which are considered superior because of their aristocratic ancestry while the Ajlafs and Arzals are considered inferior. There are separate seats, separate communion cups, burial grounds, and churches for members of the lower castes, especially in the Latin Catholic Church.

I am not supporting caste system but I do wish to say that India is not the only place where caste system prevailed. So, do keep this in mind before you ridicule my nation!!

Read more articles:
Homepage