Saw this interesting video of various dynasties and rulers that ruled India from ancient times…
This raises several questions in my mind, if the depiction is true.
Why do we have so many regional languages if the empires were so widespread and for such long periods?
The languages in many cases are not derivatives of one another but totally distinct – in script, in vocabulary, in phonetics etc.
Contrast this with some of other large empires – Greek and Roman and so on.
Mostly they had common language, or some variants of the common language. Greek, Latin etc.
Another question is:
If there were so many empires and not one (except the recent Mughal empire) occupied the whole of today’s India, what makes our extreme nationalists claim Akhand Bharat?
It was never “Akhand” at any given moment in time.
I remembered the following quotes in the context of History and interpretation of history to suit out agenda/narrative.
ekoshapu 
Leave a comment