Who cares about South Indians???I do realize that this forum is full of west and south indians who because of present situation think that they have been always leaders in india. time for shock.
The term ancient india is used to denote india till 650 ad.
So let us
1. collect works written by south indians till 650 ad? Is there anything substantial ? no.
2. Empires formed there . well, we have chalukya and satvahana empire but they pale before maurya, sunga and gupta empire.
3. coins issued by south indian kingdoms in that period in comparison to north .
4. cultural influence. zero on north whereas north shaped south indian culture immensely.
so in what way south was superior ? I am talking of period from 2500 bc to 650 ad a period of 3 thousand years.
check wiki for a start man where you would find mauryas, guptas and sungas under heading north india. when i said north india, i meant gangetic plains not pakistani region which was not considered aryavrata.There are definitely differences between North India, deep South, Western-Deccan, East India, South-East India, etc. without a shadow of a doubt.
Just because their languages are related doesnt mean everything. Even today there is big difference between Bengalis and Pashtons who speak to Indo-Aryan langs.
Again gangetic plains are north india and i stand by what i say. if you too acknowledge its superiority, there is no fight.There are differences between Bengalis, Bihairs, etc to Western UPs, Punjabis, Rajasthanis, etc, etc, etc. and other North Indians.
These are the ones who created the largest empires, created the best art, etc, etc, etc.
Mauryas, Sungas, Guptas, Palas, Kalingas, etc are not North Indians. They are East Indians.
Who on earth considers Bengalis, Biharis, Odishas, etc North Indians??
Yes, you are correct in a way, that the entire Indo-Gangetic Plain is considered North India; as a matter of fact, if we have to strictly stick to North and South, only Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala would be South India and the rest, North India.check wiki for a start man where you would find mauryas, guptas and sungas under heading north india. when i said north india, i meant gangetic plains not pakistani region which was not considered aryavrata.
and pashto is an iranian language. you are getting ridiculous.
Again gangetic plains are north india and i stand by what i say. if you too acknowledge its superiority, there is no fight.
So all our fight was due to interpretation of north.
by north i meant gangetic plains mostly and if you too acknowledge its importance, there is no confusion.
btw, The region from delhi to kolkata in ancient times was centre of india and that is what i meant.
Tell biharis as east indians etc. to wiki and correct and edit it.
IMHO,
Biharis are not North Indians. Moreover, it is a misconception that Biharis are Hindi speaking, and that is perhaps due to the fact there exists a concept of Hindi-Belt. The fact is, the native language of Biharis is Maithili and Bhojpuri (shared with Eastern UP). Maithili is very similar to Bengali, and quite far from Hindi. There is a dialect of Bengali, as used by Bharatchandra Ray Gunakar, which is almost indistinguishable from Maithili.
I have lived in Patna. If one goes to the railway station or the market, out of 10, 5 will speak in Maithili, 4 will speak in Bhojpuri, and 1 will speak in Hindi.
I agree with what you are saying. That is why I said Eastern UP shares Bhojpuri with Bihar. Also, there is another language called Chhaparia, but then, this is what people of Chhapra district always claim, but I have not been able to distinguish it from Maithili.And how does bihari bhojpuri differ from bhojpuri i speak? the fact is that this debate is very old as all languages are full of dialects like nagpuriya prevalent in jharkhand.
in bhojpuri of my city if you have to say I am hungary and i would eat, you would say
" bhukhal hai aur khana khab"
in nagpuriya of jharkhand you would say that
" bhukhal hiau aur khana khabau"
differences yes but as much as as between telegu and tamil no.
I agreed with you last times as well as now. my whole point was that indo gangetic plain is more homogenous than deccan and south india linguistically.I agree with what you are saying. That is why I said Eastern UP shares Bhojpuri with Bihar. Also, there is another language called Chhaparia, but then, this is what people of Chhapra district always claim, but I have not been able to distinguish it from Maithili.
Now, between Telugu and Tamil, I think there are more differences, than between Tamil and Malayalam, but then, people form those regions are better informed to comment on that.
What about a Sindi, Punjabi to a Bengali, Bihari?? Massive differences.A bengali is more related to a UPian than say a marathi is to a tamil.
I said that greatest empires of ancient india were formed in north india by which i meant indo gangetic plain and so there is no confusion now.What about a Sindi, Punjabi to a Bengali, Bihari?? Massive differences.
Even within UP some are more related to the eastern side others to the Northern side. Obviously depending on location.
A sindhi is different to a bengali but not as much as a marathi is to a tamil. Infact a marathi is more similar to a UPian than a tamil.What about a Sindi, Punjabi to a Bengali, Bihari?? Massive differences.
Even within UP some are more related to the eastern side others to the Northern side. Obviously depending on location.
Just 1000 years ago, tamil was spoken in modern day tamil nadu as well as kerala and present day kerala had a language called "senthamil" meaning chaste tamil.Now, between Telugu and Tamil, I think there are more differences, than between Tamil and Malayalam, but then, people form those regions are better informed to comment on that.
Ummmm.... It is just as different. You're fooling yourself if you think other wise.A sindhi is different to a bengali but not as much as a marathi is to a tamil. Infact a marathi is more similar to a UPian than a tamil.
Those kingdoms are most definitely East Indians my friend. I dont have anything against N. Indians, etc. It's just that you can break India up into many sections. (North, South East, South, Deccan, etc.) One thing you do not mix is North Indian regions like Punjab with East Indian regions like Bihar. No flat land is ever going to change that fact.I said that greatest empires of ancient india were formed in north india by which i meant indo gangetic plain and so there is no confusion now.
Ok, this is just a joke.Those kingdoms are most definitely East Indians my friend. I dont have anything against N. Indians, etc. It's just that you can break India up into many sections. (North, South East, South, Deccan, etc.) One thing you do not mix is North Indian regions like Punjab with East Indian regions like Bihar. No flat land is ever going to change that fact.