who was indias first ruler?
Answers
Answer:
Chandra gupta maurya is the first ruler
Answer:
No king ever ruled India, India as we know it came into existence on 15 Aug 1947. From that day to this day, parts have been added (Goa, Hyderabad, Sikkim) and subtracted (parts of Kashmir) from it.
The discourse that India (the idea) is a separate geographical and cultural entity doesn't actually have much in common with the national state of India (the republic of India).
The idea of India pervades national boundaries and cannot be documented in constitutional papers, for much of its mystical past is tacit and unfortunately, lost.
As far as the geographical technicalities go, no king ever ruled whole of India because India also consists of Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshwadeep, which I doubt Aurangzeb or Ashoka ever cared about. In fact, I doubt that Aurangzeb new about the expanse of Indian culture in the east.
Here is Aurangzeb's dominion, notice the highlighted parts in yellow.
Aurangzeb's open letter to Non-Indians
Hey, Keralites, Goans, Tamils, Nagas, Arunachalis and Nicobarese, you are not Indians. Like any other one way love story, I am leftists' favorite, not to mention that I am the "Zinda Pir" (alive saint), a term that they do not forget to print again and again in textbooks . I am the father of controversies and still rule the minds and headlines of Indian media.
But anyways, as apparent, I am devoting this answer to people who claim otherwise.
1. Manu - Many people have pointed that Manu Vaivasvata was the first king of India. I think not only they are committing an academic crime by mixing mythology with history, but they are not applying mythology exhaustively and critically.
Manu is a semi -historical/mythological cognate of Yima (who is also the son of Vivanghat), now unlike Indian Puranas, Avestan Gathas are a bit less hyperbolical in their geographical detailing. Yima never ruled beyond Aryavrata. Going by that geographical sanity, Manu never ruled the whole Earth, and he never ruled complete India. There are plenty of indigenous tribes, that weren't under his rule, some of them were even civilized, for example the whole Haihaya kingdom, with its capital at Mahishmati.
2. Bharata - It is true that India is known as Bharatavarsha, but again king Bharata was not ruling entire India. He was a Paurava, and belonged to Lunar dynasty. He didn't rule Magadha, as Magadha had its own lineage of kings. He also didn't rule over regions like Kosala etc., as it was under contemporary Solar dynasty kings (sons of Rama, Bharata etc.)
We should make sure that whatever history we are deriving from mythology is critically analysed (even if scriptures are considered true). Like Mahabharata is hyperbolical when it comes to glorifying lunar dynasty kings (Pandavas, Krishna etc.) . Vishnu and Bhavishya Puranas leave no stone unturned in glorifying solar dynasty.
The person who comes closest to current definition and idea of India would be Samrat Ashoka.
He had three provincial capitals, Avanti - Taxila and Patliputra (main).
As you could observe that not only he had annexed most of India, he had also established major centers within the kingdom, through his policy of erecting pillars and building stupas.
He not only had lesser internal strifes within his empire, as compared to Aurangzeb. Also his relationship with Southernmost part was very very friendly.
He actually went till Tamrapani (Sri Lanka) to further his influence, and was successful in many regards.
Going by that map only we can establish that there has been only one king who has completely covered Indian landmass under one umbrella and that is Ashoka.
Edeit : the reason why I didn't add Queen Victoria is because her rule was not exactly kingship, also the princely states ruled their states, though under her rule eventually. Also, not to mention that Portugal and France had their colonies inside the mainland of India.
