There is no such an empire known as Indian Empire. If it is Vijayanagara or Chola empire, then it is just that, but not Indian Empire.
India is a foolhardy legacy of British colonialism.
Given a choice, there should be no such a country as India and no such a people called Indians.
Indian is not a race. The only thing that possibly unifies the vast group of dialects and races is Hinduism. "India" as we know now is a vast spectrum of ethnic races and dialect groups.
Here is an attempt by a writer at Wiki to put this "India" myth into proper perspective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_groups_in_India_(historical_definitions)
Historical definitions of races in India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from
Racial groups in India (historical definitions))
Jump to:
navigation,
search
<!-- start content --> See
Demographics of India for information about population of India. See
Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia for current debates of the genetic makeup of South Asian populations.
Various attempts have been made, under the
British Raj and later times, to classify the
population of India according to a
racial typology. After the
independence, in pursuance of the Government's policy to discourage community distinctions based on race, the 1951 Census of India did away with racial classifications. The national Census of independent India does not recognize any racial groups in India.<sup id="cite_ref-Kumar_0-0" class="reference">
[1]</sup> In India, "
Dravidian", "
Indo-Aryan", and similar words are generally considered as linguistic terms, rather than ethnic terms.<sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[
citation needed]</sup>
Some scholars of the colonial epoch attempted to find a method to classify the various groups of India according to the predominant racial theories popular at that time in Europe. This pseudo-scientific racial classification was used by the British census of India. It was often mixed with considerations about the
caste system, as well as conflating linguistic groups (such as Dravidians and Indo-Aryans) with "races".<sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[
citation needed]</sup>
Recent studies of the distribution of alleles on the Y chromosome,<sup id="cite_ref-sahoo_1-0" class="reference">
[2]</sup> microsatellite DNA,<sup id="cite_ref-sengupta_2-0" class="reference">
[3]</sup> and mitochondrial DNA <sup id="cite_ref-sharma_3-0" class="reference">
[4]</sup> in India have cast overwhelmingly strong doubt for a biological Dravidian "race" distinct from non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent. The only distinct ethnic groups present in South Asia, according to genetic analysis, are the
Balochi,
Brahui,
Burusho,
Hazara,
Kalash,
Pathan and
Sindhi peoples, the vast majority of whom are found in
Pakistan.<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">
[5]</sup>
[edit] Martial races theory
<dl><dd>
Main article: Martial Race
</dd></dl> The
Martial races theory was a
British ideology based on the assumption that certain peoples were more martially inclined as opposed to the general populace or other peoples.<sup id="cite_ref-heather_streets_martial_5-0" class="reference">
[6]</sup> The British divided the entire spectrum of Indian
ethnic groups into two categories: a "martial race" and a "non-martial race". The martial race was thought of as typically brave and well built for fighting but were also described as "unintelligent".<sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference">
[7]</sup> The non-martial races were those whom the British believed to be unfit for battle because of their sedentary lifestyle, but were regarded as cleverer.
The
Indian rebellion of 1857 may have played a role in British reinforcement of the martial races theory. During this rebellion, some Indian troops, particularly in Bengal, mutinied, but the "loyal"
Sikhs,
Punjabis,
Dogras,
Gurkas,
Garhwalis and Pakhtuns (
Pathans) did not join the mutiny and fought on the side of the British Army. Modern scholars have suggested that this theory was used to the hilt to accelerate recruitment from among these races, while discouraging enlistment of "disloyal" Indians who had sided with the rebel army during the war.<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">
[8]</sup>
[edit] See also
Hope this explains.
