[muawiyah]

Well, OK, Mahabarat then. Whatever name suits your fancy. The folks in the subcontinent and it's hinterlands have had high kings on and off for many thousands of years.

[aidni]

Individual kings and dynasty have had control over different part of Asia depending over there individual strength. By your inference India which was much more recently under the control of British should be considered a part of England.

Why the areas that make up India should be part of it actually has no common thread. India of today is a union of people who are of
Different Religion, speak different languages are of different ethnicity and are a part of a India not because they always have been one but because British brought them under one umbrella

these people together fought for freedom and thus are united today

When you talk of history you talk of individual kings who ruled areas what is now called India and lastly just because few Indian kings one had influence over Indo-China does not mean it is India by that definition of yours Afghanistan, Cambodia , Indonesia all under different Indian rulers at different point of time should be India and Andaman which was never ruled by any Indian king should not be its part just doesn't add up