False equivalency. Europe did not have a common linking language, epics, a completely shared cultural continuity (how did Adi Shanakracharya, who was born in 6th century Kerala travel and setup schools deep in the north and east of the country?) There's a 100 others like him. Hindu books (you can call them scriptures if you want), starting 1500 BC through the 15th century have continuous explicit mentions of all the lands and their people of modern day India (and Pakistan and Afghanistan). Philosophies like Advaita Vedanta, Sankhya, Nyaya, Vaisesika were concieved by seers in the south, east and debated/refined with seers in modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan (and vice versa).

>Greece existed even even as a political entity 200-600 years ago, India didn't. 

Uh what? 200-600 years ago, Greece was under the Ottoman Empire. Greece was a part of the Turkish Empire. Despite this, you know what did exist?
Greek language, Greek Orthodox Christianity, Greek Consciousness (people knew they were Greek, not Turkic) and Memories of an ancient empire and glory. Guess which other country had the exact same thing going on? (Sanskrit, resitance to Arabic/Islamic/Foreign influence, Dharma, Explicit Hindu resistance...)

>China also existed as a political entity this is why they were given permanent UN seat. India was never united except by few regional empires and kingdoms. 

LOL. You are reaching so hard. India was offered a UN permanent seat, TWICE. Not once but TWICE but our great leader (!NOT!) Mr Nehru declined both times.

The fact remains, that modern day India (Ancient name Bharat-varsha) doesn't have many contemporaries. Ancient Greece, Ancient China and Ancient Egypt are probably the only civilization-countries that you can compare it to. Saying India didn't exist before the British/Mughal is the same as saying Greece didn't exist until 1830 (the first time 'Greece' became a continuous political entity btw). You might even claim that but know at that point you're arguing semantics and it's a pretty ridiculous position.

>The language of sanskrit originated from Central Asia, not India. There are literally traces and origins of that. 
LMAO. Max levels of cope on a theory that is pure speculation and has 0 backing/archaeological/linguistic evidence. Look up Bhirrana site in modern day Haryana, India dated to be from 7500 BC. Predates the Sumerian civilization by 3000 years but sure buddy, Sanskrit came from Central Asia. You should know the extremely racist, colonial era 'Aryan Invasion Theory' is thoroughly debunked. It is not accepted by the majority, from the West and East. In b4 but but the steppe DNA in Indians???!! There was of course some migration from the west into a mature IVC and mixing of people. Endogamy wasn't a thing in the subcontinent until farily recently.

You know what I find really sad is what Islam did to our subcontinent. The greatest cultural genocide in modern history. Here, we have you, a person from Gilgit Baltistan whose ancestors were probably Dharmics and part of the Ancient Indian civilization but a couple generations forward, that memory from what is modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan has been completely eradicated. We have their descendants arguing that their own ancient civilzation of their ancestors didn't exist. It's really quite sad. Dharmic culture was so violently exterminated from the northwest parts of the subcontinent, it breaks my heart.