Even Sindh has a hindu-muslim divide with the southeast being mostly hindu yet it wasn't divided, why? Not to mention Sindh was part of the larger Bombay Presidency for a long time
Why exactly is Mauryan empire only co-related with Bihar? Wasn't it spread around in Magadh?
Didn't the settlements primarily include native people of the eastern India, the language evolves from Sanskrit and moved eastwards and in genealogical population spread out in nearby region?
So technically, shouldn't that also me the ancestral history of all ethnicities around Magadh along with Biharis? Also, Magadhi Prakrit is indeed the parent language to many east Indian languages like Bengali, Assamese, right?
So, should it be only a "Bihari" identity, given that such a thing didn't exist before or can we say Mauryans were in fact the predecessors of most cultural groups of East India?
Did such an identity exist or was it a settlement back then? Settlement of some human groups?