Today it wouldn't make sense to say "there really was no 'Greece'". Same for India.
The original point was "there really was no 'India' before the British cobbled one together". If so, then where was Columbus trying to go? Of course there was 'an India', it just wasn't structured like a modern nation state, which is true for every other modern country as well.
Western Europe, through the British conquest of the subcontinent, was woefully unaware of the internal differences. That Columbus ill-advisedly thought of India as a monolithic entity is no marker of anything.
The language thing sure does. But the only time in ancient history Western Mediterranean Europe has been part of a single state was during the Roman period. the rest of the time they evolved separately and uniquely. In contrast each part of modern India has been politically linked to the other parts multiple times through history resulting in a common culture but with some obvious diversity. E.g. Indian festivals are largely common throughout the country, a marker of commonality stretching back through history.
>> That Columbus ill-advisedly thought of India as a monolithic entity is no marker of anything.
He said nothing about it being monolithic, just that there was a place called India, and it was worth a visit.
Your original comment was "there was no 'India' ...".
There has been an India through most of history. But of course the borders of the modern state were drawn relatively recently. These are two different things.
There were several - indeed, the British had it easier because the Mughals had dissipated within living memory, and all their bureaucracies and systems were still functioning.
The Mughals never had the south because their culture was alien to most of the uninvaded south of india.
But before them the whole of India, Pakisthan, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Burma, Indonesia, Tibet, China were all culturally the same. I would even go further to say considerably most of the regions are still culturally the same.
there is nothing uniquely western about this definition of 'control'. it's the historical norm everywhere.
That is a pretty radical claim, and I hope you have some good evidence to back it up.
Due to the powerful Vijaynagar empire, South India remained free for some time. At this time, you actually had Queens ruling Kerala (Attingal Queens). When the Vijaynagar empire weakened, the Deccan and Delhi sultanates united and thanks to the betrayal of two Muslim generals was thoroughly defeated in the Battle of Talikota. The massacre and rapine that occurred after defeat is still known to the local historians of the area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talikota
Modern day Kerala was invaded by Haider Ali (Sultan of Mysore) though he faced very stiff resistance. He then decided to slaughter entire civilian populations. Believe it or not, it is thanks to the East India Company who supplied weapons to the Malabar Hindus who made constant guerrilla style attacks from the forests that Haider Ali backed off!
The princely states that comprised Modern Kerala never truly had a problem with the British. Travancore and Kochi were extremely rich and sovereign monarchies who gave their alliance to the Queen, retaining their rule and benefiting from the British in trade.
The British did enormous harm to the subcontinent, but it's egregious to say that the Mughals were benevolent rulers. They after all built beautiful self aggrandizing monuments by basically looting and massacring the populace. The same thing holds true for Marathas as well, who were known to patronize looting and raids via the pindaris.
As for Haider Ali, his son, who was similarly disposed, paid the ultimate price thanks to the machinations of the Maharaja's minister whom Hyder Ali had earlier dethroned. So what went around, came around, eventually.
PS. I do know about the Turk and Mughal works in India. Also the Portuguese British and French occupations.
Edit: For what it's worth, the contrast with China is probably flawed. I know very little about Chinese history, but I stand by the rest.
It's larger in total area under one power (at circa 5 million sq. km vs. 3 million sq km. today), but it doesn't cover some of the southern-most and eastern-most parts.