Had British not ruled India, what would current political map of Bharat/India have looked like ?

[Yoda-esque]

Isn't this very simplistic?
 
Before Islam reached the shores of India, why were Hindu rulers fighting? To spread peace, civilization and humanity to other Hindus?
 
Most (if not all) rulers fought for greed. Religion happened to be something they used to motivate their own and justify atrocities. Some did it better than others.

Hindu rulers fought yes, but there wasn't systematic destruction of culture,libraries and temples.The psychology of losing this identity is far greater than battles that were fought regularly,not just in India but all throughout the world during that period.

[coffee_rules]

6 hours ago, Mariyam said:

Isn't this very simplistic?

 

Before Islam reached the shores of India, why were Hindu rulers fighting? To spread peace, civilization and humanity to other Hindus?

 

Most (if not all) rulers fought for greed. Religion happened to be something they used to motivate their own and justify atrocities. Some did it better than others.

Raj Dharma proclaimed that he should expand the land for the benefit of citizens, fight only armies and spare the citizens. Very rarely temples and deities were looted, only to reinstate the deity in a bigger temple in their kingdom. Cultures, languages and traditions were not attacked. Krishnadevraya’s legacy is owned by both Kannada and Telugu people. He promoted both without any dominance of one over the other. He was from Telugu land. 
 

some western and sub-altern historians claim some Hindu kings killed scores of Buddhists monks, but there is no factual evidence to prove it.  They try to justify Brit colonialism and Islamic invasions akin to that strife.  Scholarly debates would term some of the defeats as killing symbolically. When, there are Jain kings in south India, building Vaishnavite and Shiite temples, it is hard to accept that only Buddhists were attacked. 
 

Islamic iconoclasm is widespread accepted fact in medieval times, they would plunder not only armies, but also loot citizenry, temples etc to establish Islam. Even until 1707 when Aurangzeb died. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

15 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Raj Dharma proclaimed that he should expand the land for the benefit of citizens,

In theory, it sounds extremely righteous.  But there is a great deal of gray area there.  Forced expansion is not benevolent, no matter the stated intent.  It is all destructive and bears no justification.  I'll bet the British royals and elites imagined that they were doing Indians a favor by civilizing us.  The US occupied Airaq to "rid them of the bad guy."  Same destructive intent covered in a garb of righteousness.  

 

  

[coffee_rules]

3 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

In theory, it sounds extremely righteous.  But there is a great deal of gray area there.  Forced expansion is not benevolent, no matter the stated intent.  It is all destructive and bears no justification.  I'll bet the British royals and elites imagined that they were doing Indians a favor by civilizing us.  The US occupied Airaq to "rid them of the bad guy."  Same destructive intent covered in a garb of righteousness.  

 

  

I didn’t justify expansion there, just explaining why they did it. Ashwamedha yagna in Ramayana and Mahabharata has such references, trying to justify expansion. If you as a king, are following dharma at the best it can as much Lird Ram, it’s your duty to make the benefits of your kingdom reach more people. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by coffee_rules

[BacktoCricaddict]

Just now, coffee_rules said:

I didn’t justify expansion there, just explaining why they did it. Ashwamedha yagna in Ramayana and Mahabharata has such references, trying to justify expansion. If you are following dharma, it’s your duty to make the benefits of your kingdom to more people. 

It is clear then that Christians didn't invent evangelism.  

[coffee_rules]

3 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

It is clear then that Christians didn't invent evangelism.  

 

But they didn't try to force their religion, culture, language on them as explained. It was strictly administrative. There are cases in history (inscriptions/shasanas) of newer kings in local language. Evangelism is spread of your religion and ideas.

[rangeelaraja]

Iran was one of the earliest countries to get  Islamized and that too near 100 % . It was mostly Parsi ( Zoorastrian ) before its Islamization.

 

Despite several centuries of Islamic invasion, modern India is still 80 % Hindu, despite the barbaric proselytizing nature of the invaders - convinces me that there is a divine destiny behind all this.

 

Had India not been divided into West and East Pakistan ( now BD), the total Muslim population of undivided India would have been about 600 million vs. 1 billion Hindus.  -- recipe for a disastrous civil war.

 

The British rule itself was a divine destiny that for the first time united the extraordinarily fragmented subcontinent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mishra]

3 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

In theory, it sounds extremely righteous.  But there is a great deal of gray area there.  Forced expansion is not benevolent, no matter the stated intent.  It is all destructive and bears no justification.  I'll bet the British royals and elites imagined that they were doing Indians a favor by civilizing us.  The US occupied Airaq to "rid them of the bad guy."  Same destructive intent covered in a garb of righteousness.  

 

  

There is Indian history and then their are archives of Parliamentary debates of West Ministers. On each major issue happening in India, there are debates. Not all but some snippets are available on particular issue. Once you read them, you realise say what happened in 1857 and aftermath, why sati and other such practices were abolished, why Brits ensured that Hindus don’t convert to Christianity and so on. History is a very thought provoking and interesting subject once you ignore the need to remember dates and names .

[Vilander]

19 hours ago, Mariyam said:

Religion happened to be something they used to motivate their own and justify atrocities. Some did it better than others.

Mostly muslims did that in response to them Christians did it too and Muslims they do that now exclusively. 

[Vilander]

9 hours ago, rangeelaraja said:

despite the barbaric proselytizing nature of the invaders -

Aptly captures the truth. 

[Lone Wolf]

British expanded Indian territories to the extremes..  Even the untouched Far North East came under Indian Union.  Frontier areas like Gilgit agency were also added..  Albeit dogra rulers & Gen Zorawar Singh first managed to get things done their..  Also far eastern places in Ladakh along Tibet & Xinjiang. 

Only Other King to have made some great advances to the Further top is The Great Lalitadiya of Kashmir who has had several areas of up to Pamir under his control & defeated some Arab generals in mid 7th century AD.  He probably was the greatest conquerer India has ever seen & its a shame we don't hear much about him.  Had some kind of alliance with Chinese Tang emperor & brought superior weaponry to his forces & was feared throughout north India. 

 

Overall Present day Map is about right if you add Pakistan & Baluchistan upto Makran desert... Place where Qasim entered with a Tiny Arab forces & his march to Sindh where greatest of idiots Dahir ruled. 

Afghanistan has always been troubled & only Mauryas has some sort of adminstration there & Buddhism played its part as well. 

 

[Lone Wolf]

On Thu Apr 22 2021 at 12:06 PM, Mariyam said:

Isn't this very simplistic?

 

Before Islam reached the shores of India, why were Hindu rulers fighting? To spread peace, civilization and humanity to other Hindus?

 

Most (if not all) rulers fought for greed. Religion happened to be something they used to motivate their own and justify atrocities. Some did it better than others.

You need to see another context that's perhaps most important & often overlooked.  The part around 10th Century AD upto 1192 Ghoris...  North India was absolute chaos due to Inept rulers..  Lack of modern technology & fighting techniques,  lack of good quality horses..  Fighting lame a** small wars with neighbors. 

North Indian rulers upto 6-7th century AD fought higher quality wars with Arabs & besides western Europeans became the only ones to defeat them...  Coz the technology was up to date & even used numbers advantage to perfection in case of defenders. 

 

Then the era of idiot rulers &  combination of higher of dumba*** began. 

Turks were perhaps most Advanced when it came to horse Archery & were amazing fighters something that Ghori used in the 2nd battle of Tarain..  Idiot Prithviraj had sent half of its force to fight some another battle & according to some account the inept ruler totally ignored what happened Prior to Bathinda siege where Ghori just about managed to save his a**. 

 

Prithviraj still had massive numbers advantage according to neutral accounts..  Not according to Jingoistic Farsi versions.. 

But Ghori had planned well & attacked before sunrise as he had noticed that these Rajput kings don't fight before Sunset & after Sunrise (another lame a*** ritual) setting panic across. 

He also had brought small contingent to Turkish horse Archers this time... Something that Indians not anticipated & in the end even with smaller numbers dude achieved a massive victory over an Idiot king. 

 

He had Luck on his side in his next battle against Jaichand who was unlucky to get hit by a stray arrow.  Then North India was there for the taking. 

 

Overall I would say Indians themselves were responsible for what happened to them & didn't learn from their ancestors & its funny these idiots like Prithviraj are celebrated in India..  As protectors of Dharma lmao. 

 

[rangeelaraja]

10 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

You need to see another context that's perhaps most important & often overlooked.  The part around 10th Century AD upto 1192 Ghoris...  North India was absolute chaos due to Inept rulers..  Lack of modern technology & fighting techniques,  lack of good quality horses..  Fighting lame a** small wars with neighbors. 

North Indian rulers upto 6-7th century AD fought higher quality wars with Arabs & besides western Europeans became the only ones to defeat them...  Coz the technology was up to date & even used numbers advantage to perfection in case of defenders. 

 

Then the era of idiot rulers &  combination of higher of dumba*** began. 

Turks were perhaps most Advanced when it came to horse Archery & were amazing fighters something that Ghori used in the 2nd battle of Tarain..  Idiot Prithviraj had sent half of its force to fight some another battle & according to some account the inept ruler totally ignored what happened Prior to Bathinda siege where Ghori just about managed to save his a**. 

 

Prithviraj still had massive numbers advantage according to neutral accounts..  Not according to Jingoistic Farsi versions.. 

But Ghori had planned well & attacked before sunrise as he had noticed that these Rajput kings don't fight before Sunset & after Sunrise (another lame a*** ritual) setting panic across. 

He also had brought small contingent to Turkish horse Archers this time... Something that Indians not anticipated & in the end even with smaller numbers dude achieved a massive victory over an Idiot king. 

 

He had Luck on his side in his next battle against Jaichand who was unlucky to get hit by a stray arrow.  Then North India was there for the taking. 

 

Overall I would say Indians themselves were responsible for what happened to them & didn't learn from their ancestors & its funny these idiots like Prithviraj are celebrated in India..  As protectors of Dharma lmao. 

 

 

 

Ignore the tagline on youtube.

 

Watch from 1:50.

 

These are great insights from Doval Saab - Modern history has always been in favor of those who had more might , not those who were on the side of justice or truth.

 

We need several more like him. He is a one of the reasons we have crushed Pak and shafted China in Doklam and pushed them back in Ladakh. Our soldiers were always super brave. But he is the one who influenced the political decisions. Modi trusts him entirely. Probably the only NSA with senior cabinet rank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said:

 

 

Ignore the tagline on youtube.

 

Watch from 1:50.

 

These are great insights from Doval Saab - Modern history has always been in favor of those who had more might , not those who were on the side of justice or truth.

 

We need several more like him. He is a one of the reasons we have crushed Pak and shafted China in Doklam and pushed them back in Ladakh. Our soldiers were always super brave. But he is the one who influenced the political decisions. Modi trusts him entirely. Probably the only NSA with senior cabinet rank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Around the 3 min mark he states:

"We did not destroy anyone, we did not attack anyone ..." While debatable in some specific cases, it is generally a justifiable statement.  

 

Has Doval saab ever thought of this - maybe it's because we did not attack or seek to destroy anyone that we are still here?  And Afghanistan - whose supposedly glorious conquerers attacked us - is languishing in the worst way?  Mongolia, which created Genghis Khan, is nowhere to be seen.  But India - and its culture that pre-dates all of these people - is still intact.  It is diluted, mixed, amended, but intact.  And is going nowhere any time soon. 

 

So, maybe taakat is not the goal, nyaay is.  Dude Doval, not Bharat, needs a paradigm shift.

Edited April 23, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict

[rangeelaraja]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

 

Has Doval saab ever thought of this - maybe it's because we did not attack or seek to destroy anyone that we are still here?  And Afghanistan - whose supposedly glorious conquerers attacked us - is languishing in the worst way?  Mongolia, which created Genghis Khan, is nowhere to be seen.  But India - and its culture that pre-dates all of these people - is still intact.  It is diluted, mixed, amended, but intact.  And is going nowhere any time soon. 

 

 

 

Then what about the European colonial powers ? What about imperial Japan ? - quite opposite innit ? 

 

The bottom line that he is trying to state is that might and force have prevailed over justice and truth.  And it cannot be disputed in modern history.

 

It is a deeply profound speech by Doval Saab, so relevant by history and so relevant today when we see China's thuggish behavior that has gone unpunished. 

 

India needs to build tremendous comprehensive national power which can only happen with a fast growing economy ( 7.5 % + CAGR in GDP ) for the next 3 decades - all other elements of comprehensive national power -military , cultural influence, soft power etc...etc will follow suit.

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by rangeelaraja

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 hour ago, rangeelaraja said:

 

 

Then what about the European colonial powers ? What about imperial Japan ? - quite opposite innit ? 

 

The bottom line that he is trying to state is that might and force have prevailed over justice and truth.  And it cannot be disputed in modern history.

 

It is a deeply profound speech by Doval Saab, so relevant by history and so relevant today when we see China's thuggish behavior that has gone unpunished. 

 

India needs to build tremendous comprehensive national power which can only happen with a fast growing economy ( 7.5 % + CAGR in GDP ) for the next 3 decades - all other elements of comprehensive national power -military , cultural influence, soft power etc...etc will follow suit.

 

Can't disagree with any of that last sentence.  My comments were restricted to military power.

[MechEng]

On 4/22/2021 at 12:06 PM, Mariyam said:

Isn't this very simplistic?

 

Before Islam reached the shores of India, why were Hindu rulers fighting? To spread peace, civilization and humanity to other Hindus?

 

Most (if not all) rulers fought for greed. Religion happened to be something they used to motivate their own and justify atrocities. Some did it better than others.

 

This. Islam was already in Kerala before Mohammed Bin Qasim entered Sindh. 

[Yoda-esque]

 
This. Islam was already in Kerala before Mohammed Bin Qasim entered Sindh. 

Don't compare islam spread in kerala by arab traders versus islam spread by barbarians.Theres really no comparison.

[Lone Wolf]

17 hours ago, MechEng said:

 

This. Islam was already in Kerala before Mohammed Bin Qasim entered Sindh. 

I am not sure that Islam being in Kerala much earlier had any major significance in Indian history but the arrival of Qasim certainly left a huge mark in our history. 

Qasim's victory over idiot King Dahir of Sindh was the first ever Arab victory over an Indian territory...  And for the first time mass conversions to Islam by the rule of sword took place...  Which sent a warning signs to other Kings in Northern India & they prepared well for future Arab invasions & in the end managed to defeat them. 

Idiot Dahir could have easily defeated Qasim if he had stopped his small Army in Makran itself...  But he made some otherworldly blunders & lost when it mattered the most.  Buddhists were almost wiped out of Sindh & ironically they were the ones against Dahir. 

Edited April 26, 2021 by Lone Wolf