Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 7th, 2017, 03:07 PM   #41

anmol's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: chandigarh
Posts: 1,529

Quote:
Originally Posted by kandal View Post
Whenever the subject of the British creating a unified India is brought up, Hindu and secular nationalists will bring up the following claims:
- Indians had already done it - Maurya empire
- Marathas would have easily done it

Muslims would bring up the Aurangzeb's Mughal empire map.

I do not see merit in any. Maurya empire is shown based on where the Asokan edicts are found, than any real conquest based unification. Marathas unifying India just wets the appetites of Hindu nationalists, and that's about it. Aurangzeb died fighting to create the empire shown in the map, that collapsed after his death. Further the very South and Northeast were never a part of any of these. These claims are fantasies generated by religious and nationalist pride rather than historical reality.
The very north east with exception of tripura and assam were'nt Indian civilization anyways
anmol is online now  
Remove Ads
Old January 7th, 2017, 07:28 PM   #42

Junius's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: India
Posts: 258
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by kandal View Post
Whenever the subject of the British creating a unified India is brought up, Hindu and secular nationalists will bring up the following claims:
- Indians had already done it - Maurya empire
- Marathas would have easily done it

Muslims would bring up the Aurangzeb's Mughal empire map.

I do not see merit in any. Maurya empire is shown based on where the Asokan edicts are found, than any real conquest based unification. Marathas unifying India just wets the appetites of Hindu nationalists, and that's about it. Aurangzeb died fighting to create the empire shown in the map, that collapsed after his death. Further the very South and Northeast were never a part of any of these. These claims are fantasies generated by religious and nationalist pride rather than historical reality.
From what we know of Ashoka, he ruled India minus the extremities you speak of. I agree with you about the Marathas and Mughals, though.
Junius is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 10:57 PM   #43
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,678

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junius View Post
From what we know of Ashoka, he ruled India minus the extremities you speak of. I agree with you about the Marathas and Mughals, though.
bahadur shah was a joke. A shayari spouting hukka smoking washed up has been with more people in his harem than in his area of control. The last true ruler of India was indeed Peshwa Nanasaheb. Nanasaheb might indeed have just booted out Bahadur Shah once he dealt with the Brits. And yes Mizoram, and Nagaland were never parts of historical India. However, parts of Manipur were indeed under some level of Mughal control (Aurangzeb's brother was killed there under his pressure in Manipuri court).

I believe Manipur, Meghalaya (under Hindu Jaintias), Tripura and Auranchal minus Tawang were very much part of Indic culture.

Well if not for the British interruption, the Marathas would pretty much have kept the core of India with them. They would have easily finished off Awadh and the Nizam off. Plus with Polygar support they might have mounted a fresher offensive on Tipu as well. Remember Tipu indeed did lose to the Marathas and he always choose easy pickings with smaller fiefs in Kerala.

Despite losing in Panipat the Marathas survived. In my view the battle of Panipat did not end them as decisively as people feel. I think Marathas would have inter married with Rajputs and assimilated them. I do however feel that they would not have finished off Sikhs and Jats. Instead kept them as a buffer state against Afghans. I dont see Marathas defeating the Sikhs especially. So yes 70% core of India would have remained and maybe democracy could even have seeped in much faster under a Peshwai.
greatstreetwarrior is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 11:32 PM   #44

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 1,071

Yes, Marathas were strong in their time as the others were strong in their own time. Time makes kings, time makes paupers. Time is really the king - 'Samay bada balawan'. 'Na raja rahega, na rani rahegi, faqat ek unki kahani rahegi'.

lā ḥawla wa lā quwwata illā billāh
لا حول ولاقوة إلا بالله
(There is no might nor change except in Allah)

Click the image to open in full size.


Last edited by Aupmanyav; January 7th, 2017 at 11:45 PM.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 07:42 AM   #45
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: India
Posts: 248

Quote:
Originally Posted by kandal View Post
Whenever the subject of the British creating a unified India is brought up, Hindu and secular nationalists will bring up the following claims:
- Indians had already done it - Maurya empire
- Marathas would have easily done it

Muslims would bring up the Aurangzeb's Mughal empire map.

I do not see merit in any. Maurya empire is shown based on where the Asokan edicts are found, than any real conquest based unification. Marathas unifying India just wets the appetites of Hindu nationalists, and that's about it. Aurangzeb died fighting to create the empire shown in the map, that collapsed after his death. Further the very South and Northeast were never a part of any of these. These claims are fantasies generated by religious and nationalist pride rather than historical reality.
It is very much probable that India would not have been united without the British. But it is much more guaranteed that the people living in the present geographic location of India would have been much much more prosperous without British colonial rule. For me that matters much more than India being united.
prashanth is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 09:18 AM   #46

Junius's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: India
Posts: 258
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by prashanth View Post
It is very much probable that India would not have been united without the British. But it is much more guaranteed that the people living in the present geographic location of India would have been much much more prosperous without British colonial rule. For me that matters much more than India being united.
LOL no. Just no.
Junius is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 09:29 AM   #47

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 2,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by kandal View Post
Whenever the subject of the British creating a unified India is brought up, Hindu and secular nationalists will bring up the following claims:
- Indians had already done it - Maurya empire
- Marathas would have easily done it

Muslims would bring up the Aurangzeb's Mughal empire map.

I do not see merit in any. Maurya empire is shown based on where the Asokan edicts are found, than any real conquest based unification. Marathas unifying India just wets the appetites of Hindu nationalists, and that's about it. Aurangzeb died fighting to create the empire shown in the map, that collapsed after his death. Further the very South and Northeast were never a part of any of these. These claims are fantasies generated by religious and nationalist pride rather than historical reality.
In reality, British themselves helped further disintegration of India when they along with other colonial power like French started aiding with military help and ammunition to help kingdoms break, so that it becomes easier for them to conquer India. After all there weren't 562 kingdoms when British first annexed Bengal.
Devdas is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 06:51 PM   #48
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,678

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devdas View Post
In reality, British themselves helped further disintegration of India when they along with other colonial power like French started aiding with military help and ammunition to help kingdoms break, so that it becomes easier for them to conquer India. After all there weren't 562 kingdoms when British first annexed Bengal.
Exactly
greatstreetwarrior is offline  
Old January 9th, 2017, 02:00 AM   #49

anmol's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: chandigarh
Posts: 1,529

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junius View Post
LOL no. Just no.
why is to so unthinkable. you could give atleast some sound arguments for your position.
anmol is online now  
Old January 9th, 2017, 04:54 AM   #50

JoanOfArc007's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: USA
Posts: 2,144

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junius View Post
Tipu <<Israel.

I dont understand what you mean here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junius View Post
We now have many passages detailing his delight at crushing Hindus. The Israelis fight out of necessity. Tipu never did so- his ambitions brought him into contact with the British.

The Revolt? Most of those guys fought because the British had taken their lands. Plain and simple. No loyalty to country or anything- pledging allegiance to Bahadur Shah Zafar simply united the efforts of these displaced and bitter feudal grandees. If they had won (and that's a huge if) they'd have torn us apart with their jealous rivalries.
This source takes a look into the life of the Tipu Sultan....


The Tiger of Mysore: History of Tipu Sultan, a secular ruler who reconstructed many temples


Tipu Sultan was a secular ruler, he reconstructed many temples and he promoted Sericulture in Karnataka.





There is a romantic side to Sultan...Sultan is known as the Tiger of mysore and for a # of Hindus and Muslims the Tiger is near and dear to their hearts.

After the defeat of Tipu Sultan, the British carried the Sword and Ring of Tipu Sultan as war trophies. These were kept in the British Musuem till 2004. Later, Indian liquor businessman, Vijay Mallya bought the sword of Tipu Sultan in an auction.


Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

The Tiger of Mysore: History of Tipu Sultan, a secular ruler who reconstructed many temples | The Siasat Daily

Last edited by JoanOfArc007; January 9th, 2017 at 04:59 AM.
JoanOfArc007 is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
bahadur, days, emperor, mughal, shah, zafar



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who was the worst Mughal Emperor after 1707? And Why? Modest Learner Asian History 10 June 11th, 2015 05:56 AM
Poll:Greatest Mughal Emperor Darren Singh Asian History 0 April 17th, 2015 05:32 AM
Why did the rebels declare Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah as leader of 1857 revolt greatstreetwarrior Asian History 3 January 21st, 2015 11:28 AM
AHC: Dara Shikoh, Mughal Emperor: Underlankers Speculative History 0 March 24th, 2013 05:40 PM
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler Or Bad History? . mughal Asian History 3 March 18th, 2011 03:25 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.