avantivarman

as the topic tells i am curious to know that why despite having larger arable lands, greater forest resources and a similar population , indian civilization could not compete with chinese in technology, economy and military for last 2200 years that is since han era ?

please i request the posters to adopt a dispassionate attitude to this and it is central question as this is indeed intriguing that nation with such vast resources could not attain same level as china.


there would be some posters who would feel offended but the fact is

1. chinese were a lot better in technology than indians at any point of time

2. they created largest empires of humanity in pre modern age whereas india lacked such super large empires

3. chinese were never ruled by foreign people who could impose their language on their administration like indians saw in their history

and this is my earnest request to all that please do not make it an india bashing thread with cows, caste curry etc.

the reasons are much deeper than such external things and i would like to have them analysed in detail.



thank you.

avantivarman

is everybody afraid that this topic may get derailed?

i have never seen any india china topic being derailed so fears are completely unfounded.

Jake10

I honestly haven't studied India enough to say for sure, but the impression I get of India is that of a divided nation. China was united through text as far back as the Qin dynasty. There was a central government which dictated units of measurement, national projects and a unifying culture existed. When did India become united this way?

Baldtastic

Many religions came from India, perhaps this divided their populations as opposed to a state imposed order, from a central authority?

avantivarman

the only thing that united and unites indians to some extent is their religion or religions.

nice to got your remark though.

avantivarman

india became united in 300 bc some 70 years earlier than china.

but after that it could not remain united .

anyway, so do you think it was division that hampered indian competence ?

HackneyedScribe

This is a sweeping generalization. I am unfamiliar with Indian history, but the lack of records compared to Chinese ones may explain why things would seem, at first glance, offset for India. Indian archeology too may be in its infancy as compared to Chinese ones. Anyway, just because the list of "Indian inventions" is shorter than the list of "Chinese inventions" on wikipedia don't speak to the amount they actually invented. Not everything is on wikipedia, after all. Much depends on the amount of work people are willing to put in it. I'm sure there are plenty of Indian historians who could add to the list, but simply never bothered.

Jake10

I'm honestly basing this on the impression Indian modern history has given me. The recent split with Pakistan tells me that many people there lived together for many generations but never felt they were one. The fact that a foreign language unites the country makes me wonder why none of the local dialects ever did. Now, when you say that India became united in 300 BC, to what extent was this? China split at times as well, but only geographically. Everyone still shared a common culture, which helped bring them together again. So, culturally, when did India unite?

avantivarman

nice that scholars like you are interested in this .

while I agree that there is lack of records but we have positive evidence to show that

1. paper was unknown in india till 1200 ad

2. printing was unknown in india till 1400 ad by any way

3. gunpowder was unknown to indians as Babur thoroughly smashed Rana Sanga who in 1526 had no cannons .


apart from these, though records are lacking but we do have great literature and though we know about everything in common life from them, we do not get evidences for map making, compass and even military items like catapult.

also, there was no reason why indians did not mention mechanical clocks in works which neatly dealt with time .

avantivarman

there is nothing to doubt you sir.

i am placing a unique fact before you

indians in 300 bc ( 60 percent of them ) had one language and there was not much difference between dialects at that time.

apart from language, india was always united culturally and this language thing was there with dravidians only meaning the south indian people.


one thing i wonder is why people from peshawar to mumbai spoke one langauge in 300 bc to 600 ad, and yet could not form empires like chinese.