India, With or Without British Empire??

Status
Not open for further replies.

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
Few centuries back, There was no concept of country like today. So, Most likely India would become single entity. May be under Maratha rule? Difficult to say.
Such a concept emerged only at the end of the 19th century. Empires ruled by dynasties based in a particular region cannot be compared to the concept of a country or nation state.
It was good otherwise there would be civil/communal riot between 2 communities. Also, Most of the radical elements are part of Pak & BD today.
Should have never happened. Only if some ***** had agreed to the Cabinet plan with some modifications to hold the newly independent country together even after 10 years.


Mountbatten was a moron.
 

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,085
Likes
37,558
Country flag
The Maratha armies routed the Mughals in such clinical fashion that the Mughals were petrified of them

Infact Auranzeb barely ESCAPED an assasination attempt once

The Mughals were OUTFLANKED and defeated on the banks of NARMADA River which was considered
as the border between Penisular India and the Northern Plains

Another unit of The Marathas attacked Bhopal and took parts of Malwa Plateau

Marathas also attacked and put an immense pressure on the Mughals in GUJARAT
and the supply lines from Gujarat

Not only Aurangzeb was defeated in Deccan but by being ouflanked he lost the supply
lines from the North and thus realised that he had lost everything and simply died in grief
 

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
It is often said that British PAUPERISED us that is true

But even in the Pre British times when India was wealthy the wealth
was used for WASTEFUL purposes like Palaces Mosques temples tombs Fine jewellery and clothing
and of course singing and dancing

So the point is that MODERN education , science and technology was ignored and
industrial revolution would have never come if the Brits would not have come
I agree with your first and second sentence.

As for the last sentence, modernity would have arrived somehow but it would have been limited to a few elite. The caste system and other social ills would not have allowed the masses to enjoy the benefits of Modern education, science or Industrial revolution.

It was under British rule for the first time upliftment of people in the lowest rung of the caste ladder started.

It was the Brits who started the real empowerment of women. They abolished Sati, tried a lot abolishing child marriage.
It was the Brits who introduced modern Judiciary, IPC and education for all castes.
 
Last edited:

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,085
Likes
37,558
Country flag
Modernity would have never never never come without the British

Once Mughal empire collapsed it was a FREE for all

Many big and small empires came about , territory and borders changed FREQUENTLY

Indian kings and princes were all bloody selfish blood sucking leeches

And infact more kings meant more wars and more TAXES for the common man , more destruction and looting

In such chaotic situations WHO THINKS of science , education and social reform
 

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,085
Likes
37,558
Country flag
The simple question is How could NOT the Industrial revolution begin in India
even though India was so wealthy

Because there was nothing called science education

Once the Brits established themselves they immediately started education though it
was for producing clerks

But the spread of education alone helped India and Indians to take a good hard look at themselves

And not only much needed social reforms were initiated , India was introduced to things which
were coming from the Industrial revolution in Europe
 

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
Modernity would have never never never come without the British

Once Mughal empire collapsed it was a FREE for all

Many big and small empires came about , territory and borders changed FREQUENTLY

Indian kings and princes were all bloody selfish blood sucking leeches

And infact more kings meant more wars and more TAXES for the common man , more destruction and looting

In such chaotic situations WHO THINKS of science , education and social reform
In other words the subcontinent might have been like Afghanistan.

Some amount of modernity would have arrived inevitably, but like I said earlier it would have remained limited to the elite just like in pre soviet invasion Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
In other words the subcontinent might have been like Afghanistan.

Some amount of modernity would have arrived inevitably, but like I said earlier it would have remained limited to the elite just like in pre soviet invasion Afghanistan.
Comparing India which had a well established bureaucracy, self-sustaining economy, settled fertile plains and what not with a barren,nomadic warring tribal union like Afghanistan is pre-posterous and illogical.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Because if you notice that the downfall of Indian subcontinent in the field of inventions and innovations had come with volatile rule of various Mulim rulers, the milestones India still boasts had been mostly gained during the long rules of Hindu empires.
True. Britain made progress in all fields due to political stability. ofcourse the availability of uber cheap abundant raw materials and cheaper labour force made it a lot easier.



Yes, the British in India helped to grow into the India we today have, since if British had never come we would have a completly different history and ideology. Particularly, the concept of Democracy might be alien. So democracy is most probably a gift we have NOW due to British rule, as the Indian National Movement is what persuaded the mass to come at the fore and take part in the decision making process at national level, and thus promoted the ideology of Democracy and people.
Who says democracy is good? You assume its good. Bharaat made progress because of small monarchy. It was not a constitutional monarchy. It was a supervisionary monarchy. The administrative matters were always delegated.

There was freedom to do whatever, move from one kingdom to another unlike today where we are foisted with a compulsory passport and the need of a visa.

OT but I personally do not see future for democracy.
 
Last edited:

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
It is often said that British PAUPERISED us that is true

But even in the Pre British times when India was wealthy the wealth
was used for WASTEFUL purposes like Palaces Mosques temples tombs Fine jewellery and clothing
and of course singing and dancing

So the point is that MODERN education , science and technology was ignored and
industrial revolution would have never come if the Brits would not have come
Wrong. Bharaat has relative paucity of majestic structures from pre Islam days as the economy was not geared towards wasteful expenses. Contrast this to the 7 wonders of ancient world. No Bharaatiya structures on that list.
 

amitkriit

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
2,463
Likes
1,927
Wrong. Bharaat has relative paucity of majestic structures from pre Islam days as the economy was not geared towards wasteful expenses. Contrast this to the 7 wonders of ancient world. No Bharaatiya structures on that list.
This had nothing to do with the economy, all Mughal rulers except a few were well known for their lavish lifestyle. Akbar was perhaps the greatest Mughal emperor, how many structures did he build? May be he wanted to spend the tax money for the betterment of people, rather than on building "Monuments of Love", and what love? Shah Jahan remarried soon after the death of his "beloved" wife, and he maintained a harem of women.

Traditional Hindu Temples are rock-cut, particularly in south. Hindu structures were never majestic, they were built to be stable and to survive for centuries, and they have.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
Traditional Hindu Temples are rock-cut, particularly in south. Hindu structures were never majestic, they were built to be stable and to survive for centuries, and they have.
Well not exactly..They were indeed built from stone slabs mostly and were majestic and intricate in their own right.
 

amitkriit

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
2,463
Likes
1,927
Well not exactly..They were indeed built from stone slabs mostly and were majestic and intricate in their own right.
Those are primarily cantilever structures. North Indian structures are more mature, because we did not have strong building materials, but they are much smaller in size.

Back on topic, we must not feel obliged for anything towards the British, we are an alive society and information/knowledge always trickles down from it's source to other places, like the ancient Indian knowledge got transferred to Europe through Arab nations. It takes time but it happens. As far as unification of India is concerned, India was unified and destroyed several times in past, British cannot take all the credit/blame for themselves.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
Those are primarily cantilever structures. North Indian structures are more mature, because we did not have strong building materials, but they are much smaller in size.

.
I did not understand your post, especially the bolded and italicised parts.

If the building materials were no strong and the structures were small how come they be mature ?

Yeah one thing I have noticed, most of the North Indian temples I have gone to are small, simple (in the sense less intricate,colorful), built of marble than their south Indian cousins which are huge,colorful and built of stone.

Perhaps the difference in Nagara style and Dravidan style.Indian Temple Architectural Styles
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
This had nothing to do with the economy, all Mughal rulers except a few were well known for their lavish lifestyle. Akbar was perhaps the greatest Mughal emperor, how many structures did he build? May be he wanted to spend the tax money for the betterment of people, rather than on building "Monuments of Love", and what love? Shah Jahan remarried soon after the death of his "beloved" wife, and he maintained a harem of women.
During the reign of Akbar only five percent of the total tax revenue was spent on the imperial household and royal palaces like Fatehpur Sikri. The vast majority (over 85%) of suba receipts went to defence and public expenditures. Akbar's successors indulged more of the tax revenue in their personal lifestyles and projects without expanding the fundamental economic and bureaucratic groundwork of the empire; this administrative inertia played a major role in the Mughal collapse.
 

HeinzGud

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
2,558
Likes
1,070
Country flag
without brits all of the SA will have been broken into several small countries....... cheers brits for creating unity in SA
 

lemontree

Professional
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
815
Likes
647
Mr Lemon tree

You might be a defence professional but you are stupid
Calling names at the frustration of your ignoerance!
Aurangzeb hated Hindus and Hinduism and simply wanted to FINISH Hinduism
Agreed, but is it is not a topic of discussion here.

He did fight with Hyderabad Nizam and Qutubshahi of Golconda
Aurangzeb did'nt just fight the Qutubshahi ruler, he had conqoured them.
BUT ONCE Shivaji ANNOUNCED His arrival in Indian Politics by raiding Surat ; since that day his Number ONE enemy were the Marathas
Golconda was already under the Mughals, hence they could focus on the Marathas.
Just goes to show that your selective study and megre knowledge of actual history.

And that ba$tard didnt step into DECCAN till Shivaji was alive
Aurangzeb ruled the Deccan...even before shivaji died. Shivaji was born in 1642 and died in 1680,
- Aurangzeb was the Mughal vicroy of Deccan and defeated the Nizam Shahi of Ahmednagar in 1636.
- Defeated Bijapur in 1650.
- Captured Golconda in 1687

Please see a map covering the Mughal empire during that period.

And after 1680 he spent 27 continuos years in Deccan trying to wipe out the Marathas
The Maratha insurgency started in 1662 by Shivaji and ended in 1707 after Aurangzeb's death.

But ultimately he weakened the Mughal empire so much that post 1707 Marathas
were the Biggest empire in India
That is correct
 

lemontree

Professional
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
815
Likes
647
The unity or disunity of Marathas is another matter
No you CLAIMED they were united, when that is not true.

What matters is that Marathas became united post Sambhaji's execution AND didny fight amongst
themselves THOUGH there is proof that Aurangzeb was Nearly succesful in creating divisions amongst them

Of course in those days there were local chieftains and nobles within the Marathas too
BUT all of them were united in defeating Aurangzeb AND they did so
They were never united, they only had a common cause - the enemy Mughal ruler. A big difference.
 

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,085
Likes
37,558
Country flag
.
Just goes to show that your selective study and megre knowledge of actual history.


Aurangzeb ruled the Deccan...even before shivaji died. Shivaji was born in 1642 and died in 1680,





The Maratha insurgency started in 1662 by Shivaji and ended in 1707 after Aurangzeb's death.

You have WRITTEN HERE that Shivaji was BORN in 1642

Actually Shivaji was born in 1627

This shows YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY
 
Last edited:

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,085
Likes
37,558
Country flag
The Maratha insurgency started in 1662 by Shivaji and ended in 1707 after Aurangzeb's death.

/QUOTE]


By DE VALUING the Achievements of Marathas and calling it as a an INSURGENCY shows your BIAS
against the Marathas

You are clearly in AWE of the Mughals and more specifically Aurangzeb

But try as you may ; the importance of Marathas in MAINTAINING and protecting the Hindu-ness OF India against
an oppressive ISALMIST regime who was out to Islamise India CAN NEVER BE DENIED
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top