'Indian history was distorted by the British'

[LurkerBaba]

On what basis did the Mimamsa school come up with the idea that the Vedas have always existed and always will exist? What was their rationale?

Dunno. I'm an English thinking Indian onlee, my sources are bits and pieces of regurgitated information.

btw I don't believe that the Vedas are eternal, it's the concept that's fascinating. If Rig Veda being eternal and authorless (as claimed by mimansa) are taken to be axioms, then a lot of interesting stuff will follow.

 

[civfanatic]

Dunno. I'm an English thinking Indian onlee, my sources are bits and pieces of regurgitated information.

btw I don't believe that the Vedas are eternal, it's the concept that's fascinating. If Rig Veda being eternal and authorless (as claimed by mimansa) are taken to be axioms, then a lot of interesting stuff will follow.

It is indeed a fascinating concept, but it seems to be one that is based on an unprovable hypothesis. The whole school, interesting as it may be, it grounded in an unscientific, irrational dogma, i.e. that Vedas are "eternal and authorless". This shaky foundation will naturally have a detrimental effect on their conclusions.

 

[hello_10]

=> Below is the government website of India :ranger:

=> Interesting Facts about India - My India, My Pride - Know India: National Portal of India


the time British came to India in 18th century, Indian economy was around 9 times bigger than British that time, bigger than even the Total Western European economy as below. they had many Indian traitors, many tactics they used and then they got 'everything' in India, its wealth and also an Indian Army which won rest of the war for them. here, you would just assume a man of street who suddenly became Mayer of that same city, will their coming generation forget that pride they had in past??????

=> List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


even if we have a close look on the data's then we find that even by 1820, GDP of India was around $111,417mil, as compare to total GDP of Western Europe at $159,851mil as below. it may also because of the fact that Marathas lost heavy wealth during the 15 years of war with British till 1818 :meeting:

List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(this GDP estimate is based on the prices at 1820. here the "Total Western Europe" include the current 17 Eurozone nations, +Britain+Norway+Swedan etc)

With the Above Facts about India till the 19th centuries, this is how Lord Macaulays reported in Democratic British Parliament in 1835, as below: :ranger:

Lord MacAulay's Speech to British Parliament 1835 | Beyond Highbrow - Robert Lindsay

 

[W.G.Ewald]

[MENTION=5343]Well, history is subjective, and everyone is entitled to that claim. So, whosoever writes a historical narrative, is subject to scrutiny. I am not taking away any credit from the author.

Comments by a French historian on British colonial policy cry out out for scrutiny.

[Edit] Although I recently came to the conclusion that Native Americans suffered less under the French than the British or Spanish. I came to that conclusion after reading about the Spanish in 16th century Florida.

 

[civfanatic]

Although I recently came to the conclusion that Native Americans suffered less under the French than the British or Spanish. I came to that conclusion after reading about the Spanish in 16th century Florida.

That was partially because the French did not settle in the Americas in sizable numbers. The French presence was mostly commercial in nature and based on dealing/trading with natives rather than killing/converting/civilizing them.

 

[civfanatic]

Romila Thapar discussing the distortion of Indian history by the colonialists.

British colonialism and the distortion of history - YouTube

What is interesting to note is that much of "Hindutva history", especially of the medieval period, is borrowed straight from the British colonialists.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

That was partially because the French did not settle in the Americas in sizable numbers. The French presence was mostly commercial in nature and based on dealing/trading with natives rather than killing/converting/civilizing them.

The expulsion of the French people from the Canadian Maritime provinces is a fascinating story.

Expulsion of the Acadians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Expulsion of the Acadians, also known as the Great Upheaval, the Great Expulsion and Le Grand Dérangement, was the forced removal by the British of the Acadian people from the present day Canadian Maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and also part of the US state of Maine—an area also known as Acadie. The Expulsion (1755–1763) occurred during the French and Indian War (the North American theatre of the Seven Years War). It was part of the British military campaign against New France. The British first deported Acadians to the Thirteen Colonies, and after 1758 they transported additional Acadians to France. Approximately 11,500 Acadians were deported by the British.[1]

After the British conquest of Acadia in 1710, the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht allowed the Acadians to keep their lands. Over the next forty-five years, the Acadians refused to sign an unconditional oath of allegiance to Britain. During this period, Acadians participated in various military operations against the British and maintained supply lines to the French fortresses of Louisbourg and Fort Beauséjour.[2] The British sought to eliminate future military threat posed by the Acadians and to permanently cut the supply lines they provided to Louisbourg by removing them from the area.[3][4]

Without making distinctions between the Acadians who had been neutral and those who had resisted the occupation of Acadia, the British governor Charles Lawrence and the Nova Scotia Council ordered them to be expelled.[5] In the first wave of the expulsion, Acadians were deported to other British colonies. During the second wave, they were deported to England and France, from where they migrated to Louisiana. Acadians fled initially to Francophone colonies such as Canada, the uncolonized northern part of Acadia, Isle Saint-Jean and Isle Royale. During the second wave of the expulsion, these Acadians were either imprisoned or deported. Thousands of Acadians died in the expulsions, mainly from diseases and drowning when ships were lost.

The American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow memorialized the historic event in his poem about the plight of the fictional character Evangeline, which was popular and made the expulsion well known. According to Acadian historian Maurice Basque, the story of Evangeline continues to influence historic accounts of the deportation, emphasising neutral Acadians and de-emphasising those who resisted the British Empire.[6]

 

[Das ka das]

"Muslim rule should not attract any criticism. Mention of destruction of temples by Muslim invaders and rulers should not be mentioned."

--Circular, Boards of Secondary Education

http://bharatvani.org/books/tlmr/ch8.htm

 

[LurkerBaba]

Carvaka criticism of Ashwamedha

The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons. All the well-known formulæ of the pandits, jarpharí, turpharí, &c.And all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in the Aśwamedha, These were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests, While the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling demons.

It's a translation, but the original source is relatively recent (14th century)
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34125/34125-h/34125-h.htm

@civfanatic @Virendra thoughts ?

 

[Virendra]

It would be a tragedy to comment on such jibbersih.

 

[Armand2REP]

Do Indians ever appreciate the fact the British united India or would you prefer to be a couple dozen city states?

 

[ladder]

Do Indians ever appreciate the fact the British united India or would you prefer to be a couple dozen city states?

Below wiki article gives a good account of political integration of India.

Political integration of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LurkerBaba]

It would be a tragedy to comment on such jibbersih.

How's this gibberish ?

The source is 'Sarva Darsana Samgraha' by Madhava Vidyaranya, Jagadguru of the Sringeri Math !

 

[Tronic]

Do Indians ever appreciate the fact the British united India or would you prefer to be a couple dozen city states?

To be fair, before the British arrival, Sikh and Maratha Empires were both larger than modern day France...

 

[Yusuf]

Do Indians ever appreciate the fact the British united India or would you prefer to be a couple dozen city states?

Lots of its and buts can be thought about. There were some very big empires in India at the time.

Wonder if 20th century nationalism would have galvanized people of subcontinent to unite as one may be using both culture as well as religion (Hinduism) as a uniting factor. But then again there are inherit divides in Hinduism.

With democracy takin form all over the world, and coming of modern political leaders, may be we could have well formed modern India in spite of having so many states to start with. And who knows we might have had a bigger nation without the horrors of partition.

 

[Virendra]

Do Indians ever appreciate the fact the British united India or would you prefer to be a couple dozen city states?

No we don't appreciate, because it isn't a fact at all. What united India as one political unit (it was always one civilizational unit) was not the British but the people's struggle against their colonial occupation. We've had country wide Imperial rule before and need not prostrate before the British as if they invented the concept. India was there before the British, is and will be so after them. What the struggle against British gave us is the nationalism of 19th and 20th century. That is what sowed the seeds of nation democracy in India.
As for the States, India was always a loose colony of States whenever a centralizing Imperial authority was absent. That is what will happen anywhere else in the world when a political core is missing. India was been politically united before by Mauryans, Guptas and Mughals.
Under the reign of centralizing powers before medieval centuries, the local administration had two variations:
1) Relegated and small warrior clan based states with some local autonomy, but reporting and/or paying to the Imperial power. This was mostly found in North and West.
2) Democratic Janapadas working as small republics with local autonomy. This was mostly found in East and South.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Armand2REP]

Is there any measure of how much wealth Great Britain sucked out of India?

 

[civfanatic]

Carvaka criticism of Ashwamedha

It's a translation, but the original source is relatively recent (14th century)
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34125/34125-h/34125-h.htm

@civfanatic @Virendra thoughts ?

I posted extracts from the Sarvadarshanasamgraha previously in the thread. It was ignored and no one replied to it.

 

[Armand2REP]

No we don't appreciate, because it isn't a fact at all. What united India as one political unit (it was always one civilizational unit) was not the British but the people's struggle against their colonial occupation. We've had country wide Imperial rule before and need not prostrate before the British as if they invented the concept. India was there before the British, is and will be so after them. What the struggle against British gave us is the nationalism of 19th and 20th century. That is what sowed the seeds of nation democracy in India.
As for the States, India was always a loose colony of States whenever a centralizing Imperial authority was absent. That is what will happen anywhere else in the world when a political core is missing. India was been politically united before by Mauryans, Guptas and Mughals.
Under the reign of centralizing powers before medieval centuries, the local administration had two variations:
1) Relegated and small warrior clan based states with some local autonomy, but reporting and/or paying to the Imperial power. This was mostly found in North and West.
2) Democratic Janapadas working as small republics with local autonomy. This was mostly found in East and South.

Regards,
Virendra

Do you really believe India would have united peacefully without the British? Every time the Subcontinent was united was due to someone conquering it... such as the Gupta EMPIRE, the Mughal EMPIRE or the Mauryan EMPIRE. India has been no stranger to war with or without the British.

 

[civfanatic]

Do you really believe India would have united peacefully without the British? Every time the Subcontinent was united was due to someone conquering it... such as the Gupta EMPIRE, the Mughal EMPIRE or the Mauryan EMPIRE. India has been no stranger to war with or without the British.

The Indian nation-state was forged neither by the British nor by some ancient tradition of Hinduism, but by a bald, half-naked fakir named Gandhi. This fakir mobilized the Indian masses for the first time in its history.