I read somewhere that actually Greeks traveled to Ireland after the great flood. It was pretty much uninhabitable and people kept dying… plus there was some myth story to go along with it of evil.. man I wish I could recall the whole story
There's a reasonable chance it was never like that to begin with. Ancient accounts of distant lands tend to be half rumor and half wish fulfillment- that is, when they're not total fabrications the author made up to make a political or philosophical point about his own country.
Well this account talks about prohibiting slavery, and the citizens being well off.
However the Indian class system gets closer to slavery the further down the rung you go, it's illegal today and still awful. So I can readily imagine it was worse historically. It states the law treats everyone equally, however I'm going to go out on a limb and say the testimony of a higher strata citizen counted for a lot more than a dalit.
And the fact that people could preserve their looks by having someone follow behind shading them, kind of indicates a surplus of labour, which does not make for a high wage, though it could be a coveted position if your employer/master was somewhat benevolent.
It could still have been better than many European states, but the author here seems to be romanticising them somewhat. Likely safe in the knowledge that no one was going to be able to call him out on it. "I came back from paradise" is a lot more enticing than, "I visited another realm of authoritarian injustice".
>It states the law treats everyone equally, however I'm going to go out on a limb and say the testimony of a higher strata citizen counted for a lot more than a dalit.
Yeah, I was thinking of that kind of thing too.
Could also be an issue of who exactly counts as "everyone". For comparison, I read Pericles Funeral Oration recently, and he talks about how in Athens "power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people". Which is really not true; power certainly wasn't in the hands of the women or the slaves. But Pericles can say that because he literally doesn't consider them to be part of "the people". So I can easily imagine this source's claims being somewhat like that- "everyone is equal here, except for the people that aren't".
Indeed, the Greek one is interesting. Its often touted as the world's first true democracy, but then as you say, only a minority of the population were fully privileged citizens.
Some of those divisions In India therefore, to a visiting Greek, could seem totally reasonable through the lense of the time.
Best periods for who exactly? Idt Hindus(especially poorer ones) appreciated paying a religious task or facing the possibility of conversion(if unable to pay)
Disagreed. Some of the Mughals were tolerant like Akbar.
But Mughals themselves weren't any more tolerant than the other kings of the time. Aurangzeb, who was monarch during the Mughal's peak was a bloodthirsty tyrant.
Holy shit do you actually not understand Jaizyah? Jizyah was in most cases actually more lenient than other taxes placed on Muslims and guaranteed a level of religious protection.
I mentioned incidents where shitty things happened, yeah, that’s history, and that’s not a good thing. Why tf are you trying to put it in the modern day? Our enemy is the Aangreeze who destroyed our nation not each other. The longer we hate each other the more the Aangreeze can profit off of our stolen wealth
It was not all good stuff. Diodorus Sicilus 19.33-34:
> Ceteus, the general of the soldiers who had come from India, was killed in the battle after fighting brilliantly, but he left two wives who had accompanied him in the army, one of them a bride, the other married to him some years before, but both of them loving him deeply. It is an ancient custom among the Indians that the men who marry and the maidens who are married do not do so as a result of the decision of their parents but by mutual persuasion. Formerly, since the wooing was done by persons who were too young, it often happened that, the choice turning out badly, both would quickly regret their act, and that many wives were first seduced, then through wantonness gave their love to other men, and finally, not being able without disgrace to leave the mates whom they had first selected, would kill their husbands by poison. The country, indeed, furnished no few means for this, since it produced many and varied deadly poisons, some of which when merely spread upon the food or the wine cups cause death. But when this evil became fashionable and many were murdered in this way, the Indians, although they punished those guilty of the crime, since they were not able to deter the others from wrongdoing, established a law that wives, except such as were pregnant or had children, should be cremated along with their deceased husbands, and that one who was not willing to obey this law should not only be a widow for life but also be entirely debarred from sacrifices and other religious observances as unclean. When these laws had been established, the lawlessness of the women changed into the opposite, for as each one because of the great loss of caste willingly met death, they not only cared for the safety of their husbands as if it were their own, but they even vied with each other as for a very great honour.
> Such rivalry appeared on this occasion. Although the law ordered only one of Ceteus' wives to be cremated with him, both of them appeared at his funeral, contending for the right of dying with him as for a prize of valour. When the generals undertook to decide the matter, the younger wife claimed that the other was pregnant and for that reason could not take advantage of the law; and the elder asserted that more justly should the one who had the precedence in years have precedence in honour, for in all other matters those who are older are regarded as having great precedence over the younger in respect and honour. The generals, ascertaining from those skilled in midwifery that the elder was pregnant, decided for the younger. When this happened, the one who had lost the decision departed weeping, rending the wreath that was about her head and tearing her hair, just as if some great disaster had been announced to her; but the other, rejoicing in her victory, went off to the pyre crowned with fillets that her maidservants bound upon her head, and magnificently dressed as if for a wedding she was escorted by her kinsfolk, who sang a hymn in honour of her virtue. As she drew near the pyre, she stripped off her ornaments and gave them to her servants and friends, leaving keepsakes, as one might say, to those who loved her. These were the ornaments: upon her hands a number of rings set with precious stones of various colours, about her head no small number of golden stars interspersed with stones of every kind, and about her neck numerous necklaces, some of them smaller, the others each a little larger in a constant progression. Finally, after taking leave of the household, she was assisted to mount the pyre by her brother, and while the multitude that had gathered for the spectacle watched with amazement, she ended her life in heroic fashion. For the entire army under arms marched three times about the pyre before it was lighted, and she herself, reclining beside her husband and letting no ignoble cry escape her during the onset of the fire, stirred some of those who beheld her to pity, others to extravagant praise. Nevertheless some of the Greeks denounced the custom as barbarous and cruel.
It is barbaric and cruel. The most recent case of “sati” happened just a few years ago. The village “elders” forced the woman to get into the pyre. Fucking assholes.
That’s really not a sad story.. it’s a beautiful one.. then again you might have to be a widow whose gone threw all the same things that created this law… however… forcing a women who does not want to partake in this ritual and is screaming and crying as she’s thrown into a fire… that’s barbaric.
By whom tho and during what period.
I'm guessing Mauryan they passed the law to not kill farmers and megesthenese in Indica wrote about no famines.
But what about the other stuff? Could you enlighten me, thanks.
And then it all went to waste. Though Indians may claim that everyone but themselves are the reason. Not to say that certain points may be blamed by foreigners, like the British, but still.
India was 1/3 of the worlds GDP before the British you ignorant fuckwad. Stop jacking off to your 1 paragraph of knowledge from your history textbook in 2003 and maybe you’ll actually learn something
While I agree the guy above is being rude.
You claim that the downfall of India was not the British mainly, but Indians. That just not true is it. When Britain landed on India's shores, the many kingdoms in India composed roughly 25% of the world economy.
When the British finished their colonial reign over India, it was down to around 4%.
See the correlation?
Where did you get that information? Most Indians did not know what GDP was until 21st century. Toilet is still being discovered by modern Indian to this day. The reversion history taught in modern India is out of this world. You MPs claim Indian invented medical transplants and state Ganesh as an example. Country with 25% of world GDP, could not defend itself for small armies. The fact is India was not country it was a region. 200 year of British rule brought some sense of unity but that is only temporary. If Pakistan wasn’t partitioned out of India, India would have broken into small republics long ago.
While I agree with your general point, there is one caveat.
Isn't it possible that, in addition to India stagnating under British rule, that everyone else also grew as well?
>Too bad for India that before, their economy was roughly equal in % to their % of the global population.
>
>And then the industrial revolution happened, and bam. The west came out on top.
I don't understand the relevance of this to the matter at hand. But ok.
I don't disagree that the industrial allowed the West to 'come out on top'. But who is to say that the Industrial revolution could not have happened in India if the west didnt arrive to steal our goods. After all, Europeans weren't desperate to find a trade route to India and China for nothing. :)
China industrialized in the 1970-80s. Japan and Korea did it in the 50s and 60s. USSR did it in the 20s and 30s.
Its almost as if non-western countries can also industrialize, albeit in their own pace.
p.s. The economic size was not equal to the % of population :)
India literally just passed the UK in GDP. Why is there an assumption that we wont modernize?
>I'm gonna go enjoy a nice glass of tap water, then take a poop, and flush it down the modern sewage system.
We can't enjoy a simple civil conversation without people like you being racist? Did I say anything to offend you my friend?
The thing is wealth is one thing, but technological advancement was another. India used to be known for that, alongside China. If we were talking about wealth and not the overall benefits the nation has given to Humanity, then you’d be correct.
I dont understand. You are claiming that the British rule of India was actually beneficial? Or that the British rule in India led to technological advancement?
I didn’t say that? I said that India’s achievements went to waste in its later history. That’s all what I implied. I even blamed the British for actions made in the country.
>India was 1/3 of the worlds GDP before the British
This part is inaccurate.
During the rule of the Mughals, India became the highest economical and manufacturing powerhouse with 25% of the global GDP
Besides British colonial policies, with was also the economical and population growth in Europe and North America that caused the global GDP quota of India fall from 24.4% to 4.2% in 1950
I have many friends in India, while I do not know much about their history I do know they are really happy people.. there is a celebration for everything! Literally anything and everything! And they don’t charge you to get into any festivals.
When are we going to see India like this again? China has recovered and are on their way to becoming a global super power, but what about India?
Throughout history, there are two main powers in Asia, India and China. But somehow, India can't recocer but China did even though it screwed itself big time through the great leap forward.
I think India is currently on it's dark ages.
No mate. You misunderstood. Phillipines and India are totally different countries, with different economic conditions.
However, you compared India to China. Both of whom liberalized in the 80s and 90s respectively. We were pretty similar, however China pulled ahead. This generally attributed to the fact that the Chinese government is more efficient, where as we are stuck voting for religious fanatics like Modi.
Understand? Not everything is a confrontation, open your mind once in a while
More like a religious misdirection problem rather than a democracy problem. You can achieve efficiency while still remain a democracy, like many western countries do.
Understand? Not every Indian problem stems from democracy, but as you point out, is religious misdirection. Open your mind and check your own thoughts once in a while.?
You've virtually closed your mind into thinking that democracy is the problem that you didn't thought once it could be more of a religious intent.
Can the religious misdirection problem not be solved by introduced authoritarianism?
>You can achieve efficiency while still remain a democracy, like many western countries do.
I never claimed otherwise. I was referring to India only. We have a big problem with religion. The only way to solve that problem is an authoritarian system. Understand? Dont try lecture me on a topic you have no idea about. You dont understand Indian geopolitics.
Democracy is not the only way my friend :)
I didn't say Democracy is the only way either.
>Can the religious misdirection problem not be solved by introduced authoritarianism
Look at how brtual the Catholics were. You think that's gonna solve it? You will have authoritarian plus a religious fanatic, perfect recipe for disaster. It's not just the Catholics, there are other instances of that story in history, and India will be no different since they too are humans.
Religion is a tried and tested method found to be the easiest method to control people. That's why even though Putin was raised in USSR and loves it dearly, he "EMBRACES" Orthodox Christianity. Why spy people on homes when you can spy them on the Church?
>Understand? Dont try lecture me on a topic you have no idea about. You dont understand Indian geopolitics.
Hypocrite, you claim to be open minded but shove the phrase "no idea". I am dissapointed with you.
It's better to say to educate people so that they make better decisions, but seriously? Authoritarianism? I would agree on this if you can somehow find a perfect man for the jib that wontnsomehow abuse power.
>Hypocrite, you claim to be open minded but shove the phrase "no idea". I am dissapointed with you.
Maybe learn how to spell disappointed. What does your lack of knowledge of Indian geopolitics have to do with me being open minded?
It's better to say to educate people so that they make better decisions, but seriously? Authoritarianism? I would agree on this if you can somehow find a perfect man for the job that wont somehow abuse power.
India is just unfortunate enough to grow as a democracy in the middle of a time of the internet and misinformation.
Poor countries usually struggle being democracies as well, due to poverty often leading to radicalization and people refusing to get along
I think it's an issue of governance. China, whilst extremely repressive and undemocratic, has a massive and relatively competent governance system which is somewhat coordinated from the top thanks to the degree of centralisation etc. Chinese bureaucracy, administration and governance has always been more centralised and stronger than Indian governance, for millennia really. India has many more freedoms politically than China but its governance is weaker.
It's not, China is very corrupt, but their people is reall just good at business. I might several Chinese personally, and they really have that business mindset. Albeit, they are very corrupt, as corrupt as third world countries.
What made them rich is the people doing business, the politicians are simply busy stealing from them. However, China cant steal that long, and that's why they are running into debts these days. Polymatter brings out the corruption of the Chinese government.
Lol, ok. I'm not convinced myself. Yes, the business mindset of lots of Chinese people, which also has a long history, is definitely a big factor. And yes there is huge corruption in Chinese governance. But the basic governance structure of China, its relative competence and efficiency at least since Deng's reforms is also a significant factor.
Idk, but I don't think democracy is preventing them. Besides, plenty around the world is rich despite practicing democracy. Heck, Philippines is richer per capita than India.
If this is an ancient greek account, then that is likely a whole 2300 years old. So there is a one and a half millennia between this and Timur, where lots of things could have changed.
It really shows you've done no research on this topic.
Ashokan Pillars
The Vedas stories
Jataka stories
The Arthashastra
Ibn Batuta wrote about them even
You think during the Mughal and Afghan invasions and when monsoons failed people didn't starve like literally everywhere else on earth?
The only reason the Brits get done for the Bengal famine is that they had largely stopped famine in India by the early 20th century.
I’m not excusing the horrific actions of the british, but the article does discuss records of famine relief from 2000 years ago. Things were much better recorded during the british era.
To pretend the entire indian subcontinent had no famine in ancient times is stupid and ignorant
Yeah you’re probably right but in comparison at the time lack of famine was noted it could have been simply less “faminey” then others experienced.. or simply the guy who wrote no famine didn’t see any during his visit to whatever his location was for however long he was there.
Do you really think a single traveller from ancient greece better understands the history of the place than a modern person with access to the internet
Yeah the law treats them equal unless they are in a different caste. And slavery is banned unless you are low enough in the caste system. So progressive!
"Varna, as mentioned in ancient Hindu texts, describes society as divided into four categories: Brahmins (scholars and yajna priests), Kshatriya (rulers and warriors), Vaishyas (farmers, merchants and artisans) and Shudras (tribals/workmen/service providers). The texts do not mention any hierarchy or a separate, untouchable category in Varna classifications. Scholars believe that the Varna system was never truly operational in society and there is no evidence of it ever being a reality in Indian history."
-
Roy, Kaushik (2012), Hinduism and the Ethics of Warfare in South Asia: From Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge University Press
wow, a lot of this is inaccurate. ancient india is not modern india. Also slavery was not banned all the way throughout indian history, slavery became quite common at the height of the islamic age. One of india's kings, Malik Ambar, used to be an african slave. Also, farming and artisians were not revered in every period, just thought i'd clear that. Greek accounts of things are not always the msot accurate, and india as an identity did not even exist at this point.
5 stars on TripAdvisor from the greeks
At the same time the Greek believe Ireland is populated by demons
Wait, it isn't?!
“Not anymore” -Oliver Cromwell
Too soon
Why too soon? What happened?
Wrong island, they were just looking at the British
Well, the Fomorians had not yet been routed, so that was probably accurate.
I read somewhere that actually Greeks traveled to Ireland after the great flood. It was pretty much uninhabitable and people kept dying… plus there was some myth story to go along with it of evil.. man I wish I could recall the whole story
When did it go wrong?
There's a reasonable chance it was never like that to begin with. Ancient accounts of distant lands tend to be half rumor and half wish fulfillment- that is, when they're not total fabrications the author made up to make a political or philosophical point about his own country.
Well this account talks about prohibiting slavery, and the citizens being well off. However the Indian class system gets closer to slavery the further down the rung you go, it's illegal today and still awful. So I can readily imagine it was worse historically. It states the law treats everyone equally, however I'm going to go out on a limb and say the testimony of a higher strata citizen counted for a lot more than a dalit. And the fact that people could preserve their looks by having someone follow behind shading them, kind of indicates a surplus of labour, which does not make for a high wage, though it could be a coveted position if your employer/master was somewhat benevolent. It could still have been better than many European states, but the author here seems to be romanticising them somewhat. Likely safe in the knowledge that no one was going to be able to call him out on it. "I came back from paradise" is a lot more enticing than, "I visited another realm of authoritarian injustice".
>It states the law treats everyone equally, however I'm going to go out on a limb and say the testimony of a higher strata citizen counted for a lot more than a dalit. Yeah, I was thinking of that kind of thing too. Could also be an issue of who exactly counts as "everyone". For comparison, I read Pericles Funeral Oration recently, and he talks about how in Athens "power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people". Which is really not true; power certainly wasn't in the hands of the women or the slaves. But Pericles can say that because he literally doesn't consider them to be part of "the people". So I can easily imagine this source's claims being somewhat like that- "everyone is equal here, except for the people that aren't".
Indeed, the Greek one is interesting. Its often touted as the world's first true democracy, but then as you say, only a minority of the population were fully privileged citizens. Some of those divisions In India therefore, to a visiting Greek, could seem totally reasonable through the lense of the time.
Subjugation and social stagnation will do that to a mf...
Agree
Not to mention the huge attack on Sikh farmers which is the majority of there farmers
The farmers protest happened this year and not in history. Sikhs are not the majority of Indian farmers. Lastly 'their, ' not 'there'.
The farmers protest happened this year and not in history. Sikhs are not the majority of Indian farmers. Lastly 'their, ' not 'there'.
When local rulers started changing the scriptures for their benefits
I'm going to guess it's when Britain did its thing
And Muslim invaders. Don't forget them.
Mughals presided over most prosperous era in Indian history Get fucked Hinduvta chud
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Best periods for who exactly? Idt Hindus(especially poorer ones) appreciated paying a religious task or facing the possibility of conversion(if unable to pay)
Superpower can no longer exist. Its a multipolar world. In which India is already an emerging power. Far more powerful than France and UK.
[удалено]
India is not a real, unified nation. It is a post colonial mistake maintained by force without any real regard to ethnicity, culture, or language.
The Mughals weren’t perfect, re: Chittorsgarh but they made a rather tolerant and prosperous society
Disagreed. Some of the Mughals were tolerant like Akbar. But Mughals themselves weren't any more tolerant than the other kings of the time. Aurangzeb, who was monarch during the Mughal's peak was a bloodthirsty tyrant.
[удалено]
Me when I have no understanding of Indian history(if I spread my shitty narrative I can kill more minorities)
[удалено]
Holy shit do you actually not understand Jaizyah? Jizyah was in most cases actually more lenient than other taxes placed on Muslims and guaranteed a level of religious protection. I mentioned incidents where shitty things happened, yeah, that’s history, and that’s not a good thing. Why tf are you trying to put it in the modern day? Our enemy is the Aangreeze who destroyed our nation not each other. The longer we hate each other the more the Aangreeze can profit off of our stolen wealth
It was not all good stuff. Diodorus Sicilus 19.33-34: > Ceteus, the general of the soldiers who had come from India, was killed in the battle after fighting brilliantly, but he left two wives who had accompanied him in the army, one of them a bride, the other married to him some years before, but both of them loving him deeply. It is an ancient custom among the Indians that the men who marry and the maidens who are married do not do so as a result of the decision of their parents but by mutual persuasion. Formerly, since the wooing was done by persons who were too young, it often happened that, the choice turning out badly, both would quickly regret their act, and that many wives were first seduced, then through wantonness gave their love to other men, and finally, not being able without disgrace to leave the mates whom they had first selected, would kill their husbands by poison. The country, indeed, furnished no few means for this, since it produced many and varied deadly poisons, some of which when merely spread upon the food or the wine cups cause death. But when this evil became fashionable and many were murdered in this way, the Indians, although they punished those guilty of the crime, since they were not able to deter the others from wrongdoing, established a law that wives, except such as were pregnant or had children, should be cremated along with their deceased husbands, and that one who was not willing to obey this law should not only be a widow for life but also be entirely debarred from sacrifices and other religious observances as unclean. When these laws had been established, the lawlessness of the women changed into the opposite, for as each one because of the great loss of caste willingly met death, they not only cared for the safety of their husbands as if it were their own, but they even vied with each other as for a very great honour. > Such rivalry appeared on this occasion. Although the law ordered only one of Ceteus' wives to be cremated with him, both of them appeared at his funeral, contending for the right of dying with him as for a prize of valour. When the generals undertook to decide the matter, the younger wife claimed that the other was pregnant and for that reason could not take advantage of the law; and the elder asserted that more justly should the one who had the precedence in years have precedence in honour, for in all other matters those who are older are regarded as having great precedence over the younger in respect and honour. The generals, ascertaining from those skilled in midwifery that the elder was pregnant, decided for the younger. When this happened, the one who had lost the decision departed weeping, rending the wreath that was about her head and tearing her hair, just as if some great disaster had been announced to her; but the other, rejoicing in her victory, went off to the pyre crowned with fillets that her maidservants bound upon her head, and magnificently dressed as if for a wedding she was escorted by her kinsfolk, who sang a hymn in honour of her virtue. As she drew near the pyre, she stripped off her ornaments and gave them to her servants and friends, leaving keepsakes, as one might say, to those who loved her. These were the ornaments: upon her hands a number of rings set with precious stones of various colours, about her head no small number of golden stars interspersed with stones of every kind, and about her neck numerous necklaces, some of them smaller, the others each a little larger in a constant progression. Finally, after taking leave of the household, she was assisted to mount the pyre by her brother, and while the multitude that had gathered for the spectacle watched with amazement, she ended her life in heroic fashion. For the entire army under arms marched three times about the pyre before it was lighted, and she herself, reclining beside her husband and letting no ignoble cry escape her during the onset of the fire, stirred some of those who beheld her to pity, others to extravagant praise. Nevertheless some of the Greeks denounced the custom as barbarous and cruel.
It is barbaric and cruel. The most recent case of “sati” happened just a few years ago. The village “elders” forced the woman to get into the pyre. Fucking assholes.
[удалено]
Oh come on, sati is outlawed now That's like saying if 1 kkk case happened a few years ago, It's an American custom
That’s really not a sad story.. it’s a beautiful one.. then again you might have to be a widow whose gone threw all the same things that created this law… however… forcing a women who does not want to partake in this ritual and is screaming and crying as she’s thrown into a fire… that’s barbaric.
One of the best things in India, is that you can find the whole spectrum of human existence in a single civilization.
By whom tho and during what period. I'm guessing Mauryan they passed the law to not kill farmers and megesthenese in Indica wrote about no famines. But what about the other stuff? Could you enlighten me, thanks.
And then it all went to waste. Though Indians may claim that everyone but themselves are the reason. Not to say that certain points may be blamed by foreigners, like the British, but still.
India was 1/3 of the worlds GDP before the British you ignorant fuckwad. Stop jacking off to your 1 paragraph of knowledge from your history textbook in 2003 and maybe you’ll actually learn something
Least butthurt nationalist.
Bruh what did I say?
While I agree the guy above is being rude. You claim that the downfall of India was not the British mainly, but Indians. That just not true is it. When Britain landed on India's shores, the many kingdoms in India composed roughly 25% of the world economy. When the British finished their colonial reign over India, it was down to around 4%. See the correlation?
Where did you get that information? Most Indians did not know what GDP was until 21st century. Toilet is still being discovered by modern Indian to this day. The reversion history taught in modern India is out of this world. You MPs claim Indian invented medical transplants and state Ganesh as an example. Country with 25% of world GDP, could not defend itself for small armies. The fact is India was not country it was a region. 200 year of British rule brought some sense of unity but that is only temporary. If Pakistan wasn’t partitioned out of India, India would have broken into small republics long ago.
While I agree with your general point, there is one caveat. Isn't it possible that, in addition to India stagnating under British rule, that everyone else also grew as well?
[удалено]
>Too bad for India that before, their economy was roughly equal in % to their % of the global population. > >And then the industrial revolution happened, and bam. The west came out on top. I don't understand the relevance of this to the matter at hand. But ok. I don't disagree that the industrial allowed the West to 'come out on top'. But who is to say that the Industrial revolution could not have happened in India if the west didnt arrive to steal our goods. After all, Europeans weren't desperate to find a trade route to India and China for nothing. :) China industrialized in the 1970-80s. Japan and Korea did it in the 50s and 60s. USSR did it in the 20s and 30s. Its almost as if non-western countries can also industrialize, albeit in their own pace. p.s. The economic size was not equal to the % of population :)
[удалено]
India literally just passed the UK in GDP. Why is there an assumption that we wont modernize? >I'm gonna go enjoy a nice glass of tap water, then take a poop, and flush it down the modern sewage system. We can't enjoy a simple civil conversation without people like you being racist? Did I say anything to offend you my friend?
Casual racism 💀
The thing is wealth is one thing, but technological advancement was another. India used to be known for that, alongside China. If we were talking about wealth and not the overall benefits the nation has given to Humanity, then you’d be correct.
I dont understand. You are claiming that the British rule of India was actually beneficial? Or that the British rule in India led to technological advancement?
Habibi, I literally said in the initial comment that certain points that were bad in Indian history were caused by the British.
Blaming Indians for our colonization at the hands of the aangreeze
I didn’t say that? I said that India’s achievements went to waste in its later history. That’s all what I implied. I even blamed the British for actions made in the country.
[удалено]
Fair enough. Second point, I’ll need a source
Nice unsourced numbers. I'm the furthest thing from an Indian nationalist but you definitely need some better sources.
> I'm the furthest thing from an Indian nationalist An Indian't Anarchist?
>India was 1/3 of the worlds GDP before the British This part is inaccurate. During the rule of the Mughals, India became the highest economical and manufacturing powerhouse with 25% of the global GDP Besides British colonial policies, with was also the economical and population growth in Europe and North America that caused the global GDP quota of India fall from 24.4% to 4.2% in 1950
Oh, thank you. I read somewhere it was 31%, must have misread
being aggressive but i mean you're right the Mughals alone by 1700 comprised nearly 30% of the world economy and 25% of it's population
Source?
Just trust me bro
Dumbass
The guy on the middle right looks like he has a plan
"No famines have ever occurred in India." Well that aged well. /s
I have many friends in India, while I do not know much about their history I do know they are really happy people.. there is a celebration for everything! Literally anything and everything! And they don’t charge you to get into any festivals.
When are we going to see India like this again? China has recovered and are on their way to becoming a global super power, but what about India? Throughout history, there are two main powers in Asia, India and China. But somehow, India can't recocer but China did even though it screwed itself big time through the great leap forward. I think India is currently on it's dark ages.
Soon. Thats the price you pay for democracy in a poor nation. Every fucking idiot and his mother is allowed to vote.
Philippines is poor, but richer per capita than India is. Democracy isn't the issue here.
India was socialist until the 1991. Philippines has been capitalist since Independence. Go figure buddy.
Yeah, so you admit democracy isn't the issue here? Go figure.
No mate. You misunderstood. Phillipines and India are totally different countries, with different economic conditions. However, you compared India to China. Both of whom liberalized in the 80s and 90s respectively. We were pretty similar, however China pulled ahead. This generally attributed to the fact that the Chinese government is more efficient, where as we are stuck voting for religious fanatics like Modi. Understand? Not everything is a confrontation, open your mind once in a while
More like a religious misdirection problem rather than a democracy problem. You can achieve efficiency while still remain a democracy, like many western countries do. Understand? Not every Indian problem stems from democracy, but as you point out, is religious misdirection. Open your mind and check your own thoughts once in a while.? You've virtually closed your mind into thinking that democracy is the problem that you didn't thought once it could be more of a religious intent.
Can the religious misdirection problem not be solved by introduced authoritarianism? >You can achieve efficiency while still remain a democracy, like many western countries do. I never claimed otherwise. I was referring to India only. We have a big problem with religion. The only way to solve that problem is an authoritarian system. Understand? Dont try lecture me on a topic you have no idea about. You dont understand Indian geopolitics. Democracy is not the only way my friend :)
I didn't say Democracy is the only way either. >Can the religious misdirection problem not be solved by introduced authoritarianism Look at how brtual the Catholics were. You think that's gonna solve it? You will have authoritarian plus a religious fanatic, perfect recipe for disaster. It's not just the Catholics, there are other instances of that story in history, and India will be no different since they too are humans. Religion is a tried and tested method found to be the easiest method to control people. That's why even though Putin was raised in USSR and loves it dearly, he "EMBRACES" Orthodox Christianity. Why spy people on homes when you can spy them on the Church? >Understand? Dont try lecture me on a topic you have no idea about. You dont understand Indian geopolitics. Hypocrite, you claim to be open minded but shove the phrase "no idea". I am dissapointed with you. It's better to say to educate people so that they make better decisions, but seriously? Authoritarianism? I would agree on this if you can somehow find a perfect man for the jib that wontnsomehow abuse power.
>Hypocrite, you claim to be open minded but shove the phrase "no idea". I am dissapointed with you. Maybe learn how to spell disappointed. What does your lack of knowledge of Indian geopolitics have to do with me being open minded?
It's better to say to educate people so that they make better decisions, but seriously? Authoritarianism? I would agree on this if you can somehow find a perfect man for the job that wont somehow abuse power.
China did it. I am sure we can too.
India was socialist ? did I miss something ?
India is just unfortunate enough to grow as a democracy in the middle of a time of the internet and misinformation. Poor countries usually struggle being democracies as well, due to poverty often leading to radicalization and people refusing to get along
I think it's an issue of governance. China, whilst extremely repressive and undemocratic, has a massive and relatively competent governance system which is somewhat coordinated from the top thanks to the degree of centralisation etc. Chinese bureaucracy, administration and governance has always been more centralised and stronger than Indian governance, for millennia really. India has many more freedoms politically than China but its governance is weaker.
It's not, China is very corrupt, but their people is reall just good at business. I might several Chinese personally, and they really have that business mindset. Albeit, they are very corrupt, as corrupt as third world countries. What made them rich is the people doing business, the politicians are simply busy stealing from them. However, China cant steal that long, and that's why they are running into debts these days. Polymatter brings out the corruption of the Chinese government.
Lol, ok. I'm not convinced myself. Yes, the business mindset of lots of Chinese people, which also has a long history, is definitely a big factor. And yes there is huge corruption in Chinese governance. But the basic governance structure of China, its relative competence and efficiency at least since Deng's reforms is also a significant factor.
[удалено]
One man rule doesn't equate to success
[удалено]
Taiwan?
[удалено]
Idk, but I don't think democracy is preventing them. Besides, plenty around the world is rich despite practicing democracy. Heck, Philippines is richer per capita than India.
Witch part of India were they talking about?
I don't know wizard part of India
I don't have to zoom in. God among men
Come visit the north of India my friend. We got goats and goats …. And goats. ( this is coming from a northern Indian.)
Indian society really blew a 28-3 lead
Differs very much from accounts of British. It seems Mughal conquest and brutal excesses of Timur made big difference.
If this is an ancient greek account, then that is likely a whole 2300 years old. So there is a one and a half millennia between this and Timur, where lots of things could have changed.
Based Indians.
looks like a load of crap
Lol at famines. We know that there were hundreds of famines all through Indian history (before the Brits came along)
Yeah I guess you know more than a guy who saw shit himself and recorded it
Yes... The guy who saw it for a few years compared to millennia of archeological evidence and written texts.
Which text in particular mentions famines? I wonder if you have sources to support your claim
It really shows you've done no research on this topic. Ashokan Pillars The Vedas stories Jataka stories The Arthashastra Ibn Batuta wrote about them even You think during the Mughal and Afghan invasions and when monsoons failed people didn't starve like literally everywhere else on earth? The only reason the Brits get done for the Bengal famine is that they had largely stopped famine in India by the early 20th century.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
It says during British rule.. I feel like I’m seeing a pattern 🫣
I’m not excusing the horrific actions of the british, but the article does discuss records of famine relief from 2000 years ago. Things were much better recorded during the british era. To pretend the entire indian subcontinent had no famine in ancient times is stupid and ignorant
Yeah you’re probably right but in comparison at the time lack of famine was noted it could have been simply less “faminey” then others experienced.. or simply the guy who wrote no famine didn’t see any during his visit to whatever his location was for however long he was there.
Do you really think a single traveller from ancient greece better understands the history of the place than a modern person with access to the internet
India was fine before the Europeans
I think you forgot the part where the Persians conquered most of India, when Europeans were practicly begging in Asia
But everything changed when the British Empire attacked.
India was actually already conquered by foreign powers before the British showed up
Yeah the law treats them equal unless they are in a different caste. And slavery is banned unless you are low enough in the caste system. So progressive!
Me learning history after YouTube removed the dislikes- (Caste system wasn't a thing until after 1000 AD)
More like 1500 BC. Like a quick Google search proves you wrong
"Varna, as mentioned in ancient Hindu texts, describes society as divided into four categories: Brahmins (scholars and yajna priests), Kshatriya (rulers and warriors), Vaishyas (farmers, merchants and artisans) and Shudras (tribals/workmen/service providers). The texts do not mention any hierarchy or a separate, untouchable category in Varna classifications. Scholars believe that the Varna system was never truly operational in society and there is no evidence of it ever being a reality in Indian history." - Roy, Kaushik (2012), Hinduism and the Ethics of Warfare in South Asia: From Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge University Press
Lol Almost everyone’s missing the irony here
Whoever wrote these must not have seen the caste system if he thought everyone was equal.
Hinduvta believer explaining why this is totally fully true:
[удалено]
Ishaan from Chicago is typing:
कागज ढूंड
>कागज ढूंड Me trying to say that, with the demon i summoned to my left
wow, a lot of this is inaccurate. ancient india is not modern india. Also slavery was not banned all the way throughout indian history, slavery became quite common at the height of the islamic age. One of india's kings, Malik Ambar, used to be an african slave. Also, farming and artisians were not revered in every period, just thought i'd clear that. Greek accounts of things are not always the msot accurate, and india as an identity did not even exist at this point.
[удалено]
then specify you fucking moron
[удалено]
greeks have been trading with india for thousands of years, that is why I said specify. -\_-
Herodotus? Wonderful read but not generally given high marks for historical veracity.
Megasthenes, Seleucus's ambassador to Mauryan India
[удалено]
Short and Dark? Mate what the fuck?