India on the Eve of British Conquest

[jamahir]

LOL, It was started from within, It was Libyan who revolted and rest of foreigner took the advantage of fault lines. DOnt be so gullible

You are the one who is gullible in believing that Gaddafi "was killing his own citizens, including women and children".

Just before the 2011 war, Russia showed satellite photos to the UNO-SC to show them that the Libyan air force wasn't bombing citizens indiscriminately.

Basically, what the Western components in the UNO-SC were doing was what USA and UK did just before the 2003 Iraq war - tell lies that Saddam was imminently going to launch WMD missiles at Western countries and therefore he should be stopped.

Disturbances started in Benghazi, started by al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, and this created a path for NATO and GCC to intervene.

Because there is no such need. Your arguments have become irrelevant as your Socialist state.

Yeah, South Asia is such a paradise of human evolution.

 

[salarsikander]

ell lies that Saddam was imminently going to launch WMD missiles at Western countries and therefore he should be stopped

Do you know what Saddam Did with his brother in law during a cabinet meeting when he just disagreed with his proposed policy ? Do you know why Saddam Hussein had built himself statutes like Dictator kim jun on of N Korea ? Why cant West just overthrow the Govt of Pakistan or any country for that matter ?

Yeah, South Asia is such a paradise of human evolution.

Donrt know About Modis Indian, But Pakistan has been rated as https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2019/03/23/pakistan-beats-india-in-happiness/

started by al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood

As I saisd you're gullible and irrelevant as your vision for Socialist states. This is your last pot off-topic, you will be reported for going off-topic. feel free to open a separate thread and tag me there dont ruin the current thread with your delusions

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Thank you for the resources!

You may use these resources for your future projects...again thanks for your content..they are of really high quality

https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/index.html#index
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Where are the mughals in the map the OP posted?
The only part of India ruled by Mughals for 1000 years was modern-day Pakistan

You're splitting hairs. All Muslim rulers of these disjointed fiefdoms are loosely aggregated under the "Mughal" moniker for Hindutva's political agenda. Muslims are maligned as invaders, whether technically mughals, other afghans, timurids, nawabs or any other.

 

[Minho]

You're splitting hairs. All Muslim rulers of these disjointed fiefdoms are loosely aggregated under the "Mughal" moniker for Hindutva's political agenda. Muslims are maligned as invaders, whether technically mughals, other afghans, timurids, nawabs or any other.

Fair enough. My point was that before the British arrived, most of India was ruled by Marathas and Sikhs, and many of the remaining Muslim kingdoms(such as Hyderabad) were tributaries to the Marathas. I agree that most Muslim rulers weren't invaders though. Mainly the first generation were, but they eventually got assimilated into South Asian culture and society. My point is that so many want South Asian history to be as simple as "Muslims ruled for 1000 years!" which obviously isn't true, as shown by the OP's map.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Fair enough. My point was that before the British arrived, most of India was ruled by Marathas and Sikhs, and many of the remaining Muslim kingdoms(such as Hyderabad) were tributaries to the Marathas. I agree that most Muslim rulers weren't invaders though. Mainly the first generation were, but they eventually got assimilated into South Asian culture and society. My point is that so many want South Asian history to be as simple as "Muslims ruled for 1000 years!" which obviously isn't true, as shown by the OP's map.

Really? But if we're looking at the same map, most of it is governed by Muslim leaders. Certainly of the non-Muslim empires the marathas are clearly the most unified and largest. Unsurprising then that their wars against the British were among the most important.

This map - assuming it's accurate - is a snapshot in time presented as the state of affairs just before British aggression. I don't think it proves or disproves much in terms of power dynamics of and between longstanding empires, rather a moment in time. While it is an obvious oversimplification to suggest "Muslims ruled the whole subcontinent for 1000 years", it also cannot be denied that Muslims dominated control of and development of the subcontinent for substantial periods of time, probably centuries, in medieval and pre-industrial history. Muslim empires are pivotal and central to the growth of the Indian subcontinent. Their comparative importance and advancement of the subcontinent as compared with Hindu empires can be debated but a strong case can certainly be made for it and they cannot be ignored.

Why do I stress the point? Why is it worth stating this?

Because the Hindutva narrative that is rampant at present seeks to override and delete this contribution summarily and wholly as a period of "slavery". Such actions have grave ramifications for all the subcontinent's Muslims.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Really? But if we're looking at the same map, most of it is governed by Muslim leaders. Certainly of the non-Muslim empires the marathas are clearly the most unified and largest. Unsurprising then that their wars against the British were among the most important.

This map - assuming it's accurate - is a snapshot in time presented as the state of affairs just before British aggression. I don't think it proves or disproves much in terms of power dynamics of and between longstanding empires, rather a moment in time. While it is an obvious oversimplification to suggest "Muslims ruled the whole subcontinent for 1000 years", it also cannot be denied that Muslims dominated control of and development of the subcontinent for substantial periods of time, probably centuries, in medieval and pre-industrial history. Muslim empires are pivotal and central to the growth of the Indian subcontinent. Their comparative importance and advancement of the subcontinent as compared with Hindu empires can be debated but a strong case can certainly be made for it and they cannot be ignored.

Why do I stress the point? Why is it worth stating this?

Because the Hindutva narrative that is rampant at present seeks to override and delete this contribution summarily and wholly as a period of "slavery". Such actions have grave ramifications for all the subcontinent's Muslims.

Local Muslims (those who hailed from the east of Indus) had very little say in the affairs of the state in the middle ages...The Islamic Empire project in the subcontinent was entirely a Central Asian affair

As long as Pakistan borders a billion Hindus it has no option but to see itself as an Islamic Crusader State or a Gazi State. As long as a billion Hindus are present,Pakistan would not be able to fully own up to its Buddhist/Hindu (Non-Abrahamic subcontinental pagan) past ...Only after India becomes Islamic, can Pakistan focus on Indus Nationalism

Afghanistan,Iran,Egypt have no problem looking back fondly at their pre-Islamic past because Zoroastrism,Ancient Egyptian religion,Buddhism are miniscule to non-existent in those countries..and they are not bordered by non-Abrahamic states...

Why do I say this? The present historical situation will heavily colour our view of the past, no matter how neutral we strive to be

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Would have been great if afghan and pak durani lands were one..

The map is wrong, they were joined together as one empire.

Durrani empire included all of modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan, it was very important for our national consciousness.

I think the landmass of Pakistan and India can be efficiently managed if it were divided into smaller countries along the lines of ethnicity.

Let's start with Sri Lanka. We can divide it into 4 states. Sinhalese Buddhist Southeast Radical Monk state, North Hindu Tamil tiger state, Eastern Tamil Muslim state, and Chinese Port state.

Enjoy.

durranis are massively exaggerated and the reason is obvious, if you just search the history the durranis were defeated by both maratha and the sikh alliance prior to panipath war, tht was the time when sikhs separated from the maratha alliance, durranis kept presence in punjab barely for 2 years before getting kicked out by the sikhs who advanced well into durrani territory of KPK etc.

regards

The view from India must look very different. Fix your flags buddy.

For Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Durrani empire was absolutely pivotal to the national consciousness of both nations. The economic works, road links, political ideology paved the way for both states. Ahmad Shah Abdali is revered as a hero by both countries.

 

[Uguduwa]

The map is wrong, they were joined together as one empire.

Durrani empire included all of modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan, it was very important for our national consciousness.



Let's start with Sri Lanka. We can divide it into 4 states. Sinhalese Buddhist Southeast Radical Monk state, North Hindu Tamil tiger state, Eastern Tamil Muslim state, and Chinese Port state.

Enjoy.



The view from India must look very different. Fix your flags buddy.

For Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Durrani empire was absolutely pivotal to the national consciousness of both nations. The economic works, road links, political ideology paved the way for both states. Ahmad Shah Abdali is revered as a hero by both countries.

All those minorities will soon be speaking Sinhalese but India and Pakistan on other hand failed to make a unifying culture after 7 decades. Shame on you.

 

[SIPRA]

Really? But if we're looking at the same map, most of it is governed by Muslim leaders. Certainly of the non-Muslim empires the marathas are clearly the most unified and largest. Unsurprising then that their wars against the British were among the most important.

This map - assuming it's accurate - is a snapshot in time presented as the state of affairs just before British aggression. I don't think it proves or disproves much in terms of power dynamics of and between longstanding empires, rather a moment in time. While it is an obvious oversimplification to suggest "Muslims ruled the whole subcontinent for 1000 years", it also cannot be denied that Muslims dominated control of and development of the subcontinent for substantial periods of time, probably centuries, in medieval and pre-industrial history. Muslim empires are pivotal and central to the growth of the Indian subcontinent. Their comparative importance and advancement of the subcontinent as compared with Hindu empires can be debated but a strong case can certainly be made for it and they cannot be ignored.

Why do I stress the point? Why is it worth stating this?

Because the Hindutva narrative that is rampant at present seeks to override and delete this contribution summarily and wholly as a period of "slavery". Such actions have grave ramifications for all the subcontinent's Muslims.

Excellent post.

 

[Kabira]

The seperation of Indus Identity from the rest of India is a historical process that happened after the Mauryas and was almost final by the time of the Hepthalites--> a 700 year process..I know you posted a map by Herodotus I believe..But Arrian of Indica does define India as the country with Indus as its Western border, the Mountains of Manipur as Eastern border,The Himalayas as Northern Border and the Ocean as the Southern Border...Arrian Indica was based on Megasthene's account which stems from around 300 BCE..but within 150 years of that, the situation started changing..The NorthWest started to look itself as a bit distinct from the rest of the subcontinent..This might have been the result of heavy Greek invasion and admixture post Mauryas....You can see that from Patanjali's Mahabhasya (who was evidently from Gandhara region) which comments that a black person from modern day Bihar cannot possibly be a Brahmin, sitting in the market square like a sack of black beans. Then came the Scythians, on top of that Kushanas..These were movements of tribes who were half a million to a million in size each. enough to change the phenotype of the upper strata..The Hou Honshu written at the time of Kushnas mention North West as Tianzhu and rest of India as Juandu--North West is also mentioned as Juandu in the same text----pointing to the formation of a distinct sub-identity...After the ingress of Indo-Sassanids,Indo-Parthians and Hepthalites the process was more or less complete..You see that in Mahbharata whose final redaction date to around 400 AD..The Brahmins of the east think the land of five rivers is not fit for sacrifices anymore because of loss of caste system...But more importantly a warrior traveller from the NorthWest pines for the time he can go back home so that he can again frolick around with the big bosomed big hip women of the NW...The women who reside west of the Ravi river...Evidently the women of the East,where his present residence was could not sway his heart...The Brahmins of the East were indignant at such remarks and thought the warriors of the NW have completely given themselves over to carnal passions..(Little did they know that the same essence that makes a man ready for battle is also the same essence that incites his heart towards women---->testosterone)

of course post Mauryas till 1947, there has always been furious fighting regarding the settlement of the border between Trans Indus empires and Gangetic empires....Gangetic empires wanting to establish themselves till Sialkot/Chenab...Trans-Indus empires wanting to establish till Sutlej ......that's 2,200 year old saga..seen from that perspective, Partition makes a lot of sense, which was divided right in the middle of Chenab and Sutlej

Modern genetics suggest that the caste system is around 2300 to 1900 years old...I am of the opinion that the timespan between 185 BCE and 300 CE saw a lot of invasions from the Central Asia..enough to change the cultural,phentoype,religious characteristic of most of the NW..many (not all) in the NW started to see themselves different from their erstwhile brethren to the east...Fearing loss of kinship from NW, the Brahmins in the East launched the caste system in all earnest (in order to preserve their racial phenotype as much as possible)


I know it's a controversial take ..therefore I would proceed cautiously..if there is enough interest on your side, I would treat this initial idea to a 10,000 word essay, full with references and pictures

@Indus Pakistan @Joe Shearer @Mangus Ortus Novem

I think you make some good points but now we know more about certain things then before. Like for example Ror/UP jat genetically have more ancestry from central asian steppe then any other ethnicity in south asia including pashtuns. But just looking at them one may not think thats the case.

Average western punjab, potohar, AJK people have much less central asian steppe so later invasions isn't the reason for obvious phenotype differences. Looking at genetic results I doubt Kushans, Greeks etc played much role at all. Only indo-aryans did and that seem to be one off event. Its quite possible Ror/Up jat are the ones who received substantial post-indo-aryan gene flow.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

I think you make some good points but now we know more about certain things then before. Like for example Ror/UP jat genetically have more ancestry from central asian steppe then any other ethnicity in south asia including pashtuns. But just looking at them one may not think thats the case.

Average western punjab, potohar, AJK people have much less central asian steppe so later invasions isn't the reason for obvious phenotype differences. Looking at genetic results I doubt Kushans, Greeks etc played much role at all. Only indo-aryans did and that seem to be one off event. Its quite possible Ror/Up jat are the ones who received substantial post-indo-aryan gene flow.

The looks of an individual is determined by only a dozen or few dozen genes...

Yes Jatts of Haryana have the highest steppe percentage....But they also tend to have a higher Ancient Ancestral South Indian percentage, which determines their looks

The sum of Steppe percentage plus West Asian agriculturist percentage in Pashtuns and others in the Indus region is higher than the corresponding sum in India, eventhough the ones in India have a higher pure Steppe percentage

It seems 5-10 percent higher AASI component can drastically change looks

The purest Aryan group in South Asia remains the Kalash group..They even to this day follow a religion that would be considered ancestral to even the Vedas....They stopped in outside mixing by 600 BCE...This is why I thank the Durand Line the most...without the Durand Line the Kalash on the side of Pakistan would have met the same fate as the Kafiristanis did in 1890s

 

[Minho]

The looks of an individual is determined by only a dozen or few dozen genes...

Yes Jatts of Haryana have the highest steppe percentage....But they also tend to have a higher Ancient Ancestral South Indian percentage, which determines their looks

The sum of Steppe percentage plus West Asian agriculturist percentage in Pashtuns and others in the Indus region is higher than the corresponding sum in India, eventhough the ones in India have a higher pure Steppe percentage

It seems 5-10 percent higher AASI component can drastically change looks

Important to remember genotype does not necessarily translate %100 into phenotype.

For example, someone who has sixty percent of ancestry indigenous to the subcontinent and %40 from Central and Western Asia etc. will not look too different from someone with reverse composition. Obviously it is a lot more complex than that, but I think that is a general rule of thumb.

In order to see drastic difference in phenotype, there has to be a much wider difference in genetic composition.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

As long as Pakistan borders a billion Hindus it has no option but to see itself as an Islamic Crusader State or a Gazi State.

You see this is the problem with the fossilised thought processes of overt Hindutva and those Hindus who are on the face of it quite reasonable but don't realise they too have been swept up by recent events and indoctrinations.

The modern state of Pakistan has ZERO interest in the modern state of India, its overall hindu majority, the Indian people, or its chosen political course, with the two caveats being: any action that enables or exacerbates the annexation of Kashmir, and any action that directly damages the Mughal (and I use this term to encompass non-Mughal Islamic empires also) heritage of the Indian subcontinent such as mosque breakage or damage to India's own Muslim community who are the only honest custodians of this heritage present in the modern state of India.

Pakistan and Pakistanis really don't care beyond that. If India sees the above matters as existential threats to Hindutva and decides to react by forcibly purging itself of half of its heritage, then this war will never end, because this nazified approach simply won't work.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Important to remember genotype does not necessarily translate %100 into phenotype.

For example, someone who has sixty percent of ancestry indigenous to the subcontinent and %40 from Central and Western Asia etc. will not look too different from someone with reverse composition. Obviously it is a lot more complex than that, but I think that is a general rule of thumb.

In order to see drastic difference in phenotype, there has to be a much wider difference in genetic composition.

The composition and the looks of Kalash give a better picture regarding the various founding "races" of the subcontinent..Kalash remain to this day the purest "Aryan" tribe in South Asia..following still to this day a religion that would be considered a predecessor to even the Rig Veda ....Let me dig up some maps based on the latest research on South Asian genetics from Reich Labs Harvard

Important to remember genotype does not necessarily translate %100 into phenotype.

For example, someone who has sixty percent of ancestry indigenous to the subcontinent and %40 from Central and Western Asia etc. will not look too different from someone with reverse composition. Obviously it is a lot more complex than that, but I think that is a general rule of thumb.

In order to see drastic difference in phenotype, there has to be a much wider difference in genetic composition.

sorry the Ancient Ancestral South Indian component in outside of subcontinent (border being the Indus) groups is miniscule..less than 10 percent...while those in Haryana have on the order of 30 percent...so eventhough Pashtuns have a slightly lesser Steppe component, they do look more "Steppe" because of the miniscule ASI component

http://rpubs.com/anupampom/admixturedates

http://rpubs.com/anupampom/indusinter . (Indus Valley component , may also be seen as W.Asian component)

http://rpubs.com/anupampom/steppeinter . Aryan or Steppe component

http://rpubs.com/anupampom/aasiinter . ASI OR Ancestral South Indian component