What kept India united after the British left?

[Indus Pakistan]

@AUSTERLITZ I asked you one question and you went off tangent. "When exactly did India resist the Greeks?" Thanks in advance. I await your answer. It might help if you enumerate it as (i), (ii) etc

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

@AUSTERLITZ I asked you one question and you went off tangent. "When exactly did India resist the Greeks?" Thanks in advance. I await your answer. It might help if you enumerate it as (i), (ii) etc

During Alexander's time and then under the greek bactrian kings.By the powerful nanda,then maurya and finally sunga empires.Alexander turned back without facing the nandas.Chandragupta maurya reconquered the areas he had penetrated,defeated his greatest succesor general seleucus's invasion and annexed territory upto modern day afghanistan.The greeks didn't challenge the mauryas after that.After and during the fall of the mauryas around 150-200 yrs later,the bactrian kings made some inroads but were repulsed by the succesor sunga dynasty.

Hopefully you can read it this time.

 

[padamchen]

All I ever see Indians doing is telling me how India is unlike Pakistan. Even my Indian professor could not shut up about comparing everything related to India with Pakistan and how India was different from Pakistan in his defined boundaries.

Pakistan split because well, it had an enemy nation right in the middle of it. I would have also liked to see India stay united if Pakistan got a bigger chunk including Kashmir and a corridor to Bangladesh. I guarantee India would have broken up in to at least two nations as well.

Religion, culture etc can only go so far, the reality is, it is the fear of the outside and unknown that feeds both India and Pakistan.

Fear sure. Loathing of course.

Nothing unknown about each other for either of us.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Indus Pakistan]

During Alexander's time

Okay let's cover this point by point. First Alexander. To say India resisted Alexander is blatent lie and distorting history. Arabs invaded/landed in what is today Gibralter 711. Subsequently they spread across Iberia and even made a entry into Gaul and were defeated at Tours. Nobody and I have yet to come across has termed this as "Europe fought the Arabs" or "Europe resisted Arabs". The reason is simple. Arabs mostly were limited in their invasion to Iberia and faced mostly Iberians or Franks. Rest of 90% Europe was untouched and was "business as usual".

Now do please tell me how does Porus ruler of a small kingdom and few other snall entities straddling the Indus region of what is now Pakistan fighting Alexander get converted into "India"? That suggests a sub-continentel phenomenon that resisted Alexander when you very well know that is not the case.

Alexanders invasion remained localized to the Indus region and all the fighting was done by small Indus region kingdoms. You can attribute the resistence against Greeks to Porus etc but those were leaders of local kingdoms. Had other parts of india sent significant forces to support Porus then you might have a case but the fact was Porus did not even get support from his immediate neighbours in the Indus tract let alone the whole sub-continent. To put it bluntly the resistence against Alexander was limted to and entirely local. There was nothing remotely trans sub-continental about it. Therefore calling it "Indian resistence" is distorting the truth and seems to me be a attempt to garner vicarious pride by the entire sub-continent when most of it did sweet "f" all about fightin Alexander.

To go back to what I said. when Arabs landed in Gibraler they did not face Europe. They just faced the local Iberian kongdoms. It was not Europe that resisted the Arabs but the Iberians.

 

[Baby Leone]

@Kaptaan @PakSword @The Sandman @war&peace @Zibago @Spring Onion @Awan68 @Moonlight @Kami leone @Sher Shah Awan @Joe Shearer @Well.wisher @HAKIKAT @Hell hound @Zarvan @django

Solve me this puzzle intelligently please.

hmmm just ask indian military and establishment to go on holiday for only one day and give indians real democratic powers and freedom then we will see how united india is

@Kaptaan @PakSword @The Sandman @war&peace @Zibago @Spring Onion @Awan68 @Moonlight @Kami leone @Sher Shah Awan @Joe Shearer @Well.wisher @HAKIKAT @Hell hound @Zarvan @django

Solve me this puzzle intelligently please.

uncle ap muje tag na karen me ap se naraz hun....

 

[utraash]

The English language, the British system of government, and the British legal system.

Care to explain above?

I know many labourers from UP/Bihar who earn their bread & butter down in south without any iota of knowledge of English.

Explain the slugfest before 1100 or so. I think people were more religious then but still not united.

A very well Learnt lesson of history of what happens if allow ourselves falling prey to sword cult.

 

[illusion8]

Pakistan refuses to play boogeyman to India.

Stop sending terrorists by using the Afghani stubbornness to accept the Durand line.

The tribals in your north west and regions along pakistani borders with afghanistan form the majority of the terrorists that operate in those regions, mujjis were even transported to the J&K region from 1948 to fight jihad.

Your border region has a long history of violence owing to the lack of governance, education, tribal laws, overall lawlessness and extremist followings. - these mujjis have been traversing the "borders" from a long time in history.
Its funny when you guys blame saazish from all and sundry, be it CIA, RAW, Mossad, MI5 etc when what's going on has been happening for centuries.

You should blame the saudis for the waahabi, salafi preaching's that these guys follow.

only 3 words to describe this .
Hate , Fear and Elite.

That sounds like a description for Pakistan

I would say, its because of

1. A very well defined constitution right from the start
2. Democracy that has been stable and won for the last 70 years.
3. A well defined central, state, district and village level administrative system,
4. A well defined Judiciary
5. A well defined bureaucracy.
6. A disciplined Defense force
7. A well organized police and para military force
8. A well defined Trade and labor unions
9. A multi cultural, a multi ethnic populace who identifies themselves as Indians first.
10. An established censor board for all mediums
11. A robust student level political bloc.
12. A somewhat stable public distribution system, education system, medical system.

etc etc.

 

[livingdead]

democracy.. visionary political leaders, like nehru, ambedkar made sure we will have a solid base to build upon. Federal structure made sure the variation in local demands are met locally(india has become increasingly federal since nehru). The armed forces were used to quell separatism but the leaders were pragmatic enough to do deals wherever possible. At the same time armed forces are kept at a distance strictly under civilian leadership, so as not to encourage coup.
threat of pakistan what brought many princely states to our fold, so thats one factor...
over the years railways, tv, bollywood, cricket etc have forged a sense of nationhood among people.

 

[Jugger]

During Alexander's time and then under the greek bactrian kings.By the powerful nanda,then maurya and finally sunga empires.Alexander turned back without facing the nandas.Chandragupta maurya reconquered the areas he had penetrated,defeated his greatest succesor general seleucus's invasion and annexed territory upto modern day afghanistan.The greeks didn't challenge the mauryas after that.After and during the fall of the mauryas around 150-200 yrs later,the bactrian kings made some inroads but were repulsed by the succesor sunga dynasty.Whenever a powerful centralized empire existed,external threats were defeated.Even when semi-powerful states worked together they succeeded.
Thus alexander and seleucus lords of asia were turned back.
The hunas(hepthalites) who had overran modern afghanistan,pakistan and north western parts of the crumbling later gupta empire under mihirkula was decisively defeated by the co-operation between narasimhagupta,a much weaker later gupta ruler and yasodharman of malwa and he was driven out of punjab and western india and restricted to kashmir and further western areas.Mihirkula's father Toramana had been defeated and driven out by the last great gupta emperor skandagupta earlier.

Before that Chandragupta II vikramaditya had defeated the sakas(scythians or indo-parthians) that had ruled gujarat,parts of mahrashtra and sindh and eliminated their presence in india.

The arabs defeated the 2 mightiest empires of the day -the byzantines and sassanids.The completely destroyed the sassanid persians and byzantium was barely able to survive.They overran egypt and north africa and conquered the visigoths of spain.They defeated the chinese in central asia and spread their power there.In Indian region they could only take the small kingdom of sindh on the outskirts .When they tried to cross Indus they faced a centralized rajput power of the gurjara pratiharas allied with the main south indian power - the rastrakutas and were badly defeated repeatedly.The army that had conquered pretty much everyone in that time period was stopped cold.The turks made their successful penetrations only once the rajputs had become divided into many kingdoms -particularly 3 big powers - chauhans,solankis and gahadvals.Ghori was defeated once by solankis,won 1 and lost 1 against chauhans and defated the gahadvals.If they had fought together he would have no chance as odds would be impossible.

Even in case of british ,they consolidated their power by picking off the smaller kingdoms like nawabi of bengal,parts of awadh,mysore,nizam one by one leaving the strongest - the marathas and the sikhs for the last.And only when they were divided due to internal factionalism. When the maratha confederacy was united and fought as such during the 1st anglo-maratha war they fought the british to a standstill for 10 years and that led to 20 years of peace.Only when main maratha leaders fadnavis and mahadaji scindia were dead,and unity broken did they attack again and were successful and bajirao ii joined the british in 2nd war.

So the lesson of our history is clear.Stand united and we can beat anybody.Fight divided and we will fall.

Unite we stand and divide we fall, this is what history has thought India.

This is off topic but as per your in depth knowledge of ancient warfare you should try total war games which satisfies my itch for RTS combat.

 

[CHACHA"G"]

The tribals in your north west and regions along pakistani borders with afghanistan form the majority of the terrorists that operate in those regions, mujjis were even transported to the J&K region from 1948 to fight jihad.

Your border region has a long history of violence owing to the lack of governance, education, tribal laws, overall lawlessness and extremist followings. - these mujjis have been traversing the "borders" from a long time in history.
Its funny when you guys blame saazish from all and sundry, be it CIA, RAW, Mossad, MI5 etc when what's going on has been happening for centuries.

You should blame the saudis for the waahabi, salafi preaching's that these guys follow.



That sounds like a description for Pakistan

I would say, its because of

1. A very well defined constitution right from the start
2. Democracy that has been stable and won for the last 70 years.
3. A well defined central, state, district and village level administrative system,
4. A well defined Judiciary
5. A well defined bureaucracy.
6. A disciplined Defense force
7. A well organized police and para military force
8. A well defined Trade and labor unions
9. A multi cultural, a multi ethnic populace who identifies themselves as Indians first.
10. An established censor board for all mediums
11. A robust student level political bloc.
12. A somewhat stable public distribution system, education system, medical system.

etc etc.

As I said above(my post) are the 3 reasons rest is all Indian delusionalism or in simple words Randi Rona and your answer to my post is perfect example. History book (not from any hindu temple) will help you lot.

 

[Kathin_Singh]

My own feeling is the BCs group [40% of India] will gravitate mostly to Hindutwa or or other radical Hindu groups. The SCs/STs [30% of India] or Dalits/Tribals will feed the leftist radical groups like Naxalities. I also think the Indian state will cultivate links with Hindu right wing based groups to fight the leftist groups made up of mostly Dalits/Tribals and this is already happening with Naxalites.

You are totally wrong on BC part.

BC groups and Hindutva group are mutually antagonistic groups . BC thinks that it is the Brahminical domination has caused them injustice. BC groups are leading separate parties for e.g Mulayam Lalu or Chautala. BC groups are more secular in orientation and has support of minorities.

Dalits have either aligned with Congress or formed separate groups. So it the Hindutva group which want support of Dalits in order to keep dominant BC away from power. For e.g. BJP wooing Dalits in order to keep dominant BC groups like Yadav Jats Maratha or Patel's away from power.

 

[El Sidd]

democracy.. visionary political leaders, like nehru, ambedkar made sure we will have a solid base to build upon. Federal structure made sure the variation in local demands are met locally(india has become increasingly federal since nehru). The armed forces were used to quell separatism but the leaders were pragmatic enough to do deals wherever possible. At the same time armed forces are kept at a distance strictly under civilian leadership, so as not to encourage coup.
threat of pakistan what brought many princely states to our fold, so thats one factor...
over the years railways, tv, bollywood, cricket etc have forged a sense of nationhood among people.

This is just factually not correct Sir.

Try again

 

[illusion8]

As I said above(my post) are the 3 reasons rest is all Indian delusionalism or in simple words Randi Rona and your answer to my post is perfect example. History book (not from any hindu temple) will help you lot.

Your post is a perfect demonstration of your mental level...and there's just one Ran** in south asia ..and that's not India.

 

[CHACHA"G"]

Your post is a perfect demonstration of your mental level...and there's just one Ran** in south asia ..and that's not India.

You are still and always be in delusions , Indian(British made Indian what was you before that?) . And Randi Rona country also have new name if you don't like Randi Rona , new name is #terrormatta .

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Okay let's cover this point by point. First Alexander. To say India resisted Alexander is blatent lie and distorting history. Arabs invaded/landed in what is today Gibralter 711. Subsequently they spread across Iberia and even made a entry into Gaul and were defeated at Tours. Nobody and I have yet to come across has termed this as "Europe fought the Arabs" or "Europe resisted Arabs". The reason is simple. Arabs mostly were limited in their invasion to Iberia and faced mostly Iberians or Franks. Rest of 90% Europe was untouched and was "business as usual".

Now do please tell me how does Porus ruler of a small kingdom and few other snall entities straddling the Indus region of what is now Pakistan fighting Alexander get converted into "India"? That suggests a sub-continentel phenomenon that resisted Alexander when you very well know that is not the case.

Alexanders invasion remained localized to the Indus region and all the fighting was done by small Indus region kingdoms. You can attribute the resistence against Greeks to Porus etc but those were leaders of local kingdoms. Had other parts of india sent significant forces to support Porus then you might have a case but the fact was Porus did not even get support from his immediate neighbours in the Indus tract let alone the whole sub-continent. To put it bluntly the resistence against Alexander was limted to and entirely local. There was nothing remotely trans sub-continental about it. Therefore calling it "Indian resistence" is distorting the truth and seems to me be a attempt to garner vicarious pride by the entire sub-continent when most of it did sweet "f" all about fightin Alexander.

To go back to what I said. when Arabs landed in Gibraler they did not face Europe. They just faced the local Iberian kongdoms. It was not Europe that resisted the Arabs but the Iberians.

Trying to distort history won't work.Porus though he fought bravely didn't stop alexander.It was fear of thje centralized enormous nanda power that scared the macedonian army.It wasn't the little states of the indus region that had the capability to resist alexander or his succesor seleucus,despite brave resistance.It was chandragupta maurya leading a centralized power who defeated him.As long as mauryas were dominant greeks never tried anything- ashoka/vindusara had an enormous army.Only after mauryas collapsed did the bactrians try invasions but were again repulsed by the sunga empire.Not by small states.

You trying to hide the arab defeat is quite funny.They defeated the chinese with a smallish force at talas and took over parts of central asia,overran visigothic spain with a single expeditionary force.Egypt was conquered from the byzantines with a single expeditionary force.In the battles of rajasthan they sent powerful multiple armies.One was smashed by the chalukyas-rashtrakutas and the other by the gurjara pratiharas.They were defeated so badly that the arab writers themselves wrote that a place of refuge where they could flee was not found and after the defeat the caliph abandoned all hopes of conquering hindustan.And this was the strongest empire in the world at the time.They had defeated the byzantines and the chinese,annihilated the sassanids and visigoths.It showed very well what happens when the people of this land fought against external invaders either as a centralized entity or with a united front.From alexander,seleucus,demetrius,toramana,mihirkula,the arab caliphs to the english in the 1st anglo-maratha war,this lesson of history is clear. You may not like the fact that the areas the greeks conquered and held were largely modern day pak-afghan territory,or that mihirkula could conquer modern day pakistan,kashmir and afghanitan but not penetrate the gangetic heartland,or that arabs could only take sind and were administered a beating when they triedto penetrate west of the indus.It probably contradicts with your mental image of history as beginning with IVC,then Puru,then darkness - comes Qasim and history begins.

Unite we stand and divide we fall, this is what history has thought India.

This is off topic but as per your in depth knowledge of ancient warfare you should try total war games which satisfies my itch for RTS combat.

Already played tons of them to death.