What was the most important Empire in India's history?

[Black Widow]

mrwarrior006^^^^
The Brits gave you the political system which transform what you are today.

Be Thankful. They did take your treasures and enslave you people. But they gave something back - the railway system and the political system and the language that binds the country.

Delusion.. You guys have selective amnesia.. There are 2 facts..
a) democracy is not invented by West
b) India took goodness from all nation and formed the governing style, Its tailor made for us

 

[ali_raza]

The British East India Company

british empire changed the face of whole india.had they not been here instead of 3 there qould have been 30 small countries.

 

[Sriram]

Cholas and then Mauriyan empire under Ashoka

 

[INDIC]

british empire changed the face of whole india.had they not been here instead of 3 there qould have been 30 small countries.

Perhaps you are forgetting the clause of "Lapse of Paramountcy" in Independence of India Act. British indeed left behind hundreds of princely states independent before leaving India.

 

[ali_raza]

Perhaps you are forgetting the clause of "Lapse of Paramounty" in Independence of India Act. British indeed left behind hundreds of princely states independent before leaving India.

u r forgetting that had the britishers allowed maharajas to form there seperate souregn stats.u tell me how on earth would india be united like today

 

[INDIC]

u r forgetting that had the britishers allowed maharajas to form there seperate souregn stats.u tell me how on earth would india be united like today

You may be forgetting many of them declared their independence, even Jinnah was in support of their independence. Travancore was first one to declare independence. In case of India, it was the hardwork of Sardar Patel that these princely states were persuaded to join India.

 

[Ayush]

maurya,mughal and british

 

[ali_raza]

You may be forgetting many of them declared their independence, even Jinnah was in support of their independence. Travancore was first one to declare independence. In case of India, it was the hardwork of Sardar Patel that these princely states were persuaded to join India.

there was a pressure from britishers.u can search partition documentry prepaired bu BBC.u will know.there was a convention held.and all maharajas were invited and the britishers made it clear to then that there is no other choice other then to join succeser stats.or else they will be contempt of british crown.revolt is another thing like heppend in hayderabad.the rest is history.cos they were reluctant to join either of the two.do u think congress was naive to make mountbatten the first governer general.it was to give impression to the stats that there is no other way then to join.and that heppend all as planned.

 

[INDIC]

there was a pressure from britishers.u can search partition documentry prepaired bu BBC.u will know.there was a convention held.and all maharajas were invited and the britishers made it clear to then that there is no other choice other then to join succeser stats.or else they will be contempt of british crown.revolt is another thing like heppend in hayderabad.the rest is history.cos they were reluctant to join either of the two.do u think congress was naive to make mountbatten the first governer general.it was to give impression to the stats that there is no other way then to join.and that heppend all as planned.

I have seen that documentary but it didn't show rest of the story. Mountbatten gave a speech but many of them were still reluctant to join India. It was the great effort of Sardar Patel that we came to see single piece India.

 

[ali_raza]

I have seen that documentary but it didn't show rest of the story. Mountbatten gave a speech but many of them were still reluctant to join India. It was the great effort of Sardar Patel that we came to see single piece India.

no doubt s.patel worked hard for that.but britishers also helped them alote.after all it was the britishers who wrote the rules of the game not patel.we indians or pakistanis had not a say in that.we just gave suggestions.but the real gamers were the goras not us

 

[INDIC]

no doubt s.patel worked hard for that.but britishers also helped them alote.after all it was the britishers who wrote the rules of the game not patel.we indians or pakistanis had not a say in that.we just gave suggestions.but the real gamers were the goras not us

British played their game till it suits their interests otherwise they didn't have much interests are other places and left the things. Remember, British included the clause of "Lapse of Paramountcy" in the Independence of India act.

 

[ali_raza]

it suits them to deal with one instead of a headache of small tiny nations spread every where.

 

[INDIC]

it suits them to deal with one instead of a headache of small tiny nations spread every where.

Princely states of India were useless for British. They have to deal mainly with Soviets and India had no border with the Soviet Union since the cold war started.

 

[ali_raza]

t

Princely states of India were useless for British. They have to deal mainly with Soviets and India had no border with the Soviet Union since the cold war started.

that what i m saying that tiny states were useless or potential allies for soviets and chinese or any one willing to support them so britishers played there part...geography of pakistan was also a crucial decision to make as they wanted to deny russian indian union as much as possible.we can say that britishers played there card very well.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Every empire in history has its own significance and importance . However it was the British empire that had the greatest influence on India .. And that is true because it is the most recent one and is directly related to us in terms of time . It may not be the case in another few centuries or so , as greater time lapse makes history more of a "legend" to remeber without any direct implications on ones everyday life . This is how history works !!.. Now a days , a lot of people say that Mughals and all other muslim rulers were foreign invaders and were not locals ,,,, same can be seen in the post .. no mention of mughals or any sultanate of delhi .. this is a totally wrong approach when dealing with serious subjects like history , driven primarily by prejudice , rather than rationality . Majority of the historians agree that Aryans were foreign invaders who came to india . They adopted jainism , budhism and eventually became hindus . After two thousand years , other foreign invaders (Muslims;arabs and later turks) came to India and did to Aryans exactly what the aryans had done to the locals upon their arrival ; make them submit and rule !! A lot of the aryans adopted the religion of these new invaders (today there are 500 million muslims in this sub continent) just like the locals had adopted the religion of aryans during aryan rule !!! That is how history works !! And then came the BRITIANS ... and the history repeated itself once again ........... The only difference was that the meaning of religion had changed over time ... the locals adopted the culture and thinking of invaders once again ... In our times , materialism is the universal religion and we have adopted it very much from our recent invaders .... History works in a very simple way , yet we mostly fail to analyse it ..... History is much more relative than normally presumed