WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 41515242

(no title)

vvrm | 1 year ago

> CV Raman won the Nobel prize in science, Tagore won the Nobel prize in literature, Ramanujan etc, the names are numerous.

So golden age of India was when the country with a seventh of the world's population won 2 nobel prizes over 5 decades ?

> The British rule also was the largest and most stable unification of India till the modern times. After 1850s there were almost no pockets of military resistance against the British rule.

Mughal and Gupta empires lasted over 3 centuries, Mauryan empire a little under 1.5 centuries. By comparison, east india company rule lasted a century and the British crown's rule less than that. So again completely incorrect.

> The third golden age which no one wants to admit (left or right) is the British Golden age.

There's your hint: if people on both sides of the aisle don't "want to admit" something, maybe it doesn't make sense. Not to mention a slap in the face of billions of Indians.

> The British age declined with WW1 and WW2, and ended with Indian independence.

Thank god for that decline, otherwise Indian taxpayers would have been funding Brexit and the crumbling British economy right now.

> My oversimplified summary has been

This is not a summary, it's a lazy opinion backed by little research.

discuss

order

sashank_1509|1 year ago

Have you read any books at all by Indians who lived through the British empire. Maybe start with “My Experiments with Truth” by Gandhi. The caricature that some modern Indians have made of the British empire would make even Gandhi turn in his grave.

But if you want to read something really heretic, maybe try reading An autobiography of an unknown Indian by Niraj Choudhary. Choudhary was a British raj supporter, as in an Indian who opposed Indian independence. Does that shock you? There were actually quite a lot of them, more than you’d expect.

Then if you want to get really metal, read in his own words, by Subedar Sitaram Pande. Sitaram Pande, was a soldier for the bengal army, for the British empire from 1812 to 1860, it’s one of the rare first author accounts we get of an Indian in that era. It will give you a glimpse of how an Indian at that time thought generally (hint: it was far more dominated by caste than you’d expect), how he viewed the empire and his relation to it. At that point I would say you are ready to try to understand Indian history that is not an avengers movie plot.

I would follow it with CK Majumdars history of modern India, one of the best historians so committed to the truth that Nehru had to throw him out of the government and try to prevent him from writing his book. Don’t worry, he’s not an heretic, he was an Indian freedom fighter, but you will find that he was far more honest about his life under Britain, under Indian national Congress and the state of the country in different periods of time (he also has a 12 volume set covering India for over 2000 years that I never had a chance to complete).

vvrm|1 year ago

[deleted]

achierius|1 year ago

>Mauryan empire a little under 1.5 centuries. By comparison, east india company rule lasted a century and the British crown's rule less than that This is a very dishonest way to obscure the actual facts.

Direct rule from Britain lasted for almost 90 years: 1858 to 1947. Even by your numbers then, that's 190 years: longer than the Mauryan empire's whole lifespan, and much closer to that of the Mughals. From there the question remains whether it's the longest "unification", and this mostly comes down to exactly when each of the aforementioned empires could be considered to have "unified" India.

By any definition the Mughals united the subcontinent by 1707AD at the latest: but by 1751, less than fifty years on, their effective domain had declined to a few pockets in Rajputana and Bengal.

The Guptan Empire on the other hand, while certainly a key predecessor to later Indian states and a major unifying force in the northern half of the subcontinent, never conquered the southern half -- what is today Karnakata, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu never entered their control. The closest they got was ~420AD after the south-eastern conquests of Chandragupta II, but again within fifty years they again lost control of today's Orissa, and even lost large swathes of north+western India to invasions from the steppe.

You call GP's post "a lazy opinion backed by little research", but when you dig into the facts I can't see how you could argue that his claim is incorrect. The British Raj alone seems to qualify as the longest-lasting unification of India before the modern Indian state, and if you include any part of the EIC's rule then it's indisputably so.

anukin|1 year ago

Mughals did not unite the subcontinent at any time. Even at its peak, Kerala, parts of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka was out of its influence. Parts of Kerala became British territories after 1804.

dartharva|1 year ago

As an Indian, it is extremely naive and childish to dismiss any consideration of the British rule as a "slap in the face". The British introduced electricity, railways, capitalism and a thousand other things we take for granted behind those saffron-tinted glasses.

Hell, the British Raj was what unified India into a single national identity. It was more fractured than the European continent otherwise.

vvrm|1 year ago

> The British introduced electricity, railways, capitalism and a thousand other things we take for granted behind those saffron-tinted glasses.

Some people love being a slave, but that is not a requirement for having electricity, railways or capitalism. Just look at any other country.

> naive, childish, saffron-tinted glasses.

A brain with less self-righteousness has more space for common sense and logic.