Tps43
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 4,960
- Reaction score
- 16
- Country
- Location
correction it's taxikaPeshawar.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
correction it's taxikaPeshawar.
Some parts of the map may be incorrect, but the OP must be given credit for dispelling the myth that Muslims ruled the majority of the subcontinent until the British. The map does correctly show that the Marathas controlled the majority of the subcontinent until the second Anglo-Maratha war, with the main Muslim powers being the Durranis of the Northwest and the Nizam of hyderabad. Important to note though that the Nizam himself was paying tribute to the marathas.
@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri
The Marathas ruled Odisha until the British. In north India, the Mughals became tributaries/puppets of the Marathas.
What?
Succinct analysis, sir. Austro Asiatic groups like the Khasis were the original inhabitants of NE, supplemented by the numerous Tibeto Burman speaking tribes later on. Our people came to the Brahmaputra valley around the same time the erstwhile Kamarupa empire began to disintegrate. Contrary to the popular opinion, Ahom is not synonymous with Assam(much to the chagrin of our Bangladeshi friends on PDF who wants us all to go back to Yunnan). It is a different thing altogether that most other tribes were assimilated into the greater Assamese identity along with us, whilst retaining their distinct ethnic characteristics. Very few Indians outside NE know this much about us, heartiest regards for you.we are talking about a Tibeto-Burmese language speaking expanse that knew the Ahom,
Very good points as always. I agree, it is easy to forget that tribes have always been a dominant force in the subcontinent. Take modern Chhattisgarh, for example. On paper, it was juggled between various empires, from the Mughals and Delhi Sultanat, to Vijayanagar to the Deccan sultanates to the Marathas. But in reality, Much of India, especially in the central and eastern parts, always remained under the sovereignty of tribal rulers and Kingdoms, such as the Gonds. Even when the British arrived, the Tribal areas of India gave the fiercest resistance. That continued past independence, with the tribal peoples of Central and Eastern India posing major challenges to the Indian security forces until very recently.This always happens with historical snapshots; one man's accurate capture of a moment in history is another man's hasty and premature, shallow generalisation. The parts that are difficult to reconcile are these:
What happened in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is not particularly relevant when considering the eighteenth century; things moved much faster than one imagines.
- If you take the Second Anglo-Maratha War into consideration, you miss the dynamics of the north-west. The Durranis, after Ahmed Shah himself, very rapidly dwindled away, and lost power to the Sikh misls. That century, from the 1760s to the 1860s, was very dynamic, and should not be generalised.
- The nature of the east - now called the north-east in India - needs greater understanding. Even the interior of Bengal, what was later my homeland, East Bengal, was only opened up with the shifting of the waterways that unexpectedly allowed the Mughals in the 16th century to penetrate right to the heart of the former Sultanate of Bengal.
- Beyond that, however, that formed one of the five parts that Bengal formed before coming to be known as Bengal, the social pattern was tribal, with some nation-building going on along the line of the Brahmaputra, focussed on the immigrant war-bands of Thai ethnicity who became known as the Ahoms. Apart from this proto-state, the rest was tribal, ruled by chieftains, who wished to do as little possible with the states forming to their south and west. The only areas under Chinese-Tibetan domination were in a corner of today's Arunachal Pradesh, centred around the monastery at Tawang, itself a tributary of Shigatse (this from memory, and a long rope requested).
- The rest was tribal. Whether it be the six or seven tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, in their north-south running valleys running down from the high Himalayas, or the Nagas, the Kukis, the Khasis, the Mizos - I am not attempting a listing, just an attempt at showing people the incredibly diverse mix that inhabited those parts - we are talking about a Tibeto-Burmese language speaking expanse that knew the Ahom, and more or less paid them to keep them off their backs, and to keep the rest of India at bay.
It might have been amusing to see the stilted efforts at a back-story proving that there was no India and it was the British who created one, a myth that was exposed in 1947. It isn't amusing, actually, because both sets of regressives, the ones to the west and the ones we have infesting us at the moment, both die-hard preachers of the Two Nation Theory, have attempted to establish this as the standard narratives for donkey's years (why does that phrase suddenly stir ribald thoughts?), with no success whatsoever but also with no diminution of their effervescent self-confidence.
It is pronounced Sutiya. They were a very influential power centre parallel to the Ahoms.
No, and this comment shows how little you know.The Gandhara kingdom was Hindu, yes ??
The Indus Region has always been historically distinct from modern-day India.I just wanted to point out to some PDF Pakistanis that however much they try to disassociate themselves from Present India, they are attached to it one way or another.
Do you have any sources for this? Not doubting your claim, would just like to read up more about it.Even when the British arrived, the Tribal areas of India gave the fiercest resistance.
Here's a general overviewNo, and this comment shows how little you know.
The Indus Region has always been historically distinct from modern-day India.
Do you have any sources for this? Not doubting your claim, would just like to read up more about it.
Hindus ruled in India for about 500 years before the British came through empires such as the Marathas, Vijayanagara, and the Ahoms in the Northeast.Some people do not want Hindus to enjoy ruling their own land for even 100 years after a thousand years.. that's so bad!
Yeah right..Hindus ruled in India for about 500 years before the British came through empires such as the Marathas, Vijayanagara, and the Ahoms in the Northeast.
Yeah right..
No, and this comment shows how little you know.
The Indus Region has always been historically distinct from modern-day India.
Do you have any sources for this? Not doubting your claim, would just like to read up more about it.
A good attempt. Kindly, format your qouted post for easier reading.
Looking forward to your essay!
My friend,
A good attempt. Kindly, format your qouted post for easier reading.
I just wish to raise a flag here... all of the Arabia till Morocco cann't be OneEntity...then why do you wish to force one on your own modern state... ?
Is it possible that it is just a vast region with different states... and given the isolation of the times... ended up having a simliar religion..which was never a religion to begin with... ???
Just a thought to provoke more thinking on your part or at least try a different perspective framework...
However, whatever you choose is welcome!
Looking forward to your essay!
Mangus