Reducing the size, importance of pre islamic indian empires?

[W.11]

India was ruled by atleast three really big empires, only mauryas are somewhat acknowledged as pan indian, but guptas, nandas are totally excluded even though evidences back up their huge territorial gains.

Revising the territories of Maurya empire, nanda empire and gupta empire is pretty strange phenomenon, these three atleast were those which extended through the length and breath of the indian subcontinent.

Maurya empire

under chandra maurya its western extent Gedrosia/greek source (Eastern Iran/ surprisingly not shown in this map) and southern extent (Aygudi/Podiyil hill from tamil source)

Nanda empire

Western boundary unknown/ southern boundary mysore (known through mysorean inscriptions)

Gupta Empire

this map is also probably short as it doesnt include bactria but only kabul

southern boundary mysore (mysorean inscription state they were ruled by the guptas), western boundary bactria (known through hunza inscription surprisingly bactria is omitted from other maps as well)

maps in wikipedia

Nanda map

maurya map

even more revisionist map

Gedrosia completely excluded in this map

but shown in another map from another page

 

[AUz]

Nobody cares about those irrelevant empires lol.

Islamic empires were the most powerful and influential Indian empires. Mughals being the most powerful of the pan-Indian empire in Medieval times.

After Mughals, it was British---then Republic era (India-Pak).

 

[Shantanu_Left]

I believe in the concept of an "Indic" civilization similar to a Western European civilization or Arab civilization. Yes, these territories have always had a lot in common since the last few millennia.

However, modern India is a British creation.

If they want slightly more authentic Indic civilization (pre-British era), perhaps the Hindutvadi fanatics should move to countries like Suriname, Fiji, Guyana, or Mauritius. Perhaps speak Bhojpuri or Awadhi instead of standard Hindi.

Modern India does not resemble Ashoka, Chandragupta, Raja Bhoj or Maratha empires in any way. Why feel pride for them? I see no reason: all of them were tyrants and despots. I see them as uncivilized barbarians. Yes, that includes my ancestors as well but that is the whole point of moving ahead in life. You should not remain stuck like cement.

The British, like it or not, brought a fair amount of civilization to these parts. No more chucking widows to funeral pyres of their husbands for starters.

Unfortunately, Indians are stuck in a feudal mindset.

 

[W.11]

Nobody cares about those irrelevant empires lol.

Islamic empires were the most powerful and influential Indian empires.

huh how are they irrelevant mate?

regards

The British, like it or not, brought a fair amount of civilization to these parts. No more chucking widows to funeral pyres of their husbands for starters.

BS colonial propaganda

regards

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Nanda is India's first empire based on external sources, however its significance was overshadowed by that of Mauryans


Gupta empire acknowledged very much in Indian history and associated with Golden age of ancient given advancements in mathematics during this time.

 

[W.11]

Nanda is India's first empire based on external sources, however its significance was overshadowed by that of Mauryans

maurya significance is mostly because of colonial interpretation based of their interactions with the greeks etc

nandas were more celebrated, especially their rule in south india was remembered long after they were gone, makes sense since nandas were the real conquerers, mauryas probably inherited nanda territory to begin with.

regards

 

[Shantanu_Left]

BS colonial propaganda



regards

It's wrong to support colonial rule or whitewash the crimes such as Jallianwala Bagh massacre. But all of us prefer living in 21st century modern era. We all aspire to follow Western practices of liberal democracy, human rights, Geneva conventions, women's equality, 40-hour work weeks, instant coffee, fast food, etc. This is our present reality and we don't want to change this living for anything else in the name of tradition. I wouldn't want to follow anything that Ashoka or Shivaji did: they are irrelevant to me.

Religion is a separate issue.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

I believe in the concept of an "Indic" civilization similar to a Western European civilization or Arab civilization. Yes, these territories have always had a lot in common since the last few millennia.

However, modern India is a British creation.

If they want slightly more authentic Indic civilization (pre-British era), perhaps the Hindutvadi fanatics should move to countries like Suriname, Fiji, Guyana, or Mauritius. Perhaps speak Bhojpuri or Awadhi instead of standard Hindi.

Modern India does not resemble Ashoka, Chandragupta, Raja Bhoj or Maratha empires in any way. Why feel pride for them? I see no reason: all of them were tyrants and despots. I see them as uncivilized barbarians. Yes, that includes my ancestors as well but that is the whole point of moving ahead in life. You should not remain stuck like cement.

The British, like it or not, brought a fair amount of civilization to these parts. No more chucking widows to funeral pyres of their husbands for starters.

Unfortunately, Indians are stuck in a feudal mindset.

Your "Indic" civilization excludes most of India.

IVC, Gandhara, Greek states, etc. were centered in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

You won't like what I will say, but it needs to be said.

Afghanistan and Pakistan (+Kashmir) are one country.

See the Durrani empire from which both states descend and owe much of their culture.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

BS colonial propaganda

regards

Many people in the subcontinent are unaware what British have done in India and even more worse in other colonies and also historical massacres in Ireland.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

It's wrong to support colonial rule or whitewash the crimes such as Jallianwala Bagh massacre. But all of us prefer living in 21st century modern era. We all aspire to follow Western practices of liberal democracy, human rights, Geneva conventions, women's equality, 40-hour work weeks, instant coffee, fast food, etc. This is our present reality and we don't want to change this living for anything else in the name of tradition. I wouldn't want to follow anything that Ashoka or Shivaji did: they are irrelevant to me.

Religion is a separate issue.

Our compass is different than yours. We remember a time when the West idolized us. When we ruled over Europe for hundreds of years. We see alot of the moral societal issues plaguing the West.

So the Islamic world does not ascribe to the same mindset as you are trying to pass off as universal.

Freedom and dignity are more important.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I believe in the concept of an "Indic" civilization similar to a Western European civilization or Arab civilization. Yes, these territories have always had a lot in common since the last few millennia.

However, modern India is a British creation.

If they want slightly more authentic Indic civilization (pre-British era), perhaps the Hindutvadi fanatics should move to countries like Suriname, Fiji, Guyana, or Mauritius. Perhaps speak Bhojpuri or Awadhi instead of standard Hindi.

Modern India does not resemble Ashoka, Chandragupta, Raja Bhoj or Maratha empires in any way. Why feel pride for them? I see no reason: all of them were tyrants and despots. I see them as uncivilized barbarians. Yes, that includes my ancestors as well but that is the whole point of moving ahead in life. You should not remain stuck like cement.

The British, like it or not, brought a fair amount of civilization to these parts. No more chucking widows to funeral pyres of their husbands for starters.

Unfortunately, Indians are stuck in a feudal mindset.

'Modern' India as a nation-state is a British creation. That happens to be the most irrelevant statement about India that can possibly be made. Remember, please, that India is the name used by foreigners for India, not the name for India used by Indians. It is the same as arguing that Allemania was not created in history or is not a state even today. Most of what we recognise as coherent nation-states were created, exactly and precisely as artificially, if that is the word, as India by the Treaty of Westphalia that sought to end the Thirty Years' War. It was this treaty that crystallised territories into the realms that later became the states of today, freezing a people and a geographical area into formal rule under a single sovereign and practising a single religion.

For those of an Orientalist bent of mind, that is, most Pakistani members, the example of modern Turkey is instructive.

 

[Shantanu_Left]

Your "Indic" civilization excludes most of India.

IVC, Gandhara, Greek states, etc. were centered in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

You won't like what I will say, but it needs to be said.

Afghanistan and Pakistan (+Kashmir) are one country.

See the Durrani empire from which both states descend and owe much of their culture.

Of course, we are different. There is nothing to like or dislike about it. This patchwork of territories called Hindostan, Bharatvarsha, South Asia etc., is a very diverse region. I believe it is very important to celebrate this diversity rather than sweep everything under what is essentially a British creation.

That doesn't mean I support the dissolution of modern day Bharat or Pakistan. These are newfound countries which have every reason to stay united under their respective common flags.

I also acknowledge your position that Pakistan and Afghanistan have a lot more in common with each other than either have with modern India. Again, it's a geographical and ethno-linguistic reality which will not go away. Though an artificial creation, modern India has acquired many similar characteristics in the last 70 years despite its incredible diversity. I had once journeyed to Mizoram from Myanmar. Although the North-eastern states are very different from mainland India, the moment I crossed over from the Burmese border, everything felt exactly like Indian soil should. It was remarkable. Essentially, the people of Mizoram should have more in common with the people of Myanmar right next door to them. On the contrary, many people of that state speak fluent Hindi which might be better than mine (just kidding, it's just that I don't get to speak that much Hindi nowadays.)

I would also like to mention that it is an absolute delight to have a chat with the Pakistanis on this forum. It appears to me that the standard of education in Pakistan is a lot better than modern India's: everyone is so graceful, polite, and well-behaved. As they are in real life which I'm aware of. Maybe I am alone in observing this; perhaps @xeuss can substantiate.

In India, unfortunately, the focus is on getting a degree but not a real education. That is why so many Indians on the Internet behave like thugs, scumbags and louts. Just because you have a fancy engineering or MBA degree does not make you educated (outside India, you have to be kind of an all-rounder to be seen as educated.) I guess they all take after the loutish, illiterate Prime Minister we have to currently suffer. It's the kind of role models we choose in life that can impact our own character and external image.

Based on the interactions in this forum, I have a feeling Pakistan does a better job in giving proper education to its youth than India does. Credit goes where credit is due.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

India was ruled by atleast three really big empires, only mauryas are somewhat acknowledged as pan indian, but guptas, nandas are totally excluded even though evidences back up their huge territorial gains.

Revising the territories of Maurya empire, nanda empire and gupta empire is pretty strange phenomenon, these three atleast were those which extended through the length and breath of the indian subcontinent.

Maurya empire

under chandra maurya its western extent Gedrosia/greek source (Eastern Iran/ surprisingly not shown in this map) and southern extent (Aygudi/Podiyil hill from tamil source)

View attachment 626682

Nanda empire

View attachment 626684

Western boundary unknown/ southern boundary mysore (known through mysorean inscriptions)

Gupta Empire

View attachment 626752

View attachment 626688

this map is also probably short as it doesnt include bactria but only kabul

southern boundary mysore (mysorean inscription state they were ruled by the guptas), western boundary bactria (known through hunza inscription surprisingly bactria is omitted from other maps as well)

maps in wikipedia

Nanda map

maurya map

even more revisionist map

Gedrosia completely excluded in this map

but shown in another map from another page

Sometimes a lot of importance is given to the North Indian empires but many times people forget the extent of the Deccan based empires and South Indian empires.

The Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas (both Deccan based) too had a say in North India and had at certain points of time conquered Ujjain and Kannauj. In fact, there was a tripartite struggle between the Gurjara Pratiharas, Rashtrakutas and Palas to control Kannauj.

Gurjara Pratiharas too had a considerably large kingdom.

 

[KhanBaba2]

Based on the interactions in this forum, I have a feeling Pakistan does a better job in giving proper education to its youth than India does. Credit goes where credit is due.

You shouldn't base anything on what you encounter on this forum.

 

[Suriya]

Gurjara Pratiharas too had a considerably large kingdom.

Gurjara Pratiharas defended against expansion of Islamic states in today's North India for nearly 300 year. and in effect stopped fall of Delhi for 500 years till Ghori defeated Prithiviraj chouhan. A great achievement of sorts.

This 500 years hiatus from conquest of Sindh in 714AD to fall of Delhi Rajput kingdom in 1192 AD, is the reason why Today's India is 80% Hindu as most fervent Islamic proselytizer zeal was lost in these 500 years.