india's history

[KK]

India's history has been always full of invasions, either by Alexander, mughals or Britishers. Dutch, french were among others who tried. Why is that India could not defend itself from these invasions?aren't the local rulers are smart, aggressive and efficient in defending our own country?

For instance, britishers tried entering japan. japan realized the possible threat and closed all the country borders. There was no more international trading, but they had nothing to loose. On the otherhand, we have foolishly entertained british intrusions.

How come countries like germany, usa, russia got advanced in military technology while we stuck our lazy asses with local problems of race & castes? Why did we not have the idea of invading other countries (good or bad is not of concern for now)?

[spamtaneous]

they came..they saw...they _...they sucked...they returned

[CtrlAltDel]

Why did we not have the idea of invading other countries (good or bad is not of concern for now)?

main reasons why most countries invade other countries are:



1) Resources

2) Wealth

3) Spreading religion

4) Expand country's area/influence



Ancient India had an abundance of wealth and resources, so the first two reasons are ruled out.



Ancient India was predominantly Hindu, which is non-evangelical and unorganized, so second reason had no relevance.



The fourth reason was that India itself was extremely vast and the numerous kingdoms in India found it a handful attacking each other and expanding their own kingdom first. there was no single entity called an 'Indian kingdom' that needed to invade other countries. we should also remember that the so-called "India" used to extend from what is now Afghanistan upto Burma (the "Indian Subcontinent") and everything the countrymen needed was available within this region.



Ancient Indians restricted their contact with far of civilizations and countries to trade and commerce only.

[CtrlAltDel]

...and btw, i disagree with both the choices in your poll....



my choice would be "We didnt need to"

[KK]

Why did we not have the idea of invading other countries (good or bad is not of concern for now)?

The fourth reason was that India itself was extremely vast and the numerous kingdoms in India found it a handful attacking each other and expanding their own kingdom first. there was no single entity called an 'Indian kingdom' that needed to invade other countries.
Ancient Indians restricted their contact with far of civilizations and countries to trade and commerce only.

There was no single local ruler who could takeover the entire rulers of india at any time ? Look at the alexander, he took over more than half the world!

[CtrlAltDel]

There was no single local ruler who could takeover the entire rulers of india at any time ?

yes...and its because there were too many kingdoms for any one king to invade and conquor. usually kings looked at neighboring kingdoms and fought wars with them.

Look at the alexander, he took over more than half the world!

he invaded weak kingdoms and conquored them on his way to Sindh. remember that the "India" he was looking for was one not composed of one or two kingdoms that he could run over.

[Lucifer]

And even 'your' Alexander could not conquer all of India. In fact, he too was enamoured by Porus - the King of a small non-descript kingdom - even after defeating him.

[spamtaneous]

has anyone seen alexander......there was a battle scene between alexanders cavalry and indian elephant army..... indian kicked a$$ bigtime and alexander was almost dead here....thats when he decided to go back...

[Jaszalcatraz]

The mountains in the north and our non-existant naval power was the reason none of the Indian kings explored. CAD hit the problem right on the head with that classification there.

Since we didnt need to invade and no attractive kingdoms bordered our own, we refrained.

Also the regional feelings prevented kings from working with each other.

[Mayavi Morpheus]

The one thing constant in the ancient world was war. Every country which had a king and resources, fought wars and India was no exception. The exception is that in Indian case the invasions were successful and the invaders were from all religions and colors.



In the known history Alexander was the first to invade India but he was stopped at the borders of punjab. Before invading India, alexander invaded and conquered the mighty Persia by defeating an persian army which was 10 times bigger than his own. Alexander and his soldiers married persian women and when the left, they left behind an army of persian-greeks and the modern day afghanistan was ruled by Alexanders generals.



When Alexander set out to invade india after conquering persia, he took on king porus. In the ensuing war alexander was fatally injured but did win. Though King porus (Purushotttam) did not defeat alexander, he did weaken him considerably. After defeating porus, alexander wanted to move eastwards and attack the mauryan kingdom, but alexanders soldiers refused to fight. The reason was that the Mauryan army was ten times bigger than porus army with 10's of thousands of horse and elephants and 300,000 foot soldiers and alexanders army was weak and disease ridden. Alexander couldnt do much and went south but met severe resistance from small indian kings and finally he ended his conquest, forced his army to march through the desert back to persia (because they didnt fight mauryans)and in the process killed nearly half his army and he himself barely survived.



The mauryans were the first dynasty to integrate India. they ruled from Assam in the east to what is present days kabul in the west. To their west was the Greek kingdom left behind by alexander. Chandra gupta maurya, the son of a Nanda king's concubine rose to power with the help of Kautilya. He made peace with the greek king Seleucus ( Link) and intermarried with the greeks. Greek-Indians! Then came Ashoka who conquered much of India and in the process realised that war is futile (more than 100,000 died in the kalinga war, orissa) and suspended further conquests. After Ashoka, the greek kings on the west lost their power to Bactrians who ruled for more than 100 years and then lost to tribal invaders (present day afghan warlords) and then the Kushan empire was established. They ruled from Afghanistan to patna in the east to vindhyas in the south.



Later the cholas came to power in the south in the late 9th century and established the chola empire. They conquered much of north-east and invaded indonesia, sri lanka.They had a mighty navy.



Then came the muslim invaders from afghanistan in the 11th century enamoured by the wealth. They were mostly tribal looters whose only aim was to invade, loot, take slaves. They had their successes due to the rivalry between neighbouring indian kings, but most of the time they were beaten back till one day prithvi raj chauhan lost to ghauri in 11th century. Prithvi raj chauhan was the last hindu king to rule Delhi.Later the turks, persians (nadar shah), mongols and everyone who could invaded delhi. Then the Slave dynasty(?) started which was defeated by mughals and then mughals ruled much of north India starting with the greak king akbar.



Now coming to the fact why we dont know much about our history, because it was never researched properly by Indians. We were always prejudiced. Most Indian historians are left oriented marxists. Marx believed that India was never a single nation and didnt appreciate its greatness, the same thought is still propagated by modern historians of Indian origin. The other reason why we dont have much of our history is because it was never documented unlike the greek or roman history. Whatever was documented is in London museum locked in secret vaults or so people believe.



Except during the chola regime, India was not a sea faring nation. So we never conquered any other nation.

the other reason why Indian kings never conquered any other nation is the buddhist philosophy. The most powerful Indian kings were all buddhists or converted to buddhism which is a peace loving religion. Even the outsiders who conquered india were influnced by the same Indian philosphy and karma theory. So india was pretty much the last stop for all the kings. But culture wise we conquered half the world. We conquered china, japan, and koreas without sending a single soldier or missionary. Instead, they came to india and they were influenced and they took the religion back to their conuntries. I think that is the greatest conquest.

[CtrlAltDel]

The mauryans were the first dynasty to integrate India. they ruled from Assam in the east to what is present days kabul in the west...........the Kushan empire was established. They ruled from Afghanistan to patna in the east to vindhyas in the south.

i'd like to differ here...the "integrated india" of those days was different from what we see today. there was no "central government" as such. most of those empires (also King Harsha's, right upto Aurangzeb's) constituted of vassal states - states that were nominally independent but owed allegience to the ruling empire and paid tributes (something like autonomy or even a loose federation).

the Slave dynasty(?)

it was called so, coz the founder Iltutmish (or Altamash) was originally a slave of Sultan Qutbuddin of Delhi. he later rose to prominence and married the sultan's daughter. His own daughter Razia Sultan succeeded him as India's first woman ruler.

Most Indian historians are left oriented marxists.

yes...sad but true...most of the history taught in schools is leftist version which was also promoted by Nehru

We conquered china, japan, and koreas without sending a single soldier or missionary. Instead, they came to india and they were influenced and they took the religion back to their conuntries. I think that is the greatest conquest.

i agree!

[KK]

And even 'your' Alexander could not conquer all of India. In fact, he too was enamoured by Porus - the King of a small non-descript kingdom - even after defeating him.

Prof. Lucifer , Alexander wasn't my servant, I'm trying form an opinion from discussions. Thats all.

[KK]

the other reason why Indian kings never conquered any other nation is the buddhist philosophy.

Its very strange that Buddhism that evolved in India could influence china, Japan & korea but failed to be very popular in India (with the exception of Northeast India).

If its because of the buddisht philosophy to go against the war, how come Japan invaded Russia, China & Korea during 16th century?

[lizardking]

I think we should actually consider the need for war before we actually talk baout not waging it calling ppourselves incapable.

Darwin s laws of evolution apply here, splly the one called struggle for existance



Ok... taking about teh germans or the britts or the ancient greeks

1.they came from disastrous climate where they could nt find ample food and good environment, so they had to wage wars to acquire countries where they can grow food to sustain the motherland(or fatherland in some cases)



2. Protection: they had a kill their neighbours if they saw a treat from them.



3. Power/pride/Unite/loot: Not more than a few freaks did this, Alexander, Atilla the Hun, Taimur lang, Ghengiz khan and probably Hitler and the Japanese.



But in the case of India , none of these were really applicable, they were a self ssustained vast country which gave the world the concept of Modern city civilisation (remember Indus people were the first ones to come up with teh concept of cities aand town planning). India was land locked on the north by the himalayas and the water on the south.

It was guarded by fierce rivers on the western frontier, so they did not really feel a threat frm foreign invaders,

And coming to the other thing, India as we all know was made up of amamall kingdoms and they had to fight among themselves for pride, forget their neighbours, but this was true with the greeks as well.





well.... otherwise too, i d like to quote Feiedrich Nietzsche from 'the birth of tragedy' about Indians and pessimism "Is pessimism necessarily the sign of collapse, destruction, and disaster, of the exhausted and enfeebled instinct, as it was among the Indians, as it is now, to all appearances, among us "modern" peoples and Europeans? Is there a pessimism of the strong? An intellectual inclination for what in existence is hard, dreadful, angry, and problematic, emerging from what is healthy, from overflowing well being, from living existence to the full? Is there perhaps a way of suffering from the very fullness of life, a tempting courage of the keenest sight which demands what is terrible, like an enemy—a worthy enemy—against which it can test its power, from which it will learn what "to fear" means?"

[Mayavi Morpheus]

i'd like to differ here...the "integrated india" of those days was different from what we see today.

Right, but the romans, greeks and all other kingdoms of that age used that form of decentralized government to rule their empire. Their direct rule only extends as far as the geographical borders of their state, but they collect taxes, men and army from their entire kingdom. The difference between then and the mughal empire is that mughals used to appoint nawabs to the kingdoms they conquered while deposing off the ruling dynasty (Nizams of hyd for example). The kind of unified governance followed by aurangazeb kind of led to the downfall of mughal empire.

The reason why I used the term 'Integrated india' is because many people (including our own 'eminent' historians) argue that India was never in its present day form till the mughals came into power. For some reason they dont recognize the mauryans or other kingdoms. The other reason is that before 600 BC there was no single ruler to rule the entire swathe of land and most of India was dense jungle with no human settlements. Atleast that is what the Aryan Invasion theory claims.

the Slave dynasty(?)

Got my question marks wrong... shld have been Slave dynasty (Name ?). By the way Razia sultana was the first woman ruler to rule delhi, Rudrama devi of kakatiya dynasty ruled AP in the 12th century. Infact she is the one who built a mudfort golconda as an outpost which was later rebuilt in stone by QQ shah.

[DQ]

Hmm arguably a good discussion.



Just leaving the wings aside, what I fail to understand is why do we tend to view history through the prism that we live in.



My opinions. (Remember its a discussion on history and there could be different versions, don't come back scathing, read and comprehend)



1000 BC - Evolution of Rig Veda:Rig Veda

The sacred religious chants of India date back at least 3,000 years and are the oldest continuous vocal tradition. The oldest written collection of texts is the Rig Veda composed in archaic Sanskrit probably between 1500 and 1200 BC. Most Vedas consists of songs recited during sacrifices, and passages instructing priests, or Brahmans, what to do during the ceremony.



900 BC - Evolution of the Caste System

The Caste System

Brahmanical teaching divided all men into four principle castes :

The Brahmans who prayed;

the Kshatriyas who fought;

the Vaisyas who worked;

the Sudras who performed unclean tasks, and - outside the castes - the Pariahs, or 'Untouchables' who were barely tolerated. The apparent injustice of such a rigid caste system was made tolerable by the belief that souls were born to happiness or sorrow according to their conduct in their previous life. This kept alive the hope for social improvement in the next cycle of rebirths.



The caste system - inhuman as it was - brought an unexpected advantage to India. More castes could be added in later times and those castes made it easy for India to bring in new groups of people. No radical adjustments of previous habits was required of the newcomers, who simply became one more among the many castes of the land. The fragile character of most Indian states, on the other hand, resulted from the fact that no ruler could command the undivided loyalty of peoples who felt themself to belong to a caste rather than a state



800 BC - Epic Age. Mahabharata and Ramayana come into existance



700 BC - The Upanishads The upanishads and Brahmanas composed.




Between 700 BC to 200 BC - We have the Maghadha Empire. Great kings like Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka ruled during this Age. This arguably can be the golden age of the Indian empire. Before the actual Golden age of the Guptas.



Between 200 BC to 300 AD we have the Kushanas and turbulent times before the age of the Guptas



500 AD the Huns invasion, Huns supremacy over the globe and the descent of Hindu civilization.



600 AD Harshas empire after a significant time the first empire to rule major parts of India.



Around which time Islam started spreading in Arabia and other parts of the world. (A misconcepted concotion that needs to be cleared here that Islam spread by the sword.)



During this period there was a lot of cross cultural mingling. A lot of Muslim scriptures speak about relationship with Hind.



If you read the life history of the 5th and 6th Shia Imams, you will see that quite a few of their disciples were from India. The peak of sciences in modern era took place during this time.



700 AD first invasions of Arabs into India





1000 AD - 400 years after rise of Islam, Mahmud Ghazni Invades India. 1000 AD - 1700AD



1700 AD - French british colonisation of India.



1947 - Present India Formed.

[Mayavi Morpheus]

800 BC - Epic Age. Mahabharata and Ramayana come into existance

There are references in Ramayana to the saraswati river which dried much before 1500, the time at which aryans are said to have invaded India. Until recently the exact time when the river dried up and the existence of the river itself was not know. It was only recently that they discovered that river saraswati really existed. This and some other archealogical discoveries go against the aryan invasion theory. If river saraswati really existed, then it means that the people who wrote ramayana came to that place much before it dried up, that means ramayana was written much before 1500 BC. But this is all speculation.

[ycr007]

Quite a good discussion and a lesson in history.reminds me of schooldays.



Amongst the reasons already listed out,regional disparity was the one that must'ave played a major force in the Non-invasion of other countries by Indian rulers.

Also most of them did'nt have the werewithal or the zeal to go all out and conquer,except for some of the mauryan kings like Samudragupta whose empire was said to stretch across the whole of the indian peninsula.

also the prevalent non-violent war scheme of Ashwamedha-Something where a horse would be let loose and wherever it goes without challenge is taken as anexxed

But the later Muslim invaders brought with them Barbary & violence which continued unabated till the britishers reign.and there was no ruler who could launch an all-out offensive against the invaders.

If we take the example of great rulers India has had,almost all of them were 'Regionally-Based'

Be it Shivaji in the maratha region,Krishnadevaraya in the south,Asoka in the East,Razia Sultana and others in Delhi,Haider Ali,Tipu Sultan in the Deccan, and the numerous Cholas,Chalukyas,Pandyas in peninsular India.

None of them (Barring,arguably,a few) launched an all-out war.The wars that they waged were against oppression or in Self-Defence rather than for the purpose of Conquering.



In the light of the ongoing Discussion,I think these links may be 'somewhat' of a Light-Throwers:

History of India @Wikipedia

Timeline of India

[DQ]

also the prevalent non-violent war scheme of Ashwamedha-Something where a horse would be let loose and wherever it goes without challenge is taken as anexxed

But the later Muslim invaders brought with them Barbary & violence which continued unabated till the britishers reign.History of India @Wikipedia
Timeline of India

DO NOT TAKE THIS AS A SUPPORT TO THE MUSLIM INVADERS.



What do you have to say about, Alexander ? Did he follow the principle of Ashwamedha ?



What do you have to say about the Huns and their entire annihilation upto Burma and greater China. Were their wars fought on the basis of Ashwamedha?



War / Invasion is a barbaric act, the zeal to spread hegemonic powers beyond boundraies controlled is barbaric. The anology drawn with only "muslim invaders" is wrong.



Invasion to maurad is barbaric.

Invasion to change a way of life is annihilation and descipacable.

Read the history of "HUNs."



The Gupta Indian emperor Skandagupta repelled a Huna invasion in 455, but they continued to pressure India's northwest frontier (present day Pakistan), and broke through into northern India by the end of the fifth century, hastening the disintegration of the Gupta empire.



!!!This was the bloodiest time in Indian history!!!

[CtrlAltDel]

By the way Razia sultana was the first woman ruler to rule delhi, Rudrama devi of kakatiya dynasty ruled AP in the 12th century.

yes...i remember that now....!

...The fragile character of most Indian states, on the other hand, resulted from the fact that no ruler could command the undivided loyalty of peoples who felt themself to belong to a caste rather than a state...

sadly, thats true even now....







btw, in Pakistani history textbooks, it is written that Pakistan existed from the times of Ghori and Ghazni and that in those days most parts of India were absorbed in that 'Pakistan'...

[CtrlAltDel]

DO NOT TAKE THIS AS A SUPPORT TO THE MUSLIM INVADERS.

:lol: arre bhai! there's no need of such a disclaimer everytime u express an opinion!

[DQ]

[quote="CtrlAltDel]

btw, in Pakistani history textbooks, it is written that Pakistan existed from the times of Ghori and Ghazni and that in those days most parts of India were absorbed in that 'Pakistan'... [/quote]



Thats the saddest part, they have still not been able to create an identity for them selves.



Neither can the associates themselves with Mongol region.

Nor Afghan nor persia. Its very hard to teach their children that they are a break away of present day India.

[HH]

Invaders / Refugees / Rulers ... Into India ... Hi-Story Of India



... Alexander, Muslims Invaded India ... Parsis / Zoroastrians who arrived in India 1200 years ago from Persia ... Then The English & Other Europeans As "Rulers" ... India said, like today, "Hi" To All Aliens & Allowed Them In ... Settled Them ... That Is The HI-STORY Of India!

[Mayavi Morpheus]

What do you have to say about, Alexander ? Did he follow the principle of Ashwamedha ?

What do you have to say about the Huns and their entire annihilation upto Burma and greater China. Were their wars fought on the basis of Ashwamedha?

I am not sure if Huns invaded India... may be you are talking about the Hans. Huns were the barbarians that lived in central europe, the modern day hungary during 2 - 4th century AD. Atilla the Hun was the greatest Hun whose empire was bigger than that of Rome and he almost occupied rome. Hans are a chinese dynasty, not barbarians. Huns on the other hand were nomads, barbarians. Their only occupation was war. They invade, pillage, make merry till they are ready to invade again.



Early muslim invaders, and when I say that I mean afghan muslims like Ghauri, were no different from the Huns. They invaded only to loot and pillage indian riches, while the others wanted to annex India. Not much difference, both wanted wealth, but the methods they chose were different. While one is branded as conquest through war the other is simple looting.



The later muslim invaders (turks and persians, proper kings, not just tribal chiefs) were enamored by India's beauty and rich resources and chose to stay back.

[Lucifer]

By the way Razia sultana was the first woman ruler to rule delhi, Rudrama devi of kakatiya dynasty ruled AP in the 12th century. Infact she is the one who built a mudfort golconda as an outpost which was later rebuilt in stone by QQ shah.

I normally do not like quoting MM because I do not like to badger my head against the wall.



Throughout history, the ruler of Delhi is accorded the status of the King of India. Even during the Mahabharata, when there were many kings the Suryavansha dynasty (the rulers of Hastinapur who established Indraprastha that is today known as Delhi) was India's ruling family. Ever since Lord Rama abdicated his throne, Ayodhya lost out its status as the seat of power in India to Delhi.



So yes, Razia Sultana is the first empress of India. Rudrama Devi (I must say I never heard of her, but I will take your word for it) might have been the first woman ruler in India but that does not take away the fact that Razia Sultana was the first empress of India.



Another thing that caught my eye was that if the foundations of the Golconda were laid in the 12th century then why is Hyderabad only 414 years old? We say Hyderabad came into existence from about the time the Golconda fort did.