5 ms·

That is the point. I guess in Western ideology definition of CONTROL over a land is through swords, guns and bloodshed. The Mughals never had the south because

That is the point. I guess in Western ideology definition of CONTROL over a land is through swords, guns and bloodshed. The Mughals never had the south because their culture was alien to most of the uninvaded south of india. But before them the whole of India, Pakisthan, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Burma, Indonesia, Tibet, China were all culturally the same. I would even go further to say considerably most of the regions are still culturally the same.

nyolfen 9y ago
> I guess in Western ideology definition of CONTROL over a land is through swords, guns and bloodshed. there is nothing uniquely western about this definition of 'control'. it's the historical norm everywhere.
- morekozhambu 9y ago
  Contrary to your confirmation bias, India has seen cultural movements without swords guns or bloodshed.
zht 9y ago
in what way is the culture of Sri Lanka and China similar?
- mindentropy 9y ago
  Buddhism?
tacomonstrous 9y ago
>But before them the whole of India, Pakisthan, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Burma, Indonesia, Tibet, China were all culturally the same. I would even go further to say considerably most of the regions are still culturally the same. That is a pretty radical claim, and I hope you have some good evidence to back it up.
vacri 9y ago
There are significant cultural differences to be found within each of China and India alone; I'm not sure how you can say that they're culturally the same.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
lenkite 9y ago
You truly need to read some real Indian history. The Mughals and their predecessors won North India by bloody conquest that make the British look like saints. I won't document the extraordinary slaughter during this period. See wikipedia for what Timur did to Delhi (after it surrendered) for example. He proudly describes the slaughter in his autobiography: https://www.ibiblio.org/britishraj/Jackson5/chapter09.html https://www.ibiblio.org/britishraj/Jackson5/chapter09.html http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415485432/19.asp http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415485432/19.asp Due to the powerful Vijaynagar empire, South India remained free for some time. At this time, you actually had Queens ruling Kerala (Attingal Queens). When the Vijaynagar empire weakened, the Deccan and Delhi sultanates united and thanks to the betrayal of two Muslim generals was thoroughly defeated in the Battle of Talikota. The massacre and rapine that occurred after defeat is still known to the local historians of the area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talikota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talikota Modern day Kerala was invaded by Haider Ali (Sultan of Mysore) though he faced very stiff resistance. He then decided to slaughter entire civilian populations. Believe it or not, it is thanks to the East India Company who supplied weapons to the Malabar Hindus who made constant guerrilla style attacks from the forests that Haider Ali backed off! The princely states that comprised Modern Kerala never truly had a problem with the British. Travancore and Kochi were extremely rich and sovereign monarchies who gave their alliance to the Queen, retaining their rule and benefiting from the British in trade.
- fellellor 9y ago
  Study of history requires careful study, a balanced mind and a proper perspective. Many people fall into a trap of good vs bad, or similar simplistic conclusions. The British did enormous harm to the subcontinent, but it's egregious to say that the Mughals were benevolent rulers. They after all built beautiful self aggrandizing monuments by basically looting and massacring the populace. The same thing holds true for Marathas as well, who were known to patronize looting and raids via the pindaris. As for Haider Ali, his son, who was similarly disposed, paid the ultimate price thanks to the machinations of the Maharaja's minister whom Hyder Ali had earlier dethroned. So what went around, came around, eventually.
- morekozhambu 9y ago

nyolfen 9y ago

> I guess in Western ideology definition of CONTROL over a land is through swords, guns and bloodshed. there is nothing uniquely western about this definition of 'control'. it's the historical norm everywhere.

morekozhambu 9y ago
Contrary to your confirmation bias, India has seen cultural movements without swords guns or bloodshed.

zht 9y ago

in what way is the culture of Sri Lanka and China similar?

mindentropy 9y ago
Buddhism?

tacomonstrous 9y ago

>But before them the whole of India, Pakisthan, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Burma, Indonesia, Tibet, China were all culturally the same. I would even go further to say considerably most of the regions are still culturally the same. That is a pretty radical claim, and I hope you have some good evidence to back it up.

vacri 9y ago

There are significant cultural differences to be found within each of China and India alone; I'm not sure how you can say that they're culturally the same.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

lenkite 9y ago

You truly need to read some real Indian history. The Mughals and their predecessors won North India by bloody conquest that make the British look like saints. I won't document the extraordinary slaughter during this period. See wikipedia for what Timur did to Delhi (after it surrendered) for example. He proudly describes the slaughter in his autobiography: https://www.ibiblio.org/britishraj/Jackson5/chapter09.html https://www.ibiblio.org/britishraj/Jackson5/chapter09.html http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415485432/19.asp http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415485432/19.asp Due to the powerful Vijaynagar empire, South India remained free for some time. At this time, you actually had Queens ruling Kerala (Attingal Queens). When the Vijaynagar empire weakened, the Deccan and Delhi sultanates united and thanks to the betrayal of two Muslim generals was thoroughly defeated in the Battle of Talikota. The massacre and rapine that occurred after defeat is still known to the local historians of the area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talikota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talikota Modern day Kerala was invaded by Haider Ali (Sultan of Mysore) though he faced very stiff resistance. He then decided to slaughter entire civilian populations. Believe it or not, it is thanks to the East India Company who supplied weapons to the Malabar Hindus who made constant guerrilla style attacks from the forests that Haider Ali backed off! The princely states that comprised Modern Kerala never truly had a problem with the British. Travancore and Kochi were extremely rich and sovereign monarchies who gave their alliance to the Queen, retaining their rule and benefiting from the British in trade.

fellellor 9y ago
Study of history requires careful study, a balanced mind and a proper perspective. Many people fall into a trap of good vs bad, or similar simplistic conclusions. The British did enormous harm to the subcontinent, but it's egregious to say that the Mughals were benevolent rulers. They after all built beautiful self aggrandizing monuments by basically looting and massacring the populace. The same thing holds true for Marathas as well, who were known to patronize looting and raids via the pindaris. As for Haider Ali, his son, who was similarly disposed, paid the ultimate price thanks to the machinations of the Maharaja's minister whom Hyder Ali had earlier dethroned. So what went around, came around, eventually.
morekozhambu 9y ago