5 ms·

You are right this has been one of the issues with ancient texts. Lucky the last empire of this dynasty Ashoka went against this system and adopted Buddhism whi

You are right this has been one of the issues with ancient texts. Lucky the last empire of this dynasty Ashoka went against this system and adopted Buddhism which is against this caste system in India and deride hierarchy based on birth. Obviously with successive empire and generations India has gone through many transformations. The India (Hindustan) as we know it today was united by Mughals (where it enjoyed the period of golden growth especially under Akbar and got the name Hindustan) and then carried on by Britishers. Later it became free India in 1947.

cscurmudgeon 6y ago
There were large unitary empires in India before the Mughals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires_in_Ind... It even had a name before that: Bharat. And on Buddhism, unfortunately the story is more complex and not as rosy. Buddhism unfortunately still has/had sects and castes (as do even Christianity and Islam in India). Here is an article: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/14500421.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/14500421.pdf One of the outstanding examples of such an ideologisation of history of religion is the modern view of Buddhism. Developed by the Western colonialist Indology this ideology portrayed and still is portraying Buddhism as an rationalist-atheistic, anti-brahmanical, anti-caste and egalitarian religion - in contrast to Hinduism which is caricatured as idolatrous, casteistic and brahmanised. The aim of such an ideological interpretation is to demonstrate the alleged Western modernity of Buddhism and the alleged obscurantism of Hinduism." We want to dispute these asserted positions by empirico-historical reasons.
- danans 6y ago
  > There were large unitary empires in India before the Mughals > It even had a name before that: Bharat. Regardless of what they were named, they were probably no better or worse than the Mughals or the Buddhist Ashokan empire. These were all absolute monarchies, with all the terrible implications for individual rights and distribution of power, resources and rights, just like their contemporaries in other parts of the world. We'd do well not to overly romanticise any of these ancient political and social structures.
  - cscurmudgeon 6y ago
    > Regardless of what they were named, they were probably no better or worse than the Mughals or the Buddhist Ashokan empire. These were all absolute monarchies, with all the terrible implications for individual rights and distribution of power, resources and rights, just like their contemporaries in other parts of the world. I am sorry this is just sweeping away their atrocities. > We'd do well not to overly romanticise any of these ancient political and social structures. We do better if we don't assert false generalizations contrary to empirical evidence.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
danans 6y ago
All of those empires, regardless of their religion or how we romanticize or demonize them today, were absolute monarchies.
- dragonsh 6y ago
  I do not romanticise or demonize them (as you in your statement by calling them absolute monarchies as the system is more complex and nuanced). My point is simple here history teaches some lessons and we should learn from it. If you see today monarchs are replaced either by oligarchy, power or money. It’s impossible to fight an election for US President without money, which brings vested interests (not so much different in essence from Indian, Persian or Chinese federal systems managing large swaths of empire). Only a system which protects minority from the tyranny of majority is true test of humanity and in this I believe early Persian empire, Ashok and among Mughals Akbar did better by promoting truly plural society, abolishing the system of punishing people in minority with different beliefs. Obviously we didn’t live in that era so my views are only based on some studies. Today in most democracy it’s a tyranny of majority and the constitutional rights granted for protection of minority are constantly diluted or completely removed. “Black lives matter” and “Minority treatment in India” is a very good example of it (including in China, but than people don’t consider it as democracy anyways).
  - danans 6y ago
    > Ashok and among Mughals Akbar did better by promoting truly plural society, abolishing the system of punishing people in minority with different beliefs > Obviously we didn’t live in that era so my views are only based on some studies. It was the massacres Ashoka committed in the war against Kalinga that supposedly turned him Buddhist. Every other empire in human history has also committed huge atrocities, so much that it's almost tautological. > Today in most democracy it’s a tyranny of majority and the constitutional rights granted for protection of minority are constantly diluted or completely removed. “Black lives matter” and “Minority treatment in India” I agree it's regressing right now, but the political structures still exist in democracies to fight back against the regression, at least for now. That's more than can be said for people living under absolute monarchy or authoritarian rule today.
naruvimama 6y ago
Ashoka was Buddhist to start with,his greatness is a myth propagated by the extreme left distortions. Mughals the golden age where they burnt down thousands of temples, libraries and universities. Plundered, looted, raped and took hundreds of thousands of sex slaves. We have enough whitewashing and distortionists.
haltingproblem 6y ago
The Mughals were descendants of Genghis Khan, the Western arm of the Mongol empire. They embraced Islam after sacking Baghdad and slaughtering the Caliph, having had him trampled by horses. When Timurlane invaded India he would erect mountains of infidel skulls after battle [0]. His descendants followed that practice though to be fair they practiced this against all opponents just not infidels however it speaks to their barbarianism. All Mughals from Timurlane to Aurangzeb destroyed temples, smashed idols and butchered the priests and monks. Dozens of Indian religious sects that were heterodox (outside) to classical Hindu thought like Carvaka, who were material rationalists, were exterminated including most Buddhist and Jain sects. Buddhist traditions that exist outside India have recorded these holocausts. Akbar, who you eulogize, as having ushered in a golden age was anything but. He carried out the fanaticism of his ancestors and was proud to be known as a Ghazi or "great Islamic warrior". Amongst his notorious deeds that are whitewashed are destroying temples and idols and rewarding those who killed infidels and soaked their beards in their blood [2]. Aurangzeb who ruled from 1618 onwards was the 6th emperor had thousands of temples destroyed like his illustrious great grand father. He has many famous edicts still preserved [1] where he ordered thousands of temples destroyed and the idols carted to Delhi where they were buried under the steps of the grand mosque he built in New Delhi which still stands. Delhi and its surroundings which have Hindu history going back thousands of years do not have a single temple older than 60 years. Why? The Mughals systematically destroyed every temple from one of the oldest inhabited urban areas in the Indian sub continent. The were many empires in India prior to Mughals and after the Mughals that unified most of India and in many cases had greater land mass than the Mughals. Finally, the economic growth rate during the Mughals was generally negative and the Indian economy shrank while most of the world grew [3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chanderi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chanderi [1] https://aurangazeb.wordpress.com/category/farmans/ https://aurangazeb.wordpress.com/category/farmans/ [2] https://theprint.in/opinion/yogi-adityanaths-anti-mughal-stand-has-reasons-akbar-identified-himself-as-a-ghazi/509246/ https://theprint.in/opinion/yogi-adityanaths-anti-mughal-sta... [3] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/2000-years-economic-history-one-chart/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/2000-years-economic-history...
- dragonsh 6y ago
  Please read the whole history instead of distorted version propagated by Neo nazi style administration in current India, which likes to distort India history to fit their own narratives. Mughals were descendants of and influenced by Mongolian and Persian [0] culture which established one of the most advanced and tolerant system of administration much before Greeks starting from 530BC. British were interested in India due to its prosperity in Mughal period as Akbar had trade relations with Europe and Middle East. From an article [1][2]: “Although the Mughal empire was created and sustained by military warfare,[17][18][19] it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and peoples it came to rule; rather it equalized and placated them through new administrative practices,[20][21] and diverse ruling elites, leading to more efficient, centralised, and standardized rule.[22]” “To unify the vast Mughal state, Akbar established a centralised system of administration throughout his empire and adopted a policy of conciliating conquered rulers through marriage and diplomacy. To preserve peace and order in a religiously and culturally diverse empire, he adopted policies that won him the support of his non-Muslim subjects. Eschewing tribal bonds and Islamic state identity, Akbar strove to unite far-flung lands of his realm through loyalty, expressed through an Indo-Persian culture, to himself as an emperor. Mughal India developed a strong and stable economy, leading to commercial expansion and greater patronage of culture. Akbar himself was a patron of art and culture. He was fond of literature, and created a library of over 24,000 volumes written in Sanskrit, Urdu, Persian, Greek, Latin, Arabic and Kashmiri, staffed by many scholars, translators, artists, calligraphers, scribes, bookbinders and readers. He did much of the cataloging himself through three main groupings.” [0] https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/ancient-middle-east/persian-empire https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar
haltingproblem 6y ago
There are two surviving sources on Ashoka's conversion. One states that he became a follower of the Buddha at/after the Battle of Kalinga. This is a rock edict attributed to Ashoka. It does not explicitly say that he converted but rather embraced the monastic path. The second which is a Buddhist textual source, says that he was always Buddhist, and he in fact had 18,000~ Jain monks put to death because their spiritual leader insulted the Buddha. Why would a Buddhist source lie? Modern historians play up the first source and bury the latter.
desi_ninja 6y ago
I don't think so it was considered a golden phase. India was united but there weren't significant progress in art and mathematics barring a few exceptions. also, the religious prosecution and the tax on non believers sucked the poor dry. The gupta Empire around 7th century CE is considered the last golden age of pan India. though such a big country, different parts had their different parts of prosperity like Vijayanagar empire in 15 th century CE

cscurmudgeon 6y ago

There were large unitary empires in India before the Mughals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires_in_Ind... It even had a name before that: Bharat. And on Buddhism, unfortunately the story is more complex and not as rosy. Buddhism unfortunately still has/had sects and castes (as do even Christianity and Islam in India). Here is an article: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/14500421.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/14500421.pdf One of the outstanding examples of such an ideologisation of history of religion is the modern view of Buddhism. Developed by the Western colonialist Indology this ideology portrayed and still is portraying Buddhism as an rationalist-atheistic, anti-brahmanical, anti-caste and egalitarian religion - in contrast to Hinduism which is caricatured as idolatrous, casteistic and brahmanised. The aim of such an ideological interpretation is to demonstrate the alleged Western modernity of Buddhism and the alleged obscurantism of Hinduism." We want to dispute these asserted positions by empirico-historical reasons.

danans 6y ago
> There were large unitary empires in India before the Mughals > It even had a name before that: Bharat. Regardless of what they were named, they were probably no better or worse than the Mughals or the Buddhist Ashokan empire. These were all absolute monarchies, with all the terrible implications for individual rights and distribution of power, resources and rights, just like their contemporaries in other parts of the world. We'd do well not to overly romanticise any of these ancient political and social structures.
- cscurmudgeon 6y ago
  > Regardless of what they were named, they were probably no better or worse than the Mughals or the Buddhist Ashokan empire. These were all absolute monarchies, with all the terrible implications for individual rights and distribution of power, resources and rights, just like their contemporaries in other parts of the world. I am sorry this is just sweeping away their atrocities. > We'd do well not to overly romanticise any of these ancient political and social structures. We do better if we don't assert false generalizations contrary to empirical evidence.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

danans 6y ago

All of those empires, regardless of their religion or how we romanticize or demonize them today, were absolute monarchies.

dragonsh 6y ago
I do not romanticise or demonize them (as you in your statement by calling them absolute monarchies as the system is more complex and nuanced). My point is simple here history teaches some lessons and we should learn from it. If you see today monarchs are replaced either by oligarchy, power or money. It’s impossible to fight an election for US President without money, which brings vested interests (not so much different in essence from Indian, Persian or Chinese federal systems managing large swaths of empire). Only a system which protects minority from the tyranny of majority is true test of humanity and in this I believe early Persian empire, Ashok and among Mughals Akbar did better by promoting truly plural society, abolishing the system of punishing people in minority with different beliefs. Obviously we didn’t live in that era so my views are only based on some studies. Today in most democracy it’s a tyranny of majority and the constitutional rights granted for protection of minority are constantly diluted or completely removed. “Black lives matter” and “Minority treatment in India” is a very good example of it (including in China, but than people don’t consider it as democracy anyways).
- danans 6y ago
  > Ashok and among Mughals Akbar did better by promoting truly plural society, abolishing the system of punishing people in minority with different beliefs > Obviously we didn’t live in that era so my views are only based on some studies. It was the massacres Ashoka committed in the war against Kalinga that supposedly turned him Buddhist. Every other empire in human history has also committed huge atrocities, so much that it's almost tautological. > Today in most democracy it’s a tyranny of majority and the constitutional rights granted for protection of minority are constantly diluted or completely removed. “Black lives matter” and “Minority treatment in India” I agree it's regressing right now, but the political structures still exist in democracies to fight back against the regression, at least for now. That's more than can be said for people living under absolute monarchy or authoritarian rule today.

naruvimama 6y ago

Ashoka was Buddhist to start with,his greatness is a myth propagated by the extreme left distortions. Mughals the golden age where they burnt down thousands of temples, libraries and universities. Plundered, looted, raped and took hundreds of thousands of sex slaves. We have enough whitewashing and distortionists.

haltingproblem 6y ago

The Mughals were descendants of Genghis Khan, the Western arm of the Mongol empire. They embraced Islam after sacking Baghdad and slaughtering the Caliph, having had him trampled by horses. When Timurlane invaded India he would erect mountains of infidel skulls after battle [0]. His descendants followed that practice though to be fair they practiced this against all opponents just not infidels however it speaks to their barbarianism. All Mughals from Timurlane to Aurangzeb destroyed temples, smashed idols and butchered the priests and monks. Dozens of Indian religious sects that were heterodox (outside) to classical Hindu thought like Carvaka, who were material rationalists, were exterminated including most Buddhist and Jain sects. Buddhist traditions that exist outside India have recorded these holocausts. Akbar, who you eulogize, as having ushered in a golden age was anything but. He carried out the fanaticism of his ancestors and was proud to be known as a Ghazi or "great Islamic warrior". Amongst his notorious deeds that are whitewashed are destroying temples and idols and rewarding those who killed infidels and soaked their beards in their blood [2]. Aurangzeb who ruled from 1618 onwards was the 6th emperor had thousands of temples destroyed like his illustrious great grand father. He has many famous edicts still preserved [1] where he ordered thousands of temples destroyed and the idols carted to Delhi where they were buried under the steps of the grand mosque he built in New Delhi which still stands. Delhi and its surroundings which have Hindu history going back thousands of years do not have a single temple older than 60 years. Why? The Mughals systematically destroyed every temple from one of the oldest inhabited urban areas in the Indian sub continent. The were many empires in India prior to Mughals and after the Mughals that unified most of India and in many cases had greater land mass than the Mughals. Finally, the economic growth rate during the Mughals was generally negative and the Indian economy shrank while most of the world grew [3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chanderi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chanderi [1] https://aurangazeb.wordpress.com/category/farmans/ https://aurangazeb.wordpress.com/category/farmans/ [2] https://theprint.in/opinion/yogi-adityanaths-anti-mughal-stand-has-reasons-akbar-identified-himself-as-a-ghazi/509246/ https://theprint.in/opinion/yogi-adityanaths-anti-mughal-sta... [3] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/2000-years-economic-history-one-chart/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/2000-years-economic-history...

dragonsh 6y ago
Please read the whole history instead of distorted version propagated by Neo nazi style administration in current India, which likes to distort India history to fit their own narratives. Mughals were descendants of and influenced by Mongolian and Persian [0] culture which established one of the most advanced and tolerant system of administration much before Greeks starting from 530BC. British were interested in India due to its prosperity in Mughal period as Akbar had trade relations with Europe and Middle East. From an article [1][2]: “Although the Mughal empire was created and sustained by military warfare,[17][18][19] it did not vigorously suppress the cultures and peoples it came to rule; rather it equalized and placated them through new administrative practices,[20][21] and diverse ruling elites, leading to more efficient, centralised, and standardized rule.[22]” “To unify the vast Mughal state, Akbar established a centralised system of administration throughout his empire and adopted a policy of conciliating conquered rulers through marriage and diplomacy. To preserve peace and order in a religiously and culturally diverse empire, he adopted policies that won him the support of his non-Muslim subjects. Eschewing tribal bonds and Islamic state identity, Akbar strove to unite far-flung lands of his realm through loyalty, expressed through an Indo-Persian culture, to himself as an emperor. Mughal India developed a strong and stable economy, leading to commercial expansion and greater patronage of culture. Akbar himself was a patron of art and culture. He was fond of literature, and created a library of over 24,000 volumes written in Sanskrit, Urdu, Persian, Greek, Latin, Arabic and Kashmiri, staffed by many scholars, translators, artists, calligraphers, scribes, bookbinders and readers. He did much of the cataloging himself through three main groupings.” [0] https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/ancient-middle-east/persian-empire https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar

haltingproblem 6y ago

There are two surviving sources on Ashoka's conversion. One states that he became a follower of the Buddha at/after the Battle of Kalinga. This is a rock edict attributed to Ashoka. It does not explicitly say that he converted but rather embraced the monastic path. The second which is a Buddhist textual source, says that he was always Buddhist, and he in fact had 18,000~ Jain monks put to death because their spiritual leader insulted the Buddha. Why would a Buddhist source lie? Modern historians play up the first source and bury the latter.

desi_ninja 6y ago

I don't think so it was considered a golden phase. India was united but there weren't significant progress in art and mathematics barring a few exceptions. also, the religious prosecution and the tax on non believers sucked the poor dry. The gupta Empire around 7th century CE is considered the last golden age of pan India. though such a big country, different parts had their different parts of prosperity like Vijayanagar empire in 15 th century CE