4 ms·

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

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

> 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]