4 ms·

Are we saying a country with 1.4bn people, 22 official languages, 5 major religions, over 100 ethnic groups isn’t an empire? Before the Raj, most of it was the

Are we saying a country with 1.4bn people, 22 official languages, 5 major religions, over 100 ethnic groups isn’t an empire? Before the Raj, most of it was the Mughal Empire (1500-1800). Before that, the Delhi Sultanate, pretty definitely an empire (1200-1500). The only thing missing is the nomenclature.

senthil_rajasek 5y ago
There was no "India" before the British colonizers. So lets start from there.
- known 5y ago
  "Some people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed" --Friedrich Nietzsche (b. 1844) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_princely_states_of_British_India_%28by_region%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_princely_states_of_Bri...
yunohn 5y ago
How do you define an empire? Your definition is quite odd to me. India is structured like the USA, a collection of states, with central and regional powers. But they are very much internally focused, and rarely venture into global politics. They don’t intend to colonize any other states, nor make any attempts at militarizing anything outside their borders. I would find it hard to ever compare India to a British-like empire…
- peteretep 5y ago
  Do you believe it was an empire under the Mughals? If so, what's changed?
  - yunohn 5y ago
    For starters, India now has a representative democracy? Empire usually means a monarchy. Also, for Indians, organizing into such a distributed state->central structure was the only way to survive after the British (an actual empire) had finished their colonial destruction. The Mughals violently acquired multiple regional monarchies, to be ruled by their monarchy.
    - peteretep 5y ago
      > India now has a representative democracy So did the Romans for 500 years
      - yunohn 5y ago
        It really seems to me that you’re arguing in bad faith, by making facetious statements with very little substance. I suggest you read up a bit more about these countries and their systems before we continue further, I don’t see much to be gained from this thread. Cheers!

senthil_rajasek 5y ago

There was no "India" before the British colonizers. So lets start from there.

known 5y ago
"Some people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed" --Friedrich Nietzsche (b. 1844) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_princely_states_of_British_India_%28by_region%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_princely_states_of_Bri...

yunohn 5y ago

How do you define an empire? Your definition is quite odd to me. India is structured like the USA, a collection of states, with central and regional powers. But they are very much internally focused, and rarely venture into global politics. They don’t intend to colonize any other states, nor make any attempts at militarizing anything outside their borders. I would find it hard to ever compare India to a British-like empire…

peteretep 5y ago
Do you believe it was an empire under the Mughals? If so, what's changed?
- yunohn 5y ago
  For starters, India now has a representative democracy? Empire usually means a monarchy. Also, for Indians, organizing into such a distributed state->central structure was the only way to survive after the British (an actual empire) had finished their colonial destruction. The Mughals violently acquired multiple regional monarchies, to be ruled by their monarchy.
  - peteretep 5y ago
    > India now has a representative democracy So did the Romans for 500 years
    - yunohn 5y ago
      It really seems to me that you’re arguing in bad faith, by making facetious statements with very little substance. I suggest you read up a bit more about these countries and their systems before we continue further, I don’t see much to be gained from this thread. Cheers!