5 ms·

I’ve been fascinated with Indian history (mostly for selfish reasons to understand my lineage). My oversimplified summary has been, India has had 3 major golden

I’ve been fascinated with Indian history (mostly for selfish reasons to understand my lineage). My oversimplified summary has been, India has had 3 major golden ages in its history. The earliest was during the Mauryan Period. This is the age Dalrymple is talking about, the time of Aryabhatta, the popularization of Buddhism, arguably the time when most of the Indian epics were written (dating them has become notoriously political to the point that discerning the truth is hard now). This is the age Indian nationalists stress on, and the left wing tries to ignore. This age declines because the empire got too big, lost control and slowly disintegrated. The second age was during the Islamic golden age for India which the right tries to ignore and left stress on. My general sense is that there was a golden age of architecture, poetry and arts and probably not so much in Science. The Taj Mahal for instance was built during this time. This age declined mostly due to wars, the Mughal rulers were never successful in fully unifying India, even to the extent the Mauryans did. They fought consistent wars against pockets of resistance in the South, and towards the end began losing these wildly expensive wars (leading to a brief reign by Shivaji) The third golden age which no one wants to admit (left or right) is the British Golden age. There really was a renaissance in Indian thought in arts, science during British rule. This was when Indian history was “rediscovered”, first by British orientalists and then by mostly Indian Bengalis. CV Raman won the Nobel prize in science, Tagore won the Nobel prize in literature, Ramanujan etc, the names are numerous. The British rule also was the largest and most stable unification of India till the modern times. After 1850s there were almost no pockets of military resistance against the British rule. The British age declined with WW1 and WW2, and ended with Indian independence. Post independence was not a smooth going party. If you came to India during 1980s, you could argue independence had been a disaster with everything getting worse post independence. But since 1990s economic liberalization India has a new ish golden age with unique characteristics. Who knows how long this will continue and when it will inevitably end

asdasdsddd 2y ago
What do you think about Gupta india
- sashank_1509 2y ago
  They never reached the highs reached by the Mauryan Empire, but were still a period of relatively prosperity and stability compared to what immediately followed (until the Mughals came)
- fuzztester 2y ago
  I don't think anything about it (due to not having enough info about it), but Wikipedia does: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta_Empire
Ballu 2y ago
You missed Gupta.. but I too consider Islamic/Mighal as well as British time too Golden period from world progress perspective.
d13 2y ago
And, it should be on track to become the world’s largest economy by 2075 - which historically it and China always have been.
vvrm 2y ago
> CV Raman won the Nobel prize in science, Tagore won the Nobel prize in literature, Ramanujan etc, the names are numerous. So golden age of India was when the country with a seventh of the world's population won 2 nobel prizes over 5 decades ? > The British rule also was the largest and most stable unification of India till the modern times. After 1850s there were almost no pockets of military resistance against the British rule. Mughal and Gupta empires lasted over 3 centuries, Mauryan empire a little under 1.5 centuries. By comparison, east india company rule lasted a century and the British crown's rule less than that. So again completely incorrect. > The third golden age which no one wants to admit (left or right) is the British Golden age. There's your hint: if people on both sides of the aisle don't "want to admit" something, maybe it doesn't make sense. Not to mention a slap in the face of billions of Indians. > The British age declined with WW1 and WW2, and ended with Indian independence. Thank god for that decline, otherwise Indian taxpayers would have been funding Brexit and the crumbling British economy right now. > My oversimplified summary has been This is not a summary, it's a lazy opinion backed by little research.
- achierius 2y ago
  >Mauryan empire a little under 1.5 centuries. By comparison, east india company rule lasted a century and the British crown's rule less than that This is a very dishonest way to obscure the actual facts. Direct rule from Britain lasted for almost 90 years: 1858 to 1947. Even by your numbers then, that's 190 years: longer than the Mauryan empire's whole lifespan, and much closer to that of the Mughals. From there the question remains whether it's the longest "unification", and this mostly comes down to exactly when each of the aforementioned empires could be considered to have "unified" India. By any definition the Mughals united the subcontinent by 1707AD at the latest: but by 1751, less than fifty years on, their effective domain had declined to a few pockets in Rajputana and Bengal. The Guptan Empire on the other hand, while certainly a key predecessor to later Indian states and a major unifying force in the northern half of the subcontinent, never conquered the southern half -- what is today Karnakata, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu never entered their control. The closest they got was ~420AD after the south-eastern conquests of Chandragupta II, but again within fifty years they again lost control of today's Orissa, and even lost large swathes of north+western India to invasions from the steppe. You call GP's post "a lazy opinion backed by little research", but when you dig into the facts I can't see how you could argue that his claim is incorrect. The British Raj alone seems to qualify as the longest-lasting unification of India before the modern Indian state, and if you include any part of the EIC's rule then it's indisputably so.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
I hear what you’re saying, but this idea of a golden age under rule by some outside force is often the positive take about many historical periods where someone who committed significant crimes (invasions, genocides, etc) is then praised hundreds of years later because of the positive effect they had for the economy or whatever. Julius Caesar is one such example that comes to mind. But I feel that approach sometimes discounts what the country and its people could have achieved on their own if they were not invaded. For example, the Taj Mahal is just one building in India. There are lots of other structures that exist that were not built under rule from outside invaders, but they never get attention (at least I’ve not heard of them). With Britain - you mentioned that they unified India and brought stability but how true is that if you compare it to the period of India much earlier? India was rocked by Islamic invasions (which led to the Mughal period) and colonized by those Islamic rulers for hundreds of years. That’s what the European colonizers took over. Is that really a fair period to compare against? India basically spent a millennium ruled by one outside genocidal invader or the other. I am guessing the period before that was more peaceful and not in need of some outside unifying force to feel ‘stable’.
- gsky 2y ago
  Taj Mahal is nothing compared to ajanta and elloracaves. Whoever elected Taj Mahal as one of the 7 wonders was an idiot in my view
  - anukin 2y ago
    Even more grandiose is the temple at Tanjavur built by the Chola king. Its dome is taller than Qutub Minar and is wider than the Taj Mahal.
nextos 2y ago
I don't think British India can be described as a Golden Age, when it was arguably the biggest transfer of wealth in history. When the British started colonizing India, its share of the World GDP was approximately between 1/5 and 1/4. So it was a major player. When they left, GDP share was a mere 4/100. Under British rule, India experienced massive de-industrialization. For example, the UK disassembled most of the handloom industry.
- 1024core 2y ago
  > I don't think British India can be described as a Golden Age, when it was arguably the biggest transfer of wealth in history. It _was_ the Golden Age ... for the Brits! :-D
- sashank_1509 2y ago
  By golden age I only focus on top of the line Science, Art, Architecture etc which is a what a lot of people intuitively focus on since that is what we remember a period by. What rule was best for the common population is unclear. It might have been the Mauryas but we don’t have enough details of how the common man lived in the Mauryan empire. The arthashastra seems like our best source. Both the Mughals and the British had their share of evils against the common population but my sense is that if you were Hindu you were better off in the British empire than the Mughal Empire except for the rare tolerant Mughal ruler (eg ; Akbar).
  - ignoramous 2y ago
    > if you were Hindu you were better off in the British empire than the Mughal Empire except for the rare tolerant Mughal ruler Unless you were Bengali Hindu, I guess? An undeniable difference between the British Raj and the Mughals is, the British were colonizers; the country as a whole suffered due to imperialism. One other user points out in this thread about the upending of socio-economic fabric under the Raj. Not really a "Golden Age" by any measure.
  - smath 2y ago
    The Mauryans and Mughals settled and did not rule with the goal of extracting / plundering. The British EIC did the latter. Arts and culture can prosper sustainably only when basic needs are well met, otherwise it is only the privileged that can dream of arts.
gsky 2y ago
If Invasions and colonization were golden age we should continue that tradition throughout the world. /s
0x1ceb00da 2y ago
> you could argue independence had been a disaster with everything getting worse post independence There hasn't been a single famine in india since independence. The last one was the bengal famine of 1943. India became independent in 1947.
smath 2y ago
Good summary, even if I disagree with the 3rd piece being called a golden age. But my question is why ignore the cholas, pallavas and pandyas? Only because they didn’t capture the whole subcontinent? Our schools history books were Delhi centric but we don’t have to be going forward. Those 3 empires had a lot of arts and culture too - and in terms of impact, they spread to parts of SE Asia too.
- anukin 2y ago
  That's the specialty of a centralized state. There is a heavy push towards homogenizing Indian culture often at the cost of regional subcultures since almost 1947.
lenkite 2y ago
You forgot the Gupta Empire from mid 3rd century CE to mid 6th century CE. Aryabhatta - the famous mathematician was a product of this age. The empire unfortunately promulgated the extensive spread of Buddhism, became pacifist and passive and was easily invaded and looted by invaders from Central Asia. The late Gupta empire's army was a joke - only existed on paper. The fall of Indian civilization from the 7th century on-wards is very painful to read. No military of any note - Islamic invaders would regularly invade and loot and burn great temples and libraries every few years with little to no trouble. Foundational records and knowledge of ancient India was utterly annihilated. So much critical informational on Aryuveda, astronomy, mathematics and the physical sciences was lost forever. Some libraries were so huge, they burned for days. Islam was at the height of its military era at the time and easily destroyed and annexed other passive cultures. Lots of journals of invaders from that time that documented their utter contempt for peoples who couldn't defend themselves. The West had learned this lesson early and well from the Roman era: Si vis pacem, para bellum.

asdasdsddd 2y ago

What do you think about Gupta india

sashank_1509 2y ago
They never reached the highs reached by the Mauryan Empire, but were still a period of relatively prosperity and stability compared to what immediately followed (until the Mughals came)
fuzztester 2y ago
I don't think anything about it (due to not having enough info about it), but Wikipedia does: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupta_Empire

Ballu 2y ago

You missed Gupta.. but I too consider Islamic/Mighal as well as British time too Golden period from world progress perspective.

d13 2y ago

And, it should be on track to become the world’s largest economy by 2075 - which historically it and China always have been.

vvrm 2y ago

> CV Raman won the Nobel prize in science, Tagore won the Nobel prize in literature, Ramanujan etc, the names are numerous. So golden age of India was when the country with a seventh of the world's population won 2 nobel prizes over 5 decades ? > The British rule also was the largest and most stable unification of India till the modern times. After 1850s there were almost no pockets of military resistance against the British rule. Mughal and Gupta empires lasted over 3 centuries, Mauryan empire a little under 1.5 centuries. By comparison, east india company rule lasted a century and the British crown's rule less than that. So again completely incorrect. > The third golden age which no one wants to admit (left or right) is the British Golden age. There's your hint: if people on both sides of the aisle don't "want to admit" something, maybe it doesn't make sense. Not to mention a slap in the face of billions of Indians. > The British age declined with WW1 and WW2, and ended with Indian independence. Thank god for that decline, otherwise Indian taxpayers would have been funding Brexit and the crumbling British economy right now. > My oversimplified summary has been This is not a summary, it's a lazy opinion backed by little research.

achierius 2y ago
>Mauryan empire a little under 1.5 centuries. By comparison, east india company rule lasted a century and the British crown's rule less than that This is a very dishonest way to obscure the actual facts. Direct rule from Britain lasted for almost 90 years: 1858 to 1947. Even by your numbers then, that's 190 years: longer than the Mauryan empire's whole lifespan, and much closer to that of the Mughals. From there the question remains whether it's the longest "unification", and this mostly comes down to exactly when each of the aforementioned empires could be considered to have "unified" India. By any definition the Mughals united the subcontinent by 1707AD at the latest: but by 1751, less than fifty years on, their effective domain had declined to a few pockets in Rajputana and Bengal. The Guptan Empire on the other hand, while certainly a key predecessor to later Indian states and a major unifying force in the northern half of the subcontinent, never conquered the southern half -- what is today Karnakata, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu never entered their control. The closest they got was ~420AD after the south-eastern conquests of Chandragupta II, but again within fifty years they again lost control of today's Orissa, and even lost large swathes of north+western India to invasions from the steppe. You call GP's post "a lazy opinion backed by little research", but when you dig into the facts I can't see how you could argue that his claim is incorrect. The British Raj alone seems to qualify as the longest-lasting unification of India before the modern Indian state, and if you include any part of the EIC's rule then it's indisputably so.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

I hear what you’re saying, but this idea of a golden age under rule by some outside force is often the positive take about many historical periods where someone who committed significant crimes (invasions, genocides, etc) is then praised hundreds of years later because of the positive effect they had for the economy or whatever. Julius Caesar is one such example that comes to mind. But I feel that approach sometimes discounts what the country and its people could have achieved on their own if they were not invaded. For example, the Taj Mahal is just one building in India. There are lots of other structures that exist that were not built under rule from outside invaders, but they never get attention (at least I’ve not heard of them). With Britain - you mentioned that they unified India and brought stability but how true is that if you compare it to the period of India much earlier? India was rocked by Islamic invasions (which led to the Mughal period) and colonized by those Islamic rulers for hundreds of years. That’s what the European colonizers took over. Is that really a fair period to compare against? India basically spent a millennium ruled by one outside genocidal invader or the other. I am guessing the period before that was more peaceful and not in need of some outside unifying force to feel ‘stable’.

gsky 2y ago
Taj Mahal is nothing compared to ajanta and elloracaves. Whoever elected Taj Mahal as one of the 7 wonders was an idiot in my view
- anukin 2y ago
  Even more grandiose is the temple at Tanjavur built by the Chola king. Its dome is taller than Qutub Minar and is wider than the Taj Mahal.

nextos 2y ago

I don't think British India can be described as a Golden Age, when it was arguably the biggest transfer of wealth in history. When the British started colonizing India, its share of the World GDP was approximately between 1/5 and 1/4. So it was a major player. When they left, GDP share was a mere 4/100. Under British rule, India experienced massive de-industrialization. For example, the UK disassembled most of the handloom industry.

1024core 2y ago
> I don't think British India can be described as a Golden Age, when it was arguably the biggest transfer of wealth in history. It _was_ the Golden Age ... for the Brits! :-D
sashank_1509 2y ago
By golden age I only focus on top of the line Science, Art, Architecture etc which is a what a lot of people intuitively focus on since that is what we remember a period by. What rule was best for the common population is unclear. It might have been the Mauryas but we don’t have enough details of how the common man lived in the Mauryan empire. The arthashastra seems like our best source. Both the Mughals and the British had their share of evils against the common population but my sense is that if you were Hindu you were better off in the British empire than the Mughal Empire except for the rare tolerant Mughal ruler (eg ; Akbar).
- ignoramous 2y ago
  > if you were Hindu you were better off in the British empire than the Mughal Empire except for the rare tolerant Mughal ruler Unless you were Bengali Hindu, I guess? An undeniable difference between the British Raj and the Mughals is, the British were colonizers; the country as a whole suffered due to imperialism. One other user points out in this thread about the upending of socio-economic fabric under the Raj. Not really a "Golden Age" by any measure.
- smath 2y ago
  The Mauryans and Mughals settled and did not rule with the goal of extracting / plundering. The British EIC did the latter. Arts and culture can prosper sustainably only when basic needs are well met, otherwise it is only the privileged that can dream of arts.

gsky 2y ago

If Invasions and colonization were golden age we should continue that tradition throughout the world. /s

0x1ceb00da 2y ago

> you could argue independence had been a disaster with everything getting worse post independence There hasn't been a single famine in india since independence. The last one was the bengal famine of 1943. India became independent in 1947.

smath 2y ago

Good summary, even if I disagree with the 3rd piece being called a golden age. But my question is why ignore the cholas, pallavas and pandyas? Only because they didn’t capture the whole subcontinent? Our schools history books were Delhi centric but we don’t have to be going forward. Those 3 empires had a lot of arts and culture too - and in terms of impact, they spread to parts of SE Asia too.

anukin 2y ago
That's the specialty of a centralized state. There is a heavy push towards homogenizing Indian culture often at the cost of regional subcultures since almost 1947.

lenkite 2y ago

You forgot the Gupta Empire from mid 3rd century CE to mid 6th century CE. Aryabhatta - the famous mathematician was a product of this age. The empire unfortunately promulgated the extensive spread of Buddhism, became pacifist and passive and was easily invaded and looted by invaders from Central Asia. The late Gupta empire's army was a joke - only existed on paper. The fall of Indian civilization from the 7th century on-wards is very painful to read. No military of any note - Islamic invaders would regularly invade and loot and burn great temples and libraries every few years with little to no trouble. Foundational records and knowledge of ancient India was utterly annihilated. So much critical informational on Aryuveda, astronomy, mathematics and the physical sciences was lost forever. Some libraries were so huge, they burned for days. Islam was at the height of its military era at the time and easily destroyed and annexed other passive cultures. Lots of journals of invaders from that time that documented their utter contempt for peoples who couldn't defend themselves. The West had learned this lesson early and well from the Roman era: Si vis pacem, para bellum.