4 ms·

The marathas were much larger and in a lot of ways a lot more interesting than the Mughals for a variety of reasons. The fact that you believe that that Indian

by anon291 6mo ago

The marathas were much larger and in a lot of ways a lot more interesting than the Mughals for a variety of reasons. The fact that you believe that that Indian princely states were smaller is... Bizarre and ahistoric. England's rule over India only became a sure thing when England defeated the Marathas. Until then it was just piecemeal colonization. The fact that you are discussing the Raj without mention of the Marathas underscores the very concern that was brought up that Indian history is highly editorialized Part of the reason is that -- in the popular Western imagining -- India really refers to the Gangetic plain. Any book on India mainly attributes Gangetic culture to 'India' whole completely ignoring the south, west, east and north east all of which have unique cultural traits. As someone of Indian ethnicity, this was extremely confusing to me because when we read about Indian history in books and people would ask me, I would literally have no idea. My particular ethnic group lived along the coast of the western ghats and greatly valued the ocean and seafaring... Almost completely the opposite of the Gangetic peoples. This bias is prevalent everywhere because, despite these individual cultures having enough population to be a country in their own right. They are marginalized by popular history.

newyankee 6mo ago
Also when discussing Mughals the most important elephant in the room is ignored. Their intention to totally Islamise India. But this is more about Indian history being editorialised by few communists and others as they hate the notion of a caste system filled India and prefer the Mughal & British rule in their sanitised version. The historic animosity in different groups exists and persists to this day and is reflected in these perspectives. The atrocities of Mughals are not only glossed over, they are completely whitewashed, especially their demolition of 1000s of temples, subjugation of native population and many other crimes are painted as something normal in their time when reality is much more complicated. This is to not even speak of the over romanticisation of Taj Mahal as something 'Indian' while ignoring numerous other architecture that still survives to this day. When pointed out that many mosques were built on top of temples whose basement still survives to this day that part of history is conveniently ignored.
- g8oz 6mo ago
  >>Their intention to totally Islamise India. Given their military superiority during their zenith, if they really wanted to do that, they could have. But we didn't see that happen even within their core territories.
  - anon291 6mo ago
    like arguing Hitler could have killed all the Jews but was nice enough to let some escape
    - g8oz 6mo ago
      This is a silly analogy, and ahistorical to boot.
      - anon291 6mo ago
        Half of my ancestors were kept in the dungeons at Seringapatam for decades for the crime of being Christian by a Muslim ruler, which resulted in 2/3 of them dying. What gracious overlords we had to let the other 1/3 not die even though they could have killed them. I remain eternally grateful to their magnanimity. Just because the world doesn't recognize how awful that Islamic rule of India was to the actual people living there doesn't mean we don't get to criticize those who continue to glorify it. When you can't criticize someone you should ask why.
        defrost 6mo ago
        That was a very big deal in a specific locale 220 years ago to be sure, although it was just a decade and a half in total. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captivity_of_Mangalorean_Catholics_at_Seringapatam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captivity_of_Mangalorean_Catho... * https://www.jstor.org/stable/44147210 https://www.jstor.org/stable/44147210 Should this behaviour be generalised to all Islam rule all the time, or was it more specific to Tippu Sultan in he Kingdom of Mysore ? Should we generalise the Albigensian Crusade as an example of typical Catholic rule over christians (but heretics!!) - that saw 200,000 killed (not imprisoned).
sifar 6mo ago
When Duke Wellington was asked what was his most difficult battle, he mentioned the Battle of Assaye. He said he found the Maratha troops equal to the European military . His horse was killed under him and he was lucky to live through the battle. Maybe, the fate of Europe and that of India would have been different if he hadn't that day.

by anon291 6mo ago

newyankee 6mo ago

Also when discussing Mughals the most important elephant in the room is ignored. Their intention to totally Islamise India. But this is more about Indian history being editorialised by few communists and others as they hate the notion of a caste system filled India and prefer the Mughal & British rule in their sanitised version. The historic animosity in different groups exists and persists to this day and is reflected in these perspectives. The atrocities of Mughals are not only glossed over, they are completely whitewashed, especially their demolition of 1000s of temples, subjugation of native population and many other crimes are painted as something normal in their time when reality is much more complicated. This is to not even speak of the over romanticisation of Taj Mahal as something 'Indian' while ignoring numerous other architecture that still survives to this day. When pointed out that many mosques were built on top of temples whose basement still survives to this day that part of history is conveniently ignored.

g8oz 6mo ago
>>Their intention to totally Islamise India. Given their military superiority during their zenith, if they really wanted to do that, they could have. But we didn't see that happen even within their core territories.
- anon291 6mo ago
  like arguing Hitler could have killed all the Jews but was nice enough to let some escape
  - g8oz 6mo ago
    This is a silly analogy, and ahistorical to boot.
    - anon291 6mo ago
      Half of my ancestors were kept in the dungeons at Seringapatam for decades for the crime of being Christian by a Muslim ruler, which resulted in 2/3 of them dying. What gracious overlords we had to let the other 1/3 not die even though they could have killed them. I remain eternally grateful to their magnanimity. Just because the world doesn't recognize how awful that Islamic rule of India was to the actual people living there doesn't mean we don't get to criticize those who continue to glorify it. When you can't criticize someone you should ask why.
      - defrost 6mo ago
        That was a very big deal in a specific locale 220 years ago to be sure, although it was just a decade and a half in total. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captivity_of_Mangalorean_Catholics_at_Seringapatam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captivity_of_Mangalorean_Catho... * https://www.jstor.org/stable/44147210 https://www.jstor.org/stable/44147210 Should this behaviour be generalised to all Islam rule all the time, or was it more specific to Tippu Sultan in he Kingdom of Mysore ? Should we generalise the Albigensian Crusade as an example of typical Catholic rule over christians (but heretics!!) - that saw 200,000 killed (not imprisoned).

sifar 6mo ago

When Duke Wellington was asked what was his most difficult battle, he mentioned the Battle of Assaye. He said he found the Maratha troops equal to the European military . His horse was killed under him and he was lucky to live through the battle. Maybe, the fate of Europe and that of India would have been different if he hadn't that day.