What we call Old Delhi today refers to Shahjahanabad which was indeed built by the mughals, places like Mehrauli which is the site of Indraprashtha is not called Old Delhi
@@akshathdharmadheeran6074 i think u didn't understand my words. I Said that ... Delhi area was a ancient city before the Mughals too . Don't start the history only with the Mughals.
11:57 Just noticed that the three ladies whom you saluted were Jain nuns. Despite being a small religious community largely unknown outside of India (and often misunderstood by modern Indians themselves), Jainism is a religious tradition that has always fascinated me due to its ancient origins, its philosophical and doctrinal similarity to Buddhism, and rituals and myths that intertwine with the mainstream "Hinduism". Not to mention that by historical accounts, Jainism is even older Buddhism and may have been the inspiration of the Buddha while seeking the "middle path" for enlightement. It has often seemed to me like a bridge between the philosophies of Hinduism and Buddhism.
Both Hinduism and Buddhism share belief in karma and rebirth (or reincarnation), they both accept the idea of spiritual liberation (moksha, nirvana) from the cycle of reincarnation and they both promote similar religious practices (such as dhyana, samadhi, mantra, and devotion). Both religions also share many deities (though their nature is understood differently), including Saraswati, Vishnu (Upulvan), Mahakala, Indra, Ganesh and Brahma. However, Buddhism notably rejects fundamental Hindu doctrines such as atman (substantial self or soul), Brahman (a universal eternal source of everything) and the existence of a creator God (Ishvara). Instead, Buddhism teaches not-self (anatman) and dependent arising as fundamental metaphysical theories. Bro, i fundamentally disagree with your opinion. Jainism is much similar to Hinduism then Buddhism in philosophical terms. Buddhism is essentially vedanta and sankhya while Jainism is bhakti yog, nyaya and sankhya . If you remove the deities from Hinduism , which is essentially ways to emphasize diffrent forms of brahman , Hinduism encompasses all eastern philosophies with a bit of cultural difference. I wrote the comment not to disrespect anyone but to highlight that we all are same , helping each other in the path of liberation. Om namo budhhay ❤
@@gix8464 My understanding of Jainism is different. Like Buddhism, Jainism too reject the Vedas and deny the existence of a Creator deity (Brahman). Jains believe the universe to have always existed. Though they do believe in demi-gods and goddesses, and lay Jains often pray to them for health, wealth or good luck, they believe these deities to be bound to the material world like humans themselves, and therefore incapable of helping in the larger question of human liberation. They consider the liberated human beings like their Tirthankars and Siddhas to be superior to these gods and goddesses. Being strict adherents of the principle of ahimsa, Krishna's message to Arjuna in Bhagavad Gita would naturally be unacceptable to Jains. The story of Bahubali (a son of the first Tirthankar Rishabha) who fought a non-violent battle against his brother Bharata since he refused to accept the Bharata's overlordship can be compared to the violent nature of Kurukshetra war. Jains would likely sympathise more with Arjuna's initial refusal to shed the blood of his cousins and uncles over the war, than Krishna's encouragement for him to do his "Kshatriya dharma". Jain beliefs on rebirth is even stronger and fundamental than "Hinduism". Unlike the Buddhists (and like the "Hindus"), Jains believe in an eternal soul. For a Jain, the moksha (liberation) can come only through a self-effort through the path shown by their 24 Tirthankars. The Tirthankars themselves cannot be worshipped directly either, as they have already left the confines of this world and cannot help people here. But it is their teachings they left behind, and their lives and qualities that is to be venerated or worshipped by Jains. Thus it can be seen that despite the difference about the belief in an "eternal soul", the Jain idea of "liberation from samsara" is more similar to Buddhism than "Hinduism", where the devotion (bhakti) for gods and goddesses or the realization of oneness with Brahman (whose existence Jains deny) is considered vital for moksha. That said, the Jain modes of worship and rituals are quite similar to those of Hindus, and the Jain cosmology and myths often overlap those of Hindus as well, but differ in several ways. They believe 21 out of the 24 Tirthankars were born in the same Ikshvaku dynasty that gave Hindus many of their religious figures including Rama and Krishna. Jains believe it was their first Tirthankar - Rishabha - who founded this dynasty, and that their 22nd Tirthankar - Neminath or Arishtanemi - was a cousin of Krishna, being the son of Samudravijaya, brother of Vasudeva. Just like the Hindu "Harivamsa", Jains have their own "Harivamsa Purana" which concentrates on the life of Neminath and Krishna. (However, Samudravijaya and Neminath doesn't seem to be mentioned in Hindu versions of the story.) Jain versions of Ramayana and Mahabharata too differ from the "Hindu" counterparts in many parts. So, it has been quite fascinating to me how Jainism seems to simultaneously overlap both the "Hindu" and Buddhist realms of philosophy, beliefs and myths and yet differ from both. However, these are only my own impressions through reading various resources about Jainism. I may be mistaken in many of my assumptions. A practising Jain might be able to provide better insight on how their beliefs differ from those of mainstream "Hinduism".
@@manh9105 Ask a Jain if they consider their beliefs as part of "Hinduism", and do a bit of reading to understand Jainism's foundational concepts. Granted, "Hinduism" is a bit difficult to define since it encompasses a wide variety of cults, beliefs and philosophies. But a commonality of "Hindu" traditions is the belief in a Supreme deity or a Creator God (Brahman) and that all "Hindu" traditions accept the Vedas. Jainism does not believe in a Supreme creator deity (it believes that the Universe is uncreated and that it has always existed) and it does not accept the authority of the Vedas or other "Hindu" texts. They would not agree with the message of Bhagavad Gita where Krishna exhorts Arjuna to do his "Kshatriya Dharma" and fight his uncles and cousins. They are more likely to sympathise with Arjuna's reluctance to fight the war. Jains also have their own versions of the story of Ramayana and Mahabharata that differ significantly from the generally accepted "Hindu" versions. More importantly, Jains also believe that the path to liberation lies through self-effort, and not through devotion to any deity or a self-realization of one's union with the Brahman. That said, Jains may worship some gods and goddesses for material gains, but they consider these deities to be confined to the material world and therefore inferior to their Tirthankars and Siddhas, who are humans who attained liberation through self-effort. So, if your idea of "Hindu" is someone who believes in the Vedas, puranas and Bhagavad Gita, and believes in liberation through devotion to a deity, then Jainism is definitely not "Hinduism".
Sir, enjoyed your video, but there were a few mistakes. 1. Delhi existed far before Mughals, through many empires. It was called 'Indraprasth', mentioned in 5000 year old epics of India. But as a part of deliberate attempt to delete India's history as part of colonial enterprise, in Thomas Mac Cualays words, "to create a class of people who think and act like the European", so as part of a larger plan to erase civilisational memory, to make take over easy and smooth with keast casualties in British side, the British devised many devious and evil ways, creating civilizational amnesia was one of them, therefore, only these two Delhis which you mentioned were given importance and even archeological preservation, while the rest were ignored and left to rot. After the independence, the left dominated socialists continued the same policy through the education system. 2. The building at the other end is Rastrapati Bhavan (presidential house) not the parliament. Parliament was visible at around 45° right where you were standing and facing the rastrapati bhavan 3. Neither the Mughals nor the British built these magnificent buildings . It was built using Indian taxes paid by the Indian tax payer, in a slave economy. If you build a house using your own hard earned money, does the archetect or the construction company gets the credit or you get the credit? British has this unique character of taking positive credit or self appreciation for things they otherwise consider fascism or slavery when done by anyone else
Thankyou for watching my video. I appreciate your comments and the history regarding my video. It's great that I can learn more about where I have been from my Subscibers. Thankyou
@@andrewparkertravels4229 before Mughals so many native Indian empires existed in India which ruled over part of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka etc, together it was single country called Bharat. Bharat is still official name of India in Hindi n Sanskrit.
It is normal to credit such historical constructions to the rulers or dynasties which built them. This is the case of many historical monuments, temples and forts constructed by the native Indian kingdoms and empires as well, including Sarnath and Sanchi stupas (Mauryas), Ajanta and Ellora caves (Guptas and later kingdoms) etc. There is one obvious reason why Muslim empires and British Raj finds a greater part of the mention in historical accounts of Delhi. Barring a few like the Lal Kot (built by Tomar Rajputs), most of the prominent historical constructions you see in and around modern Delhi date from the periods of Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526), Mughal Empire (1526-1857) and the British Raj. There may have been many more pre-Islamic monuments, but they either fell into ruin or were destroyed during the Delhi Sultanate. (According to contemporary Muslim historians, Qutb-ud-din Aibak of the Delhi Sultanate built the Qutb Minar complex on the destroyed ruins of Hindu and Jain temples thag stood in the area.)
You may visit Bangladesh. If you come to Bangladesh I would suggest you to visit Coxs Bazar and Chittagong. Both are beautiful places. You may visit Sylhet and Barisal also. Dhaka is a busy city. But other cities are different. They are not so busy like Dhaka
@@andrewparkertravels4229 no need to travel to India , anglo vloggers don't know anything about the place where they're going and just spread mis- information about that place, better travel to countries like Thailand, Indonesia, it's very good for people like you xD.
Well what you referred as the Parliament were actually the Nort and South Block on either side of the road (the main offices of the Union Govt,. of India that includes the PM office and why it is so heavily guarded..in the center the domed structure was the Rashtrapati Bhavan or the President's House. The parliament in fact was on the right side next to the large cranes. The current one, soon to stop being operational is the circular columnar structure. The new one is just next to it where the large cranes are.
I love Red Fort, Qutub minar and Delhi Jama mosque. Delhi Gate is also beautiful ❤Mughal empire was one of the best empires of South Asia ❤I love Old Delhi food.
@@andrewparkertravels4229 please Upload VIDEO RELETED TO INDIA AND RELIGIOUS PLACES MEANS OLD TEMPLE ANCIENT BILDING, this is India don't worry about youtube channel.. millions of viewers here, coming soon 100k in 2 or 3 months ,.... Believe in India 🔥🚩🚩🇮🇳🇮🇳 JAY SHREE RAM JAY HANUMAN JAY SHREE KRISHNA JAY MAHAKAL JAY MAHAKALI 🚩🚩🔥🚩🔥
Before the advent of colonial rule, India was a self-sufficient and flourishing economy. Evidently, our country was popularly known as the golden eagle. India had already established itself on the world map with a decent amount of exports. Although primarily it was an agrarian economy, many manufacturing activities were budding in the pre-colonial India. Indian craftsmanship was widely popular around the world and garnered huge demands. The economy was well-known for its handicraft industries in the fields of cotton and silk textiles, metal and precious stone works etc. Such developments lured the British to paralyze our state and use it for their home country’s benefits. The British came to India with the motive of colonization. Their plans involved using India as a feeder colony for their own flourishing economy back at Britain. This exploitation continued for about two centuries, till we finally got independence on 15 August 1947. Consequently, this rendered our country’s economy hollow. The colonial rule is marked with periods of heavy exploitation. The British took steps that ensured development and promotion of the interests of their home country. They were in no way concerned about the course of Indian economy. Such steps transformed our economy for the worse- it effectively became a supplier of raw materials and a consumer of finished goods. The colonial kings robbed India of education, opportunities etc. reducing Indians to mere servants. Undoubtedly, they never tried to estimate colonial India’s national and per capita income. Although the results were inconsistent, the estimates of V.K.R.V. Rao are considered accurate. Notably, India’s growth of aggregate real output was less than 2% in the first half of the twentieth century coupled with a half percent growth in per capita output per year. By and large, India faced a herculean task to recover from the blows that two centuries of colonial rule landed on its economy.
@@andrewparkertravels4229 yeah that’s a great one. But I want you to experience northern india. The subcontinent of india is one of the most diverse region on this planet I tell you to go to sikkim is because of the beautiful culture and people who are very welcoming and it’s surrounded by Himalayas mountains
ON THE EVENING of August 14, 1947, as India prepared to declare its independence, the last British Viceroy in India was sitting alone in his study, when, as he recounted later, he thought to himself: “For still a few more minutes I am the most powerful man on earth.” At the midnight hour, India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, would rise and make his most celebrated speech, triumphantly announcing that after 200 years, India was reemerging on the world stage. But the Viceroy had ample reason to be glum: his empire was relinquishing its crown jewel, one that had enriched Britain for centuries. Louis Mountbatten was not exaggerating the extent of his power. Nehru had noted in his earlier writings that the power of the British Viceroy was greater than that of any British prime minister or American president. His Majesty’s deputy was India’s colonial master, ruling over 350 million bodies across a continent 20 times larger than Britain, accountable to none of the people he governed. When Nehru, writing from a prison cell in the 1940s, did search for an analogy to the Viceroy’s power, the only name he could think of was that of Adolf Hitler. After two centuries of imperial rule, the proximate cause of India’s independence was the economic damage Britain suffered after World War II - a war, it should be remembered, in which 2.5 million Indians also fought. When the time came to pack up and return home, Britain tasked a London barrister named Sir Cyril Radcliffe with drawing the lines on the map that would partition the colony into two dominions, India and Pakistan, and settle the fate of hundreds of millions of people. Radcliffe, who had never been to India before, showed little interest in the people living there, and was given just 40 days to complete his work. In a poem titled “Partition,” W. H. Auden memorialized the image of an unprepared lawyer amputating an entire subcontinent: In seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided A continent for better or worse divided The next day he sailed for England, where he could quickly forget The case, as a good lawyer must. Return he would not Afraid, as he told his Club, that he might get shot. What followed this irresponsible and careless partition was murder, rape, and mob lynching on a scale never before seen in South Asia. The subcontinent had always prided itself on its syncretic traditions; certainly, there were moments of disharmony, but nothing like what would happen in 1947. Muslims killed Hindus and Sikhs, Hindus and Sikhs killed Muslims, neighbor turned on neighbor - and on their neighbors’ children. As far as the eye could see, bodies lay strewn across roads packed with refugees; pregnant women were targeted and cut open; corpses littered the roads of ancient towns and cities. Between one and two million people were killed in the span of this homicidal fury, and over 15 million people were uprooted. It was one of the most harrowing human migrations in all of recorded history. One person, at least, knew where to lay blame for this violence. Louis Mountbatten, the last Viceroy and first Governor-General of independent India, would later bluntly tell a BBC reporter: “I fucked it up.”
5:42 India was never under mongol occupation I guess you ment to say Mughals ,But Delhi existed and shaped it far before them. The video is nice but just keep check on the info part.
Thankyou for your history of Delhi...really appreciate it. I'm coming back to India end of year and will take your advice to research before. Thanks for watching and subscribing...please suggest my channel to your friends
The world, at least most of it with some exceptions, mourns the passing of Queen Elizabeth II of the UK, it has once more brought to the fore the scars of British colonialism and the concomitant organized loot of scores of nations that were pushed decades and centuries back in mankind’s long march to freedom and prosperity. India’s case is most peculiar: Great Britain became so only as it lorded and looted India to the death and detriment of millions. Even British industrialization was, but an outcome of their clutches over India. Several estimates have been drawn as to quantify the amount of this loot-not considering the opportunity cost for India and Indians-and the consensus is $45 trillion. India’s External Affairs Minister (EAM) S Jaishankar in 2019 quoted a study saying that British loot from India was close to $45 trillion in today’s monetary value. “India had two centuries of humiliation by the West in its predatory form it came to India in the mid-18th century. An economic study tried to estimate how much British took out of India, it ended up at a number of $45 trillion in today’s value,” Jaishankar had said while delivering an address at think tank Atlantic Council in Washington DC. Noted economist Utsa Patnaik tried to explain this figure in an interview with the Mint. “Over roughly 200 years, the East India Company and the British Raj siphoned at least £9.2 trillion (or $44.6 trillion; since the exchange rate was $4.8 per pound sterling during much of the colonial period).”
@@andrewparkertravels4229 my pleasure sir bcz street food is heavy with oil and masala powder if you guys eat especially western people they have issue bcz you most foreigners avoid masala and heavy food also there is hygiene issue at some places
Mongols never invaded India. You mistook them for the Islamic invaders and specifically one of their bigger empires that is named "Mughal Empire". Mongols are different from Mughals.
Delhi is not built by Mughals.... Delhi is also a old city.... In ancient times.. the name of Delhi was Indraprastha.
What we call Old Delhi today refers to Shahjahanabad which was indeed built by the mughals, places like Mehrauli which is the site of Indraprashtha is not called Old Delhi
@@akshathdharmadheeran6074 i think u didn't understand my words. I Said that ... Delhi area was a ancient city before the Mughals too .
Don't start the history only with the Mughals.
11:57 Just noticed that the three ladies whom you saluted were Jain nuns. Despite being a small religious community largely unknown outside of India (and often misunderstood by modern Indians themselves), Jainism is a religious tradition that has always fascinated me due to its ancient origins, its philosophical and doctrinal similarity to Buddhism, and rituals and myths that intertwine with the mainstream "Hinduism". Not to mention that by historical accounts, Jainism is even older Buddhism and may have been the inspiration of the Buddha while seeking the "middle path" for enlightement. It has often seemed to me like a bridge between the philosophies of Hinduism and Buddhism.
Both Hinduism and Buddhism share belief in karma and rebirth (or reincarnation), they both accept the idea of spiritual liberation (moksha, nirvana) from the cycle of reincarnation and they both promote similar religious practices (such as dhyana, samadhi, mantra, and devotion). Both religions also share many deities (though their nature is understood differently), including Saraswati, Vishnu (Upulvan), Mahakala, Indra, Ganesh and Brahma.
However, Buddhism notably rejects fundamental Hindu doctrines such as atman (substantial self or soul), Brahman (a universal eternal source of everything) and the existence of a creator God (Ishvara). Instead, Buddhism teaches not-self (anatman) and dependent arising as fundamental metaphysical theories.
Bro, i fundamentally disagree with your opinion. Jainism is much similar to Hinduism then Buddhism in philosophical terms. Buddhism is essentially vedanta and sankhya while Jainism is bhakti yog, nyaya and sankhya .
If you remove the deities from Hinduism , which is essentially ways to emphasize diffrent forms of brahman , Hinduism encompasses all eastern philosophies with a bit of cultural difference. I wrote the comment not to disrespect anyone but to highlight that we all are same , helping each other in the path of liberation. Om namo budhhay ❤
@@gix8464 My understanding of Jainism is different. Like Buddhism, Jainism too reject the Vedas and deny the existence of a Creator deity (Brahman). Jains believe the universe to have always existed. Though they do believe in demi-gods and goddesses, and lay Jains often pray to them for health, wealth or good luck, they believe these deities to be bound to the material world like humans themselves, and therefore incapable of helping in the larger question of human liberation. They consider the liberated human beings like their Tirthankars and Siddhas to be superior to these gods and goddesses.
Being strict adherents of the principle of ahimsa, Krishna's message to Arjuna in Bhagavad Gita would naturally be unacceptable to Jains. The story of Bahubali (a son of the first Tirthankar Rishabha) who fought a non-violent battle against his brother Bharata since he refused to accept the Bharata's overlordship can be compared to the violent nature of Kurukshetra war. Jains would likely sympathise more with Arjuna's initial refusal to shed the blood of his cousins and uncles over the war, than Krishna's encouragement for him to do his "Kshatriya dharma".
Jain beliefs on rebirth is even stronger and fundamental than "Hinduism". Unlike the Buddhists (and like the "Hindus"), Jains believe in an eternal soul. For a Jain, the moksha (liberation) can come only through a self-effort through the path shown by their 24 Tirthankars. The Tirthankars themselves cannot be worshipped directly either, as they have already left the confines of this world and cannot help people here. But it is their teachings they left behind, and their lives and qualities that is to be venerated or worshipped by Jains. Thus it can be seen that despite the difference about the belief in an "eternal soul", the Jain idea of "liberation from samsara" is more similar to Buddhism than "Hinduism", where the devotion (bhakti) for gods and goddesses or the realization of oneness with Brahman (whose existence Jains deny) is considered vital for moksha.
That said, the Jain modes of worship and rituals are quite similar to those of Hindus, and the Jain cosmology and myths often overlap those of Hindus as well, but differ in several ways. They believe 21 out of the 24 Tirthankars were born in the same Ikshvaku dynasty that gave Hindus many of their religious figures including Rama and Krishna. Jains believe it was their first Tirthankar - Rishabha - who founded this dynasty, and that their 22nd Tirthankar - Neminath or Arishtanemi - was a cousin of Krishna, being the son of Samudravijaya, brother of Vasudeva. Just like the Hindu "Harivamsa", Jains have their own "Harivamsa Purana" which concentrates on the life of Neminath and Krishna. (However, Samudravijaya and Neminath doesn't seem to be mentioned in Hindu versions of the story.) Jain versions of Ramayana and Mahabharata too differ from the "Hindu" counterparts in many parts.
So, it has been quite fascinating to me how Jainism seems to simultaneously overlap both the "Hindu" and Buddhist realms of philosophy, beliefs and myths and yet differ from both. However, these are only my own impressions through reading various resources about Jainism. I may be mistaken in many of my assumptions. A practising Jain might be able to provide better insight on how their beliefs differ from those of mainstream "Hinduism".
@@vineethg6259 Jainism is a panth of Hinduism. Hinduism has a wide spectrum from charvaka to jainism basically comprising of 8 darshanas .
@@manh9105 Ask a Jain if they consider their beliefs as part of "Hinduism", and do a bit of reading to understand Jainism's foundational concepts. Granted, "Hinduism" is a bit difficult to define since it encompasses a wide variety of cults, beliefs and philosophies. But a commonality of "Hindu" traditions is the belief in a Supreme deity or a Creator God (Brahman) and that all "Hindu" traditions accept the Vedas. Jainism does not believe in a Supreme creator deity (it believes that the Universe is uncreated and that it has always existed) and it does not accept the authority of the Vedas or other "Hindu" texts. They would not agree with the message of Bhagavad Gita where Krishna exhorts Arjuna to do his "Kshatriya Dharma" and fight his uncles and cousins. They are more likely to sympathise with Arjuna's reluctance to fight the war. Jains also have their own versions of the story of Ramayana and Mahabharata that differ significantly from the generally accepted "Hindu" versions. More importantly, Jains also believe that the path to liberation lies through self-effort, and not through devotion to any deity or a self-realization of one's union with the Brahman. That said, Jains may worship some gods and goddesses for material gains, but they consider these deities to be confined to the material world and therefore inferior to their Tirthankars and Siddhas, who are humans who attained liberation through self-effort. So, if your idea of "Hindu" is someone who believes in the Vedas, puranas and Bhagavad Gita, and believes in liberation through devotion to a deity, then Jainism is definitely not "Hinduism".
no one gives a f*ck
Hey Andrew....really nice vid.....since you came out very early in morning---you were able to capture the morning glory.....thank you.
Sir, enjoyed your video, but there were a few mistakes.
1. Delhi existed far before Mughals, through many empires. It was called 'Indraprasth', mentioned in 5000 year old epics of India. But as a part of deliberate attempt to delete India's history as part of colonial enterprise, in Thomas Mac Cualays words, "to create a class of people who think and act like the European", so as part of a larger plan to erase civilisational memory, to make take over easy and smooth with keast casualties in British side, the British devised many devious and evil ways, creating civilizational amnesia was one of them, therefore, only these two Delhis which you mentioned were given importance and even archeological preservation, while the rest were ignored and left to rot. After the independence, the left dominated socialists continued the same policy through the education system.
2. The building at the other end is Rastrapati Bhavan (presidential house) not the parliament. Parliament was visible at around 45° right where you were standing and facing the rastrapati bhavan
3. Neither the Mughals nor the British built these magnificent buildings . It was built using Indian taxes paid by the Indian tax payer, in a slave economy. If you build a house using your own hard earned money, does the archetect or the construction company gets the credit or you get the credit? British has this unique character of taking positive credit or self appreciation for things they otherwise consider fascism or slavery when done by anyone else
Thankyou for watching my video. I appreciate your comments and the history regarding my video. It's great that I can learn more about where I have been from my Subscibers. Thankyou
@@andrewparkertravels4229 before Mughals so many native Indian empires existed in India which ruled over part of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka etc, together it was single country called Bharat. Bharat is still official name of India in Hindi n Sanskrit.
@@Raj-ez8vg thankyou Raj for watching my video and for letting me know the history of Delhi
Very well put.
It is normal to credit such historical constructions to the rulers or dynasties which built them. This is the case of many historical monuments, temples and forts constructed by the native Indian kingdoms and empires as well, including Sarnath and Sanchi stupas (Mauryas), Ajanta and Ellora caves (Guptas and later kingdoms) etc.
There is one obvious reason why Muslim empires and British Raj finds a greater part of the mention in historical accounts of Delhi. Barring a few like the Lal Kot (built by Tomar Rajputs), most of the prominent historical constructions you see in and around modern Delhi date from the periods of Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526), Mughal Empire (1526-1857) and the British Raj. There may have been many more pre-Islamic monuments, but they either fell into ruin or were destroyed during the Delhi Sultanate. (According to contemporary Muslim historians, Qutb-ud-din Aibak of the Delhi Sultanate built the Qutb Minar complex on the destroyed ruins of Hindu and Jain temples thag stood in the area.)
Go to Rishikesh,haridwar,darjeeling,leh,ladakh,golden temple amritsar,dharmshala and all souhtern states
Going to Southern India next Jan....thanks for heads up on where to go
Beautiful
You may visit Bangladesh. If you come to Bangladesh I would suggest you to visit Coxs Bazar and Chittagong. Both are beautiful places. You may visit Sylhet and Barisal also. Dhaka is a busy city. But other cities are different. They are not so busy like Dhaka
Great video! Cheers mate!
Thankyou...and thanks for subscribing. I'll be coming back to India in a few months to travel more in depth. Please suggest my channel to your friends
@@andrewparkertravels4229 no need to travel to India , anglo vloggers don't know anything about the place where they're going and just spread mis- information about that place, better travel to countries like Thailand, Indonesia, it's very good for people like you xD.
Well what you referred as the Parliament were actually the Nort and South Block on either side of the road (the main offices of the Union Govt,. of India that includes the PM office and why it is so heavily guarded..in the center the domed structure was the Rashtrapati Bhavan or the President's House. The parliament in fact was on the right side next to the large cranes. The current one, soon to stop being operational is the circular columnar structure. The new one is just next to it where the large cranes are.
Ok thankyou for information...and thanks for subscribing and watching my video. Please suggest my channel to your friends
I love Red Fort, Qutub minar and Delhi Jama mosque. Delhi Gate is also beautiful ❤Mughal empire was one of the best empires of South Asia ❤I love Old Delhi food.
Com to rajisthan
@@mdzahidaly4806 ❤
Actually,,, it's a racial dictatorship,,,for hindus
Beautiful awsum Vlog 🙏😊👍
Thanks Amit for watching and subscribing to my channel. Please suggest my channel to your friends
Delhi is ANCIENT PLACE MAHABHARAT TIME INDRAPRASTHA 🔥🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩 JAY SHREE RAM JAY SHREE KRISHNA JAY HANUMAN 🚩🚩
Thanks for watching and subscribing to my channel.
Please suggest my channel to your friends
@@andrewparkertravels4229 please Upload VIDEO RELETED TO INDIA AND RELIGIOUS PLACES MEANS OLD TEMPLE ANCIENT BILDING, this is India don't worry about youtube channel.. millions of viewers here, coming soon 100k in 2 or 3 months ,.... Believe in India 🔥🚩🚩🇮🇳🇮🇳 JAY SHREE RAM JAY HANUMAN JAY SHREE KRISHNA JAY MAHAKAL JAY MAHAKALI 🚩🚩🔥🚩🔥
Before the advent of colonial rule, India was a self-sufficient and flourishing economy. Evidently, our country was popularly known as the golden eagle. India had already established itself on the world map with a decent amount of exports. Although primarily it was an agrarian economy, many manufacturing activities were budding in the pre-colonial India.
Indian craftsmanship was widely popular around the world and garnered huge demands. The economy was well-known for its handicraft industries in the fields of cotton and silk textiles, metal and precious stone works etc. Such developments lured the British to paralyze our state and use it for their home country’s benefits.
The British came to India with the motive of colonization. Their plans involved using India as a feeder colony for their own flourishing economy back at Britain. This exploitation continued for about two centuries, till we finally got independence on 15 August 1947. Consequently, this rendered our country’s economy hollow.
The colonial rule is marked with periods of heavy exploitation. The British took steps that ensured development and promotion of the interests of their home country. They were in no way concerned about the course of Indian economy. Such steps transformed our economy for the worse- it effectively became a supplier of raw materials and a consumer of finished goods.
The colonial kings robbed India of education, opportunities etc. reducing Indians to mere servants. Undoubtedly, they never tried to estimate colonial India’s national and per capita income.
Although the results were inconsistent, the estimates of V.K.R.V. Rao are considered accurate. Notably, India’s growth of aggregate real output was less than 2% in the first half of the twentieth century coupled with a half percent growth in per capita output per year. By and large, India faced a herculean task to recover from the blows that two centuries of colonial rule landed on its economy.
You should visit northeast india. Don’t miss sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh
I plan to visit southern India soon...then head north to udaipur then to delhi.Whens a good time?...august ok ?
@@andrewparkertravels4229 yeah that’s a great one. But I want you to experience northern india. The subcontinent of india is one of the most diverse region on this planet I tell you to go to sikkim is because of the beautiful culture and people who are very welcoming and it’s surrounded by Himalayas mountains
Yes went need to release soon
You really need to work on your English, my friend or rather talk in your local language. There is no shame to talk in your own mother tongue.
ON THE EVENING of August 14, 1947, as India prepared to declare its independence, the last British Viceroy in India was sitting alone in his study, when, as he recounted later, he thought to himself: “For still a few more minutes I am the most powerful man on earth.” At the midnight hour, India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, would rise and make his most celebrated speech, triumphantly announcing that after 200 years, India was reemerging on the world stage. But the Viceroy had ample reason to be glum: his empire was relinquishing its crown jewel, one that had enriched Britain for centuries. Louis Mountbatten was not exaggerating the extent of his power. Nehru had noted in his earlier writings that the power of the British Viceroy was greater than that of any British prime minister or American president. His Majesty’s deputy was India’s colonial master, ruling over 350 million bodies across a continent 20 times larger than Britain, accountable to none of the people he governed. When Nehru, writing from a prison cell in the 1940s, did search for an analogy to the Viceroy’s power, the only name he could think of was that of Adolf Hitler.
After two centuries of imperial rule, the proximate cause of India’s independence was the economic damage Britain suffered after World War II - a war, it should be remembered, in which 2.5 million Indians also fought. When the time came to pack up and return home, Britain tasked a London barrister named Sir Cyril Radcliffe with drawing the lines on the map that would partition the colony into two dominions, India and Pakistan, and settle the fate of hundreds of millions of people. Radcliffe, who had never been to India before, showed little interest in the people living there, and was given just 40 days to complete his work. In a poem titled “Partition,” W. H. Auden memorialized the image of an unprepared lawyer amputating an entire subcontinent:
In seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided
A continent for better or worse divided
The next day he sailed for England, where he could quickly forget
The case, as a good lawyer must. Return he would not
Afraid, as he told his Club, that he might get shot.
What followed this irresponsible and careless partition was murder, rape, and mob lynching on a scale never before seen in South Asia. The subcontinent had always prided itself on its syncretic traditions; certainly, there were moments of disharmony, but nothing like what would happen in 1947. Muslims killed Hindus and Sikhs, Hindus and Sikhs killed Muslims, neighbor turned on neighbor - and on their neighbors’ children. As far as the eye could see, bodies lay strewn across roads packed with refugees; pregnant women were targeted and cut open; corpses littered the roads of ancient towns and cities. Between one and two million people were killed in the span of this homicidal fury, and over 15 million people were uprooted. It was one of the most harrowing human migrations in all of recorded history. One person, at least, knew where to lay blame for this violence. Louis Mountbatten, the last Viceroy and first Governor-General of independent India, would later bluntly tell a BBC reporter: “I fucked it up.”
bro id suggest u to get an iphone to record it and take stable videos. thanks and tc
প্লিজ বাংলাদেশে এসে গুরে যাও 🇧🇩🇧🇩❤
Yeah the gates where we kicked out the British. How delightful 😊😊😊.
🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤💐💐💐🙏🏻👏
👍
👍🧡
5:42 India was never under mongol occupation I guess you ment to say Mughals ,But Delhi existed and shaped it far before them. The video is nice but just keep check on the info part.
Thankyou for your history of Delhi...really appreciate it. I'm coming back to India end of year and will take your advice to research before.
Thanks for watching and subscribing...please suggest my channel to your friends
The world, at least most of it with some exceptions, mourns the passing of Queen Elizabeth II of the UK, it has once more brought to the fore the scars of British colonialism and the concomitant organized loot of scores of nations that were pushed decades and centuries back in mankind’s long march to freedom and prosperity.
India’s case is most peculiar: Great Britain became so only as it lorded and looted India to the death and detriment of millions. Even British industrialization was, but an outcome of their clutches over India.
Several estimates have been drawn as to quantify the amount of this loot-not considering the opportunity cost for India and Indians-and the consensus is $45 trillion.
India’s External Affairs Minister (EAM) S Jaishankar in 2019 quoted a study saying that British loot from India was close to $45 trillion in today’s monetary value.
“India had two centuries of humiliation by the West in its predatory form it came to India in the mid-18th century. An economic study tried to estimate how much British took out of India, it ended up at a number of $45 trillion in today’s value,” Jaishankar had said while delivering an address at think tank Atlantic Council in Washington DC.
Noted economist Utsa Patnaik tried to explain this figure in an interview with the Mint. “Over roughly 200 years, the East India Company and the British Raj siphoned at least £9.2 trillion (or $44.6 trillion; since the exchange rate was $4.8 per pound sterling during much of the colonial period).”
Australian accent Good day mate
G'day mate...thanks for watching and subscribing to my channel. Please suggest my channel to your friends
Nice video just avoid street food and eat from somewhere else like restaurant or dhaba
AA Gaya Gyan chood Gyanchodne
Thanks for watching and subscribing. Also thanks for food advice...I agree
@@andrewparkertravels4229 my pleasure sir bcz street food is heavy with oil and masala powder if you guys eat especially western people they have issue bcz you most foreigners avoid masala and heavy food also there is hygiene issue at some places
@@ddtfact2893 tera baap ka thela kaha lagta hai
@@yourDad0007 Teri MAA ke Ghar ke samne
Mongols never invaded India. You mistook them for the Islamic invaders and specifically one of their bigger empires that is named "Mughal Empire". Mongols are different from Mughals.
Mongols try to invaded India in 1297..but Delhi sultanate stop them in Lahore province
Mughals are descendants of Mongols.
Akal ka dushman. Jub naam hai to comparison que? Firango ko patte nahee kya?
Poorly managed
What do you mean? ...the video ?
@@andrewparkertravels4229no I think he is talking about that place
i wouldn’t ever dare to visit this dangerously unsocial country
stay safe sir
None is asking you.
You sir, are funny.
@Mendak Senpai Bro he isn't from US, you know how it is. Create a fake profile, slander others and feel good about your life. 😂
@livestreamtv4470 bro he is madarsa bred pak waala
Relax guys He's a Bangladeshi with a fake profile picture...
We all know how radical and extremist his own country is..
Are you Aussie....😅😅😅
Yes I am...and thanks for watching and subscribing. Please suggest my channel to yours friends