It sounds like both these brilliant historians have something stuck in their throats when they say out loud facts about how backward Europe was in comparison to 10th Century India and China. Well done for not subverting facts in Europe's favour for the first time. Bravo 🙌🕉️🙏
I disagree with Dalrymple that India was divided into numerous smaller kingdoms and that is why there are no great monuments in India matching the scale of the monuments in SE Asia. Besides the Mauryas, Guptas & Mughals we also had the Kushan empire. In the very period when Hiuen Tsang supposedly mentioned the 69 kingdoms of India, much of North India was ruled by Harsha in whose court the Chinese pilgrim paid a visit. Moreover, Harsha had to contend with a South Indian emperor Pulakeshin who was more than a match for Harsha in battle. After Harsha, we had the Pratiharas, Rashtrakutas & Palas, and then later the Cholas & Chalukyas, each of which were gargantuan empires in their own right. It is a little absurd to think that without much political unity and therefore political power, Indian Civilization could have exerted such massive influence outside of the Indian subcontinent. It maybe granted that all of India was often not under a single empire but India almost always had large empires. The peculiarity of Indian polity was that a smaller kingdom was allowed to exist and function unhindered as long as it accepted the suzerainty of the imperial power. This certainly was the case during Harsha’s reign and we know that this political doctrine is well laid out in Arthashastra.
If so , how a force of less than 40,000 british took cintrol of a uinted single kingdom of india with 1.6 million inhabitants. Who is the king of this kingdom then?
It is a twist of karma that, now that Britain’s global influence has waned, there is a growing appreciation among its people for the contributions, capabilities, and virtues of Indian civilization. When Britain was at the height of its power, its representatives often looked down upon and disparaged Indian culture, loudly projecting an image of superiority while dismissing India’s rich heritage. In those days, Indian achievements and traditions were marginalized or scorned. Today, however, as the world increasingly values diverse cultural perspectives, the depth and legacy of Indian civilization are receiving the recognition they long deserved.
one can sympathise with loosers but should not forget that loosing is neither morally nor pragmatically the preferable occurrence. winning is not only preferable but is in almost all ways superior. causes of the third world loosing out to the first world are possibly due to difference in objectivity. higher the devotion to superstition, greater the probability of loosing in competition. all beauty of third world cultures did not compensate for their lack of objectivity, and in india it is still the main problem. india has not learnt. superstition interferes with learning.
Why did India’s per capita GDP remain below $1000 dollars between 1700 and 1950, which covers both the peak of world beating Moghul GDP and British looting? This suggests that that these peaks and valleys of Indian GDP didn’t affect the average Indian. True? Over the same period, British per capita income rose from about $2000 to $10,000. In fact, the rise of per capita GDP increase in Britain accelerated after her loss of the Empire. This is not the narrative that I am hearing from you and Dr. Shashi Tharoor.
Industrialisation coupled with exploitative extraction of resources from their colonies led to the rise in GDP of European powers. India had no such luxury and Mughal empire was quite weak after 1707-1713 CE, roughly. From 1757 onwards the British were on the ascendency in India and from the beginning of the 19th century were the dominant power in India. So you should wonder what were the British doing ? Why did they not industrialise India ? Far from it, they deindustrialised the old form of Indian industry to benefit its people in Britain. So you should really ask the question to the British.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
This was mit very good... the two Men needed a good Moderator
It sounds like both these brilliant historians have something stuck in their throats when they say out loud facts about how backward Europe was in comparison to 10th Century India and China. Well done for not subverting facts in Europe's favour for the first time. Bravo 🙌🕉️🙏
I don’t think anyone has a problem with notion.
@@jimjiminy5836that's just not true. No one acknowledged it when talking current western dominance all through treachery and deceit
I think William forgot about Emporer Ashok’s ancestor Chandragupta .
I disagree with Dalrymple that India was divided into numerous smaller kingdoms and that is why there are no great monuments in India matching the scale of the monuments in SE Asia.
Besides the Mauryas, Guptas & Mughals we also had the Kushan empire. In the very period when Hiuen Tsang supposedly mentioned the 69 kingdoms of India, much of North India was ruled by Harsha in whose court the Chinese pilgrim paid a visit. Moreover, Harsha had to contend with a South Indian emperor Pulakeshin who was more than a match for Harsha in battle. After Harsha, we had the Pratiharas, Rashtrakutas & Palas, and then later the Cholas & Chalukyas, each of which were gargantuan empires in their own right. It is a little absurd to think that without much political unity and therefore political power, Indian Civilization could have exerted such massive influence outside of the Indian subcontinent. It maybe granted that all of India was often not under a single empire but India almost always had large empires. The peculiarity of Indian polity was that a smaller kingdom was allowed to exist and function unhindered as long as it accepted the suzerainty of the imperial power. This certainly was the case during Harsha’s reign and we know that this political doctrine is well laid out in Arthashastra.
If so , how a force of less than 40,000 british took cintrol of a uinted single kingdom of india with 1.6 million inhabitants. Who is the king of this kingdom then?
It is a twist of karma that, now that Britain’s global influence has waned, there is a growing appreciation among its people for the contributions, capabilities, and virtues of Indian civilization. When Britain was at the height of its power, its representatives often looked down upon and disparaged Indian culture, loudly projecting an image of superiority while dismissing India’s rich heritage. In those days, Indian achievements and traditions were marginalized or scorned. Today, however, as the world increasingly values diverse cultural perspectives, the depth and legacy of Indian civilization are receiving the recognition they long deserved.
one can sympathise with loosers but should not forget that loosing is neither morally nor pragmatically the preferable occurrence. winning is not only preferable but is in almost all ways superior.
causes of the third world loosing out to the first world are possibly due to difference in objectivity. higher the devotion to superstition, greater the probability of loosing in competition.
all beauty of third world cultures did not compensate for their lack of objectivity, and in india it is still the main problem. india has not learnt. superstition interferes with learning.
Why did India’s per capita GDP remain below $1000 dollars between 1700 and 1950, which covers both the peak of world beating Moghul GDP and British looting? This suggests that that these peaks and valleys of Indian GDP didn’t affect the average Indian. True? Over the same period, British per capita income rose from about $2000 to $10,000. In fact, the rise of per capita GDP increase in Britain accelerated after her loss of the Empire. This is not the narrative that I am hearing from you and Dr. Shashi Tharoor.
Industrialisation coupled with exploitative extraction of resources from their colonies led to the rise in GDP of European powers. India had no such luxury and Mughal empire was quite weak after 1707-1713 CE, roughly. From 1757 onwards the British were on the ascendency in India and from the beginning of the 19th century were the dominant power in India. So you should wonder what were the British doing ? Why did they not industrialise India ? Far from it, they deindustrialised the old form of Indian industry to benefit its people in Britain. So you should really ask the question to the British.
Pci of 1k$ in 1700 ?. Wtf are you on about ?
@@VARMOT123 Do some research and find out for yourself. It is available on the net.
$1000 in 1700 can probably buy you a big plantation and probably 10 houses.. ok stop talking rubbish! Please!
Indian brain? What a joke!
Can't stop India or China or others using any excuses in future ,all have to struggle to achieve our aims through hard work .
Lol😂. After looting and using up unlimited amounts of minerals in Americas and Australia to get rich
@@VARMOT123 wha t do yo u measn? Who are you refering to?
@@VARMOT123America wasn't white. America and Europe used more from India alone than everyone has ever used from white countries 😂. That's the gap