Colonial times

According to a YouGov poll in 2016, 43 percent of British citizens thought the existence of the British Empire was a "good thing," while only 19 percent disagreed. 
Let's discuss some commonly asked questions about colonial rule.

Questions:

Did crown rule benefit India ?

Is there a moral need for Britain to commemorate Indian soldiers of World Wars?

Why is India a subcontinent and Europe a continent?

Homepage    About me      Contact me    Privacy policy

Disclaimer: **I love Europe but some questions need to be answered and by India I mean South Asia because most of the present day countries of South Asia were parts of India earlier.**

You might have wondered sometime 'Why India is a subcontinent and not a continent?' If you try to convince yourself by saying that India is connected to Asia then you really need to read this article.

Of the seven most globally recognized continents, only Antarctica and Australia are completely separated from other continents by ocean. Asia and Africa are joined by the Isthmus of Suez, and North and South America by the Isthmus of Panama. In both cases, there is no complete separation of these landmasses by water (disregarding the Suez Canal and Panama Canal, which are both narrow and shallow, as well as artificial). What separates Europe from Asia? Ural hillocks.. And what separates Subcontinent from Asia? The mother of all mountain ranges, the legendary, the impenetrable, the gigantic, HIMALAYAS! Which separation is stronger?


Across the world, different types of models are taught:

• The seven-continent model is usually taught in China, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, parts of Western Europe and most English-speaking countries, including Australia^[22] and the United Kingdom.
• The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is mostly used in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan.
• The six-continent combined-America model is often used in France and its former possessions, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Latin America and Greece.
• A five-continent model is obtained from this model by excluding Antarctica as uninhabited. This is used, for example in the United Nations and in the Olympic Charter.

Also before 60 to 70 million years ago this Indian Landmass was not a part of Eurasian landmass. This Indian Subcontinent drifted from southern hemisphere and collided with Eurasian plate to lift these tallest mountain ranges. So, don't you think we qualify to be called as a continent? 

Calling Indian subcontinent a "Subcontinent" and Europe a full continent is a pure euro-centric mindset and has nothing to do with logic. We are much more diverse when compared to the rest of Asia. 

There are only two types of religions in world: Abrahamic(Islam, Christianity, Jew) and Dharmic (Hindu, Jain, Buddhism). We have an entirely separate SET of religions, not just a separate religion. Both Kashmiri and Keralian cuisines are spicy. But differently spicy. Is English food differently bland than Hungarian food?

So if India is more drastically different from Asia culturally, geographically, racially, spiritually, linguistically, culinarily, sartorially and on every other imaginable fronts; Why is it not a continent and Europe is?

Answer : Because Europeans wrote the geography books and not Indians.

Read more articles:

Home

Were Indians truly as vulnerable as portrayed by our history books?

Homepage     About me    Contact me   Privacy policy

Our history books are full of detailed invasions. Indians are always portrayed as a bunch of victims whose resistance was always crushed from the onslaught of invading tribes. 
This post seeks to create awareness among people and uplift the crushed image of our ancestors in our minds with the mention of a single example of a forgotten battle. 

Battle of Baharaich.

Every Indian today is aware of Mahmud of Ghazni and his unstoppable 17 raids. His plunders are believed to form the basis of the later Islamic invasions. However, many people today are unaware of the aftermath of Ghaznavid empire.

Mahmud was followed by his nephew Masood Gazni. Continuing Mahmud’s legacy, he invaded India with an army of more than 100,000 men in May 1031 AD. Unlike Mahmud's army which was basically a raiding party, Masood's army was backed by the imperial army and had attacked India with the intention of permanent conquest and Islamization of India.

King Anandpal Shahi tried to check this invasion along with the king of Sialkot. But, this alliance was overwhelmed by the superiority in numbers of the invading army. Masood continued his advance towards Indian mainland. King Mahipal Tomara also tried to check their advance but he was also defeated. After victories across Northern Indian plains, Masood camped at Bahraich which is near Lucknow.

Meanwhile, a historic alliance was being created under Raja Suhaldev. 17 Rajput Kings together forged an alliance. This was the biggest confederation that has ever existed in India.

On 13th June, Rajput army of about 1,20,000 descended on the Ghazni camp of Bahraich. Masood's army was completely besieged and encircled. Each and every man in Masood's camp was killed. The battle ended on 14th June with the victory of the Rajput federation. This battle took place near Chittaura Lake.

The invasion was completely crushed and such resounding was this victory that none of foreign kingdoms dared to invade India for the next 160 years.

Nowadays, I have seen many people mocking Rajputs by saying that they were unable to win even a single battle. This answer seeks to create awareness among such people. There have been many instances where Rajputs were successful in defeating their enemies. This is one such example. India is extremely indebted to the Rajput Kings. They were instrumental in keeping Arab invaders at bay for 3 centuries. This was the time when Khalifat empire was at its peak and extended from Sindh to Spain. However, they were unable to defeat Rajputs and enter Indian heartlands.

But it is a pity that these battles where native Indians crushed the invaders, which should have been the pride of Indians, are hardly mentioned in our history books. We must learn from the Chinese who study their high points much more than the high points of their oppressors and hence they have a natural pride in their civilization. Indian books on the other hand are exactly the opposite where the high points of the invaders are given wide coverage while the high points of our own are not even mentioned.

This battle is an exemplary example of how united Indian kings had the ability to create the most formidable force of the world !!

Read more articles:
Home

Why isn't Jammu and Kashmir not known as Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh, as it is comprised of these three regions?

Homepage       About me  Contact me   Privacy policy

A general question if you ever read about Kashmir.

First of all, let me present you some figures:

Ladakh:

Area: 86,904 km²

Population: 2,74,289 (2011)

Jammu:

Area: 26,293 km²

Population: 53,50,811(2011)

Kashmir Valley:

Area: 15,948 km²

Population: 69,07,622(2011)

So, you can see that Ladakh is a very sparsely populated region which is mostly unaffected the ‘Kashmir Tension’. Though, Ladakh belongs to Jammu and Kashmir State, it has a culture different from Kashmir and resembles more to Tibet. This region did not get any significant political importance because it is a region inhabited by a small peaceful community which did not create any political tension.

Hence the state is still called as Jammu and Kashmir.

Read more articles:

Home

Why are there so many small northeastern states? Why don't they join to form 2-3 states?

Homepage              About me                   Contact me            Privacy policy     

To understand the scenario, you need to know the history of North eastern states of our India.

When India got its independence in 1947, northeast comprised of three states- Assam and the princely states of Manipur and Tripura. (Like you had wished)

As you can see, Assam was much bigger than present day Assam and included many tribes like nagas, garo, khasi, jaintia etc. In 1960, Assam declared Assamese as the state language. This move led to revolt from the different linguistic people who lived in Assam. It became very difficult to control such a big and diverse Assam.

Subsequently, Nagaland was formed in 1963 to please the violent Naga people who had taken arms against the army, Meghalaya in 1972, Arunachal Pradesh in 1975 and Mizoram in 1987 where Indian government had to use air Force to quell an armed uprising of Mizos!!

So, reasons like linguistic convenience, armed rebellion of tribes etc. were some reasons which led to division of Assam.

Union will again lead to disorder and unrest in northeast which could be exploited by our ‘well wishing' neighbors.

Division is easy, Union is difficult.

For more articles:
Home

How western media and Indian journalists see Hindu revivalism in India?

Homepage          About me         Contact me       Privacy policy

19th March 2017: 

Newspapers like the New York Times started crying on the appointment of Yogi Adityanath as chief minister in Uttar Pradesh. Like in the run-up to the general elections in 2014, when a Modi victory loomed large, the media went berserk. The gist was: By appointing Yogi Adityanath, Prime Minister Modi has finally shown his true face of a Hindu fundamentalist who wants to make India a ‘Hindu nation’ where minorities have no place. The Swiss NZZ wrote that it is hardly possible for Prime Minister Modi’s government to call itself the representative of all Indians after appointing a figure like Yogi Adityanath.

Western media can't be blamed because these 'pseudo-liberals' include even Indian journalists. Yet, the same media don’t react when America or most other western countries are referred to as Christian nations. Nor do they get agitated about the numerous Muslim nations; not even about those which still have harsh blasphemy laws. 

A Hindu nation is projected as the worst possible scenario by the wrongly called ‘liberal’ media. If only they knew what Hindus actually are!! 

They are open towards other views, unlike ‘good’ Christians and Muslims who feel obligated to make everyone believe what they believe, if necessary by deceit or force.
Remember that the Hindus did not fight crusades or jihads. 

Hinduism is a peaceful religion where even animals are thought to contain a part of God. Majority of the vegetarians therefore comprise of Hindus. 

It has to be held in favour of Hindus that they held on to their tradition and did not succumb to the pressure and even violence brought on them to adopt blind belief that only one particular person has revealed the full truth. Instead, they continued trusting their sages who never asked for blind belief, but asked to verify their insights through experience.

Hindustan is the land where children chant “Loka samastha sukhino bhavantu” (let all be happy) instead of Humpty Dumpty, which happens in primary schools in the west?

So why do media worldwide get so worked up about ‘Hindu fundamentalists’ and a possible ‘Hindu nation’. What is wrong with the fundamentals? There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals. But there is one major difference: For Hindus, the Divinity is in all and all is in the Divinity, whereas for Christians and Muslims the Divinity is separate from his creation watching us from somewhere.

Hindus are the exemplary role model for ‘how not to exclude others’? Where else have religious minorities flourished and grown like in India? Is not the relative harmony in this amazing diversity in India generally admired abroad? Media persons need only to look around in the world to realize this fact. If they only imagined what a Hindu nation looks like, they might start propagating Hindu nations all over the globe for harmony and peace in the world.

Read more articles at:
Home

What kind of animal would you choose to represent your country?

Homepage    About me      Contact me    Privacy policy

This is an attempt to connect with you guys. I would love to hear your answers about your countries in the comment section. Well according to me, Elephant is the animal that can represent my country.

I can support it with many reasons, historical as well as the present situation.

India was seen by the Greeks as the ‘Land of Elephants.’ They were terrorised when they first saw their enemies riding huge beasts. Greek Selecus Nikator even used the Indian elephants that were presented to him by Emperor Chandra Gupta Maurya in his battles in the west.

Elephant has a very long life span when compared to other animals. India is also one of the oldest countries of the world.

Indian government resembles ‘Elephant’ because of its bulkiest constitution. Every work in India goes on slowly like an Elephant because we have to convince all our communities because of our diversity.

Elephant is also one of the strongest but one of the most peaceful animals. Similiarly, India is one of the strongest but still a peaceful country of the world.

So, I think now you agree with me ;)
I will love to hear your opinions in the comment section.

Read more articles at:
Home