<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"2. Consider these two famous research questions about the `transition'
in history (of both the `leftist' and the `rightist' variety): when
and how did transition from `slavery' to `feudalism' occur in Europe?
This issue was discussed by theologians and theological historians for
a long time in the following form: how did Christianity put an end to
the Pagan Rome? The historians discussed precisely this issue, and in
this form, till the end of the eighteenth century as well. The
division they made between `epochs' (a word coined by a French
Christian Priest called Bossuet during the 18th century) was the one
between pre-Christian (pagan) Rome and the post-Christian Rome. The
very same issue, with the *very same* division has now become a
`scient ific' question in the guise of: how did feudalism put paid to
slavery? The same can be said about another transition question that
bothers Marxist historians: <b>how did feudalism (an `epoch' of social
production) give way to Capitalism in `the West'? Do you know what
this question is a complex translation of? `Why did the Protestant
reformation against the Catholic Church gain foothold?'</b>"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Nov 27 2006, 10:15 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Nov 27 2006, 10:15 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"2. Consider these two famous research questions about the `transition'
in history (of both the `leftist' and the `rightist' variety): when
and how did transition from `slavery' to `feudalism' occur in Europe?
This issue was discussed by theologians and theological historians for
a long time in the following form: how did Christianity put an end to
the Pagan Rome? The historians discussed precisely this issue, and in
this form, till the end of the eighteenth century as well. The
division they made between `epochs' (a word coined by a French
Christian Priest called Bossuet during the 18th century) was the one
between pre-Christian (pagan) Rome and the post-Christian Rome. The
very same issue, with the *very same* division has now become a
`scient ific' question in the guise of: how did feudalism put paid to
slavery? The same can be said about another transition question that
bothers Marxist historians: <b>how did feudalism (an `epoch' of social
production) give way to Capitalism in `the West'? Do you know what
this question is a complex translation of? `Why did the Protestant
reformation against the Catholic Church gain foothold?'</b>"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]61396[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fine...but dhu can you also maybe put what are implications of these. I did not very well understand the slavery to feudalism thing. Can we correlate it and say that Pre-Christian Europe to Post Christian Europe is equivalent to slavery to feudalism i.e. with Christianity coming in slavery gave way to feudalism. I personally don't think that was the case. It can be only in one case, if you can prove that Christianity was the main cause of the decline of Roman Empire.
Contrastingly in early and medieval Islamic regimes in Baghdad, Egypt or the Ghazni sultanate, with Islam coming in I think slavery replaced or took some share away from the feudal set up. You would have heard of Mamluk regimes at various places. The Caliphs and other Sultans started maintaining large contingents of slave army who directly reported to them and were personally loyal to the Sultan. This was done to decrease reliance on feudal lords and curb their power. You can find these instances across the time period and geography from 700 A.D. to 14th-15th century. During this entire period first slave armies became more prominent and then existed side by side with feudal levies.
Incidentally post 14th century in India you don't find much mention of slave armies in India. The last prominent guy AFAIK to maintain large slave army is Firuz Tughlaq. I think with the Mongol invasion and occupation post 1398 this set up was disturbed. Later on in Lodhi, Suri and Mughal times in 14th, 15th centuries there was full reliance on feudal levies. The introduction of mansabdari system thereafter also created a greater trust in the feudal set up. I think this would be because of the oncoming of gunpowder. As I have earlier remarked, gunpowder and artillery gave a boost to centralization in 15th century and you had strong centralized kingdoms coming up all over India like Malwa, Gujarat, Bihar, Bijapur, Ahmednagar, Golkonda, Vijayanagara. It would be interesting to debate how much artillery power helped to centralize these kingdoms. So slave armies became redundant. Slave armies, I think, were costlier to maintain. They required regular payments of salaries in cash and supplying them with accoutrements meant that the king needed to have regular working capital. Also with gunpowder power, it was easier to control feudal lords. But anyway looking at it through the slave army angle is interesting. By the way, what is the source of your article.
Kartiksri,
Your claim that British rule in India was beneficial is just plain wrong. Sine there is no way you can judge the alternative i.e what would have happened had India not been under British please analyse why is that all contributions of India to science/maths/literature stopped after the arrival of muslims and British.
Kartiksri,<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Your claim that British rule in India was beneficial is just plain wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After reading book, if you get a chance, visit Museum inside "Tower of London" where they charge 0.50p, Where lot information with statistics and photo available.
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Nov 29 2006, 12:04 AM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Nov 29 2006, 12:04 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kartiksri,
 Your claim that British rule in India was beneficial is just plain wrong. Sine there is no way you can judge the alternative i.e what would have happened had India not been under British please analyse why is that all contributions of India to science/maths/literature stopped after the arrival of muslims and British.
My basic belief, you can never be sure 100% to assert clearly on such issues, you can only debate, especially with people having contrarian positions and see if there is any substance to what they say.
My present position very clearly on this issue
1. British had only their interests in their mind, which off course we all know and all their claims about White Man's burden etc. are just weak moralistic attempts to justify their colonial exploitation. So British had no benevolent attitude to Indians, it would be naive to expect anything like that.
2. British occupation affected us in many negative ways, one thing it ruined our economy. But I would like to point out that even during Mughal rule was the economy equitable. just bcos Shahjahan made Taj Mahal doesn't mean that all was well with the peasantry. Though very frankly I can't make assertions on any of the above as I have to go thru the data. Thanks for giving some links. I'll also go thru the relevant thread in this forum.
3. My assertion is that the colonialism of Britishers pushed us together, we got the convenient other to come together against and helped form the modern concept of nationalism in Indians and also allowed for a democratic India to emerge. The modern concept of nationalism is different from earlier conceptions of national consciousness. Though on the last sentence my thoughts are yet to form and are open for review.
P.S.: Pls check on contributions to Maths/Science/Philosophy etc. after the advent of muslim rule in India. Muslim rule definitely affected it negatively, but it was not altogether stopped. Please check on the advances on Kerala mathematicians in 14-16th centuries. It's amazing, though I don't understand much of it (sad bcos coming from an engineering background, I'm supposed to understand it) There are some claims that the invention of Calculus in 17th century has some link with the Keralites. Also I think the branch of philosphy called "Navya Nyaya" (a varaint of the Nyaya philosophy) also came in the medieval age. Though I accept your point that the contributions did become less after the advent of Muslim rule in India.
There will always be progress in isolated pockets in a sea of darkness. That does not negate the idea that the sea is dark. What came about during British rule was a gathering of people who started think of the idea of India as a nation state. If you read parallels in world history the barbarian invasions (e.g. Mongols) stopped only with the organization of large states and gun-powder i.e. technology.
So the Indian national movement (~ 1820s) was also an exercise in organizing a large nation state on the Indian sub-continent. It so happened that Westphalain state concept was also quite new as it began in 1648. Even Western Europe was consolidating on linguistic basis around that time 1840-1870s. So it was part of a global movement. To credit the British for this is not right.
Dharampal's books
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In 1931, Mahatma Gandhi generated a controversy among the British by observing that <b>literacy in India had actually declined during the preceding century and that the colonial rulers were squarely responsible for this state of affairs</b>. âInstead of taking a hold of things as they ere, â he said they began to root them out. They screatched the soil and began to look at the root and left the root like that, and the beautiful tree perished.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
11-30-2006, 02:53 AM (This post was last modified: 11-30-2006, 03:29 AM by acharya.)
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Nov 29 2006, 08:29 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Nov 29 2006, 08:29 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->There will always be progress in isolated pockets in a sea of darkness. That does not negate the idea that the sea is dark. What came about during British rule was a gathering of people who started think of the idea of India as a nation state. If you read parallels in world history the barbarian invasions (e.g. Mongols) stopped only with the organization of large states and gun-powder i.e. technology.
So the Indian national movement (~ 1820s) was also an exercise in organizing a large nation state on the Indian sub-continent. It so happened that Westphalain state concept was also quite new as it began in 1648. Even Western Europe was consolidating on linguistic basis around that time 1840-1870s. So it was part of a global movement. To credit the British for this is not right.
[right][snapback]61536[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was more movement in European nationalism after the first world war 1920 and the Indian nationalists in the Freedom movement got more clarity from that. The Indian freedom movement gained more power after 1920 because of what was happening in Europe.
Check this site to read the conditions of Europe form 1500 to 1920s
http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect07.htm
Ethnic nationalism became the paramount issue as Italians, Slavs and Hungarians resisted rule by the German-dominated Habsburg state. Except in Italy, nationalism did not just imply unification: it involved language laws and rules that favored one ethnic group over another.
The fundamental, and perhaps a truer basis of unity (identity) than any modern definitions such as a national, political, linguistic, race/ethnicity based sentiment was always there In India. It is to be found in a common intellectual heritage, having ebbs and flows, yet persisting through an unbroken tradition thats moulds even when modified, permeating India's whole social life to the minutest detail. It is the sanatana dharma which lies at the root of all the various forms of expressions of Indians and it is all inclusive.
For thousands of years India has been one, not merely in a geographical sense, but in religion, civilization, and customs. India has always felt herself to be an integral whole from the Himalayas to Lanka. The sentiment of unity, consciouness and identity has found expression in ancient songs and traditions - vedas to unpanishads to darsanas to panchatantra to aagamas to bhajans to what not and you get the drift. That has always been the national consciousness, and identity, if one can call that.
As for the modern awakening out of slumber and intellectual & social corruption, and when at the verge of perishing, and I quote Ashok's message
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Modernity" in the truest sense of the word, in India's affairs, starts when hindus awoke after a centuries long slumber. This should properly be identified with the so called "Hindu Renaissance of the late 19th century and early 20th century. All other definitions of modernity are non-Indian definitions and to their view of what they consider modern.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The modern defintions of nation-state and forms of nationalism, ramana and acharya have spoken quite eloquently to those. As far the interpretation and study of Indian history, HH's posting warns of the dangers in it. Hence the framework for such interpretive studies. Otherwise the comparative studies will slide into something else. For ancient democratic traditions of India, I will defer you to read shantiparva of mahabharatha (for example, and off the top of my head about duties of rajan, ganatantra, etc). All in Bhisma's teaching to Yudhishtara. Someone I know may write an article on just that.
11-30-2006, 08:35 AM (This post was last modified: 11-30-2006, 08:38 AM by Bodhi.)
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Nov 29 2006, 10:24 PM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Nov 29 2006, 10:24 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->For thousands of years India has been one, not merely in a geographical sense, but in religion, civilization, and customs. India has always felt herself to be an integral whole from the Himalayas to Lanka.
[right][snapback]61551[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely. How else can be explained establishment of 4 Dhams in four farthest corners of India by Adi Shankar, and 4-Dham yatra made one of the most important karmakand?
How else can we explain the 51 Shaktipeets spread from Baluchistan in west to Guwahati in East and from Manas in Tibet to Trikoneshwara (Tricomaly) in Sri Lanka?
What else will explain the 12 Jyotirlingas spread from Kedarnath in Uttaranchal to Rameshwaram in Tamilnadu and from Somnath in Gujrat to Vaidyanath - Jharkhand in East?
How else would you explain Vivekananda establishing the mission in Kanyakumari, and Arvind in Pondicherry? What else can explain that Kashi Vishwanath temple of Varanasi being looked after by the Malayala Nambudiri priests?
What else will mean the historical and cultural one-ness of India if not this, I wonder?
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Nov 30 2006, 01:30 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Nov 30 2006, 01:30 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Nov 29 2006, 12:04 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Nov 29 2006, 12:04 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kartiksri,
 Your claim that British rule in India was beneficial is just plain wrong. Sine there is no way you can judge the alternative i.e what would have happened had India not been under British please analyse why is that all contributions of India to science/maths/literature stopped after the arrival of muslims and British.
My basic belief, you can never be sure 100% to assert clearly on such issues, you can only debate, especially with people having contrarian positions and see if there is any substance to what they say.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. It is very clear that India entered into "dark ages" with the advent of muslims and british. Though Islamic/Brit(Western)/and our own Marxist historians (read JNU crowd) would want us to believe that
a) India was never a geographically united entity before the arrival of muslims and Brits.
b) They gave us such wonderful things as beautiful architecture, science, railways etc.
Both a) and b) are falsehoods. Rearding architecture if you get a chance please read
Jahanara's memoirs. (She was the daughter of Shah Jahan and has written a very detailed account of her life and of course that of Shah Jahan).
The core of calculus, i.e elements like instantaneuos velocity were known to Indians hundreds of years before Newton.
Aftert the advent of these invaders our kings were mainly fighting for keeping there religion alive and there courts could not afford to employ researchers in astronomy, mathematics, science, music etc. The revenue sources of the kings declined (as constant wars meant constant plunder of the produce and detrimental effect on trade).
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Nov 30 2006, 01:30 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Nov 30 2006, 01:30 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
My present position very clearly on this issue
1. British had only their interests in their mind, which off course we all know and all their claims about White Man's burden etc. are just weak moralistic attempts to justify their colonial exploitation. So British had no benevolent attitude to Indians, it would be naive to expect anything like that.
2. British occupation affected us in many negative ways, one thing it ruined our economy. But I would like to point out that even during Mughal rule was the economy equitable. just bcos Shahjahan made Taj Mahal doesn't mean that all was well with the peasantry. Though very frankly I can't make assertions on any of the above as I have to go thru the data. Thanks for giving some links. I'll also go thru the relevant thread in this forum.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. Read about Taj Mahal in Jahanara's book.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Nov 30 2006, 01:30 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Nov 30 2006, 01:30 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->3. My assertion is that the colonialism of Britishers pushed us together, we got the convenient other to come together against and helped form the modern concept of nationalism in Indians and also allowed for a democratic India to emerge. The modern concept of nationalism is different from earlier conceptions of national consciousness. Though on the last sentence my thoughts are yet to form and are open for review.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really. Since Hinduism is a fatalistic religion it is very hard to arouse Hindu sentiment. Slave mentality seeped into the veins of Indians and is still thriving in all Indians. Why do you think we have a culture of "yes boss?". Indians as a collective group are largely devoid of _any_ kind of nationalism or pride in there culture.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Nov 30 2006, 01:30 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Nov 30 2006, 01:30 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->P.S.: Pls check on contributions to Maths/Science/Philosophy etc. after the advent of muslim rule in India. Muslim rule definitely affected it negatively, but it was not altogether stopped. Please check on the advances on Kerala mathematicians in 14-16th centuries. It's amazing, though I don't understand much of it (sad bcos coming from an engineering background, I'm supposed to understand it) There are some claims that the invention of Calculus in 17th century has some link with the Keralites. Also I think the branch of philosphy called "Navya Nyaya" (a varaint of the Nyaya philosophy) also came in the medieval age. Though I accept your point that the contributions did become less after the advent of Muslim rule in India.
[right][snapback]61533[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is quite white and black actually i.e contributions before and after. Pointing out few isolated items are just outliers. Note our universities, Takshila and Nalanda got burnt and the libraries there burnt for days. It is said that these unversities gave out PhD's and there system was copied by Greeks which latter transformed in what we know of Thesis defence/orals etc. Just imagine what treasure trove we have missed because these Islamics burnt our books. What our ancient forefathers would have researched and jotted down in there thesis?
I will close by Basham's "Cultural History of India" : (Following excerpt from Page 193 of this book)
--begin quote
"The Turkish conquests of more then half India between 900 and 1300 A.D were perhaps the most destructive in human history. As Muslims, the conquerors aimed not only to destroy all other religions but also to abolish the secular culture. Their burning of libraries explains the large gaps in our knowledge of earlier literature......"
--end quote
Arthur Llewellyn Basham (AL Basham) was a historian with the Australian National University in Canberra. His most popular book is The Wonder That was India.
He joined the ANU in 1965 as Professor of Oriental (later Asian) Civilizations and retired in 1979. He died in Calcutta in India in 1986. An annual public lecture series is given at the ANU in his memory.
For thousands of years India has been one, not merely in a geographical sense, but in religion, civilization, and customs. India has always felt herself to be an integral whole from the Himalayas to Lanka.
As for the modern awakening out of slumber and intellectual & social corruption, and when at the verge of perishing, and I quote Ashok's message
"Modernity" in the truest sense of the word, in India's affairs, starts when hindus awoke after a centuries long slumber. This should properly be identified with the so called "Hindu Renaissance of the late 19th century and early 20th century. All other definitions of modernity are non-Indian definitions and to their view of what they consider modern.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The essential unity of India was always there because of the history and heritage. THe WAKINGUP of Hindus is the awareness of political rights and awareness political center for Hindus in India which was controlled by the Muslims( Mughals) and British during occupation.
This awareness came to India during the end of 19th century and 20th century. This is essential for any nation to be free and not subjugated. Hindus were subjugated because Hindus were not aware of the political sense and political center of India.
Hindus lost the political center even before the entry of the muslims to India but they could not group together to create a Hindu political center during the medieval times which could have prevented the Muslim rule in India. Monarchy was the main political center of Hindus during the ancient and medieval times. Vijayanagar empire was an exception and was more close to a republican empire.
But once the Muslims subjugated the different regions they controlled the political center but it was more by force and enforcing feudal system. The Hindus even though numerically superior could not challenge that center until that center weakened by itself. This is because of the lack of the Hindu political awareness which is different from religious awareness or spiritual awareness.
Political awareness brings in unity of Hindus together and then will lead to common purpose and makes sure that foreign political center and power do not rule over them. For this political awareness Hindus need to be aware that they are different from the foreigners and they are same among their own.
Unity of purpose and goal could be achieved when Hindus had better communication among them across the large country during the medieval times and also they reduced their difference between the kashmiri, bengali, marattha, tamilian and gangetic hindus during that time.
It took several centuries before Hindus in all the regions( North, South, East, West) became aware that they are being subjugated by the same Muslim mughal center and British Crown.
The Mughals used this lack of political awareness between the regions of India to create Muslim political center and kept on expanding to put more regions within their rule. The main tactic is to prevent the Hindus to come together politically and militarily. Each small monarchies were subjugated and made sure that they do not link up with other Hindu monarchies. Mughals enforced their rule with a paid loyal army and used paid bigger army for larger campaign.
Muslim monarchies paid allegiance to the Mughal center to make sure that Hindus do not gain power.
Even today Hindus are not aware completely that the center has to be Hindu for Hindus to hold the political center and protect their civilizational identity.
They are misled and indoctrinated into 'secular' and false identity for political center and political awareness. This has been achieved by using false identity of political social debate under the guise of 'secular' and 'socialism' pretense.
For thousands of years India has been one, not merely in a geographical sense, but in religion, civilization, and customs. India has always felt herself to be an integral whole from the Himalayas to Lanka.
As for the modern awakening out of slumber and intellectual & social corruption, and when at the verge of perishing, and I quote Ashok's message
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Modernity" in the truest sense of the word, in India's affairs, starts when hindus awoke after a centuries long slumber. This should properly be identified with the so called "Hindu Renaissance of the late 19th century and early 20th century. All other definitions of modernity are non-Indian definitions and to their view of what they consider modern.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The essential unity of India was always there because of the history and heritage. THe WAKINGUP of Hindus is the awareness of political rights and political center for Hindus in India which was controlled by the Muslims( Mughals) and British during occupation.
This awareness came to India during the end of 19th century and 20th century. This is essential for any nation to be free and not subjugated. Hindus were subjugated because Hindus were not aware of the political sense and political center of India.
Hindus lost the political center even before the entry of the muslims to India but they could not group together to create a Hindu political center during the medieval times which could have prevented the Muslim rule in India. Monarchy was the main center of Hindus during the ancient and medieval times. Vijayanagar empire was an exception and was more close to a republican empire.
But once the Muslims subjugated the different regions they controlled the political center but it was more by force and enforcing feudal system. The Hindus even though numerically superior could not challenge that center until that center weakened by itself. This is because of the lack of the political awareness which is different from religious awareness or spiritual awareness.
The Islamic rule was always challenged at center all the time by the Hindu kingdoms.
The ISlamic rule can be said to be spardic and not uniform for most of the 150 years and very fragmented for atleast 500 years.
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Dec 1 2006, 03:08 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 1 2006, 03:08 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is not true?
The Islamic rule was always challenged at center all the time by the Hindu kingdoms.
The ISlamic rule can be said to be spardic and not uniform for most of the 150 years and very fragmented for atleast 500 years.
[right][snapback]61577[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+-->QUOTE(acharya)<!--QuoteEBegin-->THe WAKINGUP of Hindus is the awareness of political rights and political center for Hindus in India which was controlled by the Muslims( Mughals) and British during occupation.
This awareness came to India during the end of 19th century and 20th century. This is essential for any nation to be free and not subjugated. Hindus were subjugated because Hindus were not aware of the political sense and political center of India.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This above and other parts of the post are not correct. Did you read Hunter?
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Nov 30 2006, 02:58 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Nov 30 2006, 02:58 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
This above and other parts of the post are not correct. Did you read Hunter?
As I said there was no central Hindu Monarchy which could plan the entire defence of Indian land mass. Hunter says the same thing and says each region kept fighting to defeat the Muslim rule. Only after the european modernisation that the Indian elite and masses were able to WAKEUP to create one central political front.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â Â Each of these groups of kingdoms, alike in the north and in the south, had a certain power of coherence to oppose to a foreign invader; while the large number of groups and units rendered conquest a very tedious process. For even when the overlord or central authority was vanquished, the separate units had to be defeated in detail, and each state supplied a nucleus for subsequent revolt. We have seen how the brilliant attempt in 711, to found a lasting Muhammedan dynasty in Sindh, failed. Three centuries later, the utmost efforts of two great Musalman invaders (Mahmud of Ghazni and Mohammed Ghori) from the north-west only succeeded in annexing a small portion of the frontier Punjab Province between 977 and 1176 A.D. The Hindu power in Southern India was not completely broken till the battle of Talikot in 1565; and within a hundred years, in 1650, the great Hindu revival had commenced which under the form of Maratha confederacy, was destined to break up the Mughal Empire in India. That Empire, even in the north of India, had only been consolidated by Akbar's policy of incorporating Hindu chiefs into his government(1556-1605). Up to Akbar's time, and even during the earlier years of his reign a series of Rajput wars had challenged the Muhammadan supremacy. In less than two centuries after his death, the successor of Akbar was a puppet in the hand of the Hindu marathas at Delhi.
  The popular notion that India fell an easy prey to the Musalmans is opposed to the historical facts. Muhammadan rule in India consists of a series of invasions and partial conquests, during eleven centuries, from Usman's raid, circ.647, to Ahmad Shah's tempest of invasion in 1761 A.D.
  At no time was Islam triumphant throughout the whole of India. Hindu dynasties always ruled over large areas. At the height of the Muhammadan power, the hindu princes paid tribute, and sent agents to the Imperial court. But even this modified supremacy of Delhi lasted for little over a century (1578-1707).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Dec 1 2006, 08:49 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 1 2006, 08:49 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Nov 30 2006, 02:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Nov 30 2006, 02:58 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
This above and other parts of the post are not correct. Did you read Hunter?
As I said there was no central Hindu Monarchy which could plan the entire defence of Indian land mass. Hunter says the same thing and says each region kept fighting to defeat the Muslim rule. Only after the european modernisation that the Indian elite and masses were able to WAKEUP to create one central political front.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â Â Each of these groups of kingdoms, alike in the north and in the south, had a certain power of coherence to oppose to a foreign invader; while the large number of groups and units rendered conquest a very tedious process. For even when the overlord or central authority was vanquished, the separate units had to be defeated in detail, and each state supplied a nucleus for subsequent revolt.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]61586[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Acharya,
Above clearly shows there was coherence amongst our kings and they had a common grudge against the muslims. It is not merely a stmnt as this is how exactly it happened. A foreign invader was considered some one to be defeated. Everyone is fighting the same muslims to defeat them and they did it quite well on account of which we still have majority Hindu India. So how is a central political front lacking here?
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Nov 30 2006, 08:56 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Nov 30 2006, 08:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->kram and Bodhi, Can you compare and contrast Bhisma's Shanti Parva and Rousseau's Social Contract that inspired the American and French Revolutions?
If as the social contract theories can be broadly classified and studied as addressing the moral, & ethical, civil & social and institutional (constitutional) issues, perhaps one could compare or see the points addressed in shanti parva.
need to spend more time on this. It will be an interesting study though. hey, if Marx did not like social contract theories (??), must be worth studying them <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->