Lots of corrections. 1.The Indo-Greek invasion of North India happens only after the Mauryans have already collapsed the person who beat them back was a Brahman King and the founder of Shunga Dynasty. 2. Mauryans were not Buddhists. They started out as a Hindu Kingdom under Chandragupta and and converted to Buddhism under Ashoka. 3.The practice of Sati and widow burning has been exaggerated and this has been stated previously by the governor general of British India himself who said it was a niche practice among warrior class woman in Bengal and Rajputana. 4. Several lower castes Like Jats and Marathas were able to form their kingdom during the collapse of the mughal empire. 5. Genetic evidence shows that the caste system was probably fully crystallized by 500 bce since to maintain the level of steppe ancestry a Brahmin and Dalit has (North Indian brahmins have around 28% steppe ancestry compared to 8% for dalits) there needed to have 99% in-group marriages. 6. The Gupta empire is when most of modern hinduism was codified as mahabharatas Ramayana and upanishas were written down. To understand the downfall of buddhism in India watch this video, It summarizes the entire situation much better than me. The downfall of Buddhism was mostly a result of Buddhist monks being happy with being treated as Upper castes by Hindu Nobility and losing philosiphical battles. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-y8GNgWatUwE.htmlsi=ZroV3q-p5ofo-1ds
1, shunga failed and only saved the magadhan core of the mauryan empire. 2, Chandragupta was jaina, and most likely bindusara too, and ashoka was a buddist., there was no unified dharma before sramana sects became huge, before that everyone had their own dharma which was only unified by sramana munis converting other castes and forming a unified dharma for all members. hinduism was fully formed after adi Shankaracharya. 3. It was still expected from widowed women. 4.yes, then they claimed they are kshatriya. Castism is ingrained that much in the Indian mind. 5. May have started by brahmans around 500bc, but fully ingrained in society by 100bc to 100 ad. 6.yes Gupta Empire is quintessential hindu rashtra, the first hindurashtra, before that there were just various clans and tribes of different religions and no unified dharama(of *hindus*/ shramana sects formed unified dharama before hinduism came about). 7. Buddhism fell because it confused detachment from inaction, which was later rectified in hinduism, (geeta, nishkaam kaam karo- krishna).
@@narutouzumaki2157 1. You are correct that the Shunga Dynasty primarily held onto the Magadhan core of the Mauryan Empire and struggled to maintain the larger territory. This indicates that while Pushyamitra Shunga repelled certain invasions, his control was limited to a smaller region. 2.Chandragupta Maurya is believed to have embraced Jainism later in his life. Bindusara’s religious affiliation is less clear, but he is often associated with Ajivika, a sect contemporary to Jainism and Buddhism. Ashoka converted to Buddhism after the Kalinga War and became a significant proponent of the religion. The idea of a unified "dharma" evolved over time, significantly influenced by the teachings of Jainism and Buddhism. Adi Shankaracharya’s later work was crucial in consolidating various Hindu philosophical traditions 3. The practice of Sati was indeed expected in some communities, particularly among the Rajput and certain warrior classes. However, its prevalence varied and was not uniform across all regions or social classes. Like marathas Matriarchy played were imp role in their kingdom even after death of their husbands 4 during the coronation of maratha king shivaji maharaj there was initial resistance from some Brahmin priests due to his family's status, but this was overcome. Eventually, he was coronated by Pandit Gaga Bhatt, who declared Shivaji a Kshatriya after tracing his lineage to the Sisodia Rajput clan of Mewar. 5. The caste system's development began around 500 BCE and became more rigid over the subsequent centuries, with genetic evidence supporting significant endogamy by around 100 BCE to 100 AD. 7.Buddhism's decline in India was due to multiple factors. While philosophical differences, such as the interpretation of detachment versus inaction, played a role, other factors included internal decay, loss of royal patronage, and the integration of Buddhist practices into emerging Hindu traditions. The rise of Bhakti movements and the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, emphasizing action and devotion, also attracted many followers.
Ruydard: they were conquered by the arians The voice in my head: “Between the time when the oceans drank Atlantis, and the rise of the sons of Aryas, there was an age undreamed of. And onto this, Conan, destined to wear the jeweled crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow. It is I, his chronicler, who alone can tell thee of his saga. Let me tell you of the days of high adventure!”
The reason for the absence of a lot of written history was due to the destruction of the Indian universities. They were spread out all over the subcontinent and hosted many international students. Throughout history, they were destroyed and rebuilt by many invaders, the most famous of which is Nalanda was destroyed thrice but rebuilt only twice, the last time it was destroyed comepletely by the Islamic conquerors. The scale of the destruction was written down by a Persian writer who happened to be in India at the time to be something like three months of continuous fires from the destroyed area and 9 million books were lost. There is also the oral tradition of memorizing sacred hindu texts like the vedas and upanishads which managed to preserve these religious texts to some degree. Another thing to consider is that these texts were written on materials like palm leaves which don't bode well for their preservation in the hot and humid climate of India. A lot of the stupas and edicts from the Mauryan time and even before can still be found to this day throughout the subcontinent, even in Afghanistan but the Taliban and ISIS-K in the region are destroying many of these historic monuments. These are the reasons thay I find the argument that we Indians were against writing due to the belief that the world is an illusion to be quite weak, sure the effort to defend and preserve these documents might be lacking but most of it has been destroyed or just lost to time. The Universities were the institutions responsible for preserving these texts. Most of the early islamic conquerors had little value for these texts and institutions and destroyed them as they believed it was a way to display their dominance over polytheist pagans. Of course some of the later muslim rulers, most poplular being the Mughal ruler Akbar had some of the surviving texts translated and was interested in the the literature of the subcontinent, but they were a few out of many. Other civilizations were much more fortunate when it comes to their historical record: the greeks culture and traditions were modified and continued by the romans; mesopotamians wrote on clay tablets and their environment was hot and dry; Egyptians wrote on both papyrus while also painting hieroglyphs on their architecture, lived in a hot and dry climate, conquering romans didn't supress the culture and the muslims who came much later didn't find most of these ancient monuments and burial sites, the british did; the Chinese civilization did exist in hot and humid conditions but their conquerors like the Mongols didn't go after Chinese culture but mostly integrated into it, becoming the Yuan dynasty. This is the reason (kind of understandable) the hindu nationalists have such disdain towards all the islamic conquerors as most of them didn't integrate into hindu society and restore these destroyed institutions which was unlike the invaders who camer before, they adopted the local customs, and traditions.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1075">17:55</a>: You say varna when you mean Vaisha. Varna is the Sanskrit/Hindi term for what we call caste in English.
He is trying to create conclusive narrative out of limited knowledge he have of india. His knowledge about india is not all wrong but very limited so narrative is also very vague and highly misleading.
Indian here, the important figure you missed is adi shankacharya who basically reformed Hinduism by incorporating the Buddhist principles. Another cool fact is that Buddha himself took a lot of things from the Upanishads to create his creed so Hindus are not entirely wrong when they say Buddhism is a sub sect of Hinduism. I would have liked shedding more light on the Upanishads and Vedanta since they are really the highest peak of Indian culture and philosophy.
Ya he also can be credited for a lot of things that Sanatani are doing today like in philosophy, temples and more as well. Kind of weird that he talks about Buddhism history in the Indian Subcontinent but don't know about him.
Before the sramana sects, there was no unified dharama, everyone had different dharma, it could be called proto hinduism, Upanishads were fully codified in the Gupta Empire, 500 years after buddha, Upanishads also took things from shramana sects(there were many buddhas and many tirthankaras before Siddharth and rishabha) , and buddha rejected the vedas and parabrahm(instead he promotes shunyatawad), saying Buddhism is a subset of hinduism is like saying islam is a subset of Christianity. Adi Shankaracharya took unified dharma, interdependence (Advaitavaad) from buddhist sects and unified vaishnava, shaiva and shakti sets.
The castes being different ethnic groups is an understatement, people of different caste from the same village are futher genetically then Italians and Norwegians.
Rudyard is very hardworking in a sence that he studies a hell lot. And yet, I could tell 100 facts that would have made his understanding better on this topic.
Will you ever learn about and make a video about Sikh History, it’s extremely interesting and new Guru Nanak was born almost 555 years ago and the Khalsa was established only 325 years ago They were very different from the Hindus, no polytheism invaded their neighbors got annexed by Britain 100 years after India after their civil war between gov and military etc
"நாங்கள் இந்தியர்கள் ஐரிஷ் அல்லது பிரிட்டிஷ் என்ற வித்தியாசத்தைப் பெரும்பாலும் அறியமாட்டோம். ஆனால் ஒரு ஐரிஷ் நபர் இந்திய வரலாற்றைப் விரிவாகப் பேசுவது மிகவும் வியக்கத்தக்கது. ஆனால் இந்தியாவின் புலரிசம் பற்றி பேசாமல் கடந்து போவது வருத்தமாகவே உள்ளது."
I think this was a good video, although it could have included more information. I understand that explaining such a complex topic is difficult. Additionally, much of the history we read, especially from the 18th and 19th centuries, shouldn't be taken at face value. The writers of that era often had a superiority complex, which, while not of particular concern to me personally, introduces bias into their perspectives. This bias can distort our understanding of the past. Acknowledging this doesn't make one a Hindu nationalist, though I’ve noticed you sometimes use that term rather loosely. I just want to remind you that no one can truly know what happened in history, and it’s reasonable to be skeptical of historical narratives, given how they’ve often been shaped to serve different agendas-on all sides. Regarding the conflict with Buddhism, sources suggest that it was Adi Shankara who advocated Advaita Vedanta, a non-dualist interpretation of Brahman and the entities within it. However, we should recognize that this could also be a constructed narrative, and we cannot be entirely certain of its accuracy. In ancient India, there seemed to be a perception that life is ever-changing, making it difficult to capture history accurately. Thus, philosophy was often intertwined with historical accounts to provide a timeless element, which has its pros and cons. When it comes to the caste system, I believe the philosophy of life was highly developed but personal, requiring individual interpretation. Its complexity led to contradictions, particularly the belief that one’s suffering was due to past life karma, absolving society of responsibility. This idea became disastrous when perpetuated for thousands of years. As for Islam and British colonialism, I think Islam had a positive impact on India. It acted like an virus that eventually made the country stronger, helping to eliminate some of the decaying aspects of society. Regarding the British, their influence provided contact with a new culture and methods of scientific method, though the method was far from ideal. Economically, India was drained more by British rule than by Islamic rule, primarily due to mercantile policies. Nevertheless, both Islam and the British have given modern India an edge in understanding diverse cultures. I think India is the country that has been most successful at assimilating Islam, I cannot imagine Europe or US or China having similar percentage and amount of Muslims and not having a civil war, if you don't understand this you don't truly understand India.
If you ever visit home and you like driving I recommend going to the Hindu temple in Robinsville NJ. The architecture and sculpture masterwork there is profound
Do the Scythians. I work with nothing but Punjabis. Many are arrogant and deluded but I like them. I've also heard claims that all Caucasian people are just Albino Indians...many have a inferiority/superiority complex due to British rule among other things. Much of the accomplishments of Islams must be veiwed through Islam being a blanket over an earlier great civilization, the Persians and to some degree the others in the region that preceeded Islam, in the same way the accomplishments of Europe are not mainly due to Christianity but in spite of it. Aristotle was not a Christian and he had already set most Western accomplishments into motion. Similarly there were already great civilizations all across Europe, with great cultures, similar to the Hindus, long before Jesus was turning water to wine, etc. Christianity just became a big corporation that claimed credit for what was already there, same with Islam.
Punjabis and claiming to be white for whatever reason, tale as old as time. It's weird because I'm a pale skinned Bengali who grew up amongst a lot of Punjabis, they thought I wasn't Bengali because of my skin colour. The hysteria with skin in this country is pretty hilarious when you realise how mixed everyone is, especially considering I have extended family who are blacker than coal and also plenty of people who are different shades of brown.
still a great factor what makes the west are great, greco-roman legacy, european people and Christianity. if one of these factors are removed, then we wont have the western civ we have now
I'd encourage people to read the "Kama Sutra". Contrary to the popular belief, it's actually a book about wordly pleasures and the material world in general, sex only being a small part. The book is all about how to indulge in pleasurable activities, how to decorate your house, how to dress in a dignified manner etc. It's even got a long list of skills that women should learn in case they get separated from their husband for any reason.
"What I remember about the rise of the Empire is... is how quiet it was. During the waning hours of the Clone Wars, the 501st Legion was discreetly transferred back to Coruscant. It was a silent trip. We all knew what was about to happen, what we were about to do. Did we have any doubts? Any private, traitorous thoughts? Perhaps, but no one said a word. Not on the flight to Coruscant, not when Order 66 came down, and not when we marched into the Jedi Temple. Not a word." - Operation: Knightfall "Knightfall" - Star Wars Battlefront II (2005)
I think the island today we call Sri Lanka has played a important part in Indian politics throughout the history, as it is today. Sri Lankan Buddhist believe that Mayuryan Empire Ashoka sent his own son and daughter (both Buddhist monks) to bring Buddhism to Sri Lanka. That claim seems to have played significant role in deciding the politics of Sri Lanka throughout the history, as it is today. The Buddhist kingdom of Anuradhapura has controlled the important navel ports in this Island which is located in a strategically important location for Arabian and Chinese sailors.
A lot of things have been said here some are true while others are plane untrue/ non factual. I don't have the time to go over all the points but here are few of them. 1. About writing things down - They did even though majority of it was destroyed in the destruction of the Universities. The ones that survived were passed on in the forms of Puranas or other religious text which talks about lineages of Kings and surprise surprise they talk about Chandragupta Maurya and his decedents. Historians when they first learned about this empire they didn't know about his and Ashok's relationship but these text helped them not only Ashok but even his line till the Empire came to an end. Also about them about not mentioning alexander yes they don't mention him but they talk a lot about his general Seleucus and how he was defeated and gave his Eastern part of this Empire to Chandragupta Maurya. Maurya's wrote in pillars and spread them throughout their Empire and in many of these pillars were laws that would be written for people to read which even exists today, imagine metal pillars lasting 2000+ years. 2. British - There are a lot of this that can be said about them but here are some first you're write they didn't provide any food which resulted in millions of deaths and many got saved since they left direct British controlled areas to that of Princely states where the local Kings gave them food and shelters. The British also deliberately didn't allow the world to know about how big the famines actually were since the PRESS were not allowed to even do their job. Also like what you had said that Indians did have Universities a lot of which allowed for native educations but many of the Universities were destroyed by Turks but the native educations still went on which was seen as a threat and destroyed by the British, read about what Macaulay learned while his research on Indian native education system and what lengths he went to replace it with English. 3. Cast System - I'll give you the example of the person you brought up in the video to disprove it, Chandragupta Maurya, was an Shudra and he was helped by Chanakya a Brahmin to become the Emperor not only that but the previous King of Eastern India was also a low cast which some Modern historians credit his kingdom of adding fear to alexander's army to return. Also with this and the Britsh, Dr. Ambedkar, a low cast person who when on to get education and fought against cast system in British India gives credit to cast system not being with Vedas or Hinduism but of British. Also if you look at the census of the Princes/Kings of India under the British they you would see like more then 70% of them belonging to the "Low Cast". 4. Women - atleast the second half of the video is completely wrong like Women can Remarry like it's even in the Rigveda 10.18.8, which is opposite of sati which is also the reason why there were only handful of cases and in those cases the family member like her son would stop them from doing it. About them not owning properties is also false since both sons and daughters were given those properties good examples is when british were on the conquest of India their allies when the king didn't have any sons and the daughters were brought to inherit the kingdoms the British would deny it saying it they don't allow women to inherit anything from her father thus forcefully turning it into their colonies Example like Rani Lakshmi Bai. 5. Greeks - the reason they wouldn't have written anything about Alexander might be that in Indian context he really didn't do much since he just came to western parts, fought some weak chieftains and left. Porus and his kingdom isn't even considered that much strong compare to the 16 Great Republics. And Alexander had one of his most difficult battle against one of the weakest Indian Kings so it doesn't say much about him. But his general Seleucus is mention since he actually fought Chandragupta Maurya who was much stronger then Porus and he defeated the Nandas who are believed to have scared Alexander's army. About Gecro-Indians, they did came by defeting a lot of Indians kings but they were stopped by a Brahmin King Pushyamitra Sunga and by the time of the Kushan Empire all the Greeks and their traces would be destroyed and be left with Hindu/Buddhist. These are just few things that I caught but there are more like about the discoveries that they made on medicine, science, math, and more before 0AD as well as in trade but that's for more medieval time but I only had time for just these.
One ancient case of higher caste turning lower to royalty doesn't disprove the entire system for the entirety of time, and even if today thanks to westernization caste system is abolished people, especially in rural areas and the south, still live by it. And yes, it does say a lot about Alexander because his army came from curbstomping Persia and through Afghanistan AND they were already tired and rebelling against him, so it doesn't "not say much about him" but he was already at the tail end of his forces anyway.
@@KARKATELCESARENVIADODESA-pv4yd Firstly, if you know about "cast system" then you would have known that no matter the time ONE CAN NOT CHANGE his/her CAST that's the whole Premise that the "Upper Cast" people will stop anyone from "Low Cast" from ever going up in the system. If you had read more then you've seen there were others as well like the Nanda Empire which many historians credit for putting fear in alexander's army to rebel. They are from "low cast" and they were like 10x time stronger than Porus, who gave alexander one if the the most difficult battle in his life. Brahmin King Pushyamitra Sunga went down in the "cast system" from a priest to a king. There were even more and by the time of the british there were like 75%+ of ALL the INDIAN KINGS were from "LOW CAST". Secondly, Persia of Alexander's time was much weaker, where they recruited Farmers to fight him not only that if Alexander had came later in time then Egypt would have already broken apart from them. When he finally reached Indian border he fought an bordering king Porus, who wasn't even counted in the 16 great Republics, who were the strongest in the Indian Subcontinent and alexander had one of his most difficult battle. After this battle he know there were going to be more like Porus and Even Stronger so he left and never returned. This already tells us how strong he was and how he deals with strong kingdoms. In this eyes of the Indians, he conquered some weak kingdoms but when he started facing real strong kingdoms he ran away, he couldn't even make it to the Ganga river.
Wow, I truly hope not many people watch this. The number of misconceptions and amount of misunderstanding is tremendous. Happy to explain why but I'm just not sure, given the certitude he exhibits, that the "expert" will listen.
Also it’s not because they didn’t feel like recording history it’s because the priests and learned people focused on oral knowledge. Literally inscription evidence goes way past 1000 AD.
I am a Gen Z Indian, and I will thank you for your attempt at an unbiased and honest explanation of this part of the world. I totally agree with the fact that the British were a necessary net positive, to the country. For example, in my great grandparents time, there was no norm of counting age of people, neither was there any literacy. India, certainly wasn't the half barbarous shithole, colonial histories somewhat make it up to be, but it was also not a society ready for the modernity. British rule was necessary to open it up.
I disagree the only net positive I think the British did was unifying indians under a common identity which was a result of common struggle against British Empire other than that we were very much capable of figuring out pretty much everything else for sure
I sometimes wonder that gen Z Indians have lost their ability to think for themselves that what is wrong and right and base their opinion on a video which is so full of inaccuracy maybe you should open up your view of world to know more about India to see if it could have adapted to new world rather than agreeing that britishers were somehow good to us
Not sure how strong a sentence of a prophet is because it will be changed over time and even made up. We don't really know what a lot of these guys said.
Hello Rudyard, Been looking for histories on Ancient India, I saw your twitter post on your recommendations. Please tell me about the books which you read that were disingenuous, which you described as Hindu Propaganda. Thank You and Have a nice day
He once called one of Shashi Tharoor's work as nationalist. I know there are people who are pushing their agenda by claiming false things but I still won't believe this guy all the time.
Great discussion, full of interesting interpretations on Indian and world history. As a young person I was very interested in Buddhism, it made sense to me, Hinduism on the other hand is a bizarre incomprehensible mess.
The way I approach Hinduism is seeing it as multiple sets of philosophies. I'm personally very partial to the Advaita Vedanta sect which is quite similar to Buddhism. In fact there was a confluence of ideas between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta :)
@@atheistbushman Definitely recommend it! In a nutshell, the main difference between the two from my understanding is Buddhism says the essence of everything is nothing, whilst in Advaita Vedanta, the essence of everything is pure consciousness. But apart from that main difference, a lot of the concepts are quite similar.
If you are interested in Indian philosophy there is a channel named India in pixels by qshris In one video on 16 different indic philosophy You can refer to it for a rough overview
Indians didn't have writing before ~400 BC. Everything was memorized through rote, an expensive and difficult process. We also have very few of the earliest texts because India's humid climate doesn't preserve paper very well. Any manuscript that didn't make it to writing and that wasn't continually reproduced up to the modern period is gone.
That's a pretty good overview of the origins of the main influences of Indian civilization,, acknowledging the importance of British influences in recent times, Rudyard.
India has a well-documented history that extends far before 1000 BC, supported by archaeological findings, ancient texts, and oral traditions. The philosophical idea that the world is an illusion did not preclude the recording of historical events and cultural achievements. The absence of a modern historical narrative in some periods can be attributed more to the forms of record-keeping and preservation challenges rather than a fundamental disinterest in history.
Didn’t mention the Scythians, I’m curious were they just aryans that mass immigrated around the time of Jesus that eventually became the Jatts, since Jatts have more steppe ancestory percentage than bramins
Scythians were Aryans who remained in Central Asia and migrated later to different parts of Eurasia like the Alans who conquered Spain were Scythians(Alan is a corruption of Aryan )
Sati emerged after 400 CE with the arrival of certain groups. They never mention the witch hunts in Europe, which were even more severe than those in India. Indian dramas began around the same time as ancient Greek ones, but unlike the ancient Greeks who had men playing women's roles, we allowed women to act in dramas. Some of the Upanishads were written by women such as Maitreyi and Gargi. Women participated in public debates just like men in ancient India. If you look at the carvings in our ancient temples, women are depicted more freely and vibrantly compared to their counterparts in Abrahamic religions. Additionally, we had some of the earliest democratic city-states, similar to the Greeks. We also had one of the earliest universities in the world. Indians invented -Meditation: 5000 BCE Yoga: 3000 BCE First flush toilet systems: 3000 BCE Ruler: 3000 BCE Buttons: 3000 BCE World's earliest dockyard: 3000 BCE Metallurgy: 3000 BCE Cotton cultivation: 3000 BCE Shampoo: 2000 BCE Ayurveda: 2000 BCE Invention of Chess: 1500 BCE Cotton: Natural Fibers and Cultivation: 1000 BCE Oldest University, Taxila: 1000 BCE Democratic republic system: 800 BCE (before Athenian democracy) Pythagorean theorem: 700 BCE Earth's orbit: 600 BCE Cataract Surgery, Plastic Surgery: 600 BCE First book based on economic and political science, Arthashastra: 300 BCE Fibonacci numbers: 200 BCE Systematic organized education system: 1000 BCE - 500 CE Modern numerals: 500 BCE - 500 CE The Decimal System and the Idea of Zero: 500 CE Algebra, Trigonometry, and the Fundamentals of Calculus-300 CE
Personally, I'd divide india into 3. Aryan Hindu civilization, Dravidian Hindu Civilization, and lastly, British Hindu civilization (the parts of India that were british provinces instead of princely states)
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="2274">37:54</a> i believe this part, apparently Buddhist statues in China had a change in its decorations/the way it's made and apparently this was from Bactria?
You can use evolutionary game theory to model an invasion barriers which the caste system would be a result of, here in the USA we're heavily propagandized to miscegenate to prevent a caste system from arising. In general, I view a caste system as systemically negative in the evolutionary game, as full reward for successful mutant strategies within the population is blockaded. As far as the Aryan invasion, there is evidence that there was genetic mixing initially, but then the behavioral invasion barrier process reversed that tendency to a caste system, where the strategies only show reward for intracaste games.
India seems like a based country/civilization if it wasn't for the polluted Ganges river, the low rate of residential bathroom plumbing, and the craziest spicy food styles....
I do like the intent behind how you explain history, but I think you oversimplify, make up claims, and rely on debunked myths. Indians do not worship cow poop at large lol, they did keep history but it was often destroyed (tropical environmental decay/war), and things such as Sati were not as widespread as you think. Your explanations on why they do the aforementioned things were really just your best guess, not factual. You fall back on western historical stereotypes to back up your arguments, rather than real data. Saying the worst thing the British did was starve Indians is a claim that would make most historians laugh. Love your lens which forces me to think differently, but I just find a lot of it to be assumptive/poorly executed.
But the dharmic religions definitely do have heaven & hell-realms. They're just also equally illusory, unlike in the Christian/Islamic worldview. This overlooks karma.
Reducing the Indian Maya to the "world isn't real" is hilariously gross. Further using that as an explanation for why Indians don't have as many records is honestly belligerent.
This podcast has been frustrating to me at times. But I don't necessarily disagree with anything that you have said. My frustration comes with trying to understand the reasons for why the things that you have said would happen. For example : (1) reason for caste system as wanting separate ethnicities. It could very well be possible. (2) reason for the existence of Indian mystics as a coping mechanism for intelligent men in being disposessed. Again very plausible. (3) 'Hindus' winning against the Buddhas, by appealing to the masses and the nobility? Maybe, although I don't fully get it. Although as these reasons seem logically plausible, what I find confusing is in trying to incorporate the other realities of human societies and how they should work. Because, by your own conclusions(correct me if I am wrong) Indian society was millitarily weak and focused more on 'spirituality', the priests controlled the society even above the military. So with a weak, priest, ruling class, how would it be possible for them to (1) try and enforce any of this on a vast majority lower caste population, and more importantly (2) force them to follows this for 1000s of years(by your own conclusion). I mean it doesn't make sense right??? I have a different view or understanding what might have happened, which even I am not entirely confident in. But I would like to know your thoughts on this.
Actually the French were better in India. French controlled parts of India are doing pretty good and is absolutely beautiful. The French controlled some parts of India some 10 years after the British left. They left after being asked nicely too but not before letting people have a choice to receive French citizenship. Therefore some people in these areas still vote in the French presidential elections. Anyway it is not known that they persecuted anyone or committed any atrocities. French even allowed Indian freedom fighters escaping the British areas to live in their areas as political refugees.
@@random_shit_online6104 French left only in 1954, 7 years after India's independence from the British (Yes, they did control a few areas after the Anglo-French war). Indian government negotiated with them to give these areas back. In contrast the Portuguese refused to do so which prompted India to launch a military campaign to take back Portuguese controlled Goa
the french control over those parts was already weakening, they had no choice. the portuguese refused to negotiate. both were equally disgusting to me personally. the french are not any better than any other colonizers, esp with what they did in vietnam.
@@random_shit_online6104 These places were not worth any strategic value either. But unlike the others French never committed any atrocity or anything in India. Even the local councils in French territory were represented by locals. These people had a greater degree of freedom and autonomy. When they left they gave French citizenship to anyone who wanted it. Overall their whole stay in India was very civil. Their colonial policies in Vietnam or Algeria however remains as a disgrace to them.
@@captainfury497 they had already lost the places of strategic importance to the British. seems about right. you could argue that facing defeat at the hands of the British and witnessing the various rebellions had them acting civil, but ig i could give you the W here. the 'net positive' that my man here in the video is talking about, I wonder to what level that is true. but one thing i can say benefitted us Indians was the fact that it acted as our gateway to the modern world. if not for colonialism, i suspect another mass invasion from the north-west would have done the same, as observed from studying history (the aryans brought horses and chariot-making, the mughals the art of cannon-making )
To give credit to the Indian nationalists, when your worldview denies that reality exists, it only makes sense that they would deny realities like the caste system, Indo-Aryan invasions, etc., lmaoo
Reading more will solve so many problems for people like that. I am also an Indian nationalist but I don't roam around claiming things I don't myself feel very sure about.
Indo Aryan invasion has been debunked for approximately 55 years and fell out of favour in academia about 40 years ago for the Aryan migration theory as approximately 0 evidence of an armed, large scale invasion exists, you can check it right now with a quick Google search or a talk to an actual academic. Cry me a river about it, Europe got invaded and the EEF men got genocided and the women raped by Corded-Ware (who aren't even Aryan), Indian natives and the proto-Iranian farmers living in India didn't, they mixed in and their culture ended up staying more relevant than the rural and undisputedly less developed Aryan culture, if this triggers you then know that facts don't care about feelings😂
You are not steel manning the arguments of Indian right wingers at all before criticizing them. You are putting down arguments made my silly trolls and think you have proven all Hindu nationalists wrong.
Sati has roots in ancient Indian traditions, and its practice is mentioned in some Hindu texts. However, it was not uniformly practiced and was more common in certain regions and among specific warrior classes. The practice was more prevalent among the Rajput communities and some other warrior classes, particularly in regions like Rajasthan. It was not a widespread or universal practice across all of India or among all social classes. The arrival of Islamic rulers in India did not introduce the practice of Sati. However, the social and political turmoil during periods of invasion and conflict might have influenced the frequency or visibility of Sati in certain areas. In some cases, it is suggested that increased incidences of Sati among Rajput women could have been a reaction to the threat of capture and subjugation during conflicts with Muslim invaders, as a means to preserve honor and avoid subjugation. british colonial administrators in the 19th century documented instances of sati and sometimes exaggerated its prevalence to justify their civilizing mission. this led to a heightened perception of sati as a widespread practice, which in turn influenced social reforms, including the eventual ban on sati by the british in 1829.
go and actually compare historical empires though = the British is "better" than the Spanish, French, Russian, Japanese or Nazi Germany in Africa, the English speaking countries are more developed than the Francophone Africa USA, Canada is defo nicer than Mexico, Brazil or Argentina and HK, Singapore, Malaysia are all nicer than Vietnam, Philippines, etc Rudyard says something similar but yeah I agree
@@henrystokes1987 rather i'll ask you = what do you mean by the term, racism? (superiority of a culture?) though "superior", I do dislike arrogance. China's traditional culture has influenced Korea, Japan and even Vietnam whilst India's culture influenced a lot of Malay Archipelago and people on Bali still believes in Hinduism I despise the blatant CCP nationalist who goes on arrogantly about it and their mindset but you can't dispute the historical influence over it those idiots just get carried away though.
adding an extra point = after the Song dynasty, there was never really another high point in Chinese culture again, and I'd say arrogance played a part? the Chinese just kept preserving the values of their past generations as to them = all that is discovered is already discovered. this is why I despise arrogance. I'm originally from China, its why I went off on a tangent...
This is exactly the problem when amateurs start talking about a subject they know very little about - The mauryans never wrote: some of the best pieces of indian writing emerged around this time, for example arthashastra by kautilya that pretty much laid the basis of indian empires for many centuries later. There was no greek invasion of northern india right after alexander, the kushan empire did occupy parts of northern india but that was after the mauryan collapse, not before. And they too were short lived as they got beaten by the guptas shortly after. Castes are ethnic groups : started laughing at this one😂, it is true that after the caste system solidified at around the end of the tripartite struggle at around 1000 ad, but before caste as a system was quite lose where intermarriages were really common. Even i as a bengali kayastha have had multiple ancestors from different castes wjthin the last 5 generations, brahmins, kayastha, baidya, etc. Mauryans were a buddhist empire : i mean come on do ur research before making these claims. Ashoka the last truly great mauryan empire converted to buddhism towards the end of his conquests, the dudes before him were not. The sati and pardah systems that u talked about where women were opressed solidified during muslim rule, it wasnt characteristic of hindu society. The sati system developed as a reaction to islamic conquests to save the women from warrior households from humiliation and it only really took place in limited places in india. Hindu texts like the kamasutra and mahabharata openly talked about female sexual health and well being. Overall clearly biased and poorly researched. There were plenty of other facts that u got wrong, but these i can remember from the top of my head. U clearly arent in a position to make videos or claims given ur poor research. Hard to beleive in ur philosophical civilizational based claims given the hints of bias i sensed in ur video.
He didn't say the Mauryans never wrote. He said that they didnt use writing to keep the same sort of practical administrative records the way nearly every other society with writing did. There are plenty of examples of societies using writing for administrative record-keeping and keeping tabs on events, but where everything else from religious passages, to poems, to instructional discourses are passed down orally. The Mauryans were pretty much the reverse of that, and it's notable in that regard. It would like if we still had the large corpus of philosophical and mythological writings from Classical and Hellenistic Greece, but 90% of the chronicling or practical record-keeping we have from the era was solely oral and never recorded in writing. We would today have a vague knowledge of some of history of the big chapters like Alexander's Conquest and the Diadochi Kingdoms, but they would be shockingly vague given the magnitude and era of the events (since most of that would be primarily known through archaeological finds and surviving non-Greek sources about the era, such as the Books of the Maccabees, or side references in non-chronicling Greek sources)
The author have not included latest archeological finds of Harappan era civilization sites at Sinholi and other places in morden day hariyan and uttar pradesh. A lot his theory will get challenged.
I don't know why you didn't include it the Gupta empire was a Buddhist period and supposedly a peaceful time in India maybe you concentrated on Hindism period If you can do one on Gupta period that would be nice.I am listening now you started talking about that time thanks.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="3278">54:38</a> Alright Rudyard, you have told us the British during the industrial revolution pretty much had no empathy and if the poor starved thats their own fault. THEY WERE NOT, the nicest colonial empire. Maybe you meant the most DEVELOPED, but definitely not the nicest.
The British colonialism stole 45 trillion dollars not exactly pennies. Your sounding like a friend of mine a Anglo racist colonialism. Thailand one of the few countries not under the British The British created a lot of divisions in Asia like Sri Lanka Myanmar and many other countries.May hate comment was Peaceful.
Brother, No Indian records mentioned Alexander because he was nobody to India. Even Taxila (Takshashila) University scholer never mentioned about Alexander because they knew a weak king like him can't do anything to India i.e. Bharatvarsha. Even only greek historians mentioned about that Alexander won but only because Porus fought graciously he didn't killed him(That time honour was very important for Indian kings loosing in war means death for them, you really think Porus would have kept himself alive after loosing to Alexander? No, He would have committed s+cide. If he would have lost.) . While the most of the Indian historian wrote that Porus won against Alexander that's why due to shame he was going back to his country.
Did the indian historians write it or did Modi spell it out for you in your indian school text books...? he beat Porus, he beat PERSIA, he took PERSIA the longest empire of its time he only didn't take you because of all the forces he used up in conquering the middle east and Afghanistan, he was going for you and he might as well have done it but rebellion stopped him. You really think a dude who wakes up one day and takes the Achaemenid empire, Phoenicia, Egypt and Afghanistan couldn't take India too? how about you study actual world history and then compare it to Modi history and then draw your own conclusions.
@@KARKATELCESARENVIADODESA-pv4yd Achaemenid empire(who? Toilet cleaners fight better than them ),Phoenician(who? Janitors fight better than them),Egypt (used to great civilization until islam destroyed it) and Persia (Overglorified and Islam destroyed them as well) wasn't even close to any Indian empires that time. Nanda kingdom at that time alone used to hold 34% of Worlds gdp. You really thought these desert tribes plus some random Greek NPC called Alexander was even capable of even threating might of our subcontinent. Tell me, if he was that capable of beating Porus, then why didn't he killed him? He killed lot of kings before coming to India, then why did he spare Porus? Cause He wasn't even able to beat him in war and thus due to shame he was gonna return to his home country but unfortunately he died. Even after he died the Takshashila (Taxila cause you fools can't pronounce the real words) the global centre for trade and knowledge didn't even noticed that some fool named Alexander died. They didn't even bother to write about him. Just some random Greek historian wrote about Alexanders India journey and they Overglorified it so much, that now the world sees him as world conqueror. Even after his death the selucids (biggest of 4 kingdoms that formed after Alexander died) tried to go on war with Mauryas but he suffered defeat. And that defeat was so devastated that he had to send his daughter as concubine to the King of Mauryan Empire just so that Maurya doesn't attack them again.
@@prasenjeetnikam "Toilet cleaners fight better than them" Considering this is coming from an Indian, a people who by far have the least sexual dimorphism between men and women, I'll press X to doubt on "Indians are tough an can defeat anyone!"
Unfortunately a lame video regurgitating what colonialists said 100 years ago. It’s easy to narrate a story based on reading a few books and square off everything with - caste is the root cause of all ills in india. Just a few points to ponder: Islam took almost 500 years to gain hold in India vs its rapid expansion from Persia to Spain. Why would that be the case if Indians were so divided? Why would lower caste Hindus not accept an “egalitarian” Islam but rather prefer to die in millions? Read about developments in Mathematics (trigonometry, infinite series), linguistics, medicine, architecture. Would a decadent society produce leaders across diverse fields. Don’t take my word for it, but rather look up on actual studies on this topic. Good way to garner views based on shoddy understanding. Enjoy the ad money!
When expanding into India Islam didn’t have the same rapid expansion because by the time they invaded they were past their period of rapid expansion. And beleive it or not Islam isn’t very heavy on forced conversion it taking them until 1000 to be a majority in the Middle East. Also they set themselves up as a ruling class after not that long.
And about the advancements like Rudyard said Hindu nationalists believe a lot of insane things about India that aren’t true, it’s possible that those advancements are either lies or half truths
@@almgaming186 again a vague reasoning - why did the period of rapid expansion end? Islam clearly has a goal of converting the entire world. Clearly someone stopped them in their tracks. Conversions was and is a dominant theme. Execution may take time, and rulers try to be practical with jizya inflows, but the ghazi/sufi has the obligation to convert.
@@almgaming186 there are literalists in every religion who don’t change their ideas when new evidence emerges. Clearly there are fanatics who give fantasized timeline going back 20000 years or more. Any such timeline needs tonnes of proof, not merely a quote from a book written probably a few centuries ago. Some “nationalists” do a disservice as genuine researchers get labelled with the same brush as their fantasies.
listening to ur presentation, as a non-Indian, i must say u basically have nothing good or netural to say about India or its history - ur hate is great - right now i am 30mins in and am unsure if i want to continue
@@garydavidson6917 Oh god the worst of the two worlds made manifest together, sikh culrure! Lord have mercy, may jesus christ give you a blessed marriage and a life together in the church for both of you; but there is nothing in the inherent psyche of this civilization that can be even called compatible with westetn judeochristian values. Can you even name 5 other sikhs out of her family? This is it. They are just a face. Don't trust the face; it's a thing all eastern cultures do, they laugh to save face, they cry to save face, they live to save face and they die to save face. Intuition dies where face is put up.
Ok this look like a very poor understanding of the Indian history, if anyone wants a better understanding then watch "The End of Hinduism" by Abhijit Iyer Mitra
Ruydard, my brother in Christ, you need better sources for hispanic history ASAP. Get som hispanic authors, Julian Juderías, Vasconcelos, Marcelo Gullo, Elvira Roca Barea, Gustavo Bueno. Or even some anglos who are not mislead like Stanley G. Payne or P. H. powell You are mislead by the black legend and it shows! An historian of your talent deserve better.
@@atlistihavesenseofhumorlol2051 true but he mention "Latin America" as an example of cast system and he's done it dozens of times. We hispanics try to tell him over and over again he needs to improve his knowledge of Hispanic civilization and he just ignores us and keeps repeating black legends topics over and over again. I'll be honest, is kind of frustrating because I love his work and I sincerely want him to be better.
@Canario_27 what is Rudyard misinformed about regarding Hispanic civilization? Genuine question, I've seen most of his Hispanic content so feel free to reference any of his past statements
@@brycebaggoo5388 I would recommend the comment section of his video on understanding Hispanic civilization. Check for the comments that reference the black legend, most of them have a nuance criticism. His most recurrent error is to describe the XVIth century Spanish empire as an European colonial superpower of the XIXth. The Spanish empire was a decentralise medieval monarchy, base on aristocratic rule (not based on race like a cast system), city building, rule of local laws, heavy focus on mixing with the local population and conversion to Catholicism was the main goal. XIXth Colonialism was mainly focus on resources extraction to enrich the metropoly. No mixing with the locals, Europeans where always on a top position, almost no infrastructure beyond roads and ports to extract the resource, not messing with local religions, etc. It's imposible to be more nuance in a RU-vid comment, if you are interested I would recommend checking the authors I quoted or searching info on the Spanish black legend to see the problem we have with our own historiography (wich by the way is our fault) Cheers!
