We have a saying in Karnataka, my State in India. It roughly translate to this: "It doesn't matter how many kings come and go, the farmer will still have to farm" It means, it doesn't really matter who is ruling you, society never changes
I am Chinese. Totally agreed. To China, it really does not matter if it is communists or nationalists rule the country, China will still be China whoever in the house. It will still be the same group of people facing the same issue.
Thats a double edged sword. On one hand we've been able to retain our culture, languages, and religions to a large degree. The negative side is, we're doomed to continue the impoverished third world shithole run by socialist nanny state.
@Lilo Is the baddest okey so what if china is better ( if it's is at all) does it really matter? Rest of the world is not going to worship you for being better. In the end they'll focus on their own development, arrogance only leads to bigotry
@Lilo Is the baddest no India is better. India gdp 2 time bigger then china gdp. inda population biggest in the world (china has fake population number, china population very low) India biggest county in the world
@@Kraut_the_Parrot I'd love if you made a video on Nepal soon. A country holding strong importance in the region,aside from that its history and political instability is also very very underrated.Went from a kingdom to a heiarchical prime ministership to shifting between absolute & constitutional monarchy,a civil war and the present day of constant prime minister shuffling(since 1990 not a single PM has served a full term). I'm a fan of yours and I'd love if you made a video on this beautiful mess of a nation🇳🇵
I'll be taking a little break after this video to work for my friend Nomad and his video, and to tinker around a little with the intention of getting new editing and drawing skills.
@@yj9032 You don't find the presence of a weak state (so weak, that it cannot even provide it's citizens with basic needs), a problem? Society is strength yes, especially in current times where direct open wars would rather be outright avoided, but even so, the state is still very important, if not for war, then for other means some of which were pointed out in the video.
India might as well be a dozen different countries. Just traveling between neighboring states (Kerala to Tamil Nadu) made me feel like I went to a new country. India's history of princely states gave it the rich diversity that I loved so much.
India is a heavily de-centralized government, the Indian constitution pretty much accepts that it is impossible to unite India therefore the constitution let's states do whatever they want like development (the central government needs permission from the state government to build something in said state) lack of a enforced standard language other then English, states have their own education system along with the standard CBSE and the constitution doesn't care as long they are loyal to the the tricolour heck we don't have a national language only 2 primary official languages (hindi and English) and 22 secondary official language This level of autonomy and de-centralization might so down development but ensures that the provinces remain loyal
"... He was going to be late. And when he realized that the punishment for being late was the same as the punishment for rebellion, he decided to rebel." Love this guy.
The video itself is more or less proof of how far you came, both in improving your videos' quality and in the research you commit to your videos. Great job my friend.
Kinda makes people wonder how much research he put into Chinese history as everything after Sui are terrible generalizations that are borderline false.
Indians (especially those tending to the right) often get offended when someone says that ancient India didn't really exist in the sense that China did. I like to think of ancient India as modern Indian states but without our central government. How would say for example Bengal, Assam and Orissa interact if they existed 2000 years ago? They would have their own administrations, cultures, languages and even 'borders' but they wouldn't consider each other as barbarians or foreigners because the citizens of the 3 state would be constantly interacting religiously by visiting Puri, Kamakhya and Kalighat; the three central religious points of the three states which the kings of the 3 states deeply revere. Sure there would be 'conflicts' but they would be on which village should pay taxes to which king and nothing more than that. They would exist simultaneously as separate and states but strongly culturally and religiously bound together. I suppose a modern comparison would be the relationship between Germany and Austria or perhaps the ancient Greek city states.
Wait, did you read Indian history chronologically or just did to answer to the people on the right. India has been divided into three main regions of influence. West, east and south. Most of the Islamic invasion and the expansion was in the eastern which was easily conquered due to the rivers being mode of transportation. The west or the Rajputs fought until the Mughal invasion, in which they formed the alliance and the south was the final frontier which east and west tried to unite under Aurangzeb. The Brits conquered India which was exhausted with years of war just like how Islam did the Persia. What Brits added were just the far eastern territories like Assam.
Right, I have to say that, as a Chinese person, the conclusions at the end of "The Advantages and Disadvantages of a Powerful Chinese State" are mostly correct, however the history offered by Kraut is highly flawed. 1. The Sui: Basic historical errors and ommitions. Sui Yangdi's grand project, of which the human cost was one of the reasons for his deposition, was not the Great Wall, but the Grand Canal. Kraut later attributes the Grand Canal as a Ming Dynasty acheivement, however, the Ming government merely refurbished and renovated the Grand Canal, while the actual credit for this monumental structure actually lies with Sui Yangdi. In addition, he mentions Sui Yangdi's invasions of Vietnam and Korea. His invasion of Vietnam was successful, but his repeated invasions of Goguryeo was a massive drain on men and resources, and it was yet another one of the reasons for his overthrow, in addition to the aforementioned Grand Canal, and also the fact that he antagonised and tried to weaken the northwestern nobility, which was the ruling class of China at the time, and included not only Sui Yangdi's clan but also the clan which ended up ruling... 2. The Tang: More drastic historical errors and ommisions. The aformentioned antagonism and weakening of the northwestern nobility was partially done through the introduction of a civil service examination by Sui Wendi, however, the Tang recognised its usefulness and did not abandon it fully. While the video states that the Tang was a highly aristocratic state, and this is true, for the most part members of the aristocracy were chosen for positions in government via said examination system. In addition, Kraut demonises Wu Zetian and much of the history after the section on her is incorrect. It is true that her cruelty was brutal and depraved even by the standards of the time, and the crimes attributed to her by Kraut are all true. However, he states that previous ministers were ejected, but this was because Wu Zetian expanded the franchise for the imperial examination system, and allowed non-northwestern aristocrats and even commoners to participate, which of course led to the replacement of many old ministers from said northwestern aristocracy. In addition, Kraut failed to mention the fact that Wu Zetian was a highly effective administrator, who, contrary to what the video stated, did not appoint yesmen to high positions of power, instead appointing capable men who often disagreed with Wu, as she knew that she was not perfect and had to accept criticism and correction to achieve a succesful rule. She even allowed the common people to have some voice in government by allowing them to write directly to the imperial court with their grievances. Lastly, everything in the video after Wu is wrong. Firstly, the rebellion that deposed Wu, the Shenlong Coup d'État, in fact restored the Tang Dynasty, bringing her eldest surviving son, Crown Prince and ex-Emperor Zhongzong to power. Secondly, the rebellion that deposed Wu was the aforementioned Shenlong Coup d'État, not the Anshi Rebellion, which is alluded to in the video. That rebellion was directed against Wu's grandson Xuanzong by a disloyal Jiedushi, An Lushan, and it started in 755, 50 years after Wu's death in 705. Thirdly, the Anshi Rebellion did not depose the Tang Dynasty. It seriously weakened the Tang Dynasty, which before the rebellion was experiencing a golden age which the rebellion ended, killing half the population and starting a Tibetan invasion of the Tang's western posessions, but the Tang Dynasty managed to at least partially recover, and it continued to exist for 150 years after the start of the Anshi rebellion. The rebellion that eneded the Tang Dynasty as a functioning state was the Huangchao Rebellion, which started in 874, and the Tang state finally ended its existance in 907. Overall, Kraut skipped more than 2 centuries of Tang history. 3. The Song: Kraut's dismissal and brief mention of the Song as merely "being conquered in turn by the Mongols" is a travesty, because the Song was, perhaps in terms of civilian governance, the best government China has ever had. The Song succesfully merged the Confucian and Legalist principles of governance, creating a brilliant meritocratic bureaucracy that allowed the provincial gentry to handle local issues, which meant that the state was efficiently involved in nationwide reforms and infrastructure projects without overstepping their boundaries, allowing for the development of a massive and very strong urban commercial sector. This, in addition to the introduction of rice from Champa and the development of new ploughs starting an agricultural revolution, allowed the population to explode, starting an economic revolution in turn, making the Song dynasty the richest country on Earth by GDP per capita at the time, and the richest Chinese dynasty ever. The style and rigour of the imperial examination system also ensured the extremely high quality of the scholar-bureaucrats (think Ouyang Xiu, Shen Kuo, Sima Guang, Wang Anshi, Su Shi, etc, etc) who were able to carry out their duties with creativity and effectiveness. What destroyed the Song dynasty was its oppression of the military resulting in ridiculous military ineptitude, administrative factionalism, garbage tier diplomacy, inconsistent strategy, the strength of their enemies, and, of course, corruption. However, the Song's governmental excellence is shown by the fact that they were the only dynasty to be destroyed by foreign invasion rather than internal rebellion. 4. The Ming: Kraut fundamentally misundertood the nature of the Ming government. It was actually similar in many respects to the Byzantine or Ottoman governments. The position of chancellor, alongside many other roles, was abolished and merged with the position of Emperor, making the Emperor truly all-powerful in theory, and turning China into an Oriental Despotism. The bureaucracy also did not consist of eunuchs, rather the imperial examination system was opened up to all men, while the eunuchs were in charge of the running of the palace, however, due to the immense power the emperor wielded, the bureacucracy was quite weak and was subordinate to the emperor. It is true that the Ming tried to destroy clan affiliations as a way of gaining power within the system, with Emperors even emphasising marriages with commoners, but the eunuchs were not used for this purpose, they existed because they had been a staple of court life in China since time immemorial. On the contrary, they formed a political faction in court, allowing them to form one great "family" in effect, and the Ming bureacracy was oftentimes effective in spite of eunuch intervention. The reason why the eunuchs gained power was not because the emperors lost control, but rather because they gave up control entirely. A despotism like the Ming's is only effective when the emperor is attentive, assertive and intelligent, or when strong officials are appointed on his behalf. However, if he slacks in his duties, the system fails. In the case of the Ming, during the 50 year long reign of the Emperor Wanli, of which 40 years were spent not actually ruling the nation as the emperor went on strike due to a succession dispute, the eunuchs, as governors of the palace, ruled the nation on the behalf of the emperor, and due to the bureaucracy's weakness, it was unable to stop the eunuchs. This led to massive corruption and repression, which were some of the major reasons for the destruction of the Ming Dynasty. Lastly, Kraut states that Chinese society is weak. While this is true politically, socially, nothing could be further from the truth. China is one of the most cohesive societies on Earth, partially due to one theme mentioned throughout the video: Confucinism. The family unit emphasised by Confucianism is what keeps Chinese society together, while all dynasties since the Han assumed the role of the master of the Chinese "family". If Chinese society was so weak, then Chinese diaspora communities would have fallen into disarray rather than prospering due to a solid familial foundation provided by Confucianism. Confucianism also emphasises education and meritocracy to a large degree, although not in as concrete a fashion as Legalism, and not for the same reasons.
The only civilizations that still exist and do so closely in their original form. China in its state and india in its society. Once I was taking to a Chinese and he said you indians still haven't solved the language problem. I was confused, what did he mean? I didn't see any problem in having many languages in our society. Now I understand what he ment after viewing this video. Due to the continuous Chinese state the Chinese have same language and ethnicity(Han) and in India due to our strong society we have diversity in language and ethnicity.
Just check how many languages have died in India since Independence , the word India itself is foreign , the only language which dominates India today is English and it will continue dominating itself becuz of the economics of Indian society , democratic legacy and weak Hindu society ( weak becuz all the classes feel strangulated in Hindu society from top class to untouchables ) India in future will become a mix of society with influence of America and other countries who become powerful enough to influence Indian economy . For eg if today ottoman expire comes to life and become dominant society india will probably send a delegation which will be heavy of Muslims , while if Roman empire come to life Indian delegation will probably have Christans more , now also we can see how due to rise of kpop northeastern ppl are getting huge respect and probably will get lots of tourism in post covid world , similarly we can see how Buddhist will in future get more respect if China and Myanmar becomes friendly with India like taking Chinese president to bodh gaya and to Shimla or to dharamshala another eg can be Iran , if today Iran becomes hugely powerful which they will once oil power goes down Hyderabad and other Shia dominated regions will probably become hugely influencial and shiete culture will flourish ,
@SchnuffelWuffel well true 10% of china is minority ethnicity but i meant to state that 90% China has Han Chinese and why they are a overwhelming majority is because of the 3000 year old Chinese state that wants uniformity. Because of this continuous homogenization over the years one ethnicity kept on growing and subsuming other ethnicity. Currently thats what happening with Uyghur muslims. Lessons are either your create a strong state or a strong society to have continuous civilizational links. I am not saying its a bad or good lesson just stating an observation.
@SchnuffelWuffel that is bullshyt alright,the existence of empires itself already implies there is some form of assimilation and standardization.....all the greatest empires in history,from the persians to the romans to the qing dynasty or the assyrians or the british, in order to create these behemoths there has to be great organizational planning,policy making, streamlining and standardization..... its like building walmart. first they create and perfect the system,the culture,the bureaucracy,the economic and monetary policies,the justice system,the infrastructure,then they spread it .....sometimes they create a culture and system that is so great and impressive that even those that were being assimilated and outsiders were eager to adopt their practises,their culture , their bureaucracy etc.... for example the persians,the roman empire,the tang dynasty and the british empire..... sometimes even the conquerors became the assimilated.
@Lilo Is the baddest bro are you updating with new bro, China does not have coal for electric current read newspaper or at least see news twice a week, they even stopped supplying current to house and telling me they even ship till 2 , lol even in India and many countries if needed they will shop throughout night and day.
Just a few errors, the strictness of the caste system varied from time to time. While in the early Vedic ages it almost a synonym for occupation, in the later Vedic age it became very strict and form of social hierarchy. In fact the the extreme strictness of the caste system in the later Vedic ages was one of the factors which led to the rise of religions such as Buddhism and Jainism.. But other than that great video.
What are you smoking? The Buddhists did not arise due to the caste system, they made the caste system much more worse than before. Compare the Buddhists proclaiming that only people born as Brahmans or Kshatriyas could ever be Buddha, and only they were allowed admission in the monasteries to the Upanishadic stories of bastards inculcated into the Vedic order.
@@mountainsmakemehorny I think at that time the caste system was already very fluid (the dynasties of the time weren't very strict on the caste system and mobility existed) so Buddhists, like all other people at the time, were probably talking about brahman qualities not family
@@maya-cc2sx Wrong. The Buddhists texts are very clear on birth based varnas. There is a clear division between the Brahmanas and the Shramanas in Buddhists literature.
@@mountainsmakemehorny yeah but as Buddha said a man shall not be judged on his Varna but his deeds. And Varna is totally different from caste. Though hierarchical and somewhat discriminatory but it was no where as rigid as caste system, which was result of strict implementation of new Rigid structures of Caste during Harsha empire. And it kept evolving for worse
A sidenote on what 'Meritocracy' means in the warring states period: it is said that soldiers in Qin kingdom were promoted and rewarded soly on 'head count', heads of enermy soldiers. The law was specific on how many heads get you into different commanding positions, how many heads gets you how much land, and even into aristocracy. They would cut off every enemy soldier's head they slain on spot and tied it on the waist, some have half a dozen heads on their waist and have to discard helmet and shield to reduce the weight (but never the heads), which scared the hell out of the soldiers of the enemy kingdom who do not have the same system. The most brutal form of meritocracy ever.
@@minhducnguyen9276 yeah basically the 2000 years of unbroken chinese history are full of the largest genocides and mass killings ever taken place in human history
17:28 "When he realized being late had the same punishment as rebellion, he decided to rebel". This is such a power move I was left speechless, what a historical chad.
His name is Liu Bang and he rebelled because being late also had a death penalty. He ended up founding the Han Dynasty. It's also funny because the illustration in the video subtly has 'Bang' written in that frame. 😀
An in depth analysis of the civilizational paths of India and China is given in "The Origins of Political Order", by Francis Fukuyama. He defined Rule as the set of norms followed by all - not just the subjects but the rulers as well. From that perspective, India had a very strong Rule of Law since the beginning, but it lacked the central state. China on the other had a strong central state throughout the history, but the rules were mandated by the ruler, i.e. the rulers were rarely bound by the rule. Hence, they lacked Rule of Law in that sense. Some corrections: 1. Harijan, Dalit and Pariah are not three segments of untouchables. Harjan is a euphemism invented by Gandhi for untouchables. Dalit is a relatively modern term for the same. Pariah is a very specific jati/segment and there are hundreds of other jatis among untouchables. 2. Hinduism is extremely heterogenous. Brahminism is one specific ritualistic segment of that. Philosophically, there are numerous variation that disagree about almost everything baring the supremacy of Vedas. Even then, there are local religions which, although comes within the umbrella term "Hinduism", is completely unique to that region. 3. The casts are more fluid in some cases than you present here. Although the priestly class is almost always Brahmin, the other castes have historically changed their roles. There were numerous Shudra kings and Khatriya/Shudra traders. The majority of the soldiers have been Shudras in many cases. There are even warrior Brahmins. The current rigid view of caste is partially the result of British homogenization and codification of castes. 4. The Village systems were not static. Most of the production systems were distributed among villages, unlike in Europe where it is urban (even in Europe, the pre-industrial production was village dependent). They were connected through high volume business routes that have been active for millennia. So it was very common to find Silk from Dhaka in Persia or France. 5. FOR GODS SAKE, Uttar Pradesh has one of the worst administration in India!!!! It is towards the bottom in human development index, education, healthcare, safety, corruption, crime etc. Just google it.
The Uttar Pradesh error is the most embaressing slip up that happened during the recording of the audio. I meant Himachal Pradesh, was talking about Himachal Pradesh... but uttered the words Uttar Pradesh, twice... no idea why I mixed it up in the recording.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot Overall, a very good production. The scope was enormous and you covered almost all of it accurately, and that is no small fit. Thanks.
@@daniyelplainview I believe the scope, was in the end, too large. I had to cut down far too much. In the end this should have been a 2-3 hour long video. The quality suffered substantially by having the video cut down in size so much.
I am surprised at how civil everyone is being in the comment section. Other than the occasional troll from either sides, the conversations have been polite and "intellectually stimulating". *Faith restored for humaity
I remember back in early 2007, when i was playing Civilization IV warlords "Chinese Unification" that represented the warring state period, they started that scenario with a sentence "... it would not be until 2,200 years later in the Napoleonic Wars, that the world would see nations bring massive armies of millions of men into battle.", showing clearly the administration and organization required to gather such numbers that can only be done with structured societies with an efficient system... and the chinese were already doing this. That sent me into a rabbit hole of ancient china history but Kraut still manages to bring a new perspective into what i had read years ago which is refreshing and i really appreciated.
@@LexDomo They did. Not on the scale of China though. China probably had more people than the whole Roman empire. They could field hundreds of thousands of men... Rome only put tens of thousands at most.
In biology there exist the concept of evolutionary trade offs. Basically when a trait increases in fitness it automatically decreases another one. For example when fruit flys were genetically manipulated in a lab to increase fertility, this caused that male fruit flyes lived shorter life spans. You could say those similar principles can be applied in social sciences and the development of nations and societies as you ilustrated. Luckily human collectives have more leverage to find balance, but there is always a risk of going too much in a direction, but in the end there are many basic principles that apply universally.
@@FranciscoGarcia-jp1hp more like they push male flyes to reproduce more which decreased their lifeaspans Though a natural example more easy, male lizards who are more bright and colourful than their female counterparts tend to reproduce more as females pick them more but they die shortly after as being a colourful animal makes you target for predators
@@FranciscoGarcia-jp1hp Fruit Flies are studied so much because they provide perfect models for human genes (and altered genes), with shorter lifespans allowing for many generations of reproduction over a short amount of time. Thus, we can model inheritance much quicker than using other animal models.
@@lardinal2413 unlike Mughals or lodhi or any other empire...... Brits in India never became India, they never Indianised on a central level, there were many servants that Indianised however they were servants of the crown in Birmingham not in the person sitting in Delhi so frequent transfers were common and hence Brits were never Indianised and Indians threw them out in just 100yrs.
This is so fascinating, one is a strong state, the other strong society, one is decentralized, the other centralized. But both have existed since thousands of years and have shared cultures in the past and have been in conflicts during the modern time. Both massive and separated by Himalayas. The earth and humanity have witnessed a beautiful story of yin and yang.
The land across the Himalayas is Tibet not China. Tibet has very rich cultural, spiritual and linguistic ties to India, and is under brutal occupation by the Chinese state who have been trying to change the culture and demographics of Tibet.
9:38 correction Dalits, Harijans, and Parias all are different words for the same thing, Dalit literally means "untouchable" and is the most common name, its still widely used in India by both casteist and anti-casteist people, Harijans was the word that Gandhi used to describe Dalits, it literally means "Children of God", and Parias is I think the Tamil word for Dalit or something
Pariah is an English borrowing of the word Paraiyan. Parai means Drum and these were, as the name suggests, the Drummer Caste. Something like the Drumpf surname in Germany. Paraiyans are considered to be one of the 'Dalit' castes of India.
As one of your Chinese viewers, I found your video very eye opening. It really described the social phenomenon I experience everyday from a brand new way of thinking. The fight between the legalist and confusionist was so real and yet no one ever talked about it. Right now we are witnessing the legalist having an increasingly upper hand under the Xi administration's rule. Local elite families' power were taken away partially by the central government. New laws and rules were issued frequently to give everything an oder. The enforcement of such is in a new level. Contrary to western main stream ideology, I don't see the winning of the state as detremental to the livelyhood of everage citizens though. The local elite families were the most repressive and exploitive to the average people. The entrench themselves into key local government and business positions, through neputizem and corruption, taking away all the social mobility and exploit everyone outside of their circles. Therefore the enpowerment of the state was viewed very positively to the vast majority of peasents like me, despite its potential threats. After all, the state is not really exploiting and suffocating the peasents nearly as much as the elite families, and the peasents even have a chance to join the state by merit, something one can't do to a family clan. It may seem pethetic to people in the western world, as they would say the third way of liberalization would be the best option. However, social forces doesn't pop out from thin air. It is developed through the civilization's history. So that makes the development of Taiwan increasingly interesting. How did an Chinese society identical to the mainland from the begaining, developed its mordern liberal institutions and social forces, and transformed itself into a liberal country as it is today. i hope one day I would see you making a video about this. Thank you, and I really like your works. Cheers!
Taiwan's strong tie with USA(some might even say it's nearly a USA's puppet state) played a significant role in the transformation, both culturally and politically.
In the eyes of the Chinese commoner, it is far easier to remove a leader who has lost the mandate of heaven to rule, than it is to endure another century of humiliation, it's a trade off everyone has made and accepted. Interestingly current waves of Sinophobic foreign policies from the US and Co feds that sentiment within the Chinese society and pushes the citizens to stronger conviction for a need for such powerful state.
Taiwan had to become democratic. The easing of tensions between the PRC and ROC may have helped in reducing the siege mentality of Taiwan. Democracies tend not to form when whatever ruling entity percieves and existential threat-legitimate or not-which results in a very militarized milieu, State functioning, and overall view of things. You will never have a democracy when there is the potential threat of attack at any time, something most people may fail to grasp if they have always lived somewhere that has either never experienced this, or has long since experienced it. Taiwan losing their UN sest in 1971 could've help in this change as well, losing the "prestiege" abd responsibility that came with being part of the institution. Taiwan had also been developing relativly quickly without politically democratizing, so the GMD leadership may have not felt there was any real hurry to do this. Opposition to the government had been dealt wiith strongly in 1979, which further isolated the island. GMD failed to resolve the "sovereignty question", this could have been a further catalyst to delegitimize the GMD government. Being over dependent on the US for military and politics, etc., etc.. The DPP was formed in 1986, harsh measure were not taken, like had been in 1979. Martial Law also ended in 1986. The US finally moved to destroy Taiwans nuclear weapons program in 1988 and ensure Taiwan wouldn't aquire nuclear weapons (some in the US, and Taiwanese nuclear scientist defectors feared Taiwan would use these weapons against China, etc., etc..). So, that problem was ended for good by the US. At this time, the mainland was giving Taiwan a run for its money, economically and in development, etc.. Chiang Ching-Kuo had also died in January 1988, and Lee Teng-hui succeeded him and had continued democratic reforms. And was also the first directly elected President in 1996 and yada yada yada. So, there was a lot of influencing factors that eventually led to where Taiwan is currently.
@@Crazylubelube I have a different opinion. The part of the century of humiliation that most Chinese dislike was about the invation and following war crimes against the civilions. However, the current situation of China is not about a threat of invation, but rather isolation by being rejected from the advanced countries. This really is not that important to the majority of peasants, as it is seen as some far fatched political idea that ordinary peasants had no power with. Plus, this isolation problem could not be solved by the state gainning more power over the society or people, even if someone cares. I would argue that most Chinese would not really care about the international politics involving the humiliation thing. Sure people would pay lip service to let out some of their pent up aggression from unfair treatment from life, but most people in China are really not that concerned about things outside of their daily lives. They care very little about ideology, and very little people would be willing to sacrisfice their lives fighting for the glory of the nation. When the state leaves no power to the peasents on determaining the trejectory of the nation, the peasents simply do not feel ownership of the nation, let alone contributing or sacrificing to its cause. You and your close friends might care, but if you look around, you would find the majority of people are like this.
It's hard to say all the factors that led to Taiwan as a democracy. Some part of the development of Taiwan as a liberal democracy could be attributed to its history with Japan, its American influence, and the influence of protestant missions on the island. The influence of Japan on Taiwan's language and culture was part of what caused a divide between the people living on the island, and the KMT that arrived. The KMT also didn't do any favors for their own reputation when they cracked down on the populace (for example during the white terror). Finally, people like Lee Teng-hui gained influence within the dictatorship and used their power to lead Taiwan down a path of democracy.
I started reading all the comments and I seem to came up with an conclusion about Kraut's accuracy A lot of historical facts are wrong (especially when you move closer to the present day), but most people seem to agree with his conclusions for both China and India.
@@gobimurugesan2411 we do, our millenials and GEN zs do But here if you want to do something be it political or business venture you have to be an elder. It is changing though this decade there is a startup culture in India. India's strongest asset is finally coming in power and it will drive it exponentially.
@@अण्वायुवरीवर्त "millenials" , "GenZ" ...? these terms are for American or the western generations. third world countries societies doesn't fall into this categories. your thinking comes from few or the newer generation is influenced and copying western stuff.
As a person who grew up deeply immersed within Chinese and indian culture, I am impressed with your depth of understanding of my cultures, yet without falling into the trap of parroting cultural trope perpetuated by literature within the culture itself.
"Her rule caused a rebellion that ultimately led to the overthrow of the Tang" This is incorrect. Wu died in 705 and the Tang dynasty lasted until 907. She died 5 decades before the An Lushan rebellion, which although it did mark the end of the Golden Age of the Tang, did not end the dynasty itself and you can't really blame on her anyway.
Her rule weakend the Chinese stzate to a point that it could no longer recover. Disagree with me on this if you want, we can argue that one out, but I would argue that her rule delivered a wound to the Tang dynasty which then slowly killed it.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot ah fair enough, I see where you're coming from. I'd have to go read a bunch more to really fall on one side or the the other, to see if her purges had a noticeable impact on the capacity of the bureaucracy during Xuanzong's reign for example. Not really a debate I can have with the facts I have right now. Thanks for the video btw, the long term vision of an ideological conflict at the heart of the Chinese state is really interesting.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot lol your wrong krutz it was the anlushan rebellion and not wu zitian that weakened the tang kruat go and fact check tang empire reached its peak during the first part of xuanzong it was anlushan a sogdian rebelled against the tang go and watch kings and general regarding tang dynasty you will realise your wrong
@@Kraut_the_Parrot actually, it was Wu Zetian Rule that Promoted Meritocracy to a Crazy Degrees, thus Strengthening Tang even more, which continued until An Lushan rebellion She also hired Extremely Talented Individual over Family the 7th Emperor in his era, everything even the might of tang is quite strong, thus saying the fall of tang was because of wu zetian is false, as she didn't broke the system but rather strengthen it. and take note, the final nail in the coffin is huang chao rebellion which finally broke the tang
Well, some say that she traumatized her kids so badly that they became… you know weak. Her son Zhongzong reigned for 5 years and was killed by his wife and a shit ton happened with the restoration of his brother who didn’t fare any better than him concluding with emperor Xuanzong, the guy that basically layer the foundation of the anlushan rebellion. Her sons were all easily swayed by the court and allowed their wives and relatives to run amok and Xuanzong the good one also fell to feminine charms of Yang guifei. So yeah… it is quite a long stretch but she isn’t completely blameless. She showed the concubines what was the pinnacle of their career was and let’s say they became restless.
A Chinese person once told me, he and many Chinese people view European history from medieval to early modern time like a European version of warring states. With Napoleon being the European version of Qin Shi Huang, who unfortunately failed unlike his Chinese, more ancient counterpart.
That is actually a very interesting view of European history. Not necessarily the most accurate, but it isn’t exactly wrong. And eventually Europe was reunited (after WWII that is).
Sidney Low in his 'Vision of India’ (pg.262-263) speaks of the diff aspect of the caste system in the following eloquent passage: ‘There is no doubt that it is the main cause of the fundamental stability and contentment by which Indian society has been braced up for centuries against the shocks of politics and the cataclysms of Nature. It provides every man with his place,’ his career, his occupation, his circle of friends. It makes him at the outset a member of a corporate body, it protects him through life from the canker of social jealousy and unfulfilled aspirations; it ensures him companionship and a sense of community with others in like case with himself. The caste organization is to the Hindu his club, his trade union, his benefit society, his philanthropic society. There are no work-houses in India and none are as yet needed.'
What this "eloquent" passage fails to mention is, how the lowest class of people, the Dalits, the untouchables get treated in that system. It is inhumane, they weren't even allowed to drink water because, their touch will impure water source.
Also, there are some mistakes in the Indian history depicted in this video. The birth based caste system emerged about 1500 years ago and solidified only during the late Mughal - Early Colonial era. Jati is not a sub category of Varna, they are two different things, Varna translates to category and Jati translates to birth status. The Varna system, was based on one's attributes. The Vedas and Bhagwat Gita clearly state that one's Gunas or attributes determines one's Varna. The Varna system slowly decayed into lineage based Jati or caste as we know it today. Another mistake is assuming Mauryan Admistration to be decentralised. Mauryan Empire was one of the most centralised states in ancient history, with all ruling and governing standards codified in a book called "Arthashastra". Most Mauryan bureaucrats were selected based on merit not on lineage, right to the city level. Its extreme centralisation is cited as one the reasons for its collapse. He is however correct in assuming that India slowly decentralised.
17:33 This part actually made me emotional. You beautifully illustrated a key reason why China has fascinated me since I was a little kid; it is, as the generic Civ6 introduction goes, the one society that has gone from "this early cradle of civilization on towards the stars".
No, The Brahmins did not limit literacy to their own caste. They merely reserved the ability to impart knowledge, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas were educated along with Brahmins in Gurukuls under a Brahmin Teacher. Shudras were generally craftsmen, blacksmiths, goldsmiths and artisans, Most of the architecture of India's splendid temples is the work of Shudras. They were not expected to be learned in scriptures and logic or grammar like the other three castes. They simply learned their hereditary craft by the method of apprenticeship. Remember, everyone was given security of employment by way of this system, meaning no caste will take up the occupation of another caste. Due to this only Brahmins could teach and conduct rituals, Kshatriyas could fight and govern land, Vaishyas could conduct commerce and Shudras could engage in their craft and provide their labor where necessary. Most of what is today called the 'Services' sector was reserved for the Shudras as well.
As an Asian American this should be required viewing. I can see a lot of the ways I take on life, even down to always wanting to be on time to things, rooted in the Legalist society of thousands of years ago. While living in America still gives one a great appreciation for things like public accountability and individualism, it's kind of unreal how ancient societies still have such a poignant effect on our modern lives, and I can only imagine how modern indian viewers feel about their roots in that way. Also Kraut, I know it's just a little mistake, but it's written 明 - one horizontal then two - never three. I know you really value accuracy so I hope you don't take this as a nitpick
I'm an Indian and I agree. The greatest conflict in the Indian state today is about efficiency; something the Indian society is not designed for. The rapid collapse of the Varna system in face of Western values and industrialization can, I think, facilitate the establishment of a stronger state
@@thistletea You still did a fantastic job! If you were also in charge of the earlier sections in China, I love how there was a distinction made in the traditional script and more modern script, and the most important thing is that you brought vibrant life to a historical subject which is often very dry to newcomers!
India also had a period of centralization around 2BCE to 4AD but after that it collapsed, you can find "Arthashaasthra" as Indian counterpart to "Sun Tzu". It has treatises on Secret Service, Economics and war.
@@Dodlo32888 having a centralised state that spanned the entire of india was always difficult in ancient india. the geography made logistics from a distant capital hard with the western ghats, the eastern ghats, the vindhya ranges etc. Also indian states were not willing to be as brutal to achieve domination as some other civilizations. The burning of villages and farm lands was especially not tolerated during medieval india
45:09 that paragraph in hindi really touched my heart. The amalgamation of crude hard facts and the expression of emotions really makes this an incredible piece. The writer is a literary genius ! I encourage everyone who doesn't understand hindi to translate and read it.
In my state(formerly kingdom) Manipur in India, Hinduism came very late around the 15th century and became the main religion of the kingdom around the early 18th century, so we had a unique caste system different from other places. All the valley people Meitei (who converted to Hinduism) became Kshatriyas, even commoners, and Bengali Brahmins who migrated to the kingdom became the Brahmin caste. Meiteis who refused to convert to Hinduism(they praticed Sanamahism, an animistic religion) and tribal people who lived in the hills, became the lower caste or untouchables. The tribal people were especially discriminated against and treated as untouchables, but now the situation is much better. There were no vaishya or shudra caste. We only had two caste Brahmins and Kshatriyas, and the untouchables. As the caste system came very late in my place, it isn't as strictly implemented and practiced, and is in the present almost non-existent. The discrimation against tribals still exist but it is much less compared to before.
It's actually case with tamilnadu state also which is down south , in tamilnadu there is only two castes brahmins and shudras , it's also same to other South India because untill post chola emphire , Tamil Nadu was kept away from caste system , didn't follow Brahminism
What ??? During chola time there were no caste . It were varnas which were based on merit and work . Caste is rigid varnas which became popular in India after 11 century and untouchability started around 15 century . The first text who talked about slight rigidity in varnas was Manusmriti weiiten 2000 years ago but it was never implemented and known to some people only .
@@preetamyadav7952 sangam age cholas and other Tamil kings are caste free and they are non Aryan tribe , didn't follow Brahminism but by the time of 12 century , cholas are very much into brahminical that they allowed separate area for brahmins and separate native Tamil paraiyas to out of the town , due to instructions from Brahminism
also the Mauryans did manage to create a basic bureaucratic “centralized” state(as in Arthashastra). It just happened to be acknowledged more in the entire Magadhan region and the four provincial capitals - Tosali (in the east), Ujjain (in the west), Suvarnagiri (in the south), and Taxila (in the north). Beyond that, the acknowledgment simply didn’t penetrate, for eg. villages. And the Mauryans weren’t forgotten that easily. There is a play named Mudrārāksasa which is based on Chandragupta Maurya’s conquests written in the 7-8 centuries CE. This oblivion was more of a middle ages thing; starting around 10-12th centuries CE; since as we know historical consciousness India was indeed low.
@@fealdorf A copy of the Arthashastra in Sanskrit, written on palm leaves, was presented by a Tamil Brahmin from Tanjore to the newly opened Mysore Oriental Library headed by Benjamin Lewis Rice. The text was identified by the librarian Rudrapatna Shamasastry as the Arthashastra.
45:10 "if you are an Indian viewer, you have even influence over that [building the nation], something a chinese viewer can only dream of." The chinese viewer can't even watch this video, because the government has prohibited UA-cam in China.
I understand that it is difficult to do justice in a 40 min video but your section on ancient India is too simplistic. Indus Valley civilization had planned cities and were city state like (and existed around 2000 to 1500 BC). You also did not mention the influence of Buddhism and Jainism on ancient India. This caused lot of battles of influence between Brahmins and Buddhist clergy on who can win royal patronage better. Also, the Islamic conquest of India was brutal (in a different way compared to the exploitation by the British). An interesting side note is that many Indian muslims and christians were also influenced by caste. One more point of interest is that the current government is trying (very early stage) to weaken the federal structure of India's institutions and make India more centralized, mostly to make it harder for them to lose power in the center due to a lack of competent opposition.
Indus valley has little to no connection with later indian societies. There aren't too many sources on Buddhist Brahmin conflict but we know the Buddhists lost out soon. The Buddha himself reduced to another Avatar of Vishnu and subsumed into hinduism. The Islamic conquests were brutal but so were the Huns ( from whom the Rajputs are descended ) and the Mongol invasions of China. Every invasion is usually brutal. But yes castism spreading to Abrahamic religions is something. So is the current drive towards centralisation
On the strong state, weak society in China, I once had a Chinese friend tell me that in China, there is a culture of the paternalistic state. "We prefer a distant government that takes care of us without us having to be involved." which is a culture stemming from confucianism. Although this is an idea antithetical to democratic culture of active citizenry, it makes a lot of sense in the Chinese cultural context. I live in a confucianist Singapore which has very much the same culture among older folks. The young ones of course have been democratised but the parallels are unmistakeable. China did not have that democratic transition and its unlikely to have that for a long time if at all.
Using modern Chinese youths to observe the world under the window of this century's changes, and to compare their own systems. More people believe that democracy is only a result, not a process... Moreover, under the actual governance results of the West, their democracy is deconstructed into procedural justice. This "procedure" is still in the wrong direction and has become a system for protecting minority interest groups. Under the application of the West, democracy has gradually become a derogatory term... Democracy is not at all an idea of safeguarding the interests of a few people. When it was created by Greece, it was just a concept of decentralization that could guarantee self-interest. In modern times, the United States regards liberalism as its guiding ideology. After the death of the Soviet Union, the modern United States raised the banner of democracy (the Soviet Union advocated democracy). Democracy, freedom-put two unrelated or even opposite concepts together, there is a sense of distortion. Even the United States' own electoral system is an obviously undemocratic process. But the United States itself maps a perverted sense of morality into its own political system.
It's the reverse of legalism of sorts? It's really amazing how civilisations and nations oscillate between systems of extreme differentiation. From Germans' descent from far right to almost the most progressive state in a sense that is better than US...to Roman's strict laws and moral code to decadence.
@@陈陳-t5c the "protect interests of minorities" is more like ''the ethnicity or race or culture with the loudest noise and a sense of 'we deserve more'". This happens in not just US but any democratic state which is highly diversified including 'india'. That's why, there will be emergence or rather re-emergence of 'other options' to democracy in Europe in the coming years as their homogeneity or stable conditions for the last 70 years gets distorted into a multicultural populist state, you can even see this now...as just a small influx of migration in 2016 shaked their systems and in 4 years so many far right wing populists came up. . Also, US isn't based on democracy(democracy is hallmark of europe only, as an option to literally everything else worse than it) Don't let anyone tell otherwise. US is so so good because just like communism, in capitalistic US too, your religion, race, creed doesn't matter...they sponser private meritocracy as compared to a state sponsered one. Their athletic club are all blacks, NASA scientists are indians, math researchers are all Asians and so on and so forth. Now, this is being changed to almost a 180°. They today, pushing for equality of outcome, which will only get stronger in coming years, you will see various forms of reservations everywhere, populist governments...that will be decline the US; china or anyone else won't cause it.
This is why India is similar Europe. It was never a nation or a unified kingdom, but a subcontinent consisting of many small, interlinked kingdoms. The British had the same opinion. India's geography is as diverse as its ethnicities. If you stand at any place in India, and move 100 km in any direction, you will notice a change of enthinicity, language and geography.
india is different to europe. Europe was way more fragmented politically than India. India had the Mauryas, Guptas, Kushans, Nandas, Shungas, Satvahanas, Vardhanas, Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Pratiharas, Marathas, Mughals, Palas, Cholas etc. All these spanned large portions of india for centuires at a time. Europe only had the Roman Empire and the very short lived Frankish Empire.
The status of caste wasn't really as homogenous as you portrayed in the video. The modern interpretation of "Hindu Law", namely that from the Manusmrti, was really only standardized as "Hindu Law" by the British. To be certain, plenty of kingdoms used it prior but it was still only one of many competing standards. The truth of the matter is that caste mobility likely mattered on time and place, with some individuals being able to change their castes in some societies and even more interestingly, the process of "Sanskritization" whereby an entire Jati attempted to rebrand themselves as a higher caste by adopting the customs of a higher caste
Yes correct This video is total nonsense Regarding caste system Evidence suggest that untouchability didn't existed in the 15th century Rajput army had low caste soldiers Everyone was allowed to study not just Brahmins And caste system was much better than class system Europeans had back then Caste system became a racial system only around 18th century before this there was mixing and social mobility
This video has a lot of love put into it, and one person really shone the lights. I just want to use my comment to congratulate Teabag once again, and encourage everyone to follow his Twitter. Also -- don't be too mad at the Genshin references. I made them a month ago before this anniversary meltdown happened XD aged like wine if you ask me.
As a note of constructive critique, I think you should have started this video by defining what you mean by a "state" as oppose to other form of governence. When one claims that Greece or China invented the first states, the viewer is left to wonder what the hell the Egyptians or Mesopotamians had been doing then. It would have made the uniqueness of what you were talking about more apperent.
they were holding cities. Not states like chinese . Egyptians were having civilizations living next to a river. Chinese were not exactly that. They were living faar away from each other separated by stuffs. There is a big difference if the people in a whole civilization is living with in 25 x 25 KM vs 1000 x 1000 KM. Also there were 100 times more people in china as well.
Yea I am pretty confuse as to what exactly state is. I suppose he meant state that can project power into the corner of the empire. Egypt and Mesopotamia might not have as much projecting power into the daily life of the citizens? At least that's my understanding of it. In Egypt, the power of the Pharroh is to its lords. In China, the power of rule is exercised directly by the emperor via its bearucratic system.
interesting remark. I was think about the same when it comes to the Assyrian Empire that had already created an organized and trained military muche earlier than the 6th cent BCE and also had irrigation infrastructure, written laws, calculation for areas and land management... What I find interesting is the rise and consolidation of nation-states (instead of the city-states) around the same period in both East Asia and West Asia.
@@dinil5566 state is structure based not size based China being big dosnt make it a "state" any more then any other state. The question is not in size but in what level of organization does a "state" require?
In the first millennia atleast, Caste system was highly fluid and depending upon the capabilities people can move up or down. This can be gauged from the Hun Tsang, a Chinese traveler, who came to India in the 7th century AD wrote that there was a Shudra king in Varanasi so atleast till then it seems the Caste was highly fluid.
@@saubhagtrasy Not really. He was a Kshatriya, but his parents were shudras. That's how you know he was born in a shudra family, not that the label of "Shudra" was stuck onto him.
@@risingredstone5949 being a Kshatriya foes not mean being a warrior or a king. Being a kshatriya also has a ritual aspect such as being allowed to learn the Vedas, wearing the sacred thread, etc. For Shudra kings being a shudra wasn't a label but a reality. The Nair kings of Kerala were shudras, they had to perform the Hiranyagarbha ceremony where they had to gift a huge golden cow statue to the Brahmin, for their conversion into Dwijahood. Krishnadevraya, etc. who were shudras had their coronation done by puranic rites, because vedic rites were reserved for kshatriyas. There are inscriptions of Andra kings calling themselves shudra. There were also Brahmin king who continued to call themselves Brahmin.
I feel like you should have mentioned the Vijayanagara Kingdom. That was about as close as we got to founding a nationstate. While it had a feudal "Nayankara" system, unlike most other kingdoms, Vijayanagara didn't fall apart at the end of one dynasty. The following dynasty did not declare their own kingdom but rather kept Vijayanagara alive, even in the minds of the people. And as you had mentioned about China, they too funded large infrastructure projects such as roads and canals. Ultimately, it collapse when the capital city was sacked.
@@balajikumar4027 Thanks for asking. Have been preparing for JEE advanced, which is why I haven't uploaded in so many months. But I still watch and comment sometimes, mainly to reduce stress. Glad you like my videos : )
That is an interesting dichotomy between the state and the society. I am from Ukraine and I have been learning more about Indian culture for some time. This video reinforced my feeling that both India and Ukraine fit into category “weak state, strong society”. If you look into the history of both countries there weirdly many parallels. I’m curious if it applies to many post colonial countries.
There is one significant difference, which may be offensive, givencurrent times... in the Indian conception of things, Ukrainians/Belarusians/Russians would be one nation.. with much internal autonomy, of course, but one people. Internally divided, but externally united. Apart from that, I'd be fascinated to learn what the parallels you see are.
India is a living example of the concept of "there is more to life than statecraft".. I do always get the feeling that kraut specifically and westerners in general feel that Indian Republican democracy is unstable and or perpetually under threat of dissolution.. Let me be clear about it for once and for all, it's not under threat, and will never be under threat.. It might appear as pure chaos to westerners specifically, but that's not the case, india and indians are the force of order in chaos of life, and that's the philosophy behind the dharma.. Keeping aside the errors made in this video regarding Indian politics, religion and society ; I do admire the attempt kraut and his team makes to make this video in the first place..
yeah and plus we have 4th largest army in the world now so if any portion of society thinks of themselves too highly then........... the newly formed power of state will be on display :)
Actually no. That would be a weak state placating a weak society. A strong society avoids making demands from administrators for goodies - why - because they are strong.
There are some flaws, especially in your description of Gupta and Maurya empire, as well as the invasion of Greeks and Huns. You called Greeks invasion of India as successful, but it was actually not. What Alexander did was equivalent of defeating a small kingdom (after much struggle) on the fringes of Europe and then claiming to have conquered the whole of Europe. The Greeks never came into contact with any of the major kingdom, they didn't even came anywhere close to the population centre's of modern-day India. Also, the statement that 'Huns broke the Gupta empire' is wrong. They came close to doing it, by defeating Ramagupta, but his brother (Skandgupta, also one of the biggest military genius of the world, right up there with the likes of Alexander and Genghis Khan, though sadly very little is written about him) then took over the reigns and restored the empire by defeating Hunas to the point that they left the subcontinent and didn't return for another century. And then there are many other things, likea lack of understanding on How Maurya empire operated or How India's geography has been major impediment to centralisation. Your understanding of 'Hindutva' Or Hindu Nationalism is very flawed too, but then again, most people of left as well as right from Western nation usually see RSS and Hindutva through the lens of what India's academia (which is mostly left leaning) has written on it, and very few attempts have been made to understand the philosophy and actual history of Hindu right wing, which is quite unique and different from Western Right wing, (it still has its flaws, I'm not calling them saintly or saviours, but calling them fascist is too simplistic and ignores many ground and historical realities).... but I guess I'll leave that for someone else to elaborate on. Still, commendable work, you got the essence right. India has a society, that has existed for thousands of years, it even has some direct connections to the Indus Valley Civilization and various Chalcolithic societies, but it lacked a state (and it's institutions).
well said. i was a bit disappointed on his description of the mauryans, since they did have chanakya (chandragupta's mentor) who did write the Arthaśāstra (Sanskrit: अर्थशास्त्र, IAST: Arthaśāstra) an ancient Indian Sanskrit treatise on statecraft, economic policy and military strategy. also the greeks only reached till the borders of modern day pakistan, alexander's army was too tired and homesick to continue ahead. they did culturally assimilate by becoming the indo-greeks. and yes his understanding of hindutva is also flawed for the reasons you mentioned. the indian rw tries to appeal to the majority and adapt to the overton window. look how they've come far away from where they started.
@Ashwin Varghese or maybe not everyone keeps tab on what every politicians say, there are too many and too many talk bs to stay in the news. doesn't mean people support this, also what politicians are hollow words.
I think this is the best video you've made so far. The clarity of thought and sharp analysis is absolutely striking. I'm amazed and appreciative of the brilliance of passionate and talented creators like you and others who put out such high quality work for free.
Dude, you may say the Tang centralization eventually led to their downfall but to say it was because of Empress Wu, whom the Tang dynasty outlived by more than two centries is quite a stretch. Her Grandson, Xuanzong had a golden age under him, but later in life he made mistakes that led to the catastrophic An Lushan rebellion. But the Tang still survived that rebelion and entered more than a century of very slow decline.
27:34, Kraut is correct in the fact that India never had proper political unity, but fails to mention the fantastic Cultural and Societal unity of Subcontinent. The big two Hindu Epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata all take place all over India and refers to the Subcontinent as a Distinct Cultural entity that is different from lands outside it. Which is why even when outsiders saw the Subcontinent from Herodotus to Al Biruni, they referred to it as a Distinctive cultural unit that is politically divided. As such a Concept of United India would not have seen as unthinkable to do but just something difficult to implement due to political disunity and fragmentation by the Indians
The video is more concerned with unity of a 'political' nature, that being under a state so it's fair that he didn't go out of his way to mention other aspects. You can't expect a multi sectional view in a 47 minute video.
this si pretty stupid video.. brahmic which religion is this... its like him trying to deliberately set agenda by put dharmic religion as seen by abhramic lenses
@@eucenor4171 ah yes Subash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Uddam Singh were also infested by it and hindu and muslim extremists did not cause riots during partition, leftist propaganda is cure to your selfishness and a caste system that doesn't work now, our freedom fighters understood it and now it's time for you to understand
@N Gaming sorry vrooo.... Vedic Hinduism is 5000 years old and caste system which we see as today was formed 2000 years ago. Correct your factss.... During vedic time, it was division of labour which was common in every civilisation; But it transform into hereditary system around 100AD- 300AD by brahman and upper caste people to control the society.
That does not happen in one birth. You are not going to achieve moksha from living just one moral life. Moksha is something ultimate and requires many births(acc to vedas atleast)
@@deusexmachina1720 its difficult but if a man is extraordinary determined to the path of yoga or Aghori or Sadhu then he/she can achieve moksha but its extremely difficult and only one in millions can do this.
The biggest flaw I see in this video is the misrepresentation of Confucianism in China. Confucianism isn't nepotism, it is the moral code of the state to prevent the state terror described in the video. Legalism is the structure of the state while Confucianism is to keep the emperor humane and the driving force of Chinese society. They aren't in direct opposition to one another and actually coexist, keeping the other in check. If legalism was the sole ideology in the Ming Dynasty, it would have been like the Qin Dynasty where being late is punished by death. Ruled by an emperor with complete power and no one to stop him.
Just a little disappointed in the quality of your research. Untouchables are not "separated into 3 groups" - Harijan means "god's child" and was used by Gandhians to describe untouchables. Dalit means "Oppressed" and is the most common word used in modern times. "Pariah" is an English corruption of a single jati of untouchables from Tamil Nadu called "Paraiyar", literally, a person who wields the "Parai" drum. These are all modern words to describe untouchables as a whole and nobody would have even heard of these terms 100 or 200 years ago. Though overall, I did love your analysis, I hope you are able to increase the comprehensiveness and accuracy of your research next time, especially when you discuss such sensitive issues
According to the description, i think he read only 1 book (RS Sharma) to study India's ancient society. So it's understandable. Thank you for pointing out the mistakes, it'll be helpful to viewers.
38:15 It's a touchy subject because most people (including you, I'm sorry to say) misunderstand the concept of how modern India came to be - the British left behind a nation that was completely divided, at the time separated officially into more than 560 (no, seriously, look it up) Princely States - and they withdrew their regime A) without completely mediating the unification, and B) AFTER supporting the partition, which further plunged things into chaos. The resultant divisions tore India apart, and it emerged initially from the disorder as several different countries/states: India, Hyderabad, Kashmir, West Pakistan, East Pakistan, Portugese Goa and French Mahe (those last two being colonies) as well as more than a hundred semi-autonomous Princely States. Sardar Vallabhai Patel, (today known as the 'Unifier of India') brought most of these disparate elements together via peaceful negotiation, the French and Portugese were thrown out by force, Hyderabad was conquered via military action, East Pakistan was liberated by India from Pakistani rule to become Bangladesh, and Kashmir was joined to the union after the first Pakistani Invasion (and still continues to be disputed). India as a nation-state exists because of those Indians who wanted a united nation, and worked and fought to create such an entity. British India and India are two completely different political entities, with completely different borders and territories. The fact that foreigners lack such a basic understanding of something so momentous in the nation's history is exactly why it's a touchy subject. In the future, please do your research more thoroughly. Further reading for those who are interested: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_integration_of_India en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Hyderabad en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_India en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_India en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa
Getting into all of that would require a 6 or 7 hour video series dedicated to the history of India and Kraut's not going to make a large video series until February 2022 because they take too much time and hurt the channel's success.
Many of the princely states were too small to exist as sovereign countries. Many of the princes voluntarily acceded. The French and Portuguese territories were too small and indefensible. Sardar Vallabhai Patel wasn't some Bismarck. He was in charge of a united state with a working bureaucracy and one of the best armies in Asia. As far as "wanting a united India" is concerned, the life of the avg Indian barely changed with Independence.
The little progress we have made in 70 yrs of "self rule", has been due to community and not govt. You can see this as places like punjab with stronger society values had more progress despite being an urban wasteland and not having any ocean border. However that may be challenged after the farm laws /khalistan riots
It is weird that you judge other people’s government 😂😂😂 I support whatever you love but leave China out of it. 93% of Chinese people love our government and if I have to say it, I reckon your government is the one unaccountable. No offense but you started this.
Right, I have to say that, as a Indian person, the conclusions at the end of "The Advantages and Disadvantages of a Powerful Indian "Society" are mostly correct, however the history offered by Kraut is highly flawed: 1. The idea that there would be no greater "indian " identity without foreign invasions is false. Im sure you've heard about the Mahabharat, The oldest epic and longest poem in the world. Well the word "Mahabharat" literally translates to "Great India". The hindi name of India is Bharat. In the story of both Mahabharat and Ramayana, The story pretty much travels the entire length of the subcontinent and even places like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. So the idea that an indian identity didnt exist before is false. What united Indians wasnt a united kingdom or something like that but instead were united by shared values and religions. If Colonialism didnt exist then a united state wouldnt have existed, not that it does now, its still very divided. But there would probably be some sort of alliance like the EU is. 2. Harijans, Dalits, and Parias are the same thing. 3. Caste wasnt as strict in ancient India wasnt as strict as it was a 2000 years ago. When the caste system emerged, it was a system used to specialise parts of societies. You could very well jump between castes if you want to. There's a general trend in India that liberal suggestions and rules became increasingly conservative and strict as time went on. To give you an example, In ancient India, Women were told to not enter kitchen while menstruating, over time it went from "hey babe, you might not be feeling well, you should take some rest" to "MENSTRUATION IS SPIRITUALLY IMPURE AND WOMEN SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED IN THE KITCHEN OR THE FOOD WILL BECOME IMPURE". Thats how its pretty much is with the caste system too. 4. The idea that Hindu Nationalists want to revert back to old times and want a decentralised systems is kind of false. On the contrary, Its them who push the strongest for a very strong centralised state to counter China too in some sense. Not that i think itll ever happen simply due to demographics. A centralised state like China would be near impossible to pull in India because there is no majority in ethnicity or language. China consists of 50 ethnicities with 90% han chinese, while India has over 2000 ethnicities with no one in the majority. Ik that there are sub cultures within the han chinese, but you could make the same argument for ethnicities in India. While I was overall kinda dissapointed with the mistakes made both on the chinese and indian sides, This video is still overall very good and gave me an interesting perspective of the whole state vs society thing. India as a concept is very hard to understand for foreigners where the sheer scale of its diversity makes it incredibly complex. Let alone foreigners, most Indians have a hard time understand the concept, so i can definitely give kraut a pass on that. I have been interested in Chinese state and society for a very long while now. And what interests me is that even though the Chinese and Indian societies and state are very opposite, The average Chinese and Indian person is still very similar on an individual level. Same sense of family values, traditions, focus on academics, hardworking nature, good food etc. The same market trends that worked in China 10 years ago work in Indian markets extremely well now. Its why Chinese made products are so deeply penetrative in Indian markets, to the point it harms our local brands and industries. Its also deeply ironic to me that in a race between a communist society and a socialist one, the one who won was the one who embraced capitalism first. I dont think the India and China's 2000 year old relationship will ever reconcile unless China somehow allows Tibetan Independence. But I certainly wish it could happen. A true and united "Indo-China" state would be the most based thing on earth lol although it would probably be very unstable. Even though India lags behind now, I believe it will become a strong competitor to China, more so than it is now. The idea of that is probably laughable to a chinese person, but remember if you said to someone in the 1970s, that China in the future will have 5 times the economic might of Japan, They probably wouldve laughed at you too.
there is literally a concept in indian phillosphy named " chakravarthin" , it is given to the emperor who is able to unify all or majority of india!! the concept surely existed but no one could accomplish it thats not our fault..
highly appreciated! Ive been to India 5 times and these concepts crossed my mind. A fascinating, much overlooked, spiritual cradle of a country. I never was confronted with my damn soul as much as visiting India. Amazing people, amazing food. Highly reccomend!! No Hate for China ofc
Dont kid yourself u visit rich n well main maintained temple and talk about that yet not about the common people living condition the open defecation thing going on
@@DK-yz9xk my god you can only see open defecation.98 percent of the population has toilets and propper sanitization.india is a middle income country now.
In the Indian subcontinent.. India certainly is already the cultural superpower.. influencing all the nations in its periphery. Sending love & respect to India.... from Pakistan
@@molamola8305 Your are trying to read physics from a literary work. At that time social stability was more important than social justice for the survival of whole society. Don't measure temperature with barometer.
@Gaming ZONE GAZO Bruh no there is discrimination. It happens a lot in rural areas on both caste and religious basis. And literacy does not matter. There was this episode of Satyamev Jayate on female infanticide (from I guess 2012) which said that even IAS officers have indulged in it. Education is no bar for discrimination of any kind.
It may be a cultural superpower, but the culture itself is quite outdated which ends up hindering every dam South Asian nation. *Well done , shit didn’t help at all it just made things more stagnant*
Well... The end of the Quin tells us one thing: It's really important to have punishments proportionate to the severity of a crime and the death penalty (which probably shouldn't exist in the first place) must only be enacted against the most severe of crimes, if at all. If you know for a fact that your life is lost, there is little reason for you to not do something utterly insane.
No it teaches us not to be extreme. Laws are made in an Ideal world. Humans cant follow the law entirely (Either by choice or by unnatural causes), so by punishing even the simplest "offense" you'd basically punish everyone.
This reminds me of Foucaults book, Disclipline and power. In this book he describes the history of the use of disciplinary measures through the (only western) ages. He uses an example from the middle ages where it was common for the crowds gathered, to go against the executioner if the disciplinary punishment, i.e hanging, chopping heads off etc. wasnt performed discretionary to the verdict. Basically if the state failed to accordingly punish the subject, in this case the hanging fails or heads dont get chopped of in one clean swing, there would be a riot. Its the successful performance of power that guaranties legitimacy. Power is never a given. BUT really important to exact it proportionality, as you mentioned
Here's a quote from Confucious: "The society destabilizes when overindulgence of boldness spread in poor and hedonism spread in rich." This seems to be a good argument against extreme legalism.
Recently the farm laws were repealed after a widespread successful protest by the farmers. Just shows that people do often protest and do often get their voices heard
@@user-krishna-sunkara well the laws were overall good with minor issues and the fact they failed to gain trust of the society as they weren't properly informed earlier. If they solve this laws are good to go.
@@kartikeykasniya6971 I am not against them but the problem is that the larger mistrust in the citizens so u can easily manipulate them and our media houses are already have gone to dogs and they are highly influenced by outside forces I would recommend you to read some of the blogs on the internet you will know what I mean they will twist the narratives
@@user-krishna-sunkara look i know our media houses suck donkey balls. But it would be wrong to blame the government because the media don't want to run real news because it doesn't make as much money. However media is helping goverment to get away with many "not so lawful" things which is wrong and should be stopped. And media is twisting facts that is also true.
I'll be honest as a Thai am one of those "dunces" that likes to view things through the wrong lenses. Your videos really opened my eyes to the ignorance I had towards various civilizations throughout history and their development. Keep up the good work!
That’s a good point, one thing not spoken about much is how non European countries view state, society and the development of civilisations, what lense were you viewing the world?
45:14 Great! Now I that have seen the Hindi version of the Navy Seal Copypasta, I think I've seen everything in life! Kudos to the artist for a gem of an easter egg!
Hi Kraut, there is one mistake in the video regarding the history of the Tang Dynasty of China. The An Lushan Rebellion didn't happen at the end of Empress Wu Zetian's reign. While her reign was from 690 to 705, the Rebellion happened from 755 to 763, which was the end of Emperor Xuanzong's reign. Also, Empress Wu Zetian's reign wasn't the cause of the Rebellion either.
27:34 "For Indians, concept of sovereignty over a united India didn't make sense at the time". It actually did but in a weird way. Virtually every single Indian who hasn't received explicit "education" to remember that India was created in 1947, knows very well about something you didn't mention in this video, Bharat. This is the ancient term Indians have used for the subcontinent and this landmass has been revered as the land of followers of a specific culture. This is not a coincident that people of a divided landmass came together to form the political map of India and agreed upon it post independence, the cultural unity has formed the groundwork of India and has formed the unity which doesn't seem to get acknowledgement in non-Indic commentators. I want to insist on this, because even uneducated Indian kids are sentimental about Bharat across India. The distinction in perception of these two terms India and Bharat is massive and those who go through both indigenous education and western style education feel it the strongest. India is new, Bharat is not.
@@heatengine9283 Or maybe India is a pipe dream of a few born too high or taught too much to realise that they are not the general society but a glorified club of wannabe philosophers and equivalents of some European/American revolutionaries. Some of the desired goals that comprise idea of India are widely disagreed with in the common public and proof of it is in everybody's face, a traditionalist party is ruling with huge majority and the accredited pallbearer party of "Modern Independent India" is a miserable loser. So even if the Bharat crowd gladly accepts concepts like democracy, it will never swallow the majority of borrowed concepts that make up "India".
@@MK-yj7pn the so-called traditionalist parties are the least traditional elements of India.The true elements of traditional Bharat is represented by Gandhi,who wished to maintain the varna status quo,the primacy of regionalism and the village and that of traditional society. On the other side the majority of BJP supporters wished for nationalism,urbanization,a stronger state,appealed to lower caste people and formalization of some sanatani society to fight against abrahamic religions. There is not a shred of the ancient Bharat present here.
@@ihavenojawandimustscream4681 @I have no jaw and i must scream "The traditionalist parties are the least traditionalist?"... Is caste alone is the element which decides whether a group or thought is traditional or not? You seem to believe exactly this, ruling party cuts through caste politics, so it is not traditionalist, Gandhi was not in favour of annihilation of Varna so he is the true traditionalist? By that logic Savarkar must not be a traditionalist since he was anti caste and neither should I, I despise caste as well. Your logic is faulty. As I said, even if the traditionalist Bharat crowd accepts certain new aspects of modernity, one I mentioned is democracy, others maybe capitalism, urbanization etc, there are still certain aspects which it will not compromise upon, one prime example is the debate on the issue of nationalism itself, the India crowd screams that no India existed pre 1947 so nationalism was manufactured later, Bharat crowd screams that love for the sacred geography has existed for long so cultural nationalism has existed since antiquity. Getting back to my point in different words, nationalist Indians do not derive nationalism from geopolitical map of India or the constitution, they derive it from the a shared history of culture and affection for the land, the creator of this video has absolutely overlooked that extremely consequential history.
There are some mistakes in the Indian history depicted in this video. The birth based caste system emerged about 1600 years ago and solidified only during the late Mughal - Early Colonial era. Jati is not a sub category of Varna, they are two different things, Varna translates to category and Jati translates to birth status. The Varna system, was based on one's attributes. The Vedas and Bhagwat Gita clearly state that one's Gunas or attributes determines one's Varna. The Varna system slowly decayed into lineage based Jati or caste as we know it today. Another mistake is assuming Mauryan Admistration to be decentralised. Mauryan Empire was one of the most centralised states in ancient history, with all ruling and governing standards codified in a book called "Arthashastra". Most Mauryan bureaucrats were selected based on merit not on lineage, right to the city level. Its extreme centralisation is cited as one the reasons for its collapse. You are however correct in assuming that India slowly decentralised.
The reason for its collapse was idiot king named Ashoka who seeded disharmony among his subjects. Chanakya was an advisor to both Chandragupta and Bindusara but was dead by the time of Ashoka. He adopted a state religion and destroyed the secular nature of the Empire. He also increased taxes heavily and turnt the country into a badly governed burecreatic nightmare. He went on wars which were Economically unprofitable. He tried to turn the State from Amoral to Moral but instead made it Immoral. He violated almost every principal of Arthashastra.
Great videos, but there are many inaccuracies about india. Especially caste, social mobility and creation of new caste did exist and dependent on sankritization. Indian military did evolve new tactics and inventions like the stirrups and measures to counter horse archery. Reason for lack of horse archers was the lack of pastoral lands.
Kraut really likes choosing a thesis statement and distort history so that what is initially a somewhat accurate observation can be presented as an ironclad rule. His videos are good but are often very inaccurate.
@roy roy caste structure was ossified in post Gupta Era and Islamic onset with bhakti movement. Brits further ossified it. The whole video essay is based on false assumptions and colonial history of India. India had strong states that dictated society. Sarawasti Sindhu civ/ ivc had a strong state, and so did various mahajanpadas etc. Brahmins were the only intellectual class, there were Shravans, ajivikas and other. Sankritization happened with marathas who were considered lower caste and later become upper caste. Note that it happened in late mughal Era. Indian village republics were result of Islamic destruction of urban centers. We need indic vision that's not colonial.
I randomly hit a point on vid and it says around 10:30 that Brahmins were the only ones who were literate. This is such a load of bs. How is this possible that such a long standing civilization with so many feats had education only restricted to only Brahmins. Like- no king, ministers, merchants or local city admins were literate or well read??? Use your mind a bit before making such a long video.
Why need schooling when minister son can educate from minister father Merchant son can educate from merchant father Worker son can educate from worker father ??
@@udhayakumarMN It's not so simple. Yes, education & speacalised education (or training) is necessary. But the method of education also matters. This western model of education where pre-school, primary/middle/high-school, college is flawed. Many people critise it, including europeans themselves.
He gets 90% wrong about India. Still people are appreciating him. He also did not mention that China was ruled by foreigners for centuries. And Indian state was not always centralised by a single empire, but it is ridiculous to say that the various regional kingdoms were not strong. Just look at the glorious Vijayanagara Empire or the Chola Empire or the Eastern Ganga/Gajapati empire of medieval India. They were extremely efficient in administration and social welfare. Brahmins were not even 1% of the population in Ancient India and to say they were the only educated ones when half of Indian literature is straightup written by non-Brahmins., preposterous. Also, Ancient Indian state may not have as efficient administration as China, but our output in science, arts and mathematics was not a random chance of brilliance but generations of systematic keeping of records and appreciation of keepers of knowledge.
This is actually right. The prince is first educated by the Brahmin guru guys about how to run an empire, ethics, war, shaastras and other important aspects. Only then will he become a King who truly deserves to be on the throne. Even merchants were educated. Otherwise, how would they run their business? Good observation bro, but please don't insult the creator as he might have spent many months in researching and making this long video. He is a human too, he makes mistakes. We have to correct him, not curse at him.
The art on this video was just ridiculously good. The combination of interesting concepts with thorough research and great execution makes this honestly my favourite channel
Somethings that I feel should be also mentioned is How people in ancient India were flexible enough to start their own sect, village, race or religion without too much conflict. If you had sound arguments to back up your statement, you could get away with almost anything lol
"Without too much conflict"? What is the reason that the birthplace of Buddhism has Buddhists in minority? Because they were either wiped out, absorbed or chased out of India. Sure, a certain leeway existed among few rulers who patronized other sects but they were few and far between.
@@PrateekRai127p Hehe, first of all, don't consider Buddhism a totally separate religion. And also, buddhism only became popular due to efforts of Emperor Ashoka, after his death, Hinduism again began popular
@@PrateekRai127p wiped out ? Chased ? Really many Hindus considered buddha as an incarnation of lard Vishnu . Many people consider Buddhists and Jainist as well sikh and hindu as part of ultimate sanatm dharm. But the extreme emphasis of non-violence can be attributed to downfall of not only Buddhists but also Mauryan empire .
@@pratyushkishore9030 Vainshavites absorbed Buddha into their culture and reincarnated him as an avatar of Buddha. Buddha rejected the Vedas which the Brahmins didn't like as the power were falling off from their hands.
Damn that was really good, and love the new sponsor! If you’re so conflicted w/using sponsorships (Which you shouldn’t be, you need and deserve to be paid lol), then try to do more of these kinds of placements for more grassroots things like that
I have always heard and known about the rich heritage of China but this video gave me a real appreciation of China's history and its state and culture. Even as an Indian myself, I learned quite some new things about the state of princely states before any major inavsions and how our society was modeled. I hate the caste system of India and very much dislike the strong bend and influence of religion on governments. Thank you for such well researched, in-depth videos on such wide breadth of topics and histories.
Whenever people talks about cast system in india, they always tends to forget that, vedic bramhinism was not a active throughout the subcontinent. Many forms of early hinduism actually were against this hierarchy. Even the place I comes from does have many social identities, that doesn't even mentioned in vedas, gita or any other vedic literature. Non-aryan tribals are one such example of this. Throughout the history there were plenty of ruler who challenged and uprooted the varna system. I don't deny that castism and specially discrimination do exists in society, but that's only limited to social fabric. It doesn't effect economically. And the reason India didn’t have a centralized authority was because of ethnic diversity in the region not varna system. Unlike china where 80% people comes from 3-4 large ethnicities, india had 100s of them. In the past most kingdoms tends to suppress others' culture,which brings instability. Even today our states are devided mainly into the basis of language, ethnicity and culture. This brought us peace and mutual respect for each other. Today's India is not a nation state like china or european countries. It's a union bound by the same cause.
You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding china's development. They had (and still have) a high number of different ethnicities. The central state just kept assimilating new groups until they were sufficiently similar to be called a subdivision of the 'han Chinese'. So it isn't 'India couldn't develop a single centralised state because there were lots of ethnicities'. It's the other way around; India has lots of languages and cultures and ethnicities because there was never a single strong state to enforce conformity
@@Kevin-cm5kc You are right at some extent. Actually it goes both ways, like never ending cycle. Ethnicity developed from ancestry. 99% of chinese ethnicities came from proto-mongoloids, where India had aryans, dravidians, proto-mongoloids and astro-asians. India had tried to developed a centralized state like Maurya, Mughals, Guptas, Palas as he mentioned. They also did enforced single ethnolinguistic culture. But when the kingdoms fall , those ethnicities regains significance again. Centralism in expense of our ethnolinguistic culture and values can't be accepted here. Unionism or federalism is the only way out.
Halfway through, I just realised how woefully ignorant I am about most consequences of the cast system, so thank you from the bottom of my heart for another passionate and educational video! Absolutely marvelous.
Bro cast system wasn't a rigid system that Brits make out to be there tons of examples of people changing their casts. Even the sati wasn't forceful britis changed history to make look turks look good. Because monghols never invaded India. Most people don't know the basics but will talk mad stuff because they read something which was propaganda to oppress true indian history.
@@GE0attack Stop being revisionist. The British exploited our weaknesses. The caste system is a "sick" system of rigidity. This new Hindu Nationalist theory of blaming the Brits for everything is absurd. Some of us are old enough to predate this so we know better. Please open up your thinking and critique. It will help you to be more balanced and to make informed decisions. British rule in India was brutal but it ended 75 years ago. Formal British rule lasted less than 100 years in certain parts therefore we need to take accountability for the legacy that we have inherited and to 'fix it'. That is the only way forward. This video amongst others highlights this. Us from the South have been under British occupation for much longer but we do not share your sentiment.
Your knowledge on the Indian caste system seriously lacks detailing.For ex- the author of Ramayana was never a Brahmin and the largest empire of India the Mauryans were forest dwellers,infact among all the major empires of India, most of them were led by so called low cast people. History is not so simple that the power of knowledge will reside in only one particular group.
Having studying anthropology and sociology i can say that Indian Caste System is hugely complex. All these non-Indians generally have formed an opinion based on the half cooked knowledge of some western Media.
Thank you to Kraut for putting a lot of effort in into making this video. Like the Chinese guy below, as an Indian I would also say that while some of the end conclusions, in terms of India being a deliberately weak state due to the British, for example are correct, the history is mostly incorrect, flawed or seen from a very colonial lens. Firstly, WTH is Brahminical religion? It's called Hinduism, the former term is what Hinduphobes use to demean Hindus. Shudras were not servants. Shudra jaatis did many of the occupations that would be considered part of the service industry today. Brahmins didn't hold a monopoly on knowledge and writing. In fact British census records from early 1800s Tamil Nadu show that Shudras jaatis had relatively the highest levels of literacy (this was based on the village schools before the British replaced them with their own system of education). While the 4 Varnas are theoretically defined, at no point in time did they exist independently i.e. each Varna was always made up of multiple jaatis, including the Brahmin Varna. What this meant is that in reality the professions that jaatis followed varied regionally and even within regions, in fact there were so many exceptions to the "rule" that it's quite hard to say if the "rule" was followed. Also as far as the timeline is concerned marriage being restricted within jaatis - endogamy - only started in around 500AD according to the genetic data check Razib Khan's work on this. The Mahar caste of Maharashtra despite being considered untouchable during the later British period, served an important role as the go-inbetween different villages - they were literate, well respected and also sold cattle hides and so were often wealthy. Coming onto the invasions bit, India as a region isn't suited to horse archers in general, perhaps only the west is suited to rearing horses. Ironically, enough once invaders settled down in India they generally stopped using horse archers and even started using elephants, be it the Mughals or Shakas. India as a state: yes there is no question that India wasn't a centralised state like China historically. However, the Mauryans and others didn't merely rely on donations and submission of kings. The Arthashastra is very clear on this and explains in detail how the economy worked. Also the usage of the term princely states in describing the various kingdoms is incorrect, princely states only existed during British rule and were protectorates of the empire. As would be expected the description of Islamic rule completely whitewashes all the persecution and brutality that Hindus and others had to face from them. The concept of Bharat(am) (India) as a nation is as old as the Hindu scriptures which refer to it by many names - Jambudvipa and Aryavart and Bhartam. Each king certainly had the desire to become a chakravartin and rule the entirety of Bharatvarsha. Without Islamic and British rule this was certainly possible; the video bypasses the rule of the Marathas who replaced the Mughals who tried a new form of governance before the British took over. One thing that has to be commended is the explanation behind the institutions of the modern Indian state. The deliberate weaknesses created by the British have continued to render various state functions ineffective even today. However, the Hindu nationalists are certainly correct in arguing that India is a civilisational state based on Hinduism that has existed for millennia. This state might have always been weak but it's existence cannot be denied. The example of Himachal Pradesh disproves an earlier claim in the video that non-Brahmins couldn't be literate. In fact everyone could be literate however the areas that were ruled by the British and the Muslims for longer period of times fared worse. Areas which managed to continue their older legacies and were independent for longer fared better in terms of literacy. In addition many princes of princely states in the 19 and 20th centuries worked hard to provide literacy to all - Gondal and Baroda established schoolers in all villages. Misunderstanding Hindu Nationalism: Only this movement seems to be in the position of strengthening the Indian state. Hindu nationalism isn't forcing itself upon anyone, but rather was voted into power with a large majority. The issue isn't whether it can reconcile it's centralisation tendencies with the usually unjust and out of proportion demands of minorities but rather whether it can reconcile it's views with the diverse views of Hindus in society, maintaining the fidelity of various Hindu traditions while at the same time unifying Hindus politically and socially. Why? Because Hindu nationalism has from day one a number of things in its agenda that traditionalists hate. - Abolishing caste discrimination - Caste intermarriage, interdining, no restrictions on profession
This is what he was saying " hindu nationalism" because u seem to only care about the religion and just say the same thing with little things to change your narrative like "correcting" it into Hinduism instead of brahminical religion but it being the same thing and u just being delusional
@@AbhayKumar-od4yf your comment doesn't make any sense, please make your point again. Hindi is also fine. In summary the differences are: - Endogamy and powerful tribes arising from that is only 1500 years old - Hindu Civilisational Identity is millennia old but the "state" this created was always weak - Literacy and caste do not correlate before British rule - Hinduism isn't 'Brahminical' as the latter implies that it's only related to Brahmins when this is not the case - The colonial trope that only foreign invaders created a state in India is outdated and not borne of any actual evidence. In fact the examples of Maurya, Gupta and the Rastrakuta, Pala and Pratihara wars for Kannuaj show that Hindu kings always had an intent to conquer all of Bharat.
As an Indian, I can tell you that we have a complicated relationship with the caste system. As it was something used by foreign and inhabitant rulers alike to assert control, yet it was also the foundation on which people forged the 'Indian' identity. Thank you so much for explaining our culture in such a detailed way.👌🏻
Dalit, Harijans and Pariahs are the different names for the same group of untouchables of India. This is an amazing video but there is something that annoys me. It is the idea that a nation is unified solely by political and administrative unity. It is highly reductive and very much a Western perspective. What about spiritual, ritualistic unity? Two people- one from the southernmost state of Tamil Nadu other from the northern state of Harayana; both of them are vastly different from each other but I bet that both of them touches the feet of their mother for blessings before writing an exam. I guess India's acceptance of plurality be it in religion or languages or culture in a way that such acceptance of differences itself becomes the unifying factor for people is difficult to comprehend for a foreigner.
@Mr. Pokhrel That's interesting. I'll try to understand that better. Untill now I was of the opinion that strong spiritual and ritual unity can be used in nation-building. However, I may have been too idealistic/utopic with my view.
@Kong Jun Jie I don't know how Chinese society sees that as...but if the same were to happen in India, the entire country would have revolted. The story of how ghe sepoy mutiny of 1857 started because of soldiers refusing to use british cartridges covered in pork or cow fat really shows how touchy religion and traditions in India are, rather than state and leadership.
@Kong Jun Jie The Cultural Revolution worked in China but this video was legit all about showing why the Chinese way won't work in India. If a leader tries to erase culture and tradition in India with an ironfist, people will get rid of the government and leader instead of changing their way of life. Lmao it is really funny because we Indians are too indisciplined for even tyranny to work. I guess poor rule of law has its weird perks.
@Mr. Pokhrel Hopefully you are right about the Hindu nationalists failing. Because I see them doing something in the Hindi heartland that has never happened before. That is the consolidation of Hindu votes regardless of caste. I guess this will trend will be limited to that region of India. I cannot imagine such consolidation to spread in Southern and Northeastern India.
The Indian ancient history was grossly incorrect. The caste system wasn't rigid- we have many examples of shudra kings(it became a rigid institution in later mediaeval times). There were many other thriving philosophies and majority of which were materialistic. Including ajivikas(atheists) and lokayats(which denied brahmanism all together). There were Upanishads (part of Vedanta philosophy) which questioned vedas. We have had brahmin kings which later claimed to be kshatriyas and vice versa too. I didn't watch the entire video so idk if he mentioned these things later. Edit: I'll put the end to this debate in comment section. The caste system wasn't as rigid in early medieval times(It was still rigid, but people could still ride up the ladder of social structure). Few non khastriya rulers are - Avanti varman - 9th century - then the lohara dynasty which were literally lohars(blacksmiths). Lakhan pasi - 10-11 century - lucknow city is named after him Chintamoni dhoba - 12th century - who came from the dhobi caste.. These are just a few examples of many that are out there The bhakti movement was not to keep people into Hinduism as suggested by someone in the comments. It was a reformist movement not a revivalist. It originated from south whose brahmin were anything but like north indian brahmins. People converting to budhism is just laughable, during bhakti movement the Buddhism was on a steep decline. Even the Huein Tsang writings hints towards it(although he doesn't mention it straight up). Buddhism literally vanished till 12th century the process of which started even during gupta age if not before. Another unrelated half researched point made in there was condition of hindu women. Huein Tsang himself mentions women not veiling their faces(purdah was literally absent) condition of women infact got better than earlier. They could inherit property of their deceased husband (unlike before). The upper caste hindu women started to be kept in purdah but that was in later mediaeval times when central asian invaders bought the custom with them. Yes the sati was prevalent and we do hear about a sati incident in gupta age too but that was just another fact thrown in which had nothing to do with the point of discussion. Hope this clears up everything cause i am too lazy to write more. PS: the caste system is a really regressive and disgusting concept and there are no two ways about it.
Correction - Huien Tsang Came to India in during Early Medivual Times, he mentioned that Indians Caste System is very Rigid, Sati System also prevailed
@@Anutosh13 he didn't mentioned it.. Stop lying so me source.. Sati system actually started around 11-12th century and untouchability started around 15th century
@@kanekirana9530 a Big No Sir. Heuin Tsang wrote a detailed description of India during the reign of Harsha in his book ‘Si-yu-ki’ or ‘Record of the Western Countries’. Caste system was Rigid. And Sati System prevailed.
@@Anutosh13 harsha was himself bhuddist king 👑 and he wasn't hindu.. And he talked about india as a prosperous kingdom where woman were also given education without any purdah system and all people can change there religion voluntarily.. So no one was forced to follow any religion.. And he also mentioned that Indians were lover of education and literature
@@SilverScarletSpider Empress Wu was not followed by the Song, she was followed by a Tang restoration that lasted another 150 years. That is a major error.
@@SilverScarletSpider Wu was not the only emperor. Taizong was a great ruler, and existed before Wu. The error I see is the omission of certain events. Tang was stable under Emperor Wu. Tang fell because of the An Lushan Rebellion which existed after Empress Wu died. The author's historical take is too simplistic.
The Chinese state is actually accountable to the citizens. It works through the Imperial examinations/gaokao and promotions within the civil service/communist party. If you want change, you have to be smart enough to do well in exams, rise through the ranks in the party and then you have influence. This is open to anyone, if they're talented enough. If you look carefully, you'll find that the modern Chinese state since Mao's death never goes against the interest of the majority of citizens and usually reacts very quickly to deliver what public protests demand, as long as the protests are not against the power of the state itself (eg zero covid lasted until it wasn't popular anymore at which point it disappeared immediately). China is not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or Bildungsbürgertum in German. Of course a strong state that is accountable to the majority is not accountable to minorities which can be suppressed ruthlessly. But our biases from having "enjoyed" a European education experience shouldn't fool us into thinking that only the electoral dynamics of the modern western state provide accountability
Great video. But some concepts on present day India are flawed . 1. The aim of most present day Hindu nationalist is to create a unified state like china and not to go back to the old family and caste based system. Unification of Hindu castes is their ultimate aim 2. The know that strong state can not be achieved until caste system is completely abolished. The stark differences between castes are now rapidly erasing and economic and social upliftment is in slow progress.
Yeah man, these people always tend to compare Hindu nationalists to Nazis because they can't get simple fact that minorities in India have exploited majority. And Hindus are told these are our brothers when they also backstab us at the same time Hindu nationalism aims to created a united Hindu identity as you said and basically keep the nation united to avoid further exploitations from Abrahamic religions
@@simulify8726 oh yes how minoritys have exploited ??? so to your logic now you will exploit them ???, hindu nationalist do talked about purity of race .
@@opai1821 OH yes, I can show you multiple proof of that ok? And ffs, don't relate anything to purity of race, Indian muslims have same race as Indian Hindus, only think is they are converted and want to slowly takeover Hindu population. Moplah Genocide 1921 1947 violence 2002 Godhra Train Burning 2013 UP riot are just a few examples from 20th and 21th century. And this isn't even talking about mass conversions under mughal rule. Subsequently, muslim population in independent india in 1951 was 9.8% of total population which has increased to 14.23% in 2011 and maybe 15% in 2021 while Hindu population in percentage is going down.
There is just one single narrative about Hindu nationalism in the West that cannot be washed off. The word 'nationalism' has a very different and uber negative meaning in the West. What they fail to understand is that a Hindu nationalist in the Indian context is just a Hindu patriot who wants his Dharmic pluralism to survive and thrive. In addition, the West's Abrahamic lens bars these guys from understanding the inherent pluralism that is integral to Hinduism. They see 'religious nationalism's and they immediately think 'supremacist'. It's really sad that those who have dedicated themselves to the annihilation of caste, national service and Hindu modernity are given these negative annotations. It's truly tragic. But for what it's worth, I doubt they (and honestly, me too) care. Seva paramo dharma. Work silently, without praise in the service of the motherland.
42:05 dont know about that. Running a business in India has only recently started to move in anything resembling the right direction. It was a real clusterfk, back in the day.
It's mostly internal crises and international pressure (like the west trying to pry open China during Cold War) that have historically caused India to open up.
A strong state/central government aka current bjp government is the reason. Even tho i and many others disagree with their religion based vote politics, we vote for them because they get the job done. On the other hand we also know we can pull the plug whenever we want cause of fair elections and farm laws and upcoming punjab election are good examples
@@kartikeykasniya6971get what done though? The myth of ease of business has been dismantled in the last 2 years as well. Which begs the question, can cronyism ever not replace good intentioned business practices in India
The caste system which is now viewed as a social hierarchy wasn't made with this intention. An individual's caste was based on his skills and education rather than the idea that caste was assigned on birth. For example, it was possible for a child born to become priest even if his father was a warrior. Basically, priests, monks, Sadhus or anyone who was in rituals was assigned to Brahmin category. Those who read 3 Vedas were assigned title of Trivedi, 2 Vedas so Dwivedi etc. Those people who had skills in fighting and we're ready to sacrifice themselves were assigned to warrior caste. People who could neither become priests or warriors were assigned to Vaishya caste, these people would do other things and contribute to society for their living. People who lacked education, and lacked any good skills were finally assigned to Shudra caste. These people had to make their living through keeping areas clean, becoming servant or burning bodies for their living. This was done so that these people can atleast get food for their living by working for others and continue to live good lives However, later, the Brahmins started to mess up this system for their own benefit. This started by introducing social hierarchy and then assigning Brahmin caste to their children even if the children had no interest in rituals. This thing spread to all castes slowly. This system slowly started discrimination among castes and slowly thelowest caste according to this hierarchy slowly started to feel cut out off society. Some of these started to loot others for their living or start killings and hence were now being viewed as negative elements in society and we're ultimately declared untouchables later down the line. This is just a brief overview of caste system but it wasn't meant to discriminate people at all instead it happened later
In India, the utmost purpose of life is freedom and liberation. This has been the motto of life from 1000s of years from ancient times and not heavens or hell. Hence, society will be more valued than a state. If there is too much discipline and pre-organized life, we feel stuck and breathless.
@@azuaraikrezeul1677 What do you mean? Current government is much better than previous gov. Atleast infrastructure is being developed in large scale which is the need of the hour in India.
Disappointed that you never really mentioned the Maratha Empire. It was the first and only Indian federacy prior to British imperialism, to utilize modern technologies, tactics and weapons during conflicts with surrounding states and invaders. The Mughals met their downfall partially due to the Maratha federacy. The Marathas even defeated the British in the Battle of Wadgaon in 1779. Its really shameful that the Maratha Empire has been forgotten by so many Indians and foreigners worldwide. Despite the fact that the Maratha Empire was massive in size, and it made up a majority of India. The Maratha Empire mets its downfall in 1818 due to Madhav rao's death and as you mentioned many times in this video "society". The Marathas are underrated.
@@itr8247 no he read history that has evidence and context...not nationalists made up stories that suit a certain agenda....history should be objective with basis on facts and evidence, indians want fairy tales and made up stories...rest of the world doesnt operate that way....thats why nationalist indian historians are good for u ppl because they will lie and say whatever to please the weirdos
@@magicmagus1459 Im not a hindu nationalist. But Kraut also has no right to portray our ancestors as mindless barbarians throughout all of Ancient and Medieval India. We have done everything that every other ancient/medieval society has done. Including China. We have adapted and overcome certain obstacles. The Chola Empire was the only Indian Empire to have a naval expedition to Indonesia for cultural purposes(Maybe even war). I don't know too much about the CHola Empire. We were not just mindless primitives, who used War Elephants during the 19th century. Our prioritization in production came from the population, not from factories. India didn't need factories, if it had so much manpower.
Check out syntheticapps.com/Kraut to get the Synthetic Notes App! And don't forget to use the code: "Kraut" at check out to get 25% off your purchase!
Nay
Is your pfp a joke
USA IS THE BEST🤡😂
@@Student0Toucher It's better than most
@@weebishusername9288 Yes lets beat China together bro
We have a saying in Karnataka, my State in India. It roughly translate to this:
"It doesn't matter how many kings come and go, the farmer will still have to farm"
It means, it doesn't really matter who is ruling you, society never changes
Damn that's powerful
I am Chinese. Totally agreed. To China, it really does not matter if it is communists or nationalists rule the country, China will still be China whoever in the house. It will still be the same group of people facing the same issue.
Yen Gaade adu? Kannadadalli heli.
@@prateek752 I find it impossible to type Kannada with English letters.
But the saying exists, I'm sure of it
Thats a double edged sword. On one hand we've been able to retain our culture, languages, and religions to a large degree. The negative side is, we're doomed to continue the impoverished third world shithole run by socialist nanny state.
Well there is a very famous quote in India, "China grows because of its government and India grows despite it".
@Lilo Is the baddest okey so what if china is better ( if it's is at all) does it really matter? Rest of the world is not going to worship you for being better. In the end they'll focus on their own development, arrogance only leads to bigotry
@Lilo Is the baddest no India is better. India gdp 2 time bigger then china gdp. inda population biggest in the world (china has fake population number, china population very low) India biggest county in the world
I have lived all my life in India.
Never heard this quote
@@amritraj41 it's not necessary to be heard of
@@erenyaeger9407
That means it's not a very famous quote
Thank you for allowing me to draw for this video. it was a fun project overall and I love how it turned out
thank you so much
@@Kraut_the_Parrot I'd love if you made a video on Nepal soon.
A country holding strong importance in the region,aside from that its history and political instability is also very very underrated.Went from a kingdom to a heiarchical prime ministership to shifting between absolute & constitutional monarchy,a civil war and the present day of constant prime minister shuffling(since 1990 not a single PM has served a full term).
I'm a fan of yours and I'd love if you made a video on this beautiful mess of a nation🇳🇵
That was absolutely fantastic artwork from you, 10/10. Thank you for helping make this masterpiece happen.
You are insane man.
You did an amazing job! The visuals really add to the experience
As an indian I must point out that a lot of times we don't protest against unfavourable laws.....we just ignore them.
I laughed as how accurate this is
@@Taurus388 that is why so many people were sort of against it for being held for so many days
Well, ignoring it is a form of protest. Its known as civil disobedience.
Because most of them don't get enforced properly ☠️
@@dustybawls7085 because the enforcers ignore laws as well 💀
I'll be taking a little break after this video to work for my friend Nomad and his video, and to tinker around a little with the intention of getting new editing and drawing skills.
A well earned one at that!
Ur free to do that
Please do, you deserve it more than anyone!
Ok
Looking forward to the one on Danish democracy. BTW I think 40 -50 minutes is the perfect video length.
Therapist: "Muscular Centralized State Ball isn't real, he can't hurt you."
Muscular Centralized State Ball: 35:03
You just gave me nightmares
"Very powerful state" said Kraut
hi
brought me back memories of "country humans"
Got to love that JoJo reference
India really took that "we live in society" to a whole new level.
because we DO live in a society right...?
But that came with its own set of problems that still persist to this date
@@koustubhjain6789 they are ‘problems’ from outsider perspective, not from Indian perspective. For us society IS strength.
@@yj9032 are you saying caste system isn't a problem then?
@@yj9032 You don't find the presence of a weak state (so weak, that it cannot even provide it's citizens with basic needs), a problem? Society is strength yes, especially in current times where direct open wars would rather be outright avoided, but even so, the state is still very important, if not for war, then for other means some of which were pointed out in the video.
India might as well be a dozen different countries. Just traveling between neighboring states (Kerala to Tamil Nadu) made me feel like I went to a new country. India's history of princely states gave it the rich diversity that I loved so much.
India is more like if Europe United into a single state, it kinda amazing how aren't more separatist mommvent in India
India is a heavily de-centralized government, the Indian constitution pretty much accepts that it is impossible to unite India therefore the constitution let's states do whatever they want like development (the central government needs permission from the state government to build something in said state) lack of a enforced standard language other then English, states have their own education system along with the standard CBSE and the constitution doesn't care as long they are loyal to the the tricolour heck we don't have a national language only 2 primary official languages (hindi and English) and 22 secondary official language
This level of autonomy and de-centralization might so down development but ensures that the provinces remain loyal
only if you define county with a European lens
It would be the case if we didnt live in a hostile neighbourhood
Tbh The 2 most Southern States were isolated from Foreign invasions and problems from Neighbouring states for 2,000 years
Can i just say, taking small sponsors in order to help smaller businesses is such a power move. Respect!
will be doing that more often
@@Kraut_the_Parrot good
@@Kraut_the_Parrot Respect
@@Kraut_the_Parrot how do you feel about the anti sjw community?
@@Ttegegg idk whats he thinks but anti-sjw's are idiots
"... He was going to be late. And when he realized that the punishment for being late was the same as the punishment for rebellion, he decided to rebel."
Love this guy.
I read this as it played
This was the best part.
so basically me at work?
@Kong Jun Jie He did.
British rules o all
The video itself is more or less proof of how far you came, both in improving your videos' quality and in the research you commit to your videos. Great job my friend.
From sub par anti sjw videos to well research country ball documentary
Kinda makes people wonder how much research he put into Chinese history as everything after Sui are terrible generalizations that are borderline false.
Indians (especially those tending to the right) often get offended when someone says that ancient India didn't really exist in the sense that China did.
I like to think of ancient India as modern Indian states but without our central government. How would say for example Bengal, Assam and Orissa interact if they existed 2000 years ago? They would have their own administrations, cultures, languages and even 'borders' but they wouldn't consider each other as barbarians or foreigners because the citizens of the 3 state would be constantly interacting religiously by visiting Puri, Kamakhya and Kalighat; the three central religious points of the three states which the kings of the 3 states deeply revere. Sure there would be 'conflicts' but they would be on which village should pay taxes to which king and nothing more than that.
They would exist simultaneously as separate and states but strongly culturally and religiously bound together. I suppose a modern comparison would be the relationship between Germany and Austria or perhaps the ancient Greek city states.
India did exist as a single entity, but only for a brief period relative to its history, under the Mauryans and maybe the Kushans.
@@srirampatnaik9164 did u watch the whole video.
@@radhagundimeda2246 I don't think he did no
Because yes India has been unified 6 times 3 were foreign led unifications 3 were domestic
You gave the best analogy. Ancient India was a civilization just like Ancient Greece.
Wait, did you read Indian history chronologically or just did to answer to the people on the right. India has been divided into three main regions of influence. West, east and south. Most of the Islamic invasion and the expansion was in the eastern which was easily conquered due to the rivers being mode of transportation. The west or the Rajputs fought until the Mughal invasion, in which they formed the alliance and the south was the final frontier which east and west tried to unite under Aurangzeb. The Brits conquered India which was exhausted with years of war just like how Islam did the Persia. What Brits added were just the far eastern territories like Assam.
Right, I have to say that, as a Chinese person, the conclusions at the end of "The Advantages and Disadvantages of a Powerful Chinese State" are mostly correct, however the history offered by Kraut is highly flawed.
1. The Sui: Basic historical errors and ommitions. Sui Yangdi's grand project, of which the human cost was one of the reasons for his deposition, was not the Great Wall, but the Grand Canal. Kraut later attributes the Grand Canal as a Ming Dynasty acheivement, however, the Ming government merely refurbished and renovated the Grand Canal, while the actual credit for this monumental structure actually lies with Sui Yangdi. In addition, he mentions Sui Yangdi's invasions of Vietnam and Korea. His invasion of Vietnam was successful, but his repeated invasions of Goguryeo was a massive drain on men and resources, and it was yet another one of the reasons for his overthrow, in addition to the aforementioned Grand Canal, and also the fact that he antagonised and tried to weaken the northwestern nobility, which was the ruling class of China at the time, and included not only Sui Yangdi's clan but also the clan which ended up ruling...
2. The Tang: More drastic historical errors and ommisions. The aformentioned antagonism and weakening of the northwestern nobility was partially done through the introduction of a civil service examination by Sui Wendi, however, the Tang recognised its usefulness and did not abandon it fully. While the video states that the Tang was a highly aristocratic state, and this is true, for the most part members of the aristocracy were chosen for positions in government via said examination system. In addition, Kraut demonises Wu Zetian and much of the history after the section on her is incorrect. It is true that her cruelty was brutal and depraved even by the standards of the time, and the crimes attributed to her by Kraut are all true. However, he states that previous ministers were ejected, but this was because Wu Zetian expanded the franchise for the imperial examination system, and allowed non-northwestern aristocrats and even commoners to participate, which of course led to the replacement of many old ministers from said northwestern aristocracy. In addition, Kraut failed to mention the fact that Wu Zetian was a highly effective administrator, who, contrary to what the video stated, did not appoint yesmen to high positions of power, instead appointing capable men who often disagreed with Wu, as she knew that she was not perfect and had to accept criticism and correction to achieve a succesful rule. She even allowed the common people to have some voice in government by allowing them to write directly to the imperial court with their grievances. Lastly, everything in the video after Wu is wrong. Firstly, the rebellion that deposed Wu, the Shenlong Coup d'État, in fact restored the Tang Dynasty, bringing her eldest surviving son, Crown Prince and ex-Emperor Zhongzong to power. Secondly, the rebellion that deposed Wu was the aforementioned Shenlong Coup d'État, not the Anshi Rebellion, which is alluded to in the video. That rebellion was directed against Wu's grandson Xuanzong by a disloyal Jiedushi, An Lushan, and it started in 755, 50 years after Wu's death in 705. Thirdly, the Anshi Rebellion did not depose the Tang Dynasty. It seriously weakened the Tang Dynasty, which before the rebellion was experiencing a golden age which the rebellion ended, killing half the population and starting a Tibetan invasion of the Tang's western posessions, but the Tang Dynasty managed to at least partially recover, and it continued to exist for 150 years after the start of the Anshi rebellion. The rebellion that eneded the Tang Dynasty as a functioning state was the Huangchao Rebellion, which started in 874, and the Tang state finally ended its existance in 907. Overall, Kraut skipped more than 2 centuries of Tang history.
3. The Song: Kraut's dismissal and brief mention of the Song as merely "being conquered in turn by the Mongols" is a travesty, because the Song was, perhaps in terms of civilian governance, the best government China has ever had. The Song succesfully merged the Confucian and Legalist principles of governance, creating a brilliant meritocratic bureaucracy that allowed the provincial gentry to handle local issues, which meant that the state was efficiently involved in nationwide reforms and infrastructure projects without overstepping their boundaries, allowing for the development of a massive and very strong urban commercial sector. This, in addition to the introduction of rice from Champa and the development of new ploughs starting an agricultural revolution, allowed the population to explode, starting an economic revolution in turn, making the Song dynasty the richest country on Earth by GDP per capita at the time, and the richest Chinese dynasty ever. The style and rigour of the imperial examination system also ensured the extremely high quality of the scholar-bureaucrats (think Ouyang Xiu, Shen Kuo, Sima Guang, Wang Anshi, Su Shi, etc, etc) who were able to carry out their duties with creativity and effectiveness. What destroyed the Song dynasty was its oppression of the military resulting in ridiculous military ineptitude, administrative factionalism, garbage tier diplomacy, inconsistent strategy, the strength of their enemies, and, of course, corruption. However, the Song's governmental excellence is shown by the fact that they were the only dynasty to be destroyed by foreign invasion rather than internal rebellion.
4. The Ming: Kraut fundamentally misundertood the nature of the Ming government. It was actually similar in many respects to the Byzantine or Ottoman governments. The position of chancellor, alongside many other roles, was abolished and merged with the position of Emperor, making the Emperor truly all-powerful in theory, and turning China into an Oriental Despotism. The bureaucracy also did not consist of eunuchs, rather the imperial examination system was opened up to all men, while the eunuchs were in charge of the running of the palace, however, due to the immense power the emperor wielded, the bureacucracy was quite weak and was subordinate to the emperor. It is true that the Ming tried to destroy clan affiliations as a way of gaining power within the system, with Emperors even emphasising marriages with commoners, but the eunuchs were not used for this purpose, they existed because they had been a staple of court life in China since time immemorial. On the contrary, they formed a political faction in court, allowing them to form one great "family" in effect, and the Ming bureacracy was oftentimes effective in spite of eunuch intervention. The reason why the eunuchs gained power was not because the emperors lost control, but rather because they gave up control entirely. A despotism like the Ming's is only effective when the emperor is attentive, assertive and intelligent, or when strong officials are appointed on his behalf. However, if he slacks in his duties, the system fails. In the case of the Ming, during the 50 year long reign of the Emperor Wanli, of which 40 years were spent not actually ruling the nation as the emperor went on strike due to a succession dispute, the eunuchs, as governors of the palace, ruled the nation on the behalf of the emperor, and due to the bureaucracy's weakness, it was unable to stop the eunuchs. This led to massive corruption and repression, which were some of the major reasons for the destruction of the Ming Dynasty.
Lastly, Kraut states that Chinese society is weak. While this is true politically, socially, nothing could be further from the truth. China is one of the most cohesive societies on Earth, partially due to one theme mentioned throughout the video: Confucinism. The family unit emphasised by Confucianism is what keeps Chinese society together, while all dynasties since the Han assumed the role of the master of the Chinese "family". If Chinese society was so weak, then Chinese diaspora communities would have fallen into disarray rather than prospering due to a solid familial foundation provided by Confucianism. Confucianism also emphasises education and meritocracy to a large degree, although not in as concrete a fashion as Legalism, and not for the same reasons.
I know you really put your soul to write this man, but it's tl;dr
thank you
@@TheWarrek will you be starring in the next videos 47:55?
Wow what a comment, you must have watched a lot of kings and generals
cheers to kraut for highlighting for his audience an entire screen's worth of criticism of him
The only civilizations that still exist and do so closely in their original form. China in its state and india in its society. Once I was taking to a Chinese and he said you indians still haven't solved the language problem. I was confused, what did he mean? I didn't see any problem in having many languages in our society. Now I understand what he ment after viewing this video. Due to the continuous Chinese state the Chinese have same language and ethnicity(Han) and in India due to our strong society we have diversity in language and ethnicity.
Just check how many languages have died in India since Independence , the word India itself is foreign , the only language which dominates India today is English and it will continue dominating itself becuz of the economics of Indian society , democratic legacy and weak Hindu society ( weak becuz all the classes feel strangulated in Hindu society from top class to untouchables ) India in future will become a mix of society with influence of America and other countries who become powerful enough to influence Indian economy . For eg if today ottoman expire comes to life and become dominant society india will probably send a delegation which will be heavy of Muslims , while if Roman empire come to life Indian delegation will probably have Christans more , now also we can see how due to rise of kpop northeastern ppl are getting huge respect and probably will get lots of tourism in post covid world , similarly we can see how Buddhist will in future get more respect if China and Myanmar becomes friendly with India like taking Chinese president to bodh gaya and to Shimla or to dharamshala another eg can be Iran , if today Iran becomes hugely powerful which they will once oil power goes down Hyderabad and other Shia dominated regions will probably become hugely influencial and shiete culture will flourish ,
@@VivekKumar-rb7zk well use 'BHARAT' if India seems foreign to you
@SchnuffelWuffel well true 10% of china is minority ethnicity but i meant to state that 90% China has Han Chinese and why they are a overwhelming majority is because of the 3000 year old Chinese state that wants uniformity. Because of this continuous homogenization over the years one ethnicity kept on growing and subsuming other ethnicity. Currently thats what happening with Uyghur muslims. Lessons are either your create a strong state or a strong society to have continuous civilizational links. I am not saying its a bad or good lesson just stating an observation.
@SchnuffelWuffel true.
@SchnuffelWuffel that is bullshyt alright,the existence of empires itself already implies there is some form of assimilation and standardization.....all the greatest empires in history,from the persians to the romans to the qing dynasty or the assyrians or the british, in order to create these behemoths there has to be great organizational planning,policy making, streamlining and standardization.....
its like building walmart.
first they create and perfect the system,the culture,the bureaucracy,the economic and monetary policies,the justice system,the infrastructure,then they spread it .....sometimes they create a culture and system that is so great and impressive that even those that were being assimilated and outsiders were eager to adopt their practises,their culture , their bureaucracy etc....
for example the persians,the roman empire,the tang dynasty and the british empire.....
sometimes even the conquerors became the assimilated.
"we are your new leaders!"
Chinese clans: naw, *wars*
Indian clans: lol keep telling yourself that
@Lilo Is the baddest in what.
Underrated
@Lilo Is the baddest ok
@Lilo Is the baddest China does not have Electric current lol and u are tell India is poor which supply 24 hour electric Current.
@Lilo Is the baddest bro are you updating with new bro, China does not have coal for electric current read newspaper or at least see news twice a week, they even stopped supplying current to house and telling me they even ship till 2 , lol even in India and many countries if needed they will shop throughout night and day.
Just a few errors, the strictness of the caste system varied from time to time. While in the early Vedic ages it almost a synonym for occupation, in the later Vedic age it became very strict and form of social hierarchy. In fact the the extreme strictness of the caste system in the later Vedic ages was one of the factors which led to the rise of religions such as Buddhism and Jainism..
But other than that great video.
What are you smoking? The Buddhists did not arise due to the caste system, they made the caste system much more worse than before. Compare the Buddhists proclaiming that only people born as Brahmans or Kshatriyas could ever be Buddha, and only they were allowed admission in the monasteries to the Upanishadic stories of bastards inculcated into the Vedic order.
@@mountainsmakemehorny I think at that time the caste system was already very fluid (the dynasties of the time weren't very strict on the caste system and mobility existed) so Buddhists, like all other people at the time, were probably talking about brahman qualities not family
@@maya-cc2sx Wrong. The Buddhists texts are very clear on birth based varnas. There is a clear division between the Brahmanas and the Shramanas in Buddhists literature.
@@maya-cc2sx Buddha muni (Gautam Buddha) detested Brahmins for marrying into lower castes.
@@mountainsmakemehorny yeah but as Buddha said a man shall not be judged on his Varna but his deeds. And Varna is totally different from caste. Though hierarchical and somewhat discriminatory but it was no where as rigid as caste system, which was result of strict implementation of new Rigid structures of Caste during Harsha empire. And it kept evolving for worse
A sidenote on what 'Meritocracy' means in the warring states period: it is said that soldiers in Qin kingdom were promoted and rewarded soly on 'head count', heads of enermy soldiers. The law was specific on how many heads get you into different commanding positions, how many heads gets you how much land, and even into aristocracy. They would cut off every enemy soldier's head they slain on spot and tied it on the waist, some have half a dozen heads on their waist and have to discard helmet and shield to reduce the weight (but never the heads), which scared the hell out of the soldiers of the enemy kingdom who do not have the same system. The most brutal form of meritocracy ever.
Efficiency 🤣👍
Damn kingdom manga would be hella different if this was adapted
Didnt know China is just a giant CoD server.
@@minhducnguyen9276 yeah basically the 2000 years of unbroken chinese history are full of the largest genocides and mass killings ever taken place in human history
@@ΝίκοςΧαρδαλιάς-ι5σ it is mentioned pretty early on i think in the manga
17:28 "When he realized being late had the same punishment as rebellion, he decided to rebel". This is such a power move I was left speechless, what a historical chad.
Haha so true! What a legend. 💪
So was it because he feared of punishment for being late, or because punishment was so soft he decided to venture for personal fortune ?
@@linhhoang1363 probably the later, but I personally just like my own thought on it where he just said “fk it might as well” with no extra thought
His name is Liu Bang and he rebelled because being late also had a death penalty. He ended up founding the Han Dynasty. It's also funny because the illustration in the video subtly has 'Bang' written in that frame. 😀
That event was so funny.
An in depth analysis of the civilizational paths of India and China is given in "The Origins of Political Order", by Francis Fukuyama. He defined Rule as the set of norms followed by all - not just the subjects but the rulers as well. From that perspective, India had a very strong Rule of Law since the beginning, but it lacked the central state. China on the other had a strong central state throughout the history, but the rules were mandated by the ruler, i.e. the rulers were rarely bound by the rule. Hence, they lacked Rule of Law in that sense.
Some corrections:
1. Harijan, Dalit and Pariah are not three segments of untouchables. Harjan is a euphemism invented by Gandhi for untouchables. Dalit is a relatively modern term for the same. Pariah is a very specific jati/segment and there are hundreds of other jatis among untouchables.
2. Hinduism is extremely heterogenous. Brahminism is one specific ritualistic segment of that. Philosophically, there are numerous variation that disagree about almost everything baring the supremacy of Vedas. Even then, there are local religions which, although comes within the umbrella term "Hinduism", is completely unique to that region.
3. The casts are more fluid in some cases than you present here. Although the priestly class is almost always Brahmin, the other castes have historically changed their roles. There were numerous Shudra kings and Khatriya/Shudra traders. The majority of the soldiers have been Shudras in many cases. There are even warrior Brahmins. The current rigid view of caste is partially the result of British homogenization and codification of castes.
4. The Village systems were not static. Most of the production systems were distributed among villages, unlike in Europe where it is urban (even in Europe, the pre-industrial production was village dependent). They were connected through high volume business routes that have been active for millennia. So it was very common to find Silk from Dhaka in Persia or France.
5. FOR GODS SAKE, Uttar Pradesh has one of the worst administration in India!!!! It is towards the bottom in human development index, education, healthcare, safety, corruption, crime etc. Just google it.
The Uttar Pradesh error is the most embaressing slip up that happened during the recording of the audio. I meant Himachal Pradesh, was talking about Himachal Pradesh... but uttered the words Uttar Pradesh, twice... no idea why I mixed it up in the recording.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot Overall, a very good production. The scope was enormous and you covered almost all of it accurately, and that is no small fit. Thanks.
@@daniyelplainview I believe the scope, was in the end, too large. I had to cut down far too much. In the end this should have been a 2-3 hour long video. The quality suffered substantially by having the video cut down in size so much.
This is what happens when you live in caste system
@@daniyelplainview a very well written & an insightful comment
I am surprised at how civil everyone is being in the comment section. Other than the occasional troll from either sides, the conversations have been polite and "intellectually stimulating".
*Faith restored for humaity
❤
Trolls aren't patient enough to watch such long videos. They get triggered by 30 sec tik tok videos.
Well said@@palashchoudhari8671
I remember back in early 2007, when i was playing Civilization IV warlords "Chinese Unification" that represented the warring state period, they started that scenario with a sentence "... it would not be until 2,200 years later in the Napoleonic Wars, that the world would see nations bring massive armies of millions of men into battle.", showing clearly the administration and organization required to gather such numbers that can only be done with structured societies with an efficient system... and the chinese were already doing this.
That sent me into a rabbit hole of ancient china history but Kraut still manages to bring a new perspective into what i had read years ago which is refreshing and i really appreciated.
Chinese warfare is underated
I thought Rome were able to have huge standing army as well right?
@@LexDomo They did. Not on the scale of China though. China probably had more people than the whole Roman empire. They could field hundreds of thousands of men... Rome only put tens of thousands at most.
"Rabbit hole of ancient china history" damn.
Wow that’s a mad coincidence that I found this comment! I’m just after playing that exact scenario only yesterday!
In biology there exist the concept of evolutionary trade offs. Basically when a trait increases in fitness it automatically decreases another one. For example when fruit flys were genetically manipulated in a lab to increase fertility, this caused that male fruit flyes lived shorter life spans.
You could say those similar principles can be applied in social sciences and the development of nations and societies as you ilustrated. Luckily human collectives have more leverage to find balance, but there is always a risk of going too much in a direction, but in the end there are many basic principles that apply universally.
Anyway amazing video as always
But this might be my favourite
You mean to tell me that someone manipulated _fruit flies to be more fertile_? I didn't know the devil himself was into biology.
@@FranciscoGarcia-jp1hp more like they push male flyes to reproduce more which decreased their lifeaspans
Though a natural example more easy, male lizards who are more bright and colourful than their female counterparts tend to reproduce more as females pick them more but they die shortly after as being a colourful animal makes you target for predators
Making a stronger family
@@FranciscoGarcia-jp1hp Fruit Flies are studied so much because they provide perfect models for human genes (and altered genes), with shorter lifespans allowing for many generations of reproduction over a short amount of time. Thus, we can model inheritance much quicker than using other animal models.
"We are your new overlords."
China: Oh fuck no, war time.
India: Yeah sure, whatever you say buddy.
Warhammer time*
yeah ask the british about that and the countless indian rebellions that happened when the british took over india bruh
@Vigneshwar S yeah
@@lardinal2413 unlike Mughals or lodhi or any other empire...... Brits in India never became India, they never Indianised on a central level, there were many servants that Indianised however they were servants of the crown in Birmingham not in the person sitting in Delhi so frequent transfers were common and hence Brits were never Indianised and Indians threw them out in just 100yrs.
@@lardinal2413 Britain did bring the idea of Europe nation state to them...
This is so fascinating, one is a strong state, the other strong society, one is decentralized, the other centralized. But both have existed since thousands of years and have shared cultures in the past and have been in conflicts during the modern time. Both massive and separated by Himalayas. The earth and humanity have witnessed a beautiful story of yin and yang.
Lmao it's like they both were made to balance the power in Asia😂
And the ones who didn't like it at home went to Singapore. Do you noticed Singaporean accented English seems to combine Indian and Chinese accents.
The land across the Himalayas is Tibet not China. Tibet has very rich cultural, spiritual and linguistic ties to India, and is under brutal occupation by the Chinese state who have been trying to change the culture and demographics of Tibet.
@@sabyasachibandyopadhyay8558 Kek. Such brutal occupation that most aging tibetans are now moving to Sichuan when they retire.
@@magni5648 maybe the Tibetan guys who set themselves on fire in front of Chinese embassies do not know this.
9:38 correction Dalits, Harijans, and Parias all are different words for the same thing, Dalit literally means "untouchable" and is the most common name, its still widely used in India by both casteist and anti-casteist people, Harijans was the word that Gandhi used to describe Dalits, it literally means "Children of God", and Parias is I think the Tamil word for Dalit or something
dalit is a relatively new word, it came into being in 1800s
'Pariaha' means who doesn't belong to anyone.
thank you for the correction
Pariah is an English borrowing of the word Paraiyan. Parai means Drum and these were, as the name suggests, the Drummer Caste. Something like the Drumpf surname in Germany. Paraiyans are considered to be one of the 'Dalit' castes of India.
Why were they untouchables?
As one of your Chinese viewers, I found your video very eye opening. It really described the social phenomenon I experience everyday from a brand new way of thinking. The fight between the legalist and confusionist was so real and yet no one ever talked about it.
Right now we are witnessing the legalist having an increasingly upper hand under the Xi administration's rule. Local elite families' power were taken away partially by the central government. New laws and rules were issued frequently to give everything an oder. The enforcement of such is in a new level.
Contrary to western main stream ideology, I don't see the winning of the state as detremental to the livelyhood of everage citizens though. The local elite families were the most repressive and exploitive to the average people. The entrench themselves into key local government and business positions, through neputizem and corruption, taking away all the social mobility and exploit everyone outside of their circles. Therefore the enpowerment of the state was viewed very positively to the vast majority of peasents like me, despite its potential threats. After all, the state is not really exploiting and suffocating the peasents nearly as much as the elite families, and the peasents even have a chance to join the state by merit, something one can't do to a family clan.
It may seem pethetic to people in the western world, as they would say the third way of liberalization would be the best option. However, social forces doesn't pop out from thin air. It is developed through the civilization's history. So that makes the development of Taiwan increasingly interesting. How did an Chinese society identical to the mainland from the begaining, developed its mordern liberal institutions and social forces, and transformed itself into a liberal country as it is today. i hope one day I would see you making a video about this. Thank you, and I really like your works. Cheers!
Taiwan's strong tie with USA(some might even say it's nearly a USA's puppet state) played a significant role in the transformation, both culturally and politically.
In the eyes of the Chinese commoner, it is far easier to remove a leader who has lost the mandate of heaven to rule, than it is to endure another century of humiliation, it's a trade off everyone has made and accepted. Interestingly current waves of Sinophobic foreign policies from the US and Co feds that sentiment within the Chinese society and pushes the citizens to stronger conviction for a need for such powerful state.
Taiwan had to become democratic. The easing of tensions between the PRC and ROC may have helped in reducing the siege mentality of Taiwan. Democracies tend not to form when whatever ruling entity percieves and existential threat-legitimate or not-which results in a very militarized milieu, State functioning, and overall view of things. You will never have a democracy when there is the potential threat of attack at any time, something most people may fail to grasp if they have always lived somewhere that has either never experienced this, or has long since experienced it.
Taiwan losing their UN sest in 1971 could've help in this change as well, losing the "prestiege" abd responsibility that came with being part of the institution.
Taiwan had also been developing relativly quickly without politically democratizing, so the GMD leadership may have not felt there was any real hurry to do this. Opposition to the government had been dealt wiith strongly in 1979, which further isolated the island. GMD failed to resolve the "sovereignty question", this could have been a further catalyst to delegitimize the GMD government. Being over dependent on the US for military and politics, etc., etc..
The DPP was formed in 1986, harsh measure were not taken, like had been in 1979. Martial Law also ended in 1986.
The US finally moved to destroy Taiwans nuclear weapons program in 1988 and ensure Taiwan wouldn't aquire nuclear weapons (some in the US, and Taiwanese nuclear scientist defectors feared Taiwan would use these weapons against China, etc., etc..). So, that problem was ended for good by the US.
At this time, the mainland was giving Taiwan a run for its money, economically and in development, etc..
Chiang Ching-Kuo had also died in January 1988, and Lee Teng-hui succeeded him and had continued democratic reforms. And was also the first directly elected President in 1996 and yada yada yada.
So, there was a lot of influencing factors that eventually led to where Taiwan is currently.
@@Crazylubelube I have a different opinion. The part of the century of humiliation that most Chinese dislike was about the invation and following war crimes against the civilions. However, the current situation of China is not about a threat of invation, but rather isolation by being rejected from the advanced countries. This really is not that important to the majority of peasants, as it is seen as some far fatched political idea that ordinary peasants had no power with. Plus, this isolation problem could not be solved by the state gainning more power over the society or people, even if someone cares.
I would argue that most Chinese would not really care about the international politics involving the humiliation thing. Sure people would pay lip service to let out some of their pent up aggression from unfair treatment from life, but most people in China are really not that concerned about things outside of their daily lives. They care very little about ideology, and very little people would be willing to sacrisfice their lives fighting for the glory of the nation. When the state leaves no power to the peasents on determaining the trejectory of the nation, the peasents simply do not feel ownership of the nation, let alone contributing or sacrificing to its cause. You and your close friends might care, but if you look around, you would find the majority of people are like this.
It's hard to say all the factors that led to Taiwan as a democracy. Some part of the development of Taiwan as a liberal democracy could be attributed to its history with Japan, its American influence, and the influence of protestant missions on the island. The influence of Japan on Taiwan's language and culture was part of what caused a divide between the people living on the island, and the KMT that arrived. The KMT also didn't do any favors for their own reputation when they cracked down on the populace (for example during the white terror). Finally, people like Lee Teng-hui gained influence within the dictatorship and used their power to lead Taiwan down a path of democracy.
I started reading all the comments and I seem to came up with an conclusion about Kraut's accuracy
A lot of historical facts are wrong (especially when you move closer to the present day), but most people seem to agree with his conclusions for both China and India.
To be fair to kraut, it isn't easy to sum up a millenia of historical developments in two of the most of populated areas on earth.
We Indians don't want to accept our problems
@@gobimurugesan2411 we do, our millenials and GEN zs do
But here if you want to do something be it political or business venture you have to be an elder. It is changing though this decade there is a startup culture in India.
India's strongest asset is finally coming in power and it will drive it exponentially.
@@अण्वायुवरीवर्त "millenials" , "GenZ" ...? these terms are for American or the western generations. third world countries societies doesn't fall into this categories. your thinking comes from few or the newer generation is influenced and copying western stuff.
@@gingertoast6216 so what am I supposed to call these generations?
Stop projecting.
As a person who grew up deeply immersed within Chinese and indian culture, I am impressed with your depth of understanding of my cultures, yet without falling into the trap of parroting cultural trope perpetuated by literature within the culture itself.
I know it's late for a reply, but can you tell us more or clarifications on your own?
Can you give examples of cultural tropes of both sides?
"Her rule caused a rebellion that ultimately led to the overthrow of the Tang" This is incorrect. Wu died in 705 and the Tang dynasty lasted until 907. She died 5 decades before the An Lushan rebellion, which although it did mark the end of the Golden Age of the Tang, did not end the dynasty itself and you can't really blame on her anyway.
Her rule weakend the Chinese stzate to a point that it could no longer recover. Disagree with me on this if you want, we can argue that one out, but I would argue that her rule delivered a wound to the Tang dynasty which then slowly killed it.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot ah fair enough, I see where you're coming from. I'd have to go read a bunch more to really fall on one side or the the other, to see if her purges had a noticeable impact on the capacity of the bureaucracy during Xuanzong's reign for example.
Not really a debate I can have with the facts I have right now. Thanks for the video btw, the long term vision of an ideological conflict at the heart of the Chinese state is really interesting.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot lol your wrong krutz it was the anlushan rebellion and not wu zitian that weakened the tang kruat go and fact check tang empire reached its peak during the first part of xuanzong it was anlushan a sogdian rebelled against the tang go and watch kings and general regarding tang dynasty you will realise your wrong
@@Kraut_the_Parrot actually, it was Wu Zetian Rule that Promoted Meritocracy to a Crazy Degrees, thus Strengthening Tang even more, which continued until An Lushan rebellion
She also hired Extremely Talented Individual over Family
the 7th Emperor in his era, everything even the might of tang is quite strong, thus saying the fall of tang was because of wu zetian is false, as she didn't broke the system but rather strengthen it.
and take note,
the final nail in the coffin is huang chao rebellion which finally broke the tang
Well, some say that she traumatized her kids so badly that they became… you know weak. Her son Zhongzong reigned for 5 years and was killed by his wife and a shit ton happened with the restoration of his brother who didn’t fare any better than him concluding with emperor Xuanzong, the guy that basically layer the foundation of the anlushan rebellion. Her sons were all easily swayed by the court and allowed their wives and relatives to run amok and Xuanzong the good one also fell to feminine charms of Yang guifei. So yeah… it is quite a long stretch but she isn’t completely blameless. She showed the concubines what was the pinnacle of their career was and let’s say they became restless.
A Chinese person once told me, he and many Chinese people view European history from medieval to early modern time like a European version of warring states. With Napoleon being the European version of Qin Shi Huang, who unfortunately failed unlike his Chinese, more ancient counterpart.
That is actually a very interesting view of European history.
Not necessarily the most accurate, but it isn’t exactly wrong. And eventually Europe was reunited (after WWII that is).
Because the Great Britain. China doesn't have the Great Britain equivalent, otherwise it would be the similar to Europe.
@@fromfareast3070 Japan?
@@Kaiserboo1871 Japan comes too later....
The short time span of the Bonaparte Dynasty stayed in powered also mirrors the Qin Dynasty lol
Sidney Low in his 'Vision of India’ (pg.262-263) speaks of the diff aspect of the caste system in the following eloquent passage:
‘There is no doubt that it is the main cause of the fundamental stability and contentment by which Indian society has been braced up for centuries against the shocks of politics and the cataclysms of Nature. It provides every man with his place,’ his career, his occupation, his circle of friends. It makes him at the outset a member of a corporate body, it protects him through life from the canker of social jealousy and unfulfilled aspirations; it ensures him companionship and a sense of community with others in like case with himself. The caste organization is to the Hindu his club, his trade union, his benefit society, his philanthropic society. There are no work-houses in India and none are as yet needed.'
Holy fucking shit is that a cited source??? On UA-cam?!?!? I believe in god again
Wow your knowledge is impressive.
What this "eloquent" passage fails to mention is, how the lowest class of people, the Dalits, the untouchables get treated in that system. It is inhumane, they weren't even allowed to drink water because, their touch will impure water source.
Also, there are some mistakes in the Indian history depicted in this video.
The birth based caste system emerged about 1500 years ago and solidified only during the late Mughal - Early Colonial era.
Jati is not a sub category of Varna, they are two different things, Varna translates to category and Jati translates to birth status.
The Varna system, was based on one's attributes. The Vedas and Bhagwat Gita clearly state that one's Gunas or attributes determines one's Varna.
The Varna system slowly decayed into lineage based Jati or caste as we know it today.
Another mistake is assuming Mauryan Admistration to be decentralised. Mauryan Empire was one of the most centralised states in ancient history, with all ruling and governing standards codified in a book called "Arthashastra".
Most Mauryan bureaucrats were selected based on merit not on lineage, right to the city level.
Its extreme centralisation is cited as one the reasons for its collapse.
He is however correct in assuming that India slowly decentralised.
@@virajk1336 No society is perfect, almost every ancient society was based on exploitation of some group. Caste system is no exception.
17:33 This part actually made me emotional. You beautifully illustrated a key reason why China has fascinated me since I was a little kid; it is, as the generic Civ6 introduction goes, the one society that has gone from "this early cradle of civilization on towards the stars".
May your people never have blisters on their hands
愿你的人民手上永远没有水泡😂😂😂😂😂😂
💀💀💀💀
No, The Brahmins did not limit literacy to their own caste. They merely reserved the ability to impart knowledge, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas were educated along with Brahmins in Gurukuls under a Brahmin Teacher. Shudras were generally craftsmen, blacksmiths, goldsmiths and artisans, Most of the architecture of India's splendid temples is the work of Shudras. They were not expected to be learned in scriptures and logic or grammar like the other three castes. They simply learned their hereditary craft by the method of apprenticeship. Remember, everyone was given security of employment by way of this system, meaning no caste will take up the occupation of another caste. Due to this only Brahmins could teach and conduct rituals, Kshatriyas could fight and govern land, Vaishyas could conduct commerce and Shudras could engage in their craft and provide their labor where necessary. Most of what is today called the 'Services' sector was reserved for the Shudras as well.
@Alvin Mathew that's what navayana is for. and it doesn't stop them from practicing hindu rituals.
Excellent point!!
In ancient and medieval time caste ststem was based on merit and flexible .
But in later indian history it became rigid.
@@preetamyadav7952 not rigid, it was falsely interpreted and spread by britishers to ensure complete disunity among the masses.
Just a shit to protect brahminism and even justifying it, recent events happening in india are pure examples of castesim racism. Rapes and killings.
As an Asian American this should be required viewing. I can see a lot of the ways I take on life, even down to always wanting to be on time to things, rooted in the Legalist society of thousands of years ago. While living in America still gives one a great appreciation for things like public accountability and individualism, it's kind of unreal how ancient societies still have such a poignant effect on our modern lives, and I can only imagine how modern indian viewers feel about their roots in that way.
Also Kraut, I know it's just a little mistake, but it's written 明 - one horizontal then two - never three. I know you really value accuracy so I hope you don't take this as a nitpick
oh my god I've made this mistake and took it for entire video
thank you for the correction
I'm an Indian and I agree. The greatest conflict in the Indian state today is about efficiency; something the Indian society is not designed for. The rapid collapse of the Varna system in face of Western values and industrialization can, I think, facilitate the establishment of a stronger state
@@thistletea You still did a fantastic job! If you were also in charge of the earlier sections in China, I love how there was a distinction made in the traditional script and more modern script, and the most important thing is that you brought vibrant life to a historical subject which is often very dry to newcomers!
@@thistletea It happens to the best of us
Incredible video as always. Thank you for letting me participate, the art team did such an amazing job this time.
India also had a period of centralization around 2BCE to 4AD but after that it collapsed, you can find "Arthashaasthra" as Indian counterpart to "Sun Tzu". It has treatises on Secret Service, Economics and war.
I think you mean 200BCE
That wasn't centralization, more than suggestion up centrally administer
I think you are talking about Maurya Empire.
That Empire too was very decentralized.
@@Charvak-Atheist and collapse in just 70 years after reaching their greatest exists.
@@Dodlo32888 having a centralised state that spanned the entire of india was always difficult in ancient india. the geography made logistics from a distant capital hard with the western ghats, the eastern ghats, the vindhya ranges etc. Also indian states were not willing to be as brutal to achieve domination as some other civilizations. The burning of villages and farm lands was especially not tolerated during medieval india
45:09 that paragraph in hindi really touched my heart. The amalgamation of crude hard facts and the expression of emotions really makes this an incredible piece. The writer is a literary genius ! I encourage everyone who doesn't understand hindi to translate and read it.
I'm from southern India, can you translate it for me?
@@engineeredarmy1152 oh nvr mind consider urself lucky lol
🤣🤣
@@engineeredarmy1152 yeah not gonna fall for that.
What did it say?
In my state(formerly kingdom) Manipur in India, Hinduism came very late around the 15th century and became the main religion of the kingdom around the early 18th century, so we had a unique caste system different from other places. All the valley people Meitei (who converted to Hinduism) became Kshatriyas, even commoners, and Bengali Brahmins who migrated to the kingdom became the Brahmin caste. Meiteis who refused to convert to Hinduism(they praticed Sanamahism, an animistic religion) and tribal people who lived in the hills, became the lower caste or untouchables. The tribal people were especially discriminated against and treated as untouchables, but now the situation is much better. There were no vaishya or shudra caste. We only had two caste Brahmins and Kshatriyas, and the untouchables.
As the caste system came very late in my place, it isn't as strictly implemented and practiced, and is in the present almost non-existent. The discrimation against tribals still exist but it is much less compared to before.
It's actually case with tamilnadu state also which is down south , in tamilnadu there is only two castes brahmins and shudras , it's also same to other South India because untill post chola emphire , Tamil Nadu was kept away from caste system , didn't follow Brahminism
What ???
During chola time there were no caste . It were varnas which were based on merit and work .
Caste is rigid varnas which became popular in India after 11 century and untouchability started around 15 century .
The first text who talked about slight rigidity in varnas was Manusmriti weiiten 2000 years ago but it was never implemented and known to some people only .
@@preetamyadav7952 sangam age cholas and other Tamil kings are caste free and they are non Aryan tribe , didn't follow Brahminism but by the time of 12 century , cholas are very much into brahminical that they allowed separate area for brahmins and separate native Tamil paraiyas to out of the town , due to instructions from Brahminism
Was it the reason why some groups like the Hmar converted to Christianity instead?
@@ianhomerpura8937 many dalits convert to Christianity is due to caste discrimination
also the Mauryans did manage to create a basic bureaucratic “centralized” state(as in Arthashastra). It just happened to be acknowledged more in the entire Magadhan region and the four provincial capitals - Tosali (in the east), Ujjain (in the west), Suvarnagiri (in the south), and Taxila (in the north). Beyond that, the acknowledgment simply didn’t penetrate, for eg. villages. And the Mauryans weren’t forgotten that easily. There is a play named Mudrārāksasa which is based on Chandragupta Maurya’s conquests written in the 7-8 centuries CE. This oblivion was more of a middle ages thing; starting around 10-12th centuries CE; since as we know historical consciousness India was indeed low.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn thanks for the info! !!!!
@@fealdorf A copy of the Arthashastra in Sanskrit, written on palm leaves, was presented by a Tamil Brahmin from Tanjore to the newly opened Mysore Oriental Library headed by Benjamin Lewis Rice. The text was identified by the librarian Rudrapatna Shamasastry as the Arthashastra.
Mauryan Empire ended after Ashoka, I think a continuous Empire similar to Rome is Vijaynagara Empire
Also in surashtra ( part of modern day gujarat).
@@ArawnOfAnnwn HALO!
45:10 "if you are an Indian viewer, you have even influence over that [building the nation], something a chinese viewer can only dream of." The chinese viewer can't even watch this video, because the government has prohibited UA-cam in China.
no， im watching this video in mainland China by vpn，many young people in cn have vpn 。and 10% used
@@bkakkvod166 10% used what
I am watching this from China. Literally every single person below 25 has a VPN (and many above do as well)...
@@lc1540 reporting this to ccp
@@sandg507 Damn Snitch
I understand that it is difficult to do justice in a 40 min video but your section on ancient India is too simplistic. Indus Valley civilization had planned cities and were city state like (and existed around 2000 to 1500 BC). You also did not mention the influence of Buddhism and Jainism on ancient India. This caused lot of battles of influence between Brahmins and Buddhist clergy on who can win royal patronage better. Also, the Islamic conquest of India was brutal (in a different way compared to the exploitation by the British). An interesting side note is that many Indian muslims and christians were also influenced by caste. One more point of interest is that the current government is trying (very early stage) to weaken the federal structure of India's institutions and make India more centralized, mostly to make it harder for them to lose power in the center due to a lack of competent opposition.
More like 25 minutes since this is both about China and India so no way he can go too much into either of them.
Nitpicking aside, i believe the information within the video is more than detailed enough for a comparative study of the two.
Indus Valley was already dead when Aryans made their civilisation, it has little to no influence on today's society.
yea he needs to make a separate video on India altogether!
Indus valley has little to no connection with later indian societies. There aren't too many sources on Buddhist Brahmin conflict but we know the Buddhists lost out soon. The Buddha himself reduced to another Avatar of Vishnu and subsumed into hinduism. The Islamic conquests were brutal but so were the Huns ( from whom the Rajputs are descended ) and the Mongol invasions of China. Every invasion is usually brutal.
But yes castism spreading to Abrahamic religions is something. So is the current drive towards centralisation
On the strong state, weak society in China, I once had a Chinese friend tell me that in China, there is a culture of the paternalistic state. "We prefer a distant government that takes care of us without us having to be involved." which is a culture stemming from confucianism. Although this is an idea antithetical to democratic culture of active citizenry, it makes a lot of sense in the Chinese cultural context. I live in a confucianist Singapore which has very much the same culture among older folks. The young ones of course have been democratised but the parallels are unmistakeable. China did not have that democratic transition and its unlikely to have that for a long time if at all.
I was told opposite, where state is like father
@@AuraJewel paternal = father. maybe more like 'clan patriarch' than direct father.
Using modern Chinese youths to observe the world under the window of this century's changes, and to compare their own systems. More people believe that democracy is only a result, not a process...
Moreover, under the actual governance results of the West, their democracy is deconstructed into procedural justice. This "procedure" is still in the wrong direction and has become a system for protecting minority interest groups. Under the application of the West, democracy has gradually become a derogatory term...
Democracy is not at all an idea of safeguarding the interests of a few people.
When it was created by Greece, it was just a concept of decentralization that could guarantee self-interest. In modern times, the United States regards liberalism as its guiding ideology. After the death of the Soviet Union, the modern United States raised the banner of democracy (the Soviet Union advocated democracy).
Democracy, freedom-put two unrelated or even opposite concepts together, there is a sense of distortion.
Even the United States' own electoral system is an obviously undemocratic process. But the United States itself maps a perverted sense of morality into its own political system.
It's the reverse of legalism of sorts? It's really amazing how civilisations and nations oscillate between systems of extreme differentiation. From Germans' descent from far right to almost the most progressive state in a sense that is better than US...to Roman's strict laws and moral code to decadence.
@@陈陳-t5c the "protect interests of minorities" is more like ''the ethnicity or race or culture with the loudest noise and a sense of 'we deserve more'". This happens in not just US but any democratic state which is highly diversified including 'india'. That's why, there will be emergence or rather re-emergence of 'other options' to democracy in Europe in the coming years as their homogeneity or stable conditions for the last 70 years gets distorted into a multicultural populist state, you can even see this now...as just a small influx of migration in 2016 shaked their systems and in 4 years so many far right wing populists came up.
.
Also, US isn't based on democracy(democracy is hallmark of europe only, as an option to literally everything else worse than it)
Don't let anyone tell otherwise. US is so so good because just like communism, in capitalistic US too, your religion, race, creed doesn't matter...they sponser private meritocracy as compared to a state sponsered one. Their athletic club are all blacks, NASA scientists are indians, math researchers are all Asians and so on and so forth. Now, this is being changed to almost a 180°. They today, pushing for equality of outcome, which will only get stronger in coming years, you will see various forms of reservations everywhere, populist governments...that will be decline the US; china or anyone else won't cause it.
Kraut:
"Over the next year I will make short videos"
Also Kraut:
49m 38s
This is short for him lmao
well its not an hour and a half long like the last China vid....
These two countries would take 5 hours lol
I wish it was longer
This is why India is similar Europe. It was never a nation or a unified kingdom, but a subcontinent consisting of many small, interlinked kingdoms. The British had the same opinion. India's geography is as diverse as its ethnicities. If you stand at any place in India, and move 100 km in any direction, you will notice a change of enthinicity, language and geography.
well its debatable .
@@opai1821 bruh
China is also divided like india . There was no unified nation at all in China. This is why china and india are like Europe.
india is different to europe. Europe was way more fragmented politically than India. India had the Mauryas, Guptas, Kushans, Nandas, Shungas, Satvahanas, Vardhanas, Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Pratiharas, Marathas, Mughals, Palas, Cholas etc. All these spanned large portions of india for centuires at a time. Europe only had the Roman Empire and the very short lived Frankish Empire.
@@dwarasamudra8889 "India" didn't have them.
The status of caste wasn't really as homogenous as you portrayed in the video. The modern interpretation of "Hindu Law", namely that from the Manusmrti, was really only standardized as "Hindu Law" by the British. To be certain, plenty of kingdoms used it prior but it was still only one of many competing standards. The truth of the matter is that caste mobility likely mattered on time and place, with some individuals being able to change their castes in some societies and even more interestingly, the process of "Sanskritization" whereby an entire Jati attempted to rebrand themselves as a higher caste by adopting the customs of a higher caste
Preach!
Yep. There is genetic evidence that castes ossified only 1500 years ago.
Sanskritization itself only started during British rule.
@@luvsuneja what is the source for this could I have it?
Yes correct
This video is total nonsense
Regarding caste system
Evidence suggest that untouchability didn't existed in the 15th century
Rajput army had low caste soldiers
Everyone was allowed to study not just Brahmins
And caste system was much better than class system Europeans had back then
Caste system became a racial system only around 18th century before this there was mixing and social mobility
This video has a lot of love put into it, and one person really shone the lights. I just want to use my comment to congratulate Teabag once again, and encourage everyone to follow his Twitter.
Also -- don't be too mad at the Genshin references. I made them a month ago before this anniversary meltdown happened XD aged like wine if you ask me.
i heard that mihoyo caved. very unusual of them actually
Nice of you to sneak it there. It made me laugh out loud at the "ban femboys" part
@@512TheWolf512 they did! They gave out the concert rewards as anniversary ones
@@512TheWolf512 :D
@@RavignonCh I also heard that other games like azur lane were similarly mobbed because of it
As a note of constructive critique, I think you should have started this video by defining what you mean by a "state" as oppose to other form of governence. When one claims that Greece or China invented the first states, the viewer is left to wonder what the hell the Egyptians or Mesopotamians had been doing then. It would have made the uniqueness of what you were talking about more apperent.
they were holding cities. Not states like chinese . Egyptians were having civilizations living next to a river. Chinese were not exactly that. They were living faar away from each other separated by stuffs. There is a big difference if the people in a whole civilization is living with in 25 x 25 KM vs 1000 x 1000 KM. Also there were 100 times more people in china as well.
Yea I am pretty confuse as to what exactly state is. I suppose he meant state that can project power into the corner of the empire. Egypt and Mesopotamia might not have as much projecting power into the daily life of the citizens? At least that's my understanding of it. In Egypt, the power of the Pharroh is to its lords. In China, the power of rule is exercised directly by the emperor via its bearucratic system.
interesting remark. I was think about the same when it comes to the Assyrian Empire that had already created an organized and trained military muche earlier than the 6th cent BCE and also had irrigation infrastructure, written laws, calculation for areas and land management...
What I find interesting is the rise and consolidation of nation-states (instead of the city-states) around the same period in both East Asia and West Asia.
@@dinil5566 state is structure based not size based China being big dosnt make it a "state" any more then any other state. The question is not in size but in what level of organization does a "state" require?
@@red-tb8ul One thing is for sure, China's bureaucratic system has not changed since ancient time.
In the first millennia atleast, Caste system was highly fluid and depending upon the capabilities people can move up or down.
This can be gauged from the Hun Tsang, a Chinese traveler, who came to India in the 7th century AD wrote that there was a Shudra king in Varanasi so atleast till then it seems the Caste was highly fluid.
This is the proof of caste being rigid, because despite being a king he couldn't wipe out his shudra status and call himself a Kshatriya.
@@saubhagtrasy Not really. He was a Kshatriya, but his parents were shudras. That's how you know he was born in a shudra family, not that the label of "Shudra" was stuck onto him.
@@risingredstone5949 being a Kshatriya foes not mean being a warrior or a king. Being a kshatriya also has a ritual aspect such as being allowed to learn the Vedas, wearing the sacred thread, etc. For Shudra kings being a shudra wasn't a label but a reality.
The Nair kings of Kerala were shudras, they had to perform the Hiranyagarbha ceremony where they had to gift a huge golden cow statue to the Brahmin, for their conversion into Dwijahood. Krishnadevraya, etc. who were shudras had their coronation done by puranic rites, because vedic rites were reserved for kshatriyas. There are inscriptions of Andra kings calling themselves shudra. There were also Brahmin king who continued to call themselves Brahmin.
@@saubhagtrasy Show me the source for all of these claims. Cause Bhhagvad geeta, Ramayan and Mahabharat would disagree with you on this one.
@@risingredstone5949 no moron, Ramayan, Mahabharat & Bhagvad Gita all agree with me on this.
It is you who has read any of them.
5 minutes in and I just had to pause to say THE ARTWORK OMG this is gonna be one hell of a video
Teabag is an amazing artist! I love their work
I feel like you should have mentioned the Vijayanagara Kingdom. That was about as close as we got to founding a nationstate. While it had a feudal "Nayankara" system, unlike most other kingdoms, Vijayanagara didn't fall apart at the end of one dynasty. The following dynasty did not declare their own kingdom but rather kept Vijayanagara alive, even in the minds of the people. And as you had mentioned about China, they too funded large infrastructure projects such as roads and canals.
Ultimately, it collapse when the capital city was sacked.
Eyy commodore saan how r u. Tnx for ur military marches songs
@@balajikumar4027 Thanks for asking. Have been preparing for JEE advanced, which is why I haven't uploaded in so many months.
But I still watch and comment sometimes, mainly to reduce stress.
Glad you like my videos : )
@@commodoresan7275 Good luck, you'll need it - you'll be a zombie by the time you're done with both papers
thats not true vijaynagara survived even after vijayanagar was sacked and completely demolished
I. Hate history
That is an interesting dichotomy between the state and the society. I am from Ukraine and I have been learning more about Indian culture for some time. This video reinforced my feeling that both India and Ukraine fit into category “weak state, strong society”. If you look into the history of both countries there weirdly many parallels. I’m curious if it applies to many post colonial countries.
Exactly
There is one significant difference, which may be offensive, givencurrent times... in the Indian conception of things, Ukrainians/Belarusians/Russians would be one nation.. with much internal autonomy, of course, but one people. Internally divided, but externally united.
Apart from that, I'd be fascinated to learn what the parallels you see are.
Hope you are wel, Ukrainian friend, love from China
Remember to stay safe ,hope war will end soon
Hope you are alive, well and safe. Glory to Ukraine! From an Indian
India is a living example of the concept of "there is more to life than statecraft"..
I do always get the feeling that kraut specifically and westerners in general feel that Indian Republican democracy is unstable and or perpetually under threat of dissolution..
Let me be clear about it for once and for all, it's not under threat, and will never be under threat..
It might appear as pure chaos to westerners specifically, but that's not the case, india and indians are the force of order in chaos of life, and that's the philosophy behind the dharma..
Keeping aside the errors made in this video regarding Indian politics, religion and society ; I do admire the attempt kraut and his team makes to make this video in the first place..
They r telling that the Government is ineffective
@H J European style is much better than American
yeah and plus we have 4th largest army in the world now so if any portion of society thinks of themselves too highly then........... the newly formed power of state will be on display :)
Kraut is right you guys are not living in reality. You have some Bollywood sense of reality.
@@akhandbharat1593 nah
“A weak state to placate a strong society”: this is called “appeasement politics” in India.
Actually no. That would be a weak state placating a weak society. A strong society avoids making demands from administrators for goodies - why - because they are strong.
No, that's called votebanking. A weak state placating a weak, divisive society.
No
There are some flaws, especially in your description of Gupta and Maurya empire, as well as the invasion of Greeks and Huns. You called Greeks invasion of India as successful, but it was actually not. What Alexander did was equivalent of defeating a small kingdom (after much struggle) on the fringes of Europe and then claiming to have conquered the whole of Europe. The Greeks never came into contact with any of the major kingdom, they didn't even came anywhere close to the population centre's of modern-day India. Also, the statement that 'Huns broke the Gupta empire' is wrong. They came close to doing it, by defeating Ramagupta, but his brother (Skandgupta, also one of the biggest military genius of the world, right up there with the likes of Alexander and Genghis Khan, though sadly very little is written about him) then took over the reigns and restored the empire by defeating Hunas to the point that they left the subcontinent and didn't return for another century. And then there are many other things, likea lack of understanding on How Maurya empire operated or How India's geography has been major impediment to centralisation. Your understanding of 'Hindutva' Or Hindu Nationalism is very flawed too, but then again, most people of left as well as right from Western nation usually see RSS and Hindutva through the lens of what India's academia (which is mostly left leaning) has written on it, and very few attempts have been made to understand the philosophy and actual history of Hindu right wing, which is quite unique and different from Western Right wing, (it still has its flaws, I'm not calling them saintly or saviours, but calling them fascist is too simplistic and ignores many ground and historical realities).... but I guess I'll leave that for someone else to elaborate on. Still, commendable work, you got the essence right. India has a society, that has existed for thousands of years, it even has some direct connections to the Indus Valley Civilization and various Chalcolithic societies, but it lacked a state (and it's institutions).
well said. i was a bit disappointed on his description of the mauryans, since they did have chanakya (chandragupta's mentor) who did write the Arthaśāstra (Sanskrit: अर्थशास्त्र, IAST: Arthaśāstra) an ancient Indian Sanskrit treatise on statecraft, economic policy and military strategy. also the greeks only reached till the borders of modern day pakistan, alexander's army was too tired and homesick to continue ahead. they did culturally assimilate by becoming the indo-greeks.
and yes his understanding of hindutva is also flawed for the reasons you mentioned. the indian rw tries to appeal to the majority and adapt to the overton window. look how they've come far away from where they started.
@@mg1721 I feel he purposefully ignored it to glorify china empire, or he is just too dumb to read.
@Ashwin Varghese ok paid bot
@Ashwin Varghese or maybe not everyone keeps tab on what every politicians say, there are too many and too many talk bs to stay in the news. doesn't mean people support this, also what politicians are hollow words.
@Ashwin Varghese I mean raping dead women isn't Hindu ideology, not sure Islam though since it's legal in Egypt
I think this is the best video you've made so far. The clarity of thought and sharp analysis is absolutely striking. I'm amazed and appreciative of the brilliance of passionate and talented creators like you and others who put out such high quality work for free.
@@Test-dm3hf yup lol
Dude, you may say the Tang centralization eventually led to their downfall but to say it was because of Empress Wu, whom the Tang dynasty outlived by more than two centries is quite a stretch.
Her Grandson, Xuanzong had a golden age under him, but later in life he made mistakes that led to the catastrophic An Lushan rebellion. But the Tang still survived that rebelion and entered more than a century of very slow decline.
27:34, Kraut is correct in the fact that India never had proper political unity, but fails to mention the fantastic Cultural and Societal unity of Subcontinent. The big two Hindu Epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata all take place all over India and refers to the Subcontinent as a Distinct Cultural entity that is different from lands outside it. Which is why even when outsiders saw the Subcontinent from Herodotus to Al Biruni, they referred to it as a Distinctive cultural unit that is politically divided. As such a Concept of United India would not have seen as unthinkable to do but just something difficult to implement due to political disunity and fragmentation by the Indians
The video is more concerned with unity of a 'political' nature, that being under a state so it's fair that he didn't go out of his way to mention other aspects.
You can't expect a multi sectional view in a 47 minute video.
this si pretty stupid video.. brahmic which religion is this... its like him trying to deliberately set agenda by put dharmic religion as seen by abhramic lenses
@N Gaming wut?
@@eucenor4171 ah yes Subash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Uddam Singh were also infested by it and hindu and muslim extremists did not cause riots during partition, leftist propaganda is cure to your selfishness and a caste system that doesn't work now, our freedom fighters understood it and now it's time for you to understand
@N Gaming sorry vrooo....
Vedic Hinduism is 5000 years old and caste system which we see as today was formed 2000 years ago. Correct your factss....
During vedic time, it was division of labour which was common in every civilisation; But it transform into hereditary system around 100AD- 300AD by brahman and upper caste people to control the society.
As always, top-notch quality, and super enjoyable, content!
14:00 if a hindu lives a moral life he gets moksha(no rebirth) not being born into a higher caste
yeah
Foe that you need to live a Life which is completely moral which for most people is Impossible
That does not happen in one birth. You are not going to achieve moksha from living just one moral life. Moksha is something ultimate and requires many births(acc to vedas atleast)
@@deusexmachina1720 its difficult but if a man is extraordinary determined to the path of yoga or Aghori or Sadhu then he/she can achieve moksha but its extremely difficult and only one in millions can do this.
Kiran, rebirth based on karma is what everyone get, and those who reach "moksha" get free from the cycle of life and death.
The biggest flaw I see in this video is the misrepresentation of Confucianism in China. Confucianism isn't nepotism, it is the moral code of the state to prevent the state terror described in the video. Legalism is the structure of the state while Confucianism is to keep the emperor humane and the driving force of Chinese society. They aren't in direct opposition to one another and actually coexist, keeping the other in check. If legalism was the sole ideology in the Ming Dynasty, it would have been like the Qin Dynasty where being late is punished by death. Ruled by an emperor with complete power and no one to stop him.
法家有三派，儒家也跟各个学派合流，不过几千年来儒家一直有一个共识，就是把皇权关进笼子里，从孟子的道德到董仲舒的天人感应，由此泛化到对全中国的影响，辩证的看这确实有好的一面也有坏的一面，但是儒家思想远远不是他嘴里宽泛的阻碍，而是因势利导的结果
法家有三派，儒家也跟各个学派合流，不过几千年来儒家一直有一个共识，就是把皇权关进笼子里，从孟子的道德到董仲舒的天人感应，由此泛化到对全中国的影响，辩证的看这确实有好的一面也有坏的一面，但是儒家思想远远不是他嘴里宽泛的阻碍，而是因势利导的结果
Just a little disappointed in the quality of your research. Untouchables are not "separated into 3 groups" - Harijan means "god's child" and was used by Gandhians to describe untouchables. Dalit means "Oppressed" and is the most common word used in modern times. "Pariah" is an English corruption of a single jati of untouchables from Tamil Nadu called "Paraiyar", literally, a person who wields the "Parai" drum. These are all modern words to describe untouchables as a whole and nobody would have even heard of these terms 100 or 200 years ago. Though overall, I did love your analysis, I hope you are able to increase the comprehensiveness and accuracy of your research next time, especially when you discuss such sensitive issues
According to the description, i think he read only 1 book (RS Sharma) to study India's ancient society. So it's understandable. Thank you for pointing out the mistakes, it'll be helpful to viewers.
A day that Kraut releases a video is automatically a good day.
-Sun Tzu
"Sun Tzu said that"
Depends if kraut is going to be based or cringe. It's a 50/50 chance.
But what if you are watching this at night? It be a good night then listening to this while sleeping.
@@lilkayswirl and I'd say he knows a little more about quoting than you do _pal_ because he invented it!
ah yes i rememer reading that exact line in 孙子兵法
38:15 It's a touchy subject because most people (including you, I'm sorry to say) misunderstand the concept of how modern India came to be - the British left behind a nation that was completely divided, at the time separated officially into more than 560 (no, seriously, look it up) Princely States - and they withdrew their regime A) without completely mediating the unification, and B) AFTER supporting the partition, which further plunged things into chaos.
The resultant divisions tore India apart, and it emerged initially from the disorder as several different countries/states: India, Hyderabad, Kashmir, West Pakistan, East Pakistan, Portugese Goa and French Mahe (those last two being colonies) as well as more than a hundred semi-autonomous Princely States.
Sardar Vallabhai Patel, (today known as the 'Unifier of India') brought most of these disparate elements together via peaceful negotiation, the French and Portugese were thrown out by force, Hyderabad was conquered via military action, East Pakistan was liberated by India from Pakistani rule to become Bangladesh, and Kashmir was joined to the union after the first Pakistani Invasion (and still continues to be disputed).
India as a nation-state exists because of those Indians who wanted a united nation, and worked and fought to create such an entity. British India and India are two completely different political entities, with completely different borders and territories. The fact that foreigners lack such a basic understanding of something so momentous in the nation's history is exactly why it's a touchy subject. In the future, please do your research more thoroughly.
Further reading for those who are interested:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_integration_of_India
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Hyderabad
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_India
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_India
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa
Getting into all of that would require a 6 or 7 hour video series dedicated to the history of India and Kraut's not going to make a large video series until February 2022 because they take too much time and hurt the channel's success.
what exactly did he say that makes you think he "misunderstands" how india came to be?
Thank you for writing this comment
Many of the princely states were too small to exist as sovereign countries. Many of the princes voluntarily acceded. The French and Portuguese territories were too small and indefensible. Sardar Vallabhai Patel wasn't some Bismarck. He was in charge of a united state with a working bureaucracy and one of the best armies in Asia.
As far as "wanting a united India" is concerned, the life of the avg Indian barely changed with Independence.
@@randomaccount-kw2mc have you ever seen the map of british india by administrative regions.......... You comment shows your ignorance
Being an indian, society matters more then unaccountable powerful governance.
The little progress we have made in 70 yrs of "self rule", has been due to community and not govt. You can see this as places like punjab with stronger society values had more progress despite being an urban wasteland and not having any ocean border. However that may be challenged after the farm laws /khalistan riots
@@phanboichau8498 bro come to south, and punjab had problems like drugs issue
@@phanboichau8498 i would still chose india
But i need bullet train🥺 only govt can gib me tat 😩🥺
It is weird that you judge other people’s government 😂😂😂 I support whatever you love but leave China out of it. 93% of Chinese people love our government and if I have to say it, I reckon your government is the one unaccountable. No offense but you started this.
Right, I have to say that, as a Indian person, the conclusions at the end of "The Advantages and Disadvantages of a Powerful Indian "Society" are mostly correct, however the history offered by Kraut is highly flawed:
1. The idea that there would be no greater "indian " identity without foreign invasions is false. Im sure you've heard about the Mahabharat, The oldest epic and longest poem in the world. Well the word "Mahabharat" literally translates to "Great India". The hindi name of India is Bharat. In the story of both Mahabharat and Ramayana, The story pretty much travels the entire length of the subcontinent and even places like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. So the idea that an indian identity didnt exist before is false. What united Indians wasnt a united kingdom or something like that but instead were united by shared values and religions. If Colonialism didnt exist then a united state wouldnt have existed, not that it does now, its still very divided. But there would probably be some sort of alliance like the EU is.
2. Harijans, Dalits, and Parias are the same thing.
3. Caste wasnt as strict in ancient India wasnt as strict as it was a 2000 years ago. When the caste system emerged, it was a system used to specialise parts of societies. You could very well jump between castes if you want to. There's a general trend in India that liberal suggestions and rules became increasingly conservative and strict as time went on. To give you an example, In ancient India, Women were told to not enter kitchen while menstruating, over time it went from "hey babe, you might not be feeling well, you should take some rest" to "MENSTRUATION IS SPIRITUALLY IMPURE AND WOMEN SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED IN THE KITCHEN OR THE FOOD WILL BECOME IMPURE". Thats how its pretty much is with the caste system too.
4. The idea that Hindu Nationalists want to revert back to old times and want a decentralised systems is kind of false. On the contrary, Its them who push the strongest for a very strong centralised state to counter China too in some sense. Not that i think itll ever happen simply due to demographics. A centralised state like China would be near impossible to pull in India because there is no majority in ethnicity or language. China consists of 50 ethnicities with 90% han chinese, while India has over 2000 ethnicities with no one in the majority. Ik that there are sub cultures within the han chinese, but you could make the same argument for ethnicities in India.
While I was overall kinda dissapointed with the mistakes made both on the chinese and indian sides, This video is still overall very good and gave me an interesting perspective of the whole state vs society thing. India as a concept is very hard to understand for foreigners where the sheer scale of its diversity makes it incredibly complex. Let alone foreigners, most Indians have a hard time understand the concept, so i can definitely give kraut a pass on that. I have been interested in Chinese state and society for a very long while now. And what interests me is that even though the Chinese and Indian societies and state are very opposite, The average Chinese and Indian person is still very similar on an individual level. Same sense of family values, traditions, focus on academics, hardworking nature, good food etc. The same market trends that worked in China 10 years ago work in Indian markets extremely well now. Its why Chinese made products are so deeply penetrative in Indian markets, to the point it harms our local brands and industries.
Its also deeply ironic to me that in a race between a communist society and a socialist one, the one who won was the one who embraced capitalism first.
I dont think the India and China's 2000 year old relationship will ever reconcile unless China somehow allows Tibetan Independence. But I certainly wish it could happen. A true and united "Indo-China" state would be the most based thing on earth lol although it would probably be very unstable.
Even though India lags behind now, I believe it will become a strong competitor to China, more so than it is now. The idea of that is probably laughable to a chinese person, but remember if you said to someone in the 1970s, that China in the future will have 5 times the economic might of Japan, They probably wouldve laughed at you too.
there is literally a concept in indian phillosphy named " chakravarthin" , it is given to the emperor who is able to unify all or majority of india!! the concept surely existed but no one could accomplish it thats not our fault..
@@byron-ih2ge Chakravartin is just the name of an ideal, universal ruler.
@@tejasmisra9115 chakravartin r three types and one of them refers to the guy who unifies the indian subcontinent
@@tejasmisra9115 india nvr got any chakravartin except Chandragupta and ashoka
hear hear! Fricking Awesome comment man!
Great video as always
How did you get those stickers ?
@@avibcci1297 I joined the channel as paying subscriber. You're supporting the creator
highly appreciated! Ive been to India 5 times and these concepts crossed my mind. A fascinating, much overlooked, spiritual cradle of a country. I never was confronted with my damn soul as much as visiting India. Amazing people, amazing food. Highly reccomend!! No Hate for China ofc
Dont kid yourself u visit rich n well main maintained temple and talk about that yet not about the common people living condition the open defecation thing going on
@@DK-yz9xk ehm, no. How can one miss that? I just omitted it from my comment. I havent been to your restroom tho, do you recommend?
@@dodododatdatdat my restroom? 🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@DK-yz9xk my god you can only see open defecation.98 percent of the population has toilets and propper sanitization.india is a middle income country now.
@@DK-yz9xk and kid dont think you are smart by checking 2017s article
In the Indian subcontinent.. India certainly is already the cultural superpower.. influencing all the nations in its periphery.
Sending love & respect to India.... from Pakistan
You can't be a cultural superpower when your culture is to divide people on the basis of birth, it's utterly ridiculous and makes no sense.
what a twist!
@@molamola8305 Your are trying to read physics from a literary work. At that time social stability was more important than social justice for the survival of whole society. Don't measure temperature with barometer.
@Gaming ZONE GAZO Bruh no there is discrimination. It happens a lot in rural areas on both caste and religious basis. And literacy does not matter. There was this episode of Satyamev Jayate on female infanticide (from I guess 2012) which said that even IAS officers have indulged in it. Education is no bar for discrimination of any kind.
It may be a cultural superpower, but the culture itself is quite outdated which ends up hindering every dam South Asian nation.
*Well done , shit didn’t help at all it just made things more stagnant*
Well... The end of the Quin tells us one thing: It's really important to have punishments proportionate to the severity of a crime and the death penalty (which probably shouldn't exist in the first place) must only be enacted against the most severe of crimes, if at all. If you know for a fact that your life is lost, there is little reason for you to not do something utterly insane.
It’s Qin
Qing and Quin, nice
No it teaches us not to be extreme.
Laws are made in an Ideal world. Humans cant follow the law entirely (Either by choice or by unnatural causes), so by punishing even the simplest "offense" you'd basically punish everyone.
This reminds me of Foucaults book, Disclipline and power. In this book he describes the history of the use of disciplinary measures through the (only western) ages. He uses an example from the middle ages where it was common for the crowds gathered, to go against the executioner if the disciplinary punishment, i.e hanging, chopping heads off etc. wasnt performed discretionary to the verdict. Basically if the state failed to accordingly punish the subject, in this case the hanging fails or heads dont get chopped of in one clean swing, there would be a riot. Its the successful performance of power that guaranties legitimacy. Power is never a given.
BUT really important to exact it proportionality, as you mentioned
Here's a quote from Confucious: "The society destabilizes when overindulgence of boldness spread in poor and hedonism spread in rich." This seems to be a good argument against extreme legalism.
Recently the farm laws were repealed after a widespread successful protest by the farmers.
Just shows that people do often protest and do often get their voices heard
I think it's an election stunt most probably they will rewrite some of them and will introduce them in future
@@user-krishna-sunkara I agree
@@user-krishna-sunkara well the laws were overall good with minor issues and the fact they failed to gain trust of the society as they weren't properly informed earlier.
If they solve this laws are good to go.
@@kartikeykasniya6971 I am not against them but the problem is that the larger mistrust in the citizens so u can easily manipulate them and our media houses are already have gone to dogs and they are highly influenced by outside forces I would recommend you to read some of the blogs on the internet you will know what I mean they will twist the narratives
@@user-krishna-sunkara look i know our media houses suck donkey balls. But it would be wrong to blame the government because the media don't want to run real news because it doesn't make as much money.
However media is helping goverment to get away with many "not so lawful" things which is wrong and should be stopped.
And media is twisting facts that is also true.
I'll be honest as a Thai am one of those "dunces" that likes to view things through the wrong lenses. Your videos really opened my eyes to the ignorance I had towards various civilizations throughout history and their development. Keep up the good work!
That’s a good point, one thing not spoken about much is how non European countries view state, society and the development of civilisations, what lense were you viewing the world?
As a Thai, it must be fascinating as both Chinese and Indian philosophies have had significant influence over SE Asian societies.
The "listen here you little shit" translation at 45:08 is chef's kiss. There a few errors, that was an absolute cherry on the top of this video
45:14 Great! Now I that have seen the Hindi version of the Navy Seal Copypasta, I think I've seen everything in life! Kudos to the artist for a gem of an easter egg!
Hi Kraut, there is one mistake in the video regarding the history of the Tang Dynasty of China. The An Lushan Rebellion didn't happen at the end of Empress Wu Zetian's reign. While her reign was from 690 to 705, the Rebellion happened from 755 to 763, which was the end of Emperor Xuanzong's reign. Also, Empress Wu Zetian's reign wasn't the cause of the Rebellion either.
27:34 "For Indians, concept of sovereignty over a united India didn't make sense at the time". It actually did but in a weird way. Virtually every single Indian who hasn't received explicit "education" to remember that India was created in 1947, knows very well about something you didn't mention in this video, Bharat. This is the ancient term Indians have used for the subcontinent and this landmass has been revered as the land of followers of a specific culture. This is not a coincident that people of a divided landmass came together to form the political map of India and agreed upon it post independence, the cultural unity has formed the groundwork of India and has formed the unity which doesn't seem to get acknowledgement in non-Indic commentators. I want to insist on this, because even uneducated Indian kids are sentimental about Bharat across India. The distinction in perception of these two terms India and Bharat is massive and those who go through both indigenous education and western style education feel it the strongest. India is new, Bharat is not.
India is the present iteration of Bharat. Anybody who disagrees should not be taken seriously.
@@heatengine9283 Or maybe India is a pipe dream of a few born too high or taught too much to realise that they are not the general society but a glorified club of wannabe philosophers and equivalents of some European/American revolutionaries. Some of the desired goals that comprise idea of India are widely disagreed with in the common public and proof of it is in everybody's face, a traditionalist party is ruling with huge majority and the accredited pallbearer party of "Modern Independent India" is a miserable loser. So even if the Bharat crowd gladly accepts concepts like democracy, it will never swallow the majority of borrowed concepts that make up "India".
@@MK-yj7pn the so-called traditionalist parties are the least traditional elements of India.The true elements of traditional Bharat is represented by Gandhi,who wished to maintain the varna status quo,the primacy of regionalism and the village and that of traditional society.
On the other side the majority of BJP supporters wished for nationalism,urbanization,a stronger state,appealed to lower caste people and formalization of some sanatani society to fight against abrahamic religions.
There is not a shred of the ancient Bharat present here.
@@ihavenojawandimustscream4681 ancient Bharat followed Hindu principles, Gandhi couldn't care about Hindus
@@ihavenojawandimustscream4681 @I have no jaw and i must scream "The traditionalist parties are the least traditionalist?"... Is caste alone is the element which decides whether a group or thought is traditional or not? You seem to believe exactly this, ruling party cuts through caste politics, so it is not traditionalist, Gandhi was not in favour of annihilation of Varna so he is the true traditionalist? By that logic Savarkar must not be a traditionalist since he was anti caste and neither should I, I despise caste as well. Your logic is faulty. As I said, even if the traditionalist Bharat crowd accepts certain new aspects of modernity, one I mentioned is democracy, others maybe capitalism, urbanization etc, there are still certain aspects which it will not compromise upon, one prime example is the debate on the issue of nationalism itself, the India crowd screams that no India existed pre 1947 so nationalism was manufactured later, Bharat crowd screams that love for the sacred geography has existed for long so cultural nationalism has existed since antiquity. Getting back to my point in different words, nationalist Indians do not derive nationalism from geopolitical map of India or the constitution, they derive it from the a shared history of culture and affection for the land, the creator of this video has absolutely overlooked that extremely consequential history.
There are some mistakes in the Indian history depicted in this video.
The birth based caste system emerged about 1600 years ago and solidified only during the late Mughal - Early Colonial era.
Jati is not a sub category of Varna, they are two different things, Varna translates to category and Jati translates to birth status.
The Varna system, was based on one's attributes. The Vedas and Bhagwat Gita clearly state that one's Gunas or attributes determines one's Varna.
The Varna system slowly decayed into lineage based Jati or caste as we know it today.
Another mistake is assuming Mauryan Admistration to be decentralised. Mauryan Empire was one of the most centralised states in ancient history, with all ruling and governing standards codified in a book called "Arthashastra".
Most Mauryan bureaucrats were selected based on merit not on lineage, right to the city level.
Its extreme centralisation is cited as one the reasons for its collapse.
You are however correct in assuming that India slowly decentralised.
The reason for its collapse was idiot king named Ashoka who seeded disharmony among his subjects. Chanakya was an advisor to both Chandragupta and Bindusara but was dead by the time of Ashoka. He adopted a state religion and destroyed the secular nature of the Empire. He also increased taxes heavily and turnt the country into a badly governed burecreatic nightmare. He went on wars which were Economically unprofitable. He tried to turn the State from Amoral to Moral but instead made it Immoral. He violated almost every principal of Arthashastra.
Great videos, but there are many inaccuracies about india. Especially caste, social mobility and creation of new caste did exist and dependent on sankritization. Indian military did evolve new tactics and inventions like the stirrups and measures to counter horse archery. Reason for lack of horse archers was the lack of pastoral lands.
.
Viyayanagara did have horse archers.
Kraut really likes choosing a thesis statement and distort history so that what is initially a somewhat accurate observation can be presented as an ironclad rule. His videos are good but are often very inaccurate.
you should look at the post he made talking about mistakes. he is very thorough with his china mistakes at least
@roy roy caste structure was ossified in post Gupta Era and Islamic onset with bhakti movement. Brits further ossified it.
The whole video essay is based on false assumptions and colonial history of India.
India had strong states that dictated society. Sarawasti Sindhu civ/ ivc had a strong state, and so did various mahajanpadas etc. Brahmins were the only intellectual class, there were Shravans, ajivikas and other.
Sankritization happened with marathas who were considered lower caste and later become upper caste. Note that it happened in late mughal Era.
Indian village republics were result of Islamic destruction of urban centers.
We need indic vision that's not colonial.
I randomly hit a point on vid and it says around 10:30 that Brahmins were the only ones who were literate. This is such a load of bs.
How is this possible that such a long standing civilization with so many feats had education only restricted to only Brahmins. Like- no king, ministers, merchants or local city admins were literate or well read???
Use your mind a bit before making such a long video.
Why need schooling when
minister son can educate from minister father
Merchant son can educate from merchant father
Worker son can educate from worker father ??
@@udhayakumarMN It's not so simple. Yes, education & speacalised education (or training) is necessary. But the method of education also matters.
This western model of education where pre-school, primary/middle/high-school, college is flawed. Many people critise it, including europeans themselves.
But they were. You can still be illiterate and pass down long standing traditions down.
He gets 90% wrong about India. Still people are appreciating him. He also did not mention that China was ruled by foreigners for centuries. And Indian state was not always centralised by a single empire, but it is ridiculous to say that the various regional kingdoms were not strong. Just look at the glorious Vijayanagara Empire or the Chola Empire or the Eastern Ganga/Gajapati empire of medieval India. They were extremely efficient in administration and social welfare. Brahmins were not even 1% of the population in Ancient India and to say they were the only educated ones when half of Indian literature is straightup written by non-Brahmins., preposterous. Also, Ancient Indian state may not have as efficient administration as China, but our output in science, arts and mathematics was not a random chance of brilliance but generations of systematic keeping of records and appreciation of keepers of knowledge.
This is actually right. The prince is first educated by the Brahmin guru guys about how to run an empire, ethics, war, shaastras and other important aspects. Only then will he become a King who truly deserves to be on the throne. Even merchants were educated. Otherwise, how would they run their business?
Good observation bro, but please don't insult the creator as he might have spent many months in researching and making this long video. He is a human too, he makes mistakes. We have to correct him, not curse at him.
The art on this video was just ridiculously good. The combination of interesting concepts with thorough research and great execution makes this honestly my favourite channel
Somethings that I feel should be also mentioned is
How people in ancient India were flexible enough to start their own sect, village, race or religion without too much conflict.
If you had sound arguments to back up your statement, you could get away with almost anything lol
"Without too much conflict"? What is the reason that the birthplace of Buddhism has Buddhists in minority? Because they were either wiped out, absorbed or chased out of India. Sure, a certain leeway existed among few rulers who patronized other sects but they were few and far between.
@@PrateekRai127p Hehe, first of all, don't consider Buddhism a totally separate religion. And also, buddhism only became popular due to efforts of Emperor Ashoka, after his death, Hinduism again began popular
@@PrateekRai127p so tell me how Muslim became so populars the same with buddhism the Jains and Sikhs only or most commonly exist in India
@@PrateekRai127p wiped out ? Chased ? Really many Hindus considered buddha as an incarnation of lard Vishnu . Many people consider Buddhists and Jainist as well sikh and hindu as part of ultimate sanatm dharm.
But the extreme emphasis of non-violence can be attributed to downfall of not only Buddhists but also Mauryan empire .
@@pratyushkishore9030 Vainshavites absorbed Buddha into their culture and reincarnated him as an avatar of Buddha. Buddha rejected the Vedas which the Brahmins didn't like as the power were falling off from their hands.
Damn that was really good, and love the new sponsor! If you’re so conflicted w/using sponsorships (Which you shouldn’t be, you need and deserve to be paid lol), then try to do more of these kinds of placements for more grassroots things like that
I have always heard and known about the rich heritage of China but this video gave me a real appreciation of China's history and its state and culture. Even as an Indian myself, I learned quite some new things about the state of princely states before any major inavsions and how our society was modeled. I hate the caste system of India and very much dislike the strong bend and influence of religion on governments. Thank you for such well researched, in-depth videos on such wide breadth of topics and histories.
Whenever people talks about cast system in india, they always tends to forget that, vedic bramhinism was not a active throughout the subcontinent. Many forms of early hinduism actually were against this hierarchy. Even the place I comes from does have many social identities, that doesn't even mentioned in vedas, gita or any other vedic literature. Non-aryan tribals are one such example of this. Throughout the history there were plenty of ruler who challenged and uprooted the varna system.
I don't deny that castism and specially discrimination do exists in society, but that's only limited to social fabric. It doesn't effect economically.
And the reason India didn’t have a centralized authority was because of ethnic diversity in the region not varna system. Unlike china where 80% people comes from 3-4 large ethnicities, india had 100s of them. In the past most kingdoms tends to suppress others' culture,which brings instability.
Even today our states are devided mainly into the basis of language, ethnicity and culture. This brought us peace and mutual respect for each other. Today's India is not a nation state like china or european countries. It's a union bound by the same cause.
You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding china's development. They had (and still have) a high number of different ethnicities. The central state just kept assimilating new groups until they were sufficiently similar to be called a subdivision of the 'han Chinese'.
So it isn't 'India couldn't develop a single centralised state because there were lots of ethnicities'. It's the other way around; India has lots of languages and cultures and ethnicities because there was never a single strong state to enforce conformity
It ironic that very traditional Hinduism was a giant something like the caste system.
@@Kevin-cm5kc Indeed, the genetic and linguistic divides within the "Han Chinese" are almost as significant as those between European ethnicities.
@@Kevin-cm5kc You are right at some extent. Actually it goes both ways, like never ending cycle. Ethnicity developed from ancestry. 99% of chinese ethnicities came from proto-mongoloids, where India had aryans, dravidians, proto-mongoloids and astro-asians. India had tried to developed a centralized state like Maurya, Mughals, Guptas, Palas as he mentioned. They also did enforced single ethnolinguistic culture. But when the kingdoms fall , those ethnicities regains significance again. Centralism in expense of our ethnolinguistic culture and values can't be accepted here. Unionism or federalism is the only way out.
Halfway through, I just realised how woefully ignorant I am about most consequences of the cast system, so thank you from the bottom of my heart for another passionate and educational video! Absolutely marvelous.
Bro cast system wasn't a rigid system that Brits make out to be there tons of examples of people changing their casts. Even the sati wasn't forceful britis changed history to make look turks look good. Because monghols never invaded India. Most people don't know the basics but will talk mad stuff because they read something which was propaganda to oppress true indian history.
@@GE0attack bruh, caste system was pretty messed up by the time the Brits came, But it used be fluid.
@@GE0attack Stop being revisionist. The British exploited our weaknesses. The caste system is a "sick" system of rigidity. This new Hindu Nationalist theory of blaming the Brits for everything is absurd. Some of us are old enough to predate this so we know better. Please open up your thinking and critique. It will help you to be more balanced and to make informed decisions. British rule in India was brutal but it ended 75 years ago. Formal British rule lasted less than 100 years in certain parts therefore we need to take accountability for the legacy that we have inherited and to 'fix it'. That is the only way forward. This video amongst others highlights this. Us from the South have been under British occupation for much longer but we do not share your sentiment.
@@louvendran7273 lemme guess you're from T.N
@@dograkhalsa1098 he's not wrong though, wherever he's from.
I saw that 'smug chuckle' at 39:00 lmao
How is lord smuckles these days anyway? Havent heard from him since, well, you know.
Ayo wassup heyzeus
"back to shitty food"
*laughs in british*
What if ur name was gayzues lol
Your knowledge on the Indian caste system seriously lacks detailing.For ex- the author of Ramayana was never a Brahmin and the largest empire of India the Mauryans were forest dwellers,infact among all the major empires of India, most of them were led by so called low cast people. History is not so simple that the power of knowledge will reside in only one particular group.
Having studying anthropology and sociology i can say that Indian Caste System is hugely complex.
All these non-Indians generally have formed an opinion based on the half cooked knowledge of some western Media.
Thank you to Kraut for putting a lot of effort in into making this video. Like the Chinese guy below, as an Indian I would also say that while some of the end conclusions, in terms of India being a deliberately weak state due to the British, for example are correct, the history is mostly incorrect, flawed or seen from a very colonial lens.
Firstly, WTH is Brahminical religion? It's called Hinduism, the former term is what Hinduphobes use to demean Hindus.
Shudras were not servants. Shudra jaatis did many of the occupations that would be considered part of the service industry today. Brahmins didn't hold a monopoly on knowledge and writing. In fact British census records from early 1800s Tamil Nadu show that Shudras jaatis had relatively the highest levels of literacy (this was based on the village schools before the British replaced them with their own system of education). While the 4 Varnas are theoretically defined, at no point in time did they exist independently i.e. each Varna was always made up of multiple jaatis, including the Brahmin Varna. What this meant is that in reality the professions that jaatis followed varied regionally and even within regions, in fact there were so many exceptions to the "rule" that it's quite hard to say if the "rule" was followed. Also as far as the timeline is concerned marriage being restricted within jaatis - endogamy - only started in around 500AD according to the genetic data check Razib Khan's work on this.
The Mahar caste of Maharashtra despite being considered untouchable during the later British period, served an important role as the go-inbetween different villages - they were literate, well respected and also sold cattle hides and so were often wealthy.
Coming onto the invasions bit, India as a region isn't suited to horse archers in general, perhaps only the west is suited to rearing horses. Ironically, enough once invaders settled down in India they generally stopped using horse archers and even started using elephants, be it the Mughals or Shakas.
India as a state: yes there is no question that India wasn't a centralised state like China historically. However, the Mauryans and others didn't merely rely on donations and submission of kings. The Arthashastra is very clear on this and explains in detail how the economy worked. Also the usage of the term princely states in describing the various kingdoms is incorrect, princely states only existed during British rule and were protectorates of the empire. As would be expected the description of Islamic rule completely whitewashes all the persecution and brutality that Hindus and others had to face from them. The concept of Bharat(am) (India) as a nation is as old as the Hindu scriptures which refer to it by many names - Jambudvipa and Aryavart and Bhartam. Each king certainly had the desire to become a chakravartin and rule the entirety of Bharatvarsha. Without Islamic and British rule this was certainly possible; the video bypasses the rule of the Marathas who replaced the Mughals who tried a new form of governance before the British took over.
One thing that has to be commended is the explanation behind the institutions of the modern Indian state. The deliberate weaknesses created by the British have continued to render various state functions ineffective even today. However, the Hindu nationalists are certainly correct in arguing that India is a civilisational state based on Hinduism that has existed for millennia. This state might have always been weak but it's existence cannot be denied. The example of Himachal Pradesh disproves an earlier claim in the video that non-Brahmins couldn't be literate. In fact everyone could be literate however the areas that were ruled by the British and the Muslims for longer period of times fared worse. Areas which managed to continue their older legacies and were independent for longer fared better in terms of literacy. In addition many princes of princely states in the 19 and 20th centuries worked hard to provide literacy to all - Gondal and Baroda established schoolers in all villages.
Misunderstanding Hindu Nationalism: Only this movement seems to be in the position of strengthening the Indian state. Hindu nationalism isn't forcing itself upon anyone, but rather was voted into power with a large majority. The issue isn't whether it can reconcile it's centralisation tendencies with the usually unjust and out of proportion demands of minorities but rather whether it can reconcile it's views with the diverse views of Hindus in society, maintaining the fidelity of various Hindu traditions while at the same time unifying Hindus politically and socially.
Why? Because Hindu nationalism has from day one a number of things in its agenda that traditionalists hate.
- Abolishing caste discrimination
- Caste intermarriage, interdining, no restrictions on profession
This is what he was saying " hindu nationalism" because u seem to only care about the religion and just say the same thing with little things to change your narrative like "correcting" it into Hinduism instead of brahminical religion but it being the same thing and u just being delusional
@@AbhayKumar-od4yf your comment doesn't make any sense, please make your point again. Hindi is also fine. In summary the differences are:
- Endogamy and powerful tribes arising from that is only 1500 years old
- Hindu Civilisational Identity is millennia old but the "state" this created was always weak
- Literacy and caste do not correlate before British rule
- Hinduism isn't 'Brahminical' as the latter implies that it's only related to Brahmins when this is not the case
- The colonial trope that only foreign invaders created a state in India is outdated and not borne of any actual evidence. In fact the examples of Maurya, Gupta and the Rastrakuta, Pala and Pratihara wars for Kannuaj show that Hindu kings always had an intent to conquer all of Bharat.
As an Indian, I can tell you that we have a complicated relationship with the caste system. As it was something used by foreign and inhabitant rulers alike to assert control, yet it was also the foundation on which people forged the 'Indian' identity. Thank you so much for explaining our culture in such a detailed way.👌🏻
Without caste system India would probably be an islamic state much like afghanistan.
So there were many disadvantages but a few benefits
@@uzochiokeke4328 not really
@@uzochiokeke4328 Can you elaborate on that?
@@uzochiokeke4328 no fuq off
@@sohamdas7314 yes really
Dalit, Harijans and Pariahs are the different names for the same group of untouchables of India.
This is an amazing video but there is something that annoys me. It is the idea that a nation is unified solely by political and administrative unity. It is highly reductive and very much a Western perspective. What about spiritual, ritualistic unity? Two people- one from the southernmost state of Tamil Nadu other from the northern state of Harayana; both of them are vastly different from each other but I bet that both of them touches the feet of their mother for blessings before writing an exam.
I guess India's acceptance of plurality be it in religion or languages or culture in a way that such acceptance of differences itself becomes the unifying factor for people is difficult to comprehend for a foreigner.
@Mr. Pokhrel That's interesting. I'll try to understand that better. Untill now I was of the opinion that strong spiritual and ritual unity can be used in nation-building. However, I may have been too idealistic/utopic with my view.
@Kong Jun Jie I don't know how Chinese society sees that as...but if the same were to happen in India, the entire country would have revolted. The story of how ghe sepoy mutiny of 1857 started because of soldiers refusing to use british cartridges covered in pork or cow fat really shows how touchy religion and traditions in India are, rather than state and leadership.
@Kong Jun Jie The Cultural Revolution worked in China but this video was legit all about showing why the Chinese way won't work in India. If a leader tries to erase culture and tradition in India with an ironfist, people will get rid of the government and leader instead of changing their way of life. Lmao it is really funny because we Indians are too indisciplined for even tyranny to work. I guess poor rule of law has its weird perks.
@Mr. Pokhrel Hopefully you are right about the Hindu nationalists failing. Because I see them doing something in the Hindi heartland that has never happened before. That is the consolidation of Hindu votes regardless of caste. I guess this will trend will be limited to that region of India. I cannot imagine such consolidation to spread in Southern and Northeastern India.
"We live in a State-Society" joker in an alternate universe with a Chinese father and Indian mother.
The Indian ancient history was grossly incorrect. The caste system wasn't rigid- we have many examples of shudra kings(it became a rigid institution in later mediaeval times).
There were many other thriving philosophies and majority of which were materialistic. Including ajivikas(atheists) and lokayats(which denied brahmanism all together).
There were Upanishads (part of Vedanta philosophy) which questioned vedas.
We have had brahmin kings which later claimed to be kshatriyas and vice versa too.
I didn't watch the entire video so idk if he mentioned these things later.
Edit: I'll put the end to this debate in comment section. The caste system wasn't as rigid in early medieval times(It was still rigid, but people could still ride up the ladder of social structure).
Few non khastriya rulers are -
Avanti varman - 9th century - then the lohara dynasty which were literally lohars(blacksmiths).
Lakhan pasi - 10-11 century - lucknow city is named after him
Chintamoni dhoba - 12th century - who came from the dhobi caste..
These are just a few examples of many that are out there
The bhakti movement was not to keep people into Hinduism as suggested by someone in the comments. It was a reformist movement not a revivalist. It originated from south whose brahmin were anything but like north indian brahmins. People converting to budhism is just laughable, during bhakti movement the Buddhism was on a steep decline. Even the Huein Tsang writings hints towards it(although he doesn't mention it straight up). Buddhism literally vanished till 12th century the process of which started even during gupta age if not before.
Another unrelated half researched point made in there was condition of hindu women. Huein Tsang himself mentions women not veiling their faces(purdah was literally absent) condition of women infact got better than earlier. They could inherit property of their deceased husband (unlike before). The upper caste hindu women started to be kept in purdah but that was in later mediaeval times when central asian invaders bought the custom with them. Yes the sati was prevalent and we do hear about a sati incident in gupta age too but that was just another fact thrown in which had nothing to do with the point of discussion. Hope this clears up everything cause i am too lazy to write more.
PS: the caste system is a really regressive and disgusting concept and there are no two ways about it.
Yeah, agreed.
Correction - Huien Tsang Came to India in during Early Medivual Times, he mentioned that Indians Caste System is very Rigid, Sati System also prevailed
@@Anutosh13 he didn't mentioned it.. Stop lying so me source.. Sati system actually started around 11-12th century and untouchability started around 15th century
@@kanekirana9530 a Big No Sir.
Heuin Tsang wrote a detailed description of India during the reign of Harsha in his book ‘Si-yu-ki’ or ‘Record of the Western Countries’.
Caste system was Rigid. And Sati System prevailed.
@@Anutosh13 harsha was himself bhuddist king 👑 and he wasn't hindu.. And he talked about india as a prosperous kingdom where woman were also given education without any purdah system and all people can change there religion voluntarily.. So no one was forced to follow any religion.. And he also mentioned that Indians were lover of education and literature
"If these two fight now, then the World will officially Rest in Pieces." - Dhalsim from Street Fighter
give it a few decades, maybe a century then this will be true
@@gongzhengchuan2609 The world is big enough for India and China.
@@heatengine9283
*Not their stupid egos though lol*
@@proger1960 if it was for american and European then it will be for two ancient civilizations too
And everyone knows how big egos of American are.....Vietnam, middle east, Latin America and Caribbean
Historical errors aside, this video was fantastically well put together. You’ve quickly become one of my favorite creators.
Historical errors like what?
@@SilverScarletSpider Empress Wu was not followed by the Song, she was followed by a Tang restoration that lasted another 150 years. That is a major error.
@@SilverScarletSpider Wu was not the only emperor. Taizong was a great ruler, and existed before Wu. The error I see is the omission of certain events. Tang was stable under Emperor Wu. Tang fell because of the An Lushan Rebellion which existed after Empress Wu died. The author's historical take is too simplistic.
@@serhatkarabeyli9818 China being the first state is one (Egypt is a couple of millenia older),
@@rhetoric5173 In terms of bureaucracy, not a couple of millenia [a few centuries]. In terms of having a government, sure.
The Chinese state is actually accountable to the citizens. It works through the Imperial examinations/gaokao and promotions within the civil service/communist party. If you want change, you have to be smart enough to do well in exams, rise through the ranks in the party and then you have influence. This is open to anyone, if they're talented enough. If you look carefully, you'll find that the modern Chinese state since Mao's death never goes against the interest of the majority of citizens and usually reacts very quickly to deliver what public protests demand, as long as the protests are not against the power of the state itself (eg zero covid lasted until it wasn't popular anymore at which point it disappeared immediately). China is not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or Bildungsbürgertum in German.
Of course a strong state that is accountable to the majority is not accountable to minorities which can be suppressed ruthlessly. But our biases from having "enjoyed" a European education experience shouldn't fool us into thinking that only the electoral dynamics of the modern western state provide accountability
Great video. But some concepts on present day India are flawed .
1. The aim of most present day Hindu nationalist is to create a unified state like china and not to go back to the old family and caste based system. Unification of Hindu castes is their ultimate aim
2. The know that strong state can not be achieved until caste system is completely abolished.
The stark differences between castes are now rapidly erasing and economic and social upliftment is in slow progress.
Yeah man, these people always tend to compare Hindu nationalists to Nazis because they can't get simple fact that minorities in India have exploited majority. And Hindus are told these are our brothers when they also backstab us at the same time
Hindu nationalism aims to created a united Hindu identity as you said and basically keep the nation united to avoid further exploitations from Abrahamic religions
@@simulify8726 oh yes how minoritys have exploited ??? so to your logic now you will exploit them ???, hindu nationalist do talked about purity of race .
@@opai1821 OH yes, I can show you multiple proof of that ok? And ffs, don't relate anything to purity of race, Indian muslims have same race as Indian Hindus, only think is they are converted and want to slowly takeover Hindu population.
Moplah Genocide 1921
1947 violence
2002 Godhra Train Burning
2013 UP riot
are just a few examples from 20th and 21th century. And this isn't even talking about mass conversions under mughal rule.
Subsequently, muslim population in independent india in 1951 was 9.8% of total population which has increased to 14.23% in 2011 and maybe 15% in 2021 while Hindu population in percentage is going down.
@@opai1821 And are you Hindu? And openly deny that muslims haven't committed any crimes when almost there are daily occurrences of forced conversion.
There is just one single narrative about Hindu nationalism in the West that cannot be washed off. The word 'nationalism' has a very different and uber negative meaning in the West. What they fail to understand is that a Hindu nationalist in the Indian context is just a Hindu patriot who wants his Dharmic pluralism to survive and thrive. In addition, the West's Abrahamic lens bars these guys from understanding the inherent pluralism that is integral to Hinduism. They see 'religious nationalism's and they immediately think 'supremacist'.
It's really sad that those who have dedicated themselves to the annihilation of caste, national service and Hindu modernity are given these negative annotations. It's truly tragic. But for what it's worth, I doubt they (and honestly, me too) care. Seva paramo dharma. Work silently, without praise in the service of the motherland.
42:05 dont know about that. Running a business in India has only recently started to move in anything resembling the right direction. It was a real clusterfk, back in the day.
It's mostly internal crises and international pressure (like the west trying to pry open China during Cold War) that have historically caused India to open up.
@@AcidifiedMammoth And having depleted forex reserves to only being able to afford a week’s worth of imports.
A strong state/central government aka current bjp government is the reason.
Even tho i and many others disagree with their religion based vote politics, we vote for them because they get the job done.
On the other hand we also know we can pull the plug whenever we want cause of fair elections and farm laws and upcoming punjab election are good examples
thank socialism + mercantilism
@@kartikeykasniya6971get what done though? The myth of ease of business has been dismantled in the last 2 years as well. Which begs the question, can cronyism ever not replace good intentioned business practices in India
The caste system which is now viewed as a social hierarchy wasn't made with this intention.
An individual's caste was based on his skills and education rather than the idea that caste was assigned on birth. For example, it was possible for a child born to become priest even if his father was a warrior.
Basically, priests, monks, Sadhus or anyone who was in rituals was assigned to Brahmin category.
Those who read 3 Vedas were assigned title of Trivedi, 2 Vedas so Dwivedi etc.
Those people who had skills in fighting and we're ready to sacrifice themselves were assigned to warrior caste.
People who could neither become priests or warriors were assigned to Vaishya caste, these people would do other things and contribute to society for their living.
People who lacked education, and lacked any good skills were finally assigned to Shudra caste. These people had to make their living through keeping areas clean, becoming servant or burning bodies for their living. This was done so that these people can atleast get food for their living by working for others and continue to live good lives
However, later, the Brahmins started to mess up this system for their own benefit. This started by introducing social hierarchy and then assigning Brahmin caste to their children even if the children had no interest in rituals. This thing spread to all castes slowly.
This system slowly started discrimination among castes and slowly thelowest caste according to this hierarchy slowly started to feel cut out off society.
Some of these started to loot others for their living or start killings and hence were now being viewed as negative elements in society and we're ultimately declared untouchables later down the line.
This is just a brief overview of caste system but it wasn't meant to discriminate people at all instead it happened later
Plus there Jainism and buddhism is literally example of anti cast revolutions
Not really
@@tejasmisra9115 lel, it's complex but my main point is it was fluid and not assigned on birth
In India, the utmost purpose of life is freedom and liberation. This has been the motto of life from 1000s of years from ancient times and not heavens or hell. Hence, society will be more valued than a state. If there is too much discipline and pre-organized life, we feel stuck and breathless.
Aree bhai yeh log jaante nhi hai apne yahan ka system hi alag hai.
kinda explains how india's bueraucracy dragging everything down.
Bhai but we still need a strong but limited state.
@@azuaraikrezeul1677 What do you mean? Current government is much better than previous gov. Atleast infrastructure is being developed in large scale which is the need of the hour in India.
@@charanteja_ i think by bureaucracy he means the one left by British, like the law system
Disappointed that you never really mentioned the Maratha Empire. It was the first and only Indian federacy prior to British imperialism, to utilize modern technologies, tactics and weapons during conflicts with surrounding states and invaders. The Mughals met their downfall partially due to the Maratha federacy. The Marathas even defeated the British in the Battle of Wadgaon in 1779. Its really shameful that the Maratha Empire has been forgotten by so many Indians and foreigners worldwide. Despite the fact that the Maratha Empire was massive in size, and it made up a majority of India. The Maratha Empire mets its downfall in 1818 due to Madhav rao's death and as you mentioned many times in this video "society". The Marathas are underrated.
Makes me wanna "Jai" the Chathrapathi.
He missed alot, it's like he learned indian history from a children's book.
@@itr8247 no he read history that has evidence and context...not nationalists made up stories that suit a certain agenda....history should be objective with basis on facts and evidence, indians want fairy tales and made up stories...rest of the world doesnt operate that way....thats why nationalist indian historians are good for u ppl because they will lie and say whatever to please the weirdos
@@magicmagus1459 Im not saying any of this as a Hindu nationalist. Im saying this as a Historian wannabe.
@@magicmagus1459 Im not a hindu nationalist. But Kraut also has no right to portray our ancestors as mindless barbarians throughout all of Ancient and Medieval India. We have done everything that every other ancient/medieval society has done. Including China. We have adapted and overcome certain obstacles. The Chola Empire was the only Indian Empire to have a naval expedition to Indonesia for cultural purposes(Maybe even war). I don't know too much about the CHola Empire. We were not just mindless primitives, who used War Elephants during the 19th century. Our prioritization in production came from the population, not from factories. India didn't need factories, if it had so much manpower.