I have a hypothesis. Let me know, what you feel about it. I feel that most conquerors who conquered very wide geographical area like Mongols or Arabs lacked resources in their own regions. Even Greece was not a highly resource rich region. Indian subcontinent on the other hand was extremely fertile land. So, the sphere of conquest remained less.
Mongols went to Central Asia and Arabia. The Khiljis repelled Mongol invasions of India. Had this not happened the Indian subcontinent would’ve looked drastically different today. However the Mongols made their way to India by way of Timur and Babur. And this had more to do with having as much territory to streamline revenue than resources.
Expansion is a very human thing for thousands of years. Civilizations rise and fall because of expansionism. It's no different in the Indian subcontinent, a Kingdom slowly grows to become an Empire and that's seen in ancient India as well. Annexation enables Tribute to the King and the further enriches the treasury. End of the day it's the King's will whether to expand his kingdom or remain without expansion.. but given the rich records of Ashwamedha rituals and Digvijaya mentions we can be certain that the rulers within the subcontinent contested in expanding their territories
GREECE WASN'T RESOURCE RICH?? REALLY??? TO SUCCEED IN EXPANSION ONE NEEDS RESOURCES. SO, RESOURCES COME BEFORE EXPANSIONS. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, IT'S ONLY THE RESOURCEFUL THAT SUCCEED IN BUILDING THE MILITARY MIGHT TO DEFEAT OTHER KINGDOMS. RESOURCE COMES BEFORE EXPANSION IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
@@AmitKumarAlphaX no resource rich people did not bother to fight much, for example mongol who lived in extreme weather conditions went any length to conquer lands
The distance between delhi and samarkhand is less than distance between delhi and madurai, and the distance between gandhi nagar and guwhati is not that smaller that distance between tehran and gandhi nagar.
When any one in any part of India claims about their country never attacked any outsiders and there was only wars between different kingdoms inside India, they should understand that those countries inside the current day India was actually outsider for each of them.... When some ruler in current day Tamil nadu or Kerala attacked the other one, he was attacking his enemy and outsider... So every war in that time of history was a war on outsiders... It is as simple....
When Dharmapala and Shashanka of Bengal completed their conquests of Kannauj, they saw the people of Kannauj no difference from the Buddhist Arakan (Myanmar) that they had conquered. For them Bengal was their home region, just like Tamil Nadu was the home region for Cholas, Maharashtra and Gujarat for the Chalukyas, Kerala for the Cheras and Karnataka for the Rashtrakutas
@@mint8648 Concept of India in ancient times?!!! Oh... That's why all these rulers were fighting each other... To build a large country bigger than there's... So that they can call it in a new name... Great... Don't get confused by Bharat and India. Both names represent the same country now. But was not the case all time....
@@orkkojit Our civilisation is not Bharath. Don't force your o me. Even as per the Adiparvan, the Bharatha Kanda, the southern border is Deccan Pleateau.
Sri Lankan conquest is the default behavior of all the Tamil empires be it Cholas , Pandyas , Pallavas .. they know the strategic importance of Sri Lanka unlike modern India
Not just Tamil Empires. The Rashtrakuta Empire had made Sri Lanka a vassal state. The Vijayanagara Empire invaded and occupied Sri Lanka and set up the Jaffna puppet state there
Is not the point. He pushes the envelope, in support of argument that Indian native ethno-cultural groups should not bemoan expansionary Islam and proselytizing Christianity.
@@val-schaeffer1117 everybody does it. We will too .the problem is we have a hostile neighbor who still wishes to return to those days (although they were the ones who lost ) so we need to keep reminding ourselves
@@mohitanand1844 Both the Guptas and the Sassanians ushered Peaceful rule in North India and Persia for atleast 200 years (300-500 AD) until the Sassanians were defeated by Arabs, and Guptas by the Hunas
Excellent New Series. Please continue this , and also repeat the episodes. Also compile all these videos into one Collection on the subject. It's very good.
I disagree with the interpretation of the happenings - Indian wars weren't conquests like colonization but rather wars between principalities within a civilizational whole like Sparta vs Athens or Venice vs Florence or Wei vs Qin. In ancient Asia the main culture was Sanatan - the original spread of Bharat was larger than present-day mutilated India.
I like this program, which will benefit children and adults-a few requests. First, I see scientific analysis is missing in Indian history studies (I only know the 30-year-old syllabus). Any historian's research should have primary sources/secondary sources and pro/against analysis. Second, I see you are flashing ref books, but it will be beneficial if you can flash the text. For example, you are showing the temple photo. What do you want children to infer from that.
Alright, it was all about military conquest. I agree that there were many out of India conquests. But They were following Dharma. Which allows people to follow their own faiths. Same goes for European Pegan conquest Vikings and Greek. When Alexzander came to Egypt he accepted their god and Egyptian accepted him as Pharos. But when it comes to Abrahamic religion expansion its always about 'If you believe me our god then you will live or you have to die.' Have you forget what was crusade was all about ? The Dark age of Europe?
People like him will never accept this harsh reality man. In India being leftist means disrespecting indian culture and religions and glorifying Abrahamic religions and culture.
@@asmirann3636 From early 4th century all Europeans conquest was under Church's Banner. It was church who were making decisions. Kings were just used as medium. . & after 17th century Industrial revolutions Europeans conquest all bout loot and murder.. all were Pirates.
Before Chola empire invaded, Indonesia was majority Buddhist with a Hindu minority. After Chola empire invaded, Indonesia was majority Hindu with Buddhist minority. Why?
Even if we for sometime limit the Kambhojas to Afghanistan, calling them Afghans is just projecting current boundaries and identity to define them. Infact Kambhoja is the oldest identity we know from the region. Afghan is an identity Kambhojas never professed for themselves and also they were not the only people to rule the territory, the Huns,Kushans, Shakas, Indo-Greeks, Indo-Parthians, Achaemenids, Sassanian also ruled the region around the Hindukush at various times would one call them Afghans too?
Kambhojas later migrated to Bengal after serving the tibetan empire. They then migrated further, to southeast asia, where their name can be seen in the modern country of Cambodia
Just think the chola kingdom army consist of only three district (tanjore,ramnad,sengal pat) in this he slected warriors & marines in some thousand mens called semba nat maravas and conquired south east asia like sing,malay,thai,campodiya,indo like maritime route in intrest of safe sea trade but no pages in indian history books. We read only they come,they conquired,we got freedom on aug 15,1947.
U have never read a history book in your entire life, have u ? During Prantaka 2(Raja Raja cholan’s father) reign they had control over Thanjavur, Trichy, Nagapattinam, vilupuram, Ariyalur, perambalur districts n with soldiers from these districts Raja Raja cholan captured the Chera n Pandiya(ramnad dt) lands which is basically the whole of tamil nadu n Kerala n then he captured the northern part of Sri Lanka n Maldives, after that he captured the Rastrakuta empire ( karnataka). Then came Rajendra cholan who had soldiers n chiefs from all these parts to capture odisha, Bengal, Malaysia, indonesia, Andaman n Nicobar islands n the full of Sri lanka
Bharatiya kings didn't fight amongst themselves as crazy. They had very high standards of ethics even during wars even higher than modern warfare.....forget the radical barbarians.
Sorry to correct you but the concept of "Bharatiya kings" has ever existed! PERIOD, bottomline ancient Sindhis, Gandharans, Kashmiris, etc never used the term Bharatis, Bharatvarsha nor any of the cognates of Hind to define themselves, this Bharat agenda was pushed forward by forerunners of the RSS in collusion with the British.Regards Mr Bhattacharjee.
Please read his book lords of the Deccan to understand how “civilised” they were. Sacking, rapes, burning temples and pillaging predate “ foreign” invaders
Dude, you are a genius and this is a superb series. We have hell lot of complex and interesting stories from history which no one focuses. But this series is trying to change that
I remain unconvinced. For example, he cites Tamil polities attacking the South East Asian polities as the prime example of Indians conquering abroad, but these raids were in response to what these polities especially the Sriwijaya empire did to Chola trade. These were responses, they were not conquests that were to expand the territorial holdings of the Cholas.
Exactly I agree... The Cholas attacked South East Asia to secure their trade routes... Much like modern countries set up millitary bases securing their trade routes.. It cannot be called conquest.. The purpose of it wasn't the medieval madness of spreading a religion or looting the temples. It was much more logical much more civilized ( in a way)
They very much were to expand Chola holdings. The invasions took place in the 1020s. Seventy years later, Song Chinese sources still recorded the king of Chola as the same as the king of Srivijaya.
@@Suresh_Kamath history i read: [5] Mukherjee, Bratindra Nath (2001), Nationhood and Statehood in India: A historical survey, Regency Publications, p. 3, ISBN 978-81-87498-26-1 Harris, J. (2012), Indography: Writing the "Indian" in Early Modern England, Palgrave Macmillan US, p. 8, ISBN 978-1-137-09076-8 [6] Eggermont, Alexander's Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan (1975), p. 145: "Sindhu means a stream, a river, and in particular the Indus river, but likewise it denotes the territory of the lower Indus valley, or modern Sind. Therefore, the appellation Saindhavah, means "inhabitants of the lower Indus valley".... In this respect Sindhu is no tribal name at all. It denotes a geographical unit to which different tribes may belong." Dineschandra Sircar (1971). Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 3. ISBN 978-81-208-0690-0. [26] Dwijendra Narayan Jha, Rethinking Hindu Identity (Routledge:2013) All prove india existed before the british
@@nagraj2k1 Seems like your ilk feeds on its knees from your european masters. If that makes you feel taller, sure, go ahead. But you know extremely well how hollow you are inside. The brits did indeed gave ideological slaves like you a purpose. Make them proud.
So, it seems that not only were there conquests, but also there were colonies. Waves of colonists from the Indian subcontinent, often escaping the on-continent wars and conquests, set up colonies all over Southeast Asia of more than a thousand years. In example, in Indonesia, we can clearly see the royally-supported allotments of settlements for Brahmins, Sugatas (Buddhists), Vishnuvites, and Shivites.
Amazing series. I have always been a history buff and this makes me really happy. Thank you and way to go! PS: I appreciate the fact that you provide the sources too.
You are making the mistake of taking the exception as the norm, while there are few instances of Indian kings conquering outside, for most it was a second though to their primary ambition of conquering inside India. This is beautifully illustrated in the Harshacharitra of emperor Harshavardhan, where he announces his conquest to all the four corners of India during the 6th Century AD.
Indians kings ruled complete east to Turkey . But never imposed our traditions nor killed ladies or raped women . Exchanged good between the nation's. All respected. Not like muslims n Christians forcefully converting nor killing people.
You forgot one important point in all this the Indian kings largely left the civilian population alone but that was clearly not the case with the Islamic and the Christian conquerors they massacred the local population if they did not convert to their religions that's why we call them barbarians.
They massacred the local population of they did not convert? 😮 That's a curious case then how 1000 years of Islamic and Christian rulers, India has 82% hindu population.. why didn't India become like Iran or Brazil? 😐
@@kalebj7001 see you need to read in proper schools not just some brain washing madrasas. What is the number of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh which were parts of India. we have given away two separate islamic nations and still have the second highest muslim population in the world. You should ask your ancestors why they converted.
@@ashyjager 🤦♂️ I'm talking about from the time of the Delhi sultanate till the time British came.. that's a solid 800 year rule, how come Hindus were a majority? 🤔 And how come Hindus kingdoms existed even in that 800 year islamic rule? I wonder why muslims and Hindus coexisted if u say they were converting local population if they didn't they killed them.. I wonder why Maharana Pratap had generals like Hakim Shah Sur and Bahma Shah... And Akbar had generals like Man Singh and Jagannath Kachwa... Interesting Hindu king with muslim generals fighting for him against Hindu generals fighting for Muslim king.. why did India not become like Iran (where everyone was converted to islam)... 👀 Oh i see u have read history from ur WhatsApp University classes, it's ok i dont blame you, most ignorant bigots graduate from WhatsApp University. 👍 Maybe it's time u went to proper history classes.. don't bank on WhatsApp forwards dude
@@kalebj7001 Bigot mullah university student India was always a hindu country where did pakistan come from and Bangladesh come from? Those people came from Turkey is it? whatsapp university is any day better than maulana brainwashing university. Not everyone were cowards like your ancestors we fought back from the barbarians. So you are saying that because Hitler killed only 6 million jews jews should have gone extinct? Just because the mughals had some hindu generals doesnot mean they did not kill civilians? where is the logic in that? oh i forgot Madrasas only teach about flying donkeys and not logic.
@@ashyjager 😅 triggered much? Well i see it's progress that u have learnt today that Mughals indeed had hindu generals and Hindu kings also had muslim generals, so that's breaking ur bigoted bias that Muslim rulers were only converting Hindus and if they refused they got killed.. if that was the sole purpose then yes India would have ended up like Iran or Libya, where Hindus would have been in single digit percentage in their population.. good to see I'm teaching u something from history, now go back to history classes like a good kid and read more.. and no i am not muslim, so i have no idea which madaradaa or mullah University u were referring too.. maybe that's ur alma mater like WhatsApp University. 👍
Well not entirely, they did ransack temples back then too.. temples were not just a divine place to that king u see, but also a place of authority.. so i ransack ur temple, in literally establishing my dominance.. u can see such cases in battle of Vatapi, when Pallava king Narasimhan ransacks the temple of the Chalukya and even dethrones the Ganesh idol of that temple.. the inscriptions denote the ransack of Vatapi even today.. or the case of King Harsha in Kashmir tearing down temple (Rajatarangini by Kalhana) or the Rashtarakutan king destroying the temple of the Pratihara in Kalapriya, it wasn't an uncommon thing.. "Hinduism" is not what we term a religion today as it was back then.. ur God doesn't necessarily have to be mine.. i might be a Veera Shaiva who hates a Vaishnavite, as was the case of the Chalukya ransack in Vatapi.. it's a very a fluid and multi faceted religion.. u can be worshipping Rama.. but you'll not be allowed to even mention that Name in the temple of Raavan where the only chants would be "Jai Lankeshwara" not 'Jai Shri Ram'.. the very word "Hinduism" is a British given term.. its like calling islam and Judaism as one religion..
Is it also true that Ashoka was Buddhist before the conquest of Kalinga and it was the made up story after that. If it is than why in our education system we were taught the wrong history.
Underline of the story: Indians don't hesitate to invade our sphere of influences I still remember in one of my SSB interviews asking a doubt to an high ranking interviewing officer, why don't we have a force like Marines of the USA? For which he answered we are not expansionists and historically we never believe in venturing out of subcontinent (sorts of Japanese shogunate period). His tone was of humbleness yet "it is what it is" kind of displeasing vibe. its about time we drop that undermining narrative of we don't want to expand (I meant not the willingness to wage invasion wars, but to maintain a geopolitical demeanor that "we are not sitting ducks" if you annoy us) our school history books of suppressive colonialist narrative has to change!
Im intrested in real history by romila thapar.😜 Recently she said yudhistar got inspiration from king ashoka about ahimsa. Further a very emminent i mean emminent n real historian was asked how do u identify real indian history n saffronised history answer, his answer was not original source, rigour, training etc but a history which helps in nation building.
It is correct to say India did not conquer beyond Bharat. Even when Indian culture was taken to South East Asia, it was not there as foreign culture, but as their own. Angkor vat appears on the flag of Cambodia and Indonesians respect their Hindu heritage a great deal. Buddhists took the dharma far and wide as invitees of those lands and never as invaders just as Shriram did not rule on Sri Lanka.
The spread of Indian culture in South East Asia was not through conquest but through trade.. The Sadhabas of Kalinga traded with South East Asian nations since ancient times ( much before Cholas) and eventually even ended up ruling Indonesia ( search Sadhaba dynasty).
After clearly explaining the idea of digvijaya and how Indian kings saw conquest, why not expand on that, rather than quickly conclude that we are not dissimilar to the rest of the world. The approach of digvijaya, does seem quite unique. I am now keen to know more about that.
I have a conundrum. Much was written about "Chola"empire & dynasties. In maps it is shown as they (cholas) possessed all the east coast of India right into the Gangetic delta (Bengal), from where they brought Ganga water & their capital was named "Gangai`konda`chola`puram". In Telugu history texts, the two deltas of Godavari & Krishna rivers, were shown as under Eastern Chalukya rule, in the same period. A thousand years ago, Rajaraja Narendra ruled this land from Raja`mahendra`varam as his capital. His sister was married to a Chola king. This marital relation & interaction continued for two more generations, with similar names even appearing in both dynasties ruling different regions - Telugu & Tamizh lands (yet, the whole of East coast was "shown" as part of Chola "Empire". Nannaya in the court of Rajaraja Narendra, sat to translate Vyasa MahaBharata in Telugu. So, Rajaraja Narendra was given credit for getting MahaBharata translated to Telugu. Being their maternal grandfather's place successive generations of Chola princes spent their childhood in Raja`mahendra`varam - Kulottunga Chola for instance. Kulottunga Chola went to Kanchipuram to become Chola king (& Emperor). Now, does it mean that Eastern Chalukyas (based at Raja`mahendra`varam) were the vassals to Cholas & Cholas were the suzerains of Eastern(Vengi) Chalukyas? It has implications in that Cholas can claim to have supported Telugu literature & caused translation of Vyasa Bharata (instead of Easternn Chalukyas). Simply put, were Eastern Chalukyas the satrapy (vassal kingdom) of Cholas? I am sure that both (Eastern Chalukyas & Cholas) respecte each other & valued their relationship more than their individual dynasties. But how dothe rival historians put it? Do the Chola historians accept the view that the Andhra coast wasn't under Chola suzerainty?
Is i am only one who thought the Gupta period is golden period of india 🤔 I mean some people may be deny this But this is the reality look at scientific research that time i don't know why our history books or science book never talk abt this India share around 36% of world GDP in Gupta period And we can imagine the richness of Gupta Empire that even a middle class household that time wear lots of gold And World's strongest milliatry
@@InsightGrid620 I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. 😀 If you aren't, I can share a video with you on a prominent Hindutva historian, who said because there is so much violence in the Middle East, let us make them all Hindus.
Five to six years before only few history lovers would have known the name of a Great King Lalitaditya Muktapida of Karakota dynasty. Banishing people to know about their past and ancestors was a tried and tested method for the Leftist cabal who was running the academia of the country for several years. But at this point when the society and the history is being churned, if you ignore the life and times of this forefather of yours, you are missing on the dopamine rush and the strengthening of your faith in your Rashtra and Dharma. In the year 724, lalitaditya Muktapida was born to the Karakota king of Kashmir, Durbhalak-Pratapaditya II. That was a phase of reversal in the history of Bharat, when the incursions and invasions of foreign religions had begun. Sindh, which was under the Arab rule was trying to expand to Kashmir. Civil wars in China had caused many states to disintegrate and migrate to different adjacent parts of India. Military Strategy and Decimating Arabs Lalitaditya, being only 20 years of age, ascended to the throne. During his reign, the provinces of Peshawar, Multan, Swat, and the Kingdom of Sindh were all conquered by the Arabs, and the West began its assault. As Arab monarch, Mohammad Bin Qasim threatened to invade and control Kashmir and central India,King Lalitaditya had to deal with the Arab invaders. LALITADITYA HAD SHOWN COURAGE BY FIRST ENGAGING IN BATTLE AGAINST SOME MORE TRADITIONAL FOES, INCLUDING THE BHUTTAS OF LADAKH, THE KABHOJAS, AND THE DARADAS. TOPPLING REGIONAL KINGS, HE LED HIS ARMY ALONE AND TOOK CHARGE OF ALL THOSE AREAS. He was able to prevent the Arabs from entering Kashmir with the help of Yashovarman, King of Kannauj,whose kingdom included what are now the states of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, UP, and a portion of Bengal. It wasn’t as easy as it sounds to wipe out the Arabs. Involved Lalitaditya’s foreign policies as well. He reached out to the powerful Tang Dynasty, which ruled China in the seventh century but had to cede territory in central China to the Tibetan Empire. In the battle against the Arabs and the Tibetans, Lalitaditya prevailed. They used the Chinese ruler’s supply of advanced infantry armour and heavily armoured Sassanid-Chinese cavalry to crush the Tibetans and take over Kucha and Turfan. Tibetans were also defeated by Lalitaditya and lost Assam and Bangladesh. Lalitaditya conquered Dardistan, which included sections of Pakistan in the north, Kashmir in India, and some parts of north-eastern Afghanistan, and then forced the Arabs to shave off half their heads as a sign of submission. He continued to try to teach the Arabs a lesson after this. And he took over Transoxiana, which was in Central Asia, and Turkestan as well (modern-day Uzbekistan, Tajiskitan, southern Kyrgyzstan and southwest Kazakhstan). After that, Lalitaditya entered Turkestan via Kabul and won all four wars against Mumin Bukhara. The king gave in and agreed to pay tribute. After so many victories, Lalitaditya declared his intention to rule the world. His acquisitions in India were extensive. His empire covered much of central China, earning him the title “Chinese Alexander.” During his last years in power, he amassed an incredible fortune. He dominated the military in India and central Asia. His dominion covered territory as far away as Tibet, Iran, and Turkestan. Lalitaditya Muktapida’s Military Expeditions To put it simply, Lalitaditya was a global ruler. A considerable chunk of his life was spent in military expeditions. After a long war, he attacked Antarvedi territory and ultimately defeated Yashovarman. Antarvedi’s capital city, Kanyakubja (now known as Kanauj), fell under Lalitaditya’s rule. Consolidating authority here he proceeded to eastern seas and reached Kalinga and Gauda. Lalitaditya Muktapida further proceeded to Kamatas in southern region, to Dakshinapatha, seven Konkanas, Dvaraka, Avanti, Uttarapatha and more. He returned back to Kashmir with great amount of wealth that were collected through the conquests. These lists of his conquests and expeditions prove him almost equivalent to a Chakravartin Samrat. Legacy In his capital city Parihasapura Lalitaditya Muktapida built several images of Vishnu. One was image of Parihasa-Keshava which was made of 84,000 palas of silver. Another was image of Mukta-Keshava constructed of 84,000 tolakas of gold. Simultaneously he built images of gold Maha-Varaha and silver Govardhana-Dhara. He also built the most famous Martand Surya Mandir, which was later destroyed by the Islamic invaders. Shri Lalitaditya Muktapida was a great king and conqueror, who led invasions beyond the natural boundaries of Bharat. There are many people who say that India never invaded other countries in a thousand years, but they eventually forget this great warrior and king and his endeavours. It was the duty of a Kshatriya to expand the boundaries of his land to establish a long lasting empire. Erasing a part of history does not only mean removing a chapter from the history books, but it is the crippling of the psychology of all the generations and abstaining them from flourishing. Still, there are many numerable facets of his life and death which need to be unearthed and brought to the light so that his legacy remains as a living memory in all of us and inspire the generations of Bharatiyas to march forward on his path. Kashmir is unique at least in one respect. This is one geography within the Indian Subcontinent that has a recorded history that fits the norms of Western historiography. Kalhana’s Rajatarangini is a classic in its own right. It records the history of Kashmir over several centuries. Even though Kalhana starts the history of Kashmir from the time of Gonanda I, in about the 7th century of the Kali Era, (3102 BCE), its correct chronology is established during the times of the Karkota Dynasty. Its most illustrious king, Lalitaditya Muktapida (697-733 CE), is reputed to have extended the Karkota Empire from the edge of the Caspian Sea to Prāgajyotisha (Assam) in the East and the boundary of the Rashtrakutas (Deccan) in the South. The reign of the Karkota, Utpala and Lohara dynasties were marked by great renaissance in the fields of art, literature, science, mathematics, spirituality and logic, and all-round material development. The greatest polymath Abhinavagupta shines as the brightest gem of Kashmir, having lived there in the 10th and 11th centuries. He is also credited with having taken the practice of Kashmir Shaivism to its peak. He was also a great scholar in many other fields. The Utpala and Lohara dynasties succeeded the Karkotas and had a clear run till 1315 CE.
I don't even thikh if this question need to be asked. Buddhism conquered all of China via Silk route via Hindukush obviously the ASEAN. The Europe was fighting for our Cotton and Spices, we conquered the trade. Turks, Mughals, Sakas, Architecture, Philosophy, Religion, we conquered the diversity. The magnificent Indian Diaspora, traders, guilds, many more Yes, India conquered the world. And now in contemporary time also Jai Hind 🇮🇳
Perhaps a relook into the India and Gorgia and it's connection to modern ethnic groups of North India will throw more light and the way we perceive the boundary of India
@@adma7298 Gujars comprises of two words Gu and Jar. Gu means tatti and Jar means to hit. So Gujar means to hit with Tatti. In the past Gujars used to work with cows. And cows produce a lot of Tatti/Gobar. So whenever Gujars would fight , they used to throw Gaye ki Tatti at their enemies. This is how they got the name Gujar.
@@asmirann3636 nope Gujars are a real martial race unlike you tatti eating, urdu speaking bastards of gengis khan's grandsons commenting from your paki mothers burka. Go say the same to any gujar AFK in your home country he will smash your nose in 50 pieces.
@@udaysankar2011 There are lot of Gujars who converted to islam due to fear of the islamic invaders. So I am not sure what martial race you are talking about. If they were a martial race, they would have fought and kept their culture. But the number of Gujar converts into islam tell us a different story. The traditional occupation of Gujars has been cow herders. They used to supply milk to villages. This is where the name Gujar originates - Gau-char becomes Gujar. It has nothing to do with Georgia like you fools are saying. Georgians are a completely different people.
@@asmirann3636 why don't you go and ask that AFK on the face to any Gujar even if he is muslim/christan/Jew he will tell how you grandmother went to their tabela to clean tatti. Just do it AFK and don't come here to lick my boots.
Dude, what are you on about, some bs, Kambojas were Afghans? Kambojas were never Afghans, they were Indias that migrated East, the modern day Kamboh/Kamboj are those Kambojas that came from the west.
This ignores the fact that many people did try to unite/conquer the Indian subcontinent. There is a certain logic to the subcontinent because of the geography, which is not subject to narratives. Your narrative tries to restrict the concept of India to a post colonial phenomena. Which is obviously historically inaccurate because the British were calling it India before they got here. Your agenda might not be political but the narrative is.
@@sumedhasoman2956 but he is quoting the sources. and he started by saying that the notions that India could not colonize or conquer other countries was propagated by British to justify their Indian conquest and colonising.
@@kash60ishvlog67 he's pointing to two aspects... 1) Indians as of one Nation. 2) people of diverse Kingdoms under the Indian subcontinent. The (1) point is highlighting Indian nationalism, a very modern concept. That was born only 165 years ago.. this is when the British created the narrative that Indians were not as strong as the British in conquering vast territories.. But this was of no significance prior to the rise of Indian Nationalism, that's point (2) because there was no National Identity of India.. a person in what's today Kerala (kingdom of Travancore) would be considered a Foriegner by a person in Karnataka (Kingdom of Mysore).. Kingdoms were analogous to national identity.. if u draw a line in history before the British or before the Mughals.. who were the Cholas fighting? They were at war with Cheras.. if we look at it in today's perspective that's literally TN going to war with Kerala.. that's out of the question today, because we we have put ourselves into a modern identity of Nationhood.. The best example of this is like European Union.. india is like Europe, just that we don't identify as a continent like Europe.. but our history well over a thousand years shows that we waged war and conquered each other's lands..
@@kalebj7001 Coming to your arm chair expertise, if this was a shared emotion, that there was no national identity, curators of Vishnu Purana must be smoking something potent in 4th century. Vishnu Purana (2.3.1) defines India as land lying north of sea and south of Himalayas - uttarain yat samudrasya Himadrescaiva daksinarh, varsam tad Bharatam. This popular quote shows the use of the word Bharath during the puranic age. Similarly there is reference in Mahabharata for Bharat as the land of descendents of King Bharata. The reference to the boundary and culture of land from Kalidasa work (Kumarasambhavam 1.1 and landscape description in Meghasandesa) further show the continuity of the ancient culture. Asetu Himachala, the bridge that connect Rameswaram with Srilanka to Himalaya as the Indian territory is a common term in Indian literature.
the title didn't satisfy the content he had. by the things what he explained i see only cholas as the exceptional case. Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Tibet had been in the history in terms of invasion by Indians for very long time. technically what he said could be "yes" and "no" if Indians did invade abroad or not. based on the way of oneself defining abroad. is it today's terms of abroad or is it then time abroad, or is it culturally alien.
nono bro,,, bharat was always united as one single organism bro,,, hindus are righteous rulers unlike muslims bro,, if you deny this ypu are anti indian brov,,,🙂
ashramchap hindu in historical text is geographic and ethnical term and that hindu is now called sindhu and it is a province of pakistan, modern day hinduism was made by britishers with the request of brahmanist ram mohan roy in 1816 by combining many pagan religion of subcontinent under the authority of manusmirti
It's not that Indian Kings never invaded other territories, it's just that we never forced our traditions and religion on others. Many people say, why do Hindus not say anything about Chinese Ahom invaders but hate the Islamic invaders, it's because the Chinese invaders became like us instead of forcing us to become like them, they accepted Hindu gods and Hindus of Assam also accepted their gods, this couldn't be done by Islamic invaders because the biggest sin in Islam is not murder or theft, it's "Shirk" or associating partners with Allah, in other words polytheism. Quran 98.6 literally says that "polytheists are the worst of all creatures and they will burn in hell fire till eternity" There are many verses dedicated just for polytheists, explaining how much pain they will endure in hell and that's why titles like Butshikan(idol breaker) was proudly claimed by many invaders.
The difference is that when Indian Empires conquered lands outside of India, they did not try to change the local culture of those regions. Indian Empires did not impose religion, language etc. The Arab Caliphates, the Turkic Sultanates, the Chinese Empires, the European Colonial Empires all tried to do these things. They wanted to remove the existing native cultures and replace them with their own. The Mauryans, Cholas, Guptas, Karkotas, Palas etc did not do this. Sure, the Chola invasions of Sri Lanka were brutal but there never was a state policy to impose Shaivism on the population, or a systematic destruction of Buddhist monasteries. The Cholas only destroyed Anuradhapura (the capital city). Whereas the Turkic, Arab empires targeted all settlements.
I don't think technolgical inferiority was any reason. We were as technologically advanced as Europeans when they first arrived. It happened because of weak kings which coincided with Europeans arrival and the lack of foresight. Jahangir gave permission to British and Portuguese conquest of Goa. Portuguese became the protectors of Kings of Cochin which meant they felt they weren't capable enough to defeat their enemies. Indian kings gave permission to Europeans whereas Chinese and the Japanese didn't. They went into isolation. The internal conflict gave rise to threats of defeat and that made us look at Europeans as some king of saviour. There was no proper oversight on the permissions given to them. They came to do business but understood that Indians could be controlled. They conjured contracts that gave them power and made laws that were unfair to Indians only because those Kings of the time couldn't be bothered. Not all kings were like that but many were just like that. Wanted to live a lavish life.
@@islandsunset yes agreed. i also think indian kings were too generous because they had plenty which they didn't take accountability for but then europeans took advantage of it
You're talking about one particular kingdom going and conquering a piece of land on South Asia That's not the same as colonialism where one country subjugated the other
Cholas influence in indian ocean & south east asia is a very big achievement ...in 11th century they became the superpower of its time in cultural , military & economy...there empire is larger than india ...
Could be that this desire to become "Chakravarti" had aspirational roots in that the kings wanted to emulate the Ashwamedha yajna as described in the Ramayana and Mahabharat.
Why did the Indians regularly started loosing to Turks yet resisting them to a certain extend ? Why did the Turks in Asia Minor or Europe remained a distinct race/entity to date and why they assimilate in India ?
Indians didn’t “attack” South East Asia; Indian culture was adopted voluntarily by the Indonesians when they came in contact with Indian traders. Same in Cambodia. This is similar to the spread of American culture in India.
See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page There may have been some military actions but it was mostly cultural osmosis. It was very different from the way European and Middle Eastern cultures were spread. This is something India should be proud of, not ashamed.
In yester years it was survival and there was no concept of boundaries or a sovereign nation. The author seems to be incomplete. There is a difference between colonization and conquering and ruling with an intention to live harmoniously
What is the reference for the map shown at 2:01, i ask because as far as i Know, Vijayanagar and Bahamanids shared a common border, and what exactly are these Krishna states?
Present day world tells you what exactly happened in past and it's a mirror image of past like bigger empires we have influential countries. Various reasons of conquest right now .:- 1) resources 2) influence the countries through and better trade 3) technology 4) more territory through various means 5) glory .
Another Indian liberally borrowing from the tribute system the ancient Chinese were renown for. There has not been a unified 'India' till modern times.
India when became free from Mongols and British, it became a democratic nation. Since then India/Bharat/Hindustan, has not gone outside it's borders to conquer. The wars it fought was only to defend its borders. Before that, there was no India as a country. There were several dynasties with similar culture. They conquered other kingdoms and expanded their rules.
All Indian languages are small small kingdoms! even you speak today your 'mother tongue' you can feel you are speaking a kingdom language. when you come to south, Cholas are bigger at that time. they did conquer south east Asia by trade but the wonderful thing they did, i felt was they don't even populate the land with their on people, not destroyed their language left the land for locals and came back to India. unlike Europeans did different, especially Brittan went to North America and destroyed Native Americans and their language, their presence , identity and replace with British Civilization and gave Everything to Britain's Elder son America 😀
Why do Europian historians are so obsessed with 'steppe' ancestry for India? Can't our government invest more to unravel our past with finest scientific tools vast samples still available in this land?
HADN'T SMALLER INDIAN KINGDOMS BEEN CONQUERED & UNITED BY THE BRITISH, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE FRAGMENTED LIKE AFRICA. IT WAS THE BRITISH WHO UNIFIED INDIA POLITICALLY & IT WAS THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT BY THE CONGRESS & GANDHI THAT FURTHER BOLSTERED INDIA'S UNIFICATION.
@@descendantofbharatbharatva7155 PADHAI ME KAMZOR THA YA HISTORY CLASSES BUNK MARTA THA?? ITNA BHI COMMONSENSE NAHI BAN PAA RAHA HAI TERA KI YE REALIZE KARE KI SUBCONTINENT ME PEHLE SAIKADON CHHOTE CHHOTE KINGDOMS HUA KARTE THE JO APAS ME LADTE RAHTE THE. ANDH BHAKT CHAMCHAANDU KAHINKA.
@@AmitKumarAlphaX Someone like you whose knowledge of Indian history is confined to the post-1947 era, and that too is flawed, constitutes a significant threat to national integration. In 1947, after traumatic partition, several provinces that were British Indian provinces, directly ruled by the British Empire, merged to form India as a nation. In addition, there were the remaining 565 princely states that enjoyed relative autonomy while under the British rule. After all, your perverted understanding is similar to that of Rahul Gandhi. Therefore, it’s not surprising that he is completely clueless about Ancient Bharata and its unity. For someone who never truly understood what Akhand Bharat was before Abrahamic forces invaded, understanding the richness and majesty of what Bharat meant, is indeed a tall order. SINCE ANCIENT TIMES, INDIA WAS KNOWN FOR ITS ‘UNITY IN DIVERSITY’, NOT THE DIVERSITY MAINSTREAM TODAY BUT THE DIVERSITY OF CULTURES, TRADITIONS, AND PRACTICES FROM THE PAST. This is how Indian texts used to describe Bhāratvarsh: THE country that lies north of the ocean, and south of the snowy mountains, is called Bhārat, for there dwelt the descendants of Bharata. It is nine thousand leagues in extent, and is the land of karma, in consequence of which men obtain emancipation.
@@descendantofbharatbharatva7155 DEAR ANDH BHAKT CHAMCHAANDU, Bharatvarsha was the name of the subcontinent, not the name of a KINGDOM. Just accept that there were hundreds of KINGDOMS WHO WERE FIGHTING EACHOTHER BEFORE THE BRITISH CAME.
I think you need to read more. No one said India never invaded ..it's all over in Mahabharata as well . Yudhishthir and his army wiped of all Nagas.. Indians never made other countries a colony of theirs like how British and other colonial powers did.and India never invaded a part of world which was out of their geographic region which is clearly marked by the tectonic plate and Himalayas..they remained in South Asian region... AND what is this argument that Ancient Indian boundaries coincide with recent ones.. isn't it obvious becaus of Himalayas??
Journalists, often in their eagerness for inclusivity, forget that it's not just the Brits that thought (or imposed) the idea that Hindus and Muslims are two very different people.. But, in fact, Hindus and Muslims themselves identify themselves as very different people... Hindu rulers did not allow religion to influence their policies... In fact there existed no religion of such kind in ancient and medieval India.. There were many schools of thoughts, culmination of which today is called Hinduism... Ours was always a very inclusive society.. I can openly criticize certain parts of Hinduism in front of my parents and grandparents, and if they find that criticism to be rational, they'd agree to it.. I can guarantee you no muslim can do that.. they cannot criticize their religion.. they'll have to think twice before doing so, because consequences would be quite different...
We can turn the question a bit on its head and ask, was there ANYTHING different about the Bharateeya ethos? For example, what would explain the diversity of faiths in India? Put another way, why did not a 'religion of the Book' emerge in India that scorched everything in its path, like Christianity did in early parts of the first millennium Europe, or Islam did in latter part of the first millennium Asia. There is also the troubling issue of the Hindu sayings: the world is one family, or, there is one truth called by different names, that structured Indian thought. Did such universalism emerge anywhere else in the world?
Under British .we did .conquered the heavenly kingdom in China ,bought the mighty Trks to the knees in haifa,defeated Japan .we were the ogs of world wars (peacefuls salty)
@@stormtrooper8420 lacking basic literacy ,we won wars for them and they discriminated against us so we deserve monetary compensation for those .that's how democracies work .
There is nothing new in this video. Except some expeditions on Afghanistan ,bit of Persia & bit of south east Asia, we couldn't show any influence. To large extent, it still true that we haven't invaded any country!!
The Pala-Gujarat Wars (8th-10th centuries CE): These wars were fought between the Pala Empire, which was Buddhist, and the Gurjara-Pratihara Empire, which was Hindu. The wars resulted in the destruction of many Buddhist temples and monasteries in Northern India. The Kalachuri-Chandela Wars (10th-12th centuries CE): These wars were fought between the Kalachuri Empire, which was Buddhist, and the Chandela Empire, which was Hindu. The wars resulted in the destruction of many Buddhist temples and monasteries in Central India. The Later Chola-Hoysala Wars (12th-13th centuries CE): These wars were fought between the Later Chola Empire, which was Hindu, and the Hoysala Empire, which was Buddhist. The wars resulted in the destruction of many Buddhist temples and monasteries in South India.
I agree with your point but Indian rulers never invaded far away countries unlike the Greeks or Genghis khan or the British Empire...it was always within the greater Indian subcontinent. Was that because of lack of intent to invade countries endlessly driven by greed or whatever reasons..or was it for the lack of competence and reach...?
There were reasons Greeks empire is equal to size of india. india itself a subcontinent British empire is a modern one only 100 to 150 years old...during colonialism every country tried to conquer others Mongols had created one of the largest empires mostly central asia because they lack resources.. For eg mauryas conquered selucus nicator territories & cholas conquered till Phillipines & java & kushans conquered central asia....
I find it amazing how modern Indian historians schooled in Western outlook and thought look very sophisticated, academically rigorous yet they twist facts to suit their interpretation and are not really interested in conveying truth. In the video about Cholas, Mings dominating Indian ocean, Anirudh says Cholas "maybe" attacked Sri Vijaya and "maybe" had influence on South East Asia, while there is absolute certainty in his mind about Zhang He's conquests. Here the angle was to show how much power was weilded by Cholas While in this video since he has to "uncover the mask" of benevolence Indians take upon themselves (how can Indians be benevolent and not be bloodthirsthy or ruthlessly political like the others), Anirudh cites Buddhist scriptures castigating the Cholas. Here he uses Raghuvamsa written during Gupta period about the legendary Ikshvaku emperor Raghu to prove that Indians would have attacked Persians and Huns. While if it suits them otherwise they would say these are all legends - one cannot rely upon these to make definite historical statements. And a common man, unschooled in their subterfuge would be thinking they are the definitive word on history, they are the experts. What I really find galling is while they harp a lot about objectivity, these historians dont mind giving subjective interpretations as definite statements about intentions of rulers. So in his book Anirudh makes it appear that the Brahmin priests and early medieval Deccan kings like Pulakeshi I etc have a transactional relationship. Brahmins get wealth while the king gets legitimacy. The rituals themselves are meaningless to either - its what they project to the people. Dont you feel that its like Britisher writing about arcane native rituals. There is no understanding of the deep belief that the entire society had in these rituals. But Anirudh and his ilk have such high academic degrees that they have the right to pronounce upon the motives and intentions of a people whose culture they dont live and whose worldview they dont consider their own
Nothing new except for the attitude n funny accent of the guy. Colonising is entirely different, it impoverishes the colony and enslaves the inhabitants , and perfected by the British in India, creates mentally enslaved and deracinated people.
Very immature. Bit over ambitious adolescent assessment. No appetite for empire or blood lust because it would make virtous Hindu life impossible. Hindus were qualified kings not uneducated like the invaders. These bad apples cited here don't really represent evolution of India but its dilution and undoing, medieval India could not match the stature if its ancestors, India became like the rest of the world. Most important, do not assess India by vast land mass or the odd extravagant kings, talk to an ordinary man to find his soul, India is kept alive in this minor man. Travel around a bit to find why this man is different from the others.
Basic premise is wrong here no king saw it as India. There was no india. Prithivraj fought more wars with other hindu kings than Muslims . So called india was approachable easliy through west only until Europeans came. Technically on that side land is barren after indus Plains. Old subcontinent kings have hand full in their land. By the way Nepali kings once conquered Tibet. North-east was never under any big indian ruler until british did that so called modern India is legacy of British. Punjabi culture is more closed to Parisians in food habit than with anybody in south
What was said here is very rational but most of my friends would call this author a woke & not even consider this view for a moment. 8:45 "It just happens that their (then rulers) ideas of what constitutes a political universe is different from ours because why would their imaginaitons be constrained by a nation-state that would not exist".
There's nothing to consider in this view. Perhaps you should read the accounts of Megasthenes and Arrian (both Greek travelers to India in different times) because our history validated by goras is of utmost importance.
I have a hypothesis. Let me know, what you feel about it.
I feel that most conquerors who conquered very wide geographical area like Mongols or Arabs lacked resources in their own regions. Even Greece was not a highly resource rich region.
Indian subcontinent on the other hand was extremely fertile land. So, the sphere of conquest remained less.
Mongols went to Central Asia and Arabia. The Khiljis repelled Mongol invasions of India. Had this not happened the Indian subcontinent would’ve looked drastically different today. However the Mongols made their way to India by way of Timur and Babur. And this had more to do with having as much territory to streamline revenue than resources.
Yes. It is one factor. Others could be diversity in ethnicity, language, culture, practices and religoius believes of different deities.
Expansion is a very human thing for thousands of years. Civilizations rise and fall because of expansionism. It's no different in the Indian subcontinent, a Kingdom slowly grows to become an Empire and that's seen in ancient India as well. Annexation enables Tribute to the King and the further enriches the treasury. End of the day it's the King's will whether to expand his kingdom or remain without expansion.. but given the rich records of Ashwamedha rituals and Digvijaya mentions we can be certain that the rulers within the subcontinent contested in expanding their territories
GREECE WASN'T RESOURCE RICH?? REALLY??? TO SUCCEED IN EXPANSION ONE NEEDS RESOURCES. SO, RESOURCES COME BEFORE EXPANSIONS. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, IT'S ONLY THE RESOURCEFUL THAT SUCCEED IN BUILDING THE MILITARY MIGHT TO DEFEAT OTHER KINGDOMS. RESOURCE COMES BEFORE EXPANSION IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
@@AmitKumarAlphaX no resource rich people did not bother to fight much, for example mongol who lived in extreme weather conditions went any length to conquer lands
One also needs to note that the mighty Himalayas and the Hindu Kush mountains made it difficult for Indian empires to expand out of the subcontinent
Nah Mansingh defeated afghans easily crossing them .they also protected us a lot
@@mohitanand1844 same was also done by Maharaja Ranjit Singh too when he crushed the Afghans by crossing the same pass
@@descendantofbharatbharatva7155 they did it before though
And sea in the south also protected.
I didn see it stopping Mughals and other raiders 😂
The distance between delhi and samarkhand is less than distance between delhi and madurai, and the distance between gandhi nagar and guwhati is not that smaller that distance between tehran and gandhi nagar.
When any one in any part of India claims about their country never attacked any outsiders and there was only wars between different kingdoms inside India, they should understand that those countries inside the current day India was actually outsider for each of them.... When some ruler in current day Tamil nadu or Kerala attacked the other one, he was attacking his enemy and outsider... So every war in that time of history was a war on outsiders... It is as simple....
When Dharmapala and Shashanka of Bengal completed their conquests of Kannauj, they saw the people of Kannauj no difference from the Buddhist Arakan (Myanmar) that they had conquered. For them Bengal was their home region, just like Tamil Nadu was the home region for Cholas, Maharashtra and Gujarat for the Chalukyas, Kerala for the Cheras and Karnataka for the Rashtrakutas
The concept of india very much did exist since ancient times. The notion of us vs them was found in india
@@mint8648 Concept of India in ancient times?!!! Oh... That's why all these rulers were fighting each other... To build a large country bigger than there's... So that they can call it in a new name... Great... Don't get confused by Bharat and India. Both names represent the same country now. But was not the case all time....
@@ArunPunnathatta Bharat is a civilizational concept while India is a political nation state concept. There's a difference
@@orkkojit Our civilisation is not Bharath. Don't force your o me. Even as per the Adiparvan, the Bharatha Kanda, the southern border is Deccan Pleateau.
Keep up the good work!!!
Sri Lankan conquest is the default behavior of all the Tamil empires be it Cholas , Pandyas , Pallavas .. they know the strategic importance of Sri Lanka unlike modern India
Not just Tamil Empires. The Rashtrakuta Empire had made Sri Lanka a vassal state. The Vijayanagara Empire invaded and occupied Sri Lanka and set up the Jaffna puppet state there
Sri lanka is just a little brother, ever ready to be beaten up.
they are family
u guys couldn't even keep historical records.... thanks to us Sri Lankans u have something to boast about... lol
@@user-rr5mq4em5w LoL.., we have seperate Literature just for wars . ,
The Guptas and The Sassanians were contemporary empires. Hence both of these shared a border roughly parallel to River Indus
Only one achieved greatness
Is not the point. He pushes the envelope, in support of argument that Indian native ethno-cultural groups should not bemoan expansionary Islam and proselytizing Christianity.
@@val-schaeffer1117 everybody does it. We will too .the problem is we have a hostile neighbor who still wishes to return to those days (although they were the ones who lost ) so we need to keep reminding ourselves
@@mohitanand1844 Both the Guptas and the Sassanians ushered Peaceful rule in North India and Persia for atleast 200 years (300-500 AD) until the Sassanians were defeated by Arabs, and Guptas by the Hunas
Poorly narrated story. This poor guy still believe Rama was a mythological character.
Excellent New Series. Please continue this , and also repeat the episodes. Also compile all these videos into one Collection on the subject. It's very good.
Love this series. Love that Print is not just limiting itself to unbiased news but now venturing to unbiased Indian history as well.
I disagree with the interpretation of the happenings - Indian wars weren't conquests like colonization but rather wars between principalities within a civilizational whole like Sparta vs Athens or Venice vs Florence or Wei vs Qin.
In ancient Asia the main culture was Sanatan - the original spread of Bharat was larger than present-day mutilated India.
If India is a civilization then Europe is too. So all European wars weren't of conquest.
I like this program, which will benefit children and adults-a few requests. First, I see scientific analysis is missing in Indian history studies (I only know the 30-year-old syllabus). Any historian's research should have primary sources/secondary sources and pro/against analysis. Second, I see you are flashing ref books, but it will be beneficial if you can flash the text. For example, you are showing the temple photo. What do you want children to infer from that.
Alright, it was all about military conquest. I agree that there were many out of India conquests. But They were following Dharma. Which allows people to follow their own faiths. Same goes for European Pegan conquest Vikings and Greek. When Alexzander came to Egypt he accepted their god and Egyptian accepted him as Pharos. But when it comes to Abrahamic religion expansion its always about 'If you believe me our god then you will live or you have to die.' Have you forget what was crusade was all about ? The Dark age of Europe?
People like him will never accept this harsh reality man. In India being leftist means disrespecting indian culture and religions and glorifying Abrahamic religions and culture.
European conquest was also about genocide and stealing land. Same is the case with islamic conquest.
@@asmirann3636 From early 4th century all Europeans conquest was under Church's Banner. It was church who were making decisions. Kings were just used as medium. . & after 17th century Industrial revolutions Europeans conquest all bout loot and murder.. all were Pirates.
Before Chola empire invaded, Indonesia was majority Buddhist with a Hindu minority. After Chola empire invaded, Indonesia was majority Hindu with Buddhist minority. Why?
@Mint accorind to historian buddhism is born in 6BC.. and Kalinga has ties with Indonesia from 1000bc...
Even if we for sometime limit the Kambhojas to Afghanistan, calling them Afghans is just projecting current boundaries and identity to define them. Infact Kambhoja is the oldest identity we know from the region. Afghan is an identity Kambhojas never professed for themselves and also they were not the only people to rule the territory, the Huns,Kushans, Shakas, Indo-Greeks, Indo-Parthians, Achaemenids, Sassanian also ruled the region around the Hindukush at various times would one call them Afghans too?
Kambhojas later migrated to Bengal after serving the tibetan empire. They then migrated further, to southeast asia, where their name can be seen in the modern country of Cambodia
Just think the chola kingdom army consist of only three district (tanjore,ramnad,sengal pat) in this he slected warriors & marines in some thousand mens called semba nat maravas and conquired south east asia like sing,malay,thai,campodiya,indo like maritime route in intrest of safe sea trade but no pages in indian history books. We read only they come,they conquired,we got freedom on aug 15,1947.
U have never read a history book in your entire life, have u ?
During Prantaka 2(Raja Raja cholan’s father) reign they had control over Thanjavur, Trichy, Nagapattinam, vilupuram, Ariyalur, perambalur districts n with soldiers from these districts Raja Raja cholan captured the Chera n Pandiya(ramnad dt) lands which is basically the whole of tamil nadu n Kerala n then he captured the northern part of Sri Lanka n Maldives, after that he captured the Rastrakuta empire ( karnataka). Then came Rajendra cholan who had soldiers n chiefs from all these parts to capture odisha, Bengal, Malaysia, indonesia, Andaman n Nicobar islands n the full of Sri lanka
Bharatiya kings didn't fight amongst themselves as crazy. They had very high standards of ethics even during wars even higher than modern warfare.....forget the radical barbarians.
They did .lol civil wars happened all throughout the world but it was also true e defeated ottomans under Brits but still a glorious victory
Looks like someone got butthurt
Sorry to correct you but the concept of "Bharatiya kings" has ever existed! PERIOD, bottomline ancient Sindhis, Gandharans, Kashmiris, etc never used the term Bharatis, Bharatvarsha nor any of the cognates of Hind to define themselves, this Bharat agenda was pushed forward by forerunners of the RSS in collusion with the British.Regards Mr Bhattacharjee.
Please read his book lords of the Deccan to understand how “civilised” they were. Sacking, rapes, burning temples and pillaging predate “ foreign” invaders
@@gangadeshmatakimaut4739
Ganga desh mata ki maut? mulle, apni auqaat pe aa hi gaya..
Dude, you are a genius and this is a superb series. We have hell lot of complex and interesting stories from history which no one focuses. But this series is trying to change that
Quite correct, natural, reasonable and understandable.
Kushan,cholas,mauryan,mughals and karkota empire are laughing in corner
Yep .we are proud of them all.so
I am not against but Mughals is invaders not indian
Mughals were not Indians and neither they did anything meaningful for Bhāratvarsh
@@descendantofbharatbharatva7155 Mughals were as Indians as one can be.
@@mohitanand1844 Who said so, Mughals never related them as Indians or Indian ancestry identity
I remain unconvinced. For example, he cites Tamil polities attacking the South East Asian polities as the prime example of Indians conquering abroad, but these raids were in response to what these polities especially the Sriwijaya empire did to Chola trade. These were responses, they were not conquests that were to expand the territorial holdings of the Cholas.
Exactly I agree... The Cholas attacked South East Asia to secure their trade routes... Much like modern countries set up millitary bases securing their trade routes.. It cannot be called conquest.. The purpose of it wasn't the medieval madness of spreading a religion or looting the temples. It was much more logical much more civilized ( in a way)
Do you think indian kings are good hearted to leave other regions?
They very much were to expand Chola holdings. The invasions took place in the 1020s. Seventy years later, Song Chinese sources still recorded the king of Chola as the same as the king of Srivijaya.
I don't understand why Indians wouldn't conquer anybody that looked different from them.
@@MostLucid because Indians were allready conquered too many time by foreign powers.
What I cannot understand is this. Each Kingdom was a different country. So if one king conquers another, It is conquering another country.
Yea but they still all knew india was a distinct civilization from outsider
@mint8648 big deal. It is like saying the entire middle East is one country. But Iraq and Iran are bitter enemies.
@@Suresh_Kamath middle east is a modern concept. older, related concepts include the mashriq and the ummah
@mint8648 not really. Go read history
@@Suresh_Kamath history i read:
[5] Mukherjee, Bratindra Nath (2001), Nationhood and Statehood in India: A historical survey, Regency Publications, p. 3, ISBN 978-81-87498-26-1
Harris, J. (2012), Indography: Writing the "Indian" in Early Modern England, Palgrave Macmillan US, p. 8, ISBN 978-1-137-09076-8
[6] Eggermont, Alexander's Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan (1975), p. 145: "Sindhu means a stream, a river, and in particular the Indus river, but likewise it denotes the territory of the lower Indus valley, or modern Sind. Therefore, the appellation Saindhavah, means "inhabitants of the lower Indus valley".... In this respect Sindhu is no tribal name at all. It denotes a geographical unit to which different tribes may belong."
Dineschandra Sircar (1971). Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 3. ISBN 978-81-208-0690-0.
[26] Dwijendra Narayan Jha, Rethinking Hindu Identity (Routledge:2013)
All prove india existed before the british
India is a civilisational state ; your series of videos are aimed at dismantling this truth.
He’s dismantling it with facts
@@nagraj2k1 You mis-spelt lies, but that's okay.
@@meetankush 🤣🤣🤣
@@meetankush Sure believe in the fairy tales you've been fed by Whatsapp
@@nagraj2k1
Seems like your ilk feeds on its knees from your european masters. If that makes you feel taller, sure, go ahead. But you know extremely well how hollow you are inside. The brits did indeed gave ideological slaves like you a purpose. Make them proud.
So, it seems that not only were there conquests, but also there were colonies. Waves of colonists from the Indian subcontinent, often escaping the on-continent wars and conquests, set up colonies all over Southeast Asia of more than a thousand years. In example, in Indonesia, we can clearly see the royally-supported allotments of settlements for Brahmins, Sugatas (Buddhists), Vishnuvites, and Shivites.
Amazing series. I have always been a history buff and this makes me really happy. Thank you and way to go!
PS: I appreciate the fact that you provide the sources too.
I have just appreciation for this video by young mind, 👍 keep it up
You are making the mistake of taking the exception as the norm, while there are few instances of Indian kings conquering outside, for most it was a second though to their primary ambition of conquering inside India. This is beautifully illustrated in the Harshacharitra of emperor Harshavardhan, where he announces his conquest to all the four corners of India during the 6th Century AD.
Harsha empire never crossed narmadha ..he was defeated by pulikeshin 2 of chalukya...
@@raghuls1515 That is my point, Harsha wanted to conuer India and made a declaration. He had no desire to go outside.
The chakraborty concept was far more less destructive than mindless loot of barbarians
Indians kings ruled complete east to Turkey . But never imposed our traditions nor killed ladies or raped women . Exchanged good between the nation's. All respected. Not like muslims n Christians forcefully converting nor killing people.
You forgot one important point in all this the Indian kings largely left the civilian population alone but that was clearly not the case with the Islamic and the Christian conquerors they massacred the local population if they did not convert to their religions that's why we call them barbarians.
They massacred the local population of they did not convert? 😮 That's a curious case then how 1000 years of Islamic and Christian rulers, India has 82% hindu population.. why didn't India become like Iran or Brazil? 😐
@@kalebj7001 see you need to read in proper schools not just some brain washing madrasas. What is the number of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh which were parts of India. we have given away two separate islamic nations and still have the second highest muslim population in the world. You should ask your ancestors why they converted.
@@ashyjager 🤦♂️ I'm talking about from the time of the Delhi sultanate till the time British came.. that's a solid 800 year rule, how come Hindus were a majority? 🤔 And how come Hindus kingdoms existed even in that 800 year islamic rule? I wonder why muslims and Hindus coexisted if u say they were converting local population if they didn't they killed them.. I wonder why Maharana Pratap had generals like Hakim Shah Sur and Bahma Shah... And Akbar had generals like Man Singh and Jagannath Kachwa... Interesting Hindu king with muslim generals fighting for him against Hindu generals fighting for Muslim king.. why did India not become like Iran (where everyone was converted to islam)... 👀 Oh i see u have read history from ur WhatsApp University classes, it's ok i dont blame you, most ignorant bigots graduate from WhatsApp University. 👍 Maybe it's time u went to proper history classes.. don't bank on WhatsApp forwards dude
@@kalebj7001 Bigot mullah university student India was always a hindu country where did pakistan come from and Bangladesh come from? Those people came from Turkey is it? whatsapp university is any day better than maulana brainwashing university. Not everyone were cowards like your ancestors we fought back from the barbarians. So you are saying that because Hitler killed only 6 million jews jews should have gone extinct? Just because the mughals had some hindu generals doesnot mean they did not kill civilians? where is the logic in that? oh i forgot Madrasas only teach about flying donkeys and not logic.
@@ashyjager 😅 triggered much? Well i see it's progress that u have learnt today that Mughals indeed had hindu generals and Hindu kings also had muslim generals, so that's breaking ur bigoted bias that Muslim rulers were only converting Hindus and if they refused they got killed.. if that was the sole purpose then yes India would have ended up like Iran or Libya, where Hindus would have been in single digit percentage in their population.. good to see I'm teaching u something from history, now go back to history classes like a good kid and read more.. and no i am not muslim, so i have no idea which madaradaa or mullah University u were referring too.. maybe that's ur alma mater like WhatsApp University. 👍
but they never destroyed architecture,local culture and conversions
They fight for political power and wealth...
Well not entirely, they did ransack temples back then too.. temples were not just a divine place to that king u see, but also a place of authority.. so i ransack ur temple, in literally establishing my dominance.. u can see such cases in battle of Vatapi, when Pallava king Narasimhan ransacks the temple of the Chalukya and even dethrones the Ganesh idol of that temple.. the inscriptions denote the ransack of Vatapi even today.. or the case of King Harsha in Kashmir tearing down temple (Rajatarangini by Kalhana) or the Rashtarakutan king destroying the temple of the Pratihara in Kalapriya, it wasn't an uncommon thing.. "Hinduism" is not what we term a religion today as it was back then.. ur God doesn't necessarily have to be mine.. i might be a Veera Shaiva who hates a Vaishnavite, as was the case of the Chalukya ransack in Vatapi.. it's a very a fluid and multi faceted religion.. u can be worshipping Rama.. but you'll not be allowed to even mention that Name in the temple of Raavan where the only chants would be "Jai Lankeshwara" not 'Jai Shri Ram'.. the very word "Hinduism" is a British given term.. its like calling islam and Judaism as one religion..
Is it also true that Ashoka was Buddhist before the conquest of Kalinga and it was the made up story after that. If it is than why in our education system we were taught the wrong history.
Yes, he even persecuted 18000 innocent ajivikas .. this is also our education system not tell ..
Marxist historians wanted to project the Buddhism as peaceful religion rather than teach you genuine historiography.
Yep also Kalinga invasion was poorly planned one. He lost badly
Yes
Yes our so called historians try to portrait hinduism wrong
No audio???
Underline of the story: Indians don't hesitate to invade our sphere of influences
I still remember in one of my SSB interviews asking a doubt to an high ranking interviewing officer,
why don't we have a force like Marines of the USA?
For which he answered we are not expansionists and historically we never believe in venturing out of subcontinent (sorts of Japanese shogunate period).
His tone was of humbleness yet "it is what it is" kind of displeasing vibe.
its about time we drop that undermining narrative of we don't want to expand (I meant not the willingness to wage invasion wars, but to maintain a geopolitical demeanor that "we are not sitting ducks" if you annoy us)
our school history books of suppressive colonialist narrative has to change!
Im intrested in real history by romila thapar.😜 Recently she said yudhistar got inspiration from king ashoka about ahimsa. Further a very emminent i mean emminent n real historian was asked how do u identify real indian history n saffronised history answer, his answer was not original source, rigour, training etc but a history which helps in nation building.
Peoples ❌
People ✅
@theprint
It is correct to say India did not conquer beyond Bharat. Even when Indian culture was taken to South East Asia, it was not there as foreign culture, but as their own. Angkor vat appears on the flag of Cambodia and Indonesians respect their Hindu heritage a great deal. Buddhists took the dharma far and wide as invitees of those lands and never as invaders just as Shriram did not rule on Sri Lanka.
The spread of Indian culture in South East Asia was not through conquest but through trade.. The Sadhabas of Kalinga traded with South East Asian nations since ancient times ( much before Cholas) and eventually even ended up ruling Indonesia ( search Sadhaba dynasty).
Cope
Your content is a good feed for UPSC mains question.
After clearly explaining the idea of digvijaya and how Indian kings saw conquest, why not expand on that, rather than quickly conclude that we are not dissimilar to the rest of the world. The approach of digvijaya, does seem quite unique. I am now keen to know more about that.
The peaceful pacifist Indian was a Nehruvian invention based on British Martial race and Aryan invasion theory.
We were pretty pacifist compared to others but yep there were martial races and we knew how to fight but leadership was lacking
I have a conundrum.
Much was written about "Chola"empire & dynasties. In maps it is shown as they (cholas) possessed all the east coast of India right into the Gangetic delta (Bengal), from where they brought Ganga water & their capital was named "Gangai`konda`chola`puram". In Telugu history texts, the two deltas of Godavari & Krishna rivers, were shown as under Eastern Chalukya rule, in the same period. A thousand years ago, Rajaraja Narendra ruled this land from Raja`mahendra`varam as his capital. His sister was married to a Chola king. This marital relation & interaction continued for two more generations, with similar names even appearing in both dynasties ruling different regions - Telugu & Tamizh lands (yet, the whole of East coast was "shown" as part of Chola "Empire".
Nannaya in the court of Rajaraja Narendra, sat to translate Vyasa MahaBharata in Telugu. So, Rajaraja Narendra was given credit for getting MahaBharata translated to Telugu.
Being their maternal grandfather's place successive generations of Chola princes spent their childhood in Raja`mahendra`varam - Kulottunga Chola for instance. Kulottunga Chola went to Kanchipuram to become Chola king (& Emperor). Now, does it mean that Eastern Chalukyas (based at Raja`mahendra`varam) were the vassals to Cholas & Cholas were the suzerains of Eastern(Vengi) Chalukyas? It has implications in that Cholas can claim to have supported Telugu literature & caused translation of Vyasa Bharata (instead of Easternn Chalukyas). Simply put, were Eastern Chalukyas the satrapy (vassal kingdom) of Cholas? I am sure that both (Eastern Chalukyas & Cholas) respecte each other & valued their relationship more than their individual dynasties. But how dothe rival historians put it? Do the Chola historians accept the view that the Andhra coast wasn't under Chola suzerainty?
I noticed that vox/johny harris effect when u mentioned "war".
Weren't the wars fought on dharma than outside medieval kings?
Is i am only one who thought the Gupta period is golden period of india 🤔
I mean some people may be deny this
But this is the reality look at scientific research that time i don't know why our history books or science book never talk abt this
India share around 36% of world GDP in Gupta period
And we can imagine the richness of Gupta Empire that even a middle class household that time wear lots of gold
And World's strongest milliatry
That was what I read in my school history books, and literature, in 80s. Don't know what they are teaching now.
To be technically right ,Gupta period is the golden age of north india & chola period is the golden age of south india...
This is a very good video that has to be shown to Hindutva historians who believe that Hindus are non - violent.
Which hindutvawadi said that😅😅
@@InsightGrid620 I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. 😀
If you aren't, I can share a video with you on a prominent Hindutva historian, who said because there is so much violence in the Middle East, let us make them all Hindus.
Include the Sikh empire under Maharaja Ranjit Singh that defeated the Afghans in Kabul
Didn't lasted much
Five to six years before only few history lovers would have known the name of a Great King Lalitaditya Muktapida of Karakota dynasty. Banishing people to know about their past and ancestors was a tried and tested method for the Leftist cabal who was running the academia of the country for several years.
But at this point when the society and the history is being churned, if you ignore the life and times of this forefather of yours, you are missing on the dopamine rush and the strengthening of your faith in your Rashtra and Dharma.
In the year 724, lalitaditya Muktapida was born to the Karakota king of Kashmir, Durbhalak-Pratapaditya II.
That was a phase of reversal in the history of Bharat, when the incursions and invasions of foreign religions had begun. Sindh, which was under the Arab rule was trying to expand to Kashmir. Civil wars in China had caused many states to disintegrate and migrate to different adjacent parts of India.
Military Strategy and Decimating Arabs
Lalitaditya, being only 20 years of age, ascended to the throne. During his reign, the provinces of Peshawar, Multan, Swat, and the Kingdom of Sindh were all conquered by the Arabs, and the West began its assault. As Arab monarch, Mohammad Bin Qasim threatened to invade and control Kashmir and central India,King Lalitaditya had to deal with the Arab invaders.
LALITADITYA HAD SHOWN COURAGE BY FIRST ENGAGING IN BATTLE AGAINST SOME MORE TRADITIONAL FOES, INCLUDING THE BHUTTAS OF LADAKH, THE KABHOJAS, AND THE DARADAS. TOPPLING REGIONAL KINGS, HE LED HIS ARMY ALONE AND TOOK CHARGE OF ALL THOSE AREAS.
He was able to prevent the Arabs from entering Kashmir with the help of Yashovarman, King of Kannauj,whose kingdom included what are now the states of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, UP, and a portion of Bengal.
It wasn’t as easy as it sounds to wipe out the Arabs. Involved Lalitaditya’s foreign policies as well. He reached out to the powerful Tang Dynasty, which ruled China in the seventh century but had to cede territory in central China to the Tibetan Empire. In the battle against the Arabs and the Tibetans, Lalitaditya prevailed. They used the Chinese ruler’s supply of advanced infantry armour and heavily armoured Sassanid-Chinese cavalry to crush the Tibetans and take over Kucha and Turfan. Tibetans were also defeated by Lalitaditya and lost Assam and Bangladesh.
Lalitaditya conquered Dardistan, which included sections of Pakistan in the north, Kashmir in India, and some parts of north-eastern Afghanistan, and then forced the Arabs to shave off half their heads as a sign of submission.
He continued to try to teach the Arabs a lesson after this. And he took over Transoxiana, which was in Central Asia, and Turkestan as well (modern-day Uzbekistan, Tajiskitan, southern Kyrgyzstan and southwest Kazakhstan).
After that, Lalitaditya entered Turkestan via Kabul and won all four wars against Mumin Bukhara. The king gave in and agreed to pay tribute.
After so many victories, Lalitaditya declared his intention to rule the world. His acquisitions in India were extensive. His empire covered much of central China, earning him the title “Chinese Alexander.”
During his last years in power, he amassed an incredible fortune. He dominated the military in India and central Asia. His dominion covered territory as far away as Tibet, Iran, and Turkestan.
Lalitaditya Muktapida’s Military Expeditions
To put it simply, Lalitaditya was a global ruler. A considerable chunk of his life was spent in military expeditions. After a long war, he attacked Antarvedi territory and ultimately defeated Yashovarman. Antarvedi’s capital city, Kanyakubja (now known as Kanauj), fell under Lalitaditya’s rule. Consolidating authority here he proceeded to eastern seas and reached Kalinga and Gauda.
Lalitaditya Muktapida further proceeded to Kamatas in southern region, to Dakshinapatha, seven Konkanas, Dvaraka, Avanti, Uttarapatha and more. He returned back to Kashmir with great amount of wealth that were collected through the conquests.
These lists of his conquests and expeditions prove him almost equivalent to a Chakravartin Samrat.
Legacy
In his capital city Parihasapura Lalitaditya Muktapida built several images of Vishnu. One was image of Parihasa-Keshava which was made of 84,000 palas of silver. Another was image of Mukta-Keshava constructed of 84,000 tolakas of gold. Simultaneously he built images of gold Maha-Varaha and silver Govardhana-Dhara. He also built the most famous Martand Surya Mandir, which was later destroyed by the Islamic invaders.
Shri Lalitaditya Muktapida was a great king and conqueror, who led invasions beyond the natural boundaries of Bharat. There are many people who say that India never invaded other countries in a thousand years, but they eventually forget this great warrior and king and his endeavours. It was the duty of a Kshatriya to expand the boundaries of his land to establish a long lasting empire. Erasing a part of history does not only mean removing a chapter from the history books, but it is the crippling of the psychology of all the generations and abstaining them from flourishing.
Still, there are many numerable facets of his life and death which need to be unearthed and brought to the light so that his legacy remains as a living memory in all of us and inspire the generations of Bharatiyas to march forward on his path.
Kashmir is unique at least in one respect. This is one geography within the Indian Subcontinent that has a recorded history that fits the norms of Western historiography. Kalhana’s Rajatarangini is a classic in its own right. It records the history of Kashmir over several centuries. Even though Kalhana starts the history of Kashmir from the time of Gonanda I, in about the 7th century of the Kali Era, (3102 BCE), its correct chronology is established during the times of the Karkota Dynasty. Its most illustrious king, Lalitaditya Muktapida (697-733 CE), is reputed to have extended the Karkota Empire from the edge of the Caspian Sea to Prāgajyotisha (Assam) in the East and the boundary of the Rashtrakutas (Deccan) in the South.
The reign of the Karkota, Utpala and Lohara dynasties were marked by great renaissance in the fields of art, literature, science, mathematics, spirituality and logic, and all-round material development. The greatest polymath Abhinavagupta shines as the brightest gem of Kashmir, having lived there in the 10th and 11th centuries. He is also credited with having taken the practice of Kashmir Shaivism to its peak. He was also a great scholar in many other fields. The Utpala and Lohara dynasties succeeded the Karkotas and had a clear run till 1315 CE.
Like he said his conquest is true but it was around Kashmir not what is mentioned here..
Kalhana கதை எழுதும் முன்பே கோபுரம் கட்ட தெரிந்த இனமடா என் தமிழ் இனம்
Atleast gain some knowledge before making some videos about history.
Solid video!
I don't even thikh if this question need to be asked.
Buddhism conquered all of China via Silk route via Hindukush obviously the ASEAN.
The Europe was fighting for our Cotton and Spices, we conquered the trade.
Turks, Mughals, Sakas, Architecture, Philosophy, Religion, we conquered the diversity.
The magnificent Indian Diaspora, traders, guilds, many more
Yes, India conquered the world.
And now in contemporary time also
Jai Hind 🇮🇳
Brainwash Indian 😂😂Lol Indian never conquered the world
Why do you need to put 20 books in the frame with you?
Perhaps a relook into the India and Gorgia and it's connection to modern ethnic groups of North India will throw more light and the way we perceive the boundary of India
Gujars are Georgians. Translated gojaristan is persian
@@adma7298 Gujars comprises of two words Gu and Jar. Gu means tatti and Jar means to hit. So Gujar means to hit with Tatti.
In the past Gujars used to work with cows. And cows produce a lot of Tatti/Gobar. So whenever Gujars would fight , they used to throw Gaye ki Tatti at their enemies. This is how they got the name Gujar.
@@asmirann3636 nope Gujars are a real martial race unlike you tatti eating, urdu speaking bastards of gengis khan's grandsons commenting from your paki mothers burka. Go say the same to any gujar AFK in your home country he will smash your nose in 50 pieces.
@@udaysankar2011 There are lot of Gujars who converted to islam due to fear of the islamic invaders. So I am not sure what martial race you are talking about. If they were a martial race, they would have fought and kept their culture. But the number of Gujar converts into islam tell us a different story.
The traditional occupation of Gujars has been cow herders. They used to supply milk to villages. This is where the name Gujar originates - Gau-char becomes Gujar. It has nothing to do with Georgia like you fools are saying. Georgians are a completely different people.
@@asmirann3636 why don't you go and ask that AFK on the face to any Gujar even if he is muslim/christan/Jew he will tell how you grandmother went to their tabela to clean tatti. Just do it AFK and don't come here to lick my boots.
Dude, what are you on about, some bs, Kambojas were Afghans? Kambojas were never Afghans, they were Indias that migrated East, the modern day Kamboh/Kamboj are those Kambojas that came from the west.
This ignores the fact that many people did try to unite/conquer the Indian subcontinent. There is a certain logic to the subcontinent because of the geography, which is not subject to narratives.
Your narrative tries to restrict the concept of India to a post colonial phenomena. Which is obviously historically inaccurate because the British were calling it India before they got here.
Your agenda might not be political but the narrative is.
No Audio
This is essential viewing.
Start a series on this topic. Would love to help if required
He has a channel on you tube " echos of india"... and I don't agree with his hypothesis !
@@sumedhasoman2956
but he is quoting the sources.
and he started by saying that the notions that India could not colonize or conquer other countries was propagated by British to justify their Indian conquest and colonising.
@@kash60ishvlog67 he's pointing to two aspects...
1) Indians as of one Nation.
2) people of diverse Kingdoms under the Indian subcontinent.
The (1) point is highlighting Indian nationalism, a very modern concept. That was born only 165 years ago.. this is when the British created the narrative that Indians were not as strong as the British in conquering vast territories..
But this was of no significance prior to the rise of Indian Nationalism, that's point (2) because there was no National Identity of India.. a person in what's today Kerala (kingdom of Travancore) would be considered a Foriegner by a person in Karnataka (Kingdom of Mysore).. Kingdoms were analogous to national identity.. if u draw a line in history before the British or before the Mughals.. who were the Cholas fighting? They were at war with Cheras.. if we look at it in today's perspective that's literally TN going to war with Kerala.. that's out of the question today, because we we have put ourselves into a modern identity of Nationhood..
The best example of this is like European Union.. india is like Europe, just that we don't identify as a continent like Europe.. but our history well over a thousand years shows that we waged war and conquered each other's lands..
@@kalebj7001 Do you usually vomit garbage online or is this some special day?
@@kalebj7001 Coming to your arm chair expertise, if this was a shared emotion, that there was no national identity, curators of Vishnu Purana must be smoking something potent in 4th century.
Vishnu Purana (2.3.1) defines India as land lying north of sea and south of Himalayas - uttarain yat samudrasya Himadrescaiva daksinarh, varsam tad Bharatam. This popular quote shows the use of the word Bharath during the puranic age. Similarly there is reference in Mahabharata for Bharat as the land of descendents of King Bharata. The reference to the boundary and culture of land from Kalidasa work (Kumarasambhavam 1.1 and landscape description in Meghasandesa) further show the continuity of the ancient culture. Asetu Himachala, the bridge that connect Rameswaram with Srilanka to Himalaya as the Indian territory is a common term in Indian literature.
the title didn't satisfy the content he had. by the things what he explained i see only cholas as the exceptional case. Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Tibet had been in the history in terms of invasion by Indians for very long time. technically what he said could be "yes" and "no" if Indians did invade abroad or not. based on the way of oneself defining abroad. is it today's terms of abroad or is it then time abroad, or is it culturally alien.
Whats the need to keep big books in front of the camera? Showoff?
nono bro,,, bharat was always united as one single organism bro,,, hindus are righteous rulers unlike muslims bro,, if you deny this ypu are anti indian brov,,,🙂
Kashmir and Pakistan were ruled by Hindu kings.
Therefore when Pakis ask for Kashmir, we Indians should ask for Pakistan.
ashramchap hindu in historical text is geographic and ethnical term and that hindu is now called sindhu and it is a province of pakistan, modern day hinduism was made by britishers with the request of brahmanist ram mohan roy in 1816 by combining many pagan religion of subcontinent under the authority of manusmirti
It's not that Indian Kings never invaded other territories, it's just that we never forced our traditions and religion on others. Many people say, why do Hindus not say anything about Chinese Ahom invaders but hate the Islamic invaders, it's because the Chinese invaders became like us instead of forcing us to become like them, they accepted Hindu gods and Hindus of Assam also accepted their gods, this couldn't be done by Islamic invaders because the biggest sin in Islam is not murder or theft, it's "Shirk" or associating partners with Allah, in other words polytheism.
Quran 98.6 literally says that "polytheists are the worst of all creatures and they will burn in hell fire till eternity"
There are many verses dedicated just for polytheists, explaining how much pain they will endure in hell and that's why titles like Butshikan(idol breaker) was proudly claimed by many invaders.
Did medieval China ever invade India?
The difference is that when Indian Empires conquered lands outside of India, they did not try to change the local culture of those regions. Indian Empires did not impose religion, language etc. The Arab Caliphates, the Turkic Sultanates, the Chinese Empires, the European Colonial Empires all tried to do these things. They wanted to remove the existing native cultures and replace them with their own. The Mauryans, Cholas, Guptas, Karkotas, Palas etc did not do this. Sure, the Chola invasions of Sri Lanka were brutal but there never was a state policy to impose Shaivism on the population, or a systematic destruction of Buddhist monasteries. The Cholas only destroyed Anuradhapura (the capital city). Whereas the Turkic, Arab empires targeted all settlements.
Excuse me.. Not 'Malaysia and Indonesia'.. Only a very small part of them
So true.
We became colonized due to technological inferiority, our caste bias, language or regional differences, and our lack of unity.
I don't think technolgical inferiority was any reason. We were as technologically advanced as Europeans when they first arrived.
It happened because of weak kings which coincided with Europeans arrival and the lack of foresight. Jahangir gave permission to British and Portuguese conquest of Goa. Portuguese became the protectors of Kings of Cochin which meant they felt they weren't capable enough to defeat their enemies. Indian kings gave permission to Europeans whereas Chinese and the Japanese didn't. They went into isolation. The internal conflict gave rise to threats of defeat and that made us look at Europeans as some king of saviour.
There was no proper oversight on the permissions given to them. They came to do business but understood that Indians could be controlled. They conjured contracts that gave them power and made laws that were unfair to Indians only because those Kings of the time couldn't be bothered.
Not all kings were like that but many were just like that. Wanted to live a lavish life.
@@islandsunset 😂😂😂😂😂
@@islandsunset yes agreed. i also think indian kings were too generous because they had plenty which they didn't take accountability for but then europeans took advantage of it
Yeah indeed the Europeans came with their guns and mortars which we don't have then
There is no caste bias before muslims invade India .British created mess in cast to divid n rule. Pl do understand this
No audio
You're talking about one particular kingdom going and conquering a piece of land on South Asia
That's not the same as colonialism where one country subjugated the other
Cholas influence in indian ocean & south east asia is a very big achievement ...in 11th century they became the superpower of its time in cultural , military & economy...there empire is larger than india ...
Could be that this desire to become "Chakravarti" had aspirational roots in that the kings wanted to emulate the Ashwamedha yajna as described in the Ramayana and Mahabharat.
Let's stop making heros of medieval or ancient war lords...Indian, Greeks, Romans, Turks, Mongols, Chinese or Arabs.
Vijayanagara Empire once had a tributary over the Pegu kingdom of Burma
So it's important to know the history of land in order to reduce losses in future caused by current politics...
Why the use of Medieval India used so much when explaining ancient India
Why did the Indians regularly started loosing to Turks yet resisting them to a certain extend ? Why did the Turks in Asia Minor or Europe remained a distinct race/entity to date and why they assimilate in India ?
Kanisetti please cover Ganj i sawai incident & Muhammed Tughlaq's expedition to China.
Interesting, but not much convincing.
Indians didn’t “attack” South East Asia; Indian culture was adopted voluntarily by the Indonesians when they came in contact with Indian traders. Same in Cambodia. This is similar to the spread of American culture in India.
Cholesterol would like to disagree
Did you not hear him when he mentioned the Chola empire?
@@mint8648 he said the Chola empire conquered SE Asia. That was incorrect as per my information.
@@sdutta8 They at least conquered Pegu, Sumatra, and Malaya
See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
There may have been some military actions but it was mostly cultural osmosis. It was very different from the way European and Middle Eastern cultures were spread. This is something India should be proud of, not ashamed.
In yester years it was survival and there was no concept of boundaries or a sovereign nation. The author seems to be incomplete. There is a difference between colonization and conquering and ruling with an intention to live harmoniously
It's people not peoples.....
Please make a video on Aryan invasion theory and out of India theory.
What is the reference for the map shown at 2:01, i ask because as far as i Know, Vijayanagar and Bahamanids shared a common border, and what exactly are these Krishna states?
Ollie Bye's History of India UA-cam video.
Present day world tells you what exactly happened in past and it's a mirror image of past like bigger empires we have influential countries.
Various reasons of conquest right now .:-
1) resources
2) influence the countries through and better trade
3) technology
4) more territory through various means
5) glory .
Another Indian liberally borrowing from the tribute system the ancient Chinese were renown for. There has not been a unified 'India' till modern times.
“Tribute system” Chinese? ……hahahahhahahaah sure man…. Wow so knowlege, Much impress, but still no girlfriend.
Okay, gotta say this is really cool
India when became free from Mongols and British, it became a democratic nation.
Since then India/Bharat/Hindustan, has not gone outside it's borders to conquer. The wars it fought was only to defend its borders.
Before that, there was no India as a country. There were several dynasties with similar culture. They conquered other kingdoms and expanded their rules.
All Indian languages are small small kingdoms! even you speak today your 'mother tongue' you can feel you are speaking a kingdom language. when you come to south, Cholas are bigger at that time. they did conquer south east Asia by trade but the wonderful thing they did, i felt was they don't even populate the land with their on people, not destroyed their language left the land for locals and came back to India. unlike Europeans did different, especially Brittan went to North America and destroyed Native Americans and their language, their presence , identity and replace with British Civilization and gave Everything to Britain's Elder son America 😀
This is how to make a marksist propa9anda narrative.
Going good urban naxa|s...... 😂🤣
Why do Europian historians are so obsessed with 'steppe' ancestry for India? Can't our government invest more to unravel our past with finest scientific tools vast samples still available in this land?
HADN'T SMALLER INDIAN KINGDOMS BEEN CONQUERED & UNITED BY THE BRITISH, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE FRAGMENTED LIKE AFRICA. IT WAS THE BRITISH WHO UNIFIED INDIA POLITICALLY & IT WAS THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT BY THE CONGRESS & GANDHI THAT FURTHER BOLSTERED INDIA'S UNIFICATION.
Come out from this delusion of colonial hangovers concocted dogma
It was Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who united india. Not your wh!te masters ,nehru and Gandhi kid.
Wake up from the dogma you are sleeping in....... 😂🤣
@@descendantofbharatbharatva7155 PADHAI ME KAMZOR THA YA HISTORY CLASSES BUNK MARTA THA?? ITNA BHI COMMONSENSE NAHI BAN PAA RAHA HAI TERA KI YE REALIZE KARE KI SUBCONTINENT ME PEHLE SAIKADON CHHOTE CHHOTE KINGDOMS HUA KARTE THE JO APAS ME LADTE RAHTE THE. ANDH BHAKT CHAMCHAANDU KAHINKA.
@@AmitKumarAlphaX Someone like you whose knowledge of Indian history is confined to the post-1947 era, and that too is flawed, constitutes a significant threat to national integration. In 1947, after traumatic partition, several provinces that were British Indian provinces, directly ruled by the British Empire, merged to form India as a nation. In addition, there were the remaining 565 princely states that enjoyed relative autonomy while under the British rule. After all, your perverted understanding is similar to that of Rahul Gandhi. Therefore, it’s not surprising that he is completely clueless about Ancient Bharata and its unity. For someone who never truly understood what Akhand Bharat was before Abrahamic forces invaded, understanding the richness and majesty of what Bharat meant, is indeed a tall order.
SINCE ANCIENT TIMES, INDIA WAS KNOWN FOR ITS ‘UNITY IN DIVERSITY’, NOT THE DIVERSITY MAINSTREAM TODAY BUT THE DIVERSITY OF CULTURES, TRADITIONS, AND PRACTICES FROM THE PAST.
This is how Indian texts used to describe Bhāratvarsh:
THE country that lies north of the ocean, and south of the snowy mountains, is called Bhārat, for there dwelt the descendants of Bharata. It is nine thousand leagues in extent, and is the land of karma, in consequence of which men obtain emancipation.
@@descendantofbharatbharatva7155 DEAR ANDH BHAKT CHAMCHAANDU, Bharatvarsha was the name of the subcontinent, not the name of a KINGDOM. Just accept that there were hundreds of KINGDOMS WHO WERE FIGHTING EACHOTHER BEFORE THE BRITISH CAME.
I think you need to read more. No one said India never invaded ..it's all over in Mahabharata as well . Yudhishthir and his army wiped of all Nagas.. Indians never made other countries a colony of theirs like how British and other colonial powers did.and India never invaded a part of world which was out of their geographic region which is clearly marked by the tectonic plate and Himalayas..they remained in South Asian region... AND what is this argument that Ancient Indian boundaries coincide with recent ones.. isn't it obvious becaus of Himalayas??
Journalists, often in their eagerness for inclusivity, forget that it's not just the Brits that thought (or imposed) the idea that Hindus and Muslims are two very different people.. But, in fact, Hindus and Muslims themselves identify themselves as very different people... Hindu rulers did not allow religion to influence their policies... In fact there existed no religion of such kind in ancient and medieval India.. There were many schools of thoughts, culmination of which today is called Hinduism... Ours was always a very inclusive society.. I can openly criticize certain parts of Hinduism in front of my parents and grandparents, and if they find that criticism to be rational, they'd agree to it.. I can guarantee you no muslim can do that.. they cannot criticize their religion.. they'll have to think twice before doing so, because consequences would be quite different...
We can turn the question a bit on its head and ask, was there ANYTHING different about the Bharateeya ethos? For example, what would explain the diversity of faiths in India? Put another way, why did not a 'religion of the Book' emerge in India that scorched everything in its path, like Christianity did in early parts of the first millennium Europe, or Islam did in latter part of the first millennium Asia. There is also the troubling issue of the Hindu sayings: the world is one family, or, there is one truth called by different names, that structured Indian thought. Did such universalism emerge anywhere else in the world?
Which simply means we never conquered outside for women or resources. 😂 Like muslims or Brits did. 🤣
Under British .we did .conquered the heavenly kingdom in China ,bought the mighty Trks to the knees in haifa,defeated Japan .we were the ogs of world wars (peacefuls salty)
Good, now Indians can stop bitching about the British Empire and accept the fact that everybody used to conquer each other
@@stormtrooper8420 lacking basic literacy ,we won wars for them and they discriminated against us so we deserve monetary compensation for those .that's how democracies work .
Under the British empire Indians also conquered the US, Australia, NZ, Canada and become king of the UK. Rishi sunak is the present king of UK.
@@mohitanand1844 well Britain was conquering for India 🤷♂️
Thanks the British for a United India
@@stormtrooper8420 do you even know any history ?! It was a world war .they were defeating axis powers ,Turks etc .do you even know the dates even ??
There is nothing new in this video. Except some expeditions on Afghanistan ,bit of Persia & bit of south east Asia, we couldn't show any influence. To large extent, it still true that we haven't invaded any country!!
Bro, Buddhism was spread from India to china, Korea, Japan. This is huge influence.
@@Ali-lm7uw This happened due to missionaries, not due to any invasion!
But yes, we are a boss of Asia!!
The Pala-Gujarat Wars (8th-10th centuries CE): These wars were fought between the Pala Empire, which was Buddhist, and the Gurjara-Pratihara Empire, which was Hindu. The wars resulted in the destruction of many Buddhist temples and monasteries in Northern India.
The Kalachuri-Chandela Wars (10th-12th centuries CE): These wars were fought between the Kalachuri Empire, which was Buddhist, and the Chandela Empire, which was Hindu. The wars resulted in the destruction of many Buddhist temples and monasteries in Central India.
The Later Chola-Hoysala Wars (12th-13th centuries CE): These wars were fought between the Later Chola Empire, which was Hindu, and the Hoysala Empire, which was Buddhist. The wars resulted in the destruction of many Buddhist temples and monasteries in South India.
hi , make it like story telling & it will be more interesting .
thanks
I agree with your point but Indian rulers never invaded far away countries unlike the Greeks or Genghis khan or the British Empire...it was always within the greater Indian subcontinent. Was that because of lack of intent to invade countries endlessly driven by greed or whatever reasons..or was it for the lack of competence and reach...?
There were reasons Greeks empire is equal to size of india. india itself a subcontinent
British empire is a modern one only 100 to 150 years old...during colonialism every country tried to conquer others
Mongols had created one of the largest empires mostly central asia because they lack resources..
For eg mauryas conquered selucus nicator territories & cholas conquered till Phillipines & java & kushans conquered central asia....
I find it amazing how modern Indian historians schooled in Western outlook and thought look very sophisticated, academically rigorous yet they twist facts to suit their interpretation and are not really interested in conveying truth. In the video about Cholas, Mings dominating Indian ocean, Anirudh says Cholas "maybe" attacked Sri Vijaya and "maybe" had influence on South East Asia, while there is absolute certainty in his mind about Zhang He's conquests. Here the angle was to show how much power was weilded by Cholas
While in this video since he has to "uncover the mask" of benevolence Indians take upon themselves (how can Indians be benevolent and not be bloodthirsthy or ruthlessly political like the others), Anirudh cites Buddhist scriptures castigating the Cholas.
Here he uses Raghuvamsa written during Gupta period about the legendary Ikshvaku emperor Raghu to prove that Indians would have attacked Persians and Huns. While if it suits them otherwise they would say these are all legends - one cannot rely upon these to make definite historical statements.
And a common man, unschooled in their subterfuge would be thinking they are the definitive word on history, they are the experts.
What I really find galling is while they harp a lot about objectivity, these historians dont mind giving subjective interpretations as definite statements about intentions of rulers.
So in his book Anirudh makes it appear that the Brahmin priests and early medieval Deccan kings like Pulakeshi I etc have a transactional relationship. Brahmins get wealth while the king gets legitimacy. The rituals themselves are meaningless to either - its what they project to the people. Dont you feel that its like Britisher writing about arcane native rituals. There is no understanding of the deep belief that the entire society had in these rituals. But Anirudh and his ilk have such high academic degrees that they have the right to pronounce upon the motives and intentions of a people whose culture they dont live and whose worldview they dont consider their own
Nothing new except for the attitude n funny accent of the guy. Colonising is entirely different, it impoverishes the colony and enslaves the inhabitants , and perfected by the British in India, creates mentally enslaved and deracinated people.
Funny to know what some nationalist quote often is made a british guy
Very immature. Bit over ambitious adolescent assessment.
No appetite for empire or blood lust because it would make virtous Hindu life impossible. Hindus were qualified kings not uneducated like the invaders. These bad apples cited here don't really represent evolution of India but its dilution and undoing, medieval India could not match the stature if its ancestors, India became like the rest of the world.
Most important, do not assess India by vast land mass or the odd extravagant kings, talk to an ordinary man to find his soul, India is kept alive in this minor man. Travel around a bit to find why this man is different from the others.
Basic premise is wrong here no king saw it as India. There was no india. Prithivraj fought more wars with other hindu kings than Muslims
. So called india was approachable easliy through west only until Europeans came. Technically on that side land is barren after indus Plains. Old subcontinent kings have hand full in their land. By the way Nepali kings once conquered Tibet. North-east was never under any big indian ruler until british did that so called modern India is legacy of British. Punjabi culture is more closed to Parisians in food habit than with anybody in south
What was said here is very rational but most of my friends would call this author a woke & not even consider this view for a moment.
8:45
"It just happens that their (then rulers) ideas of what constitutes a political universe is different from ours because why would their imaginaitons be constrained by a nation-state that would not exist".
There's nothing to consider in this view. Perhaps you should read the accounts of Megasthenes and Arrian (both Greek travelers to India in different times) because our history validated by goras is of utmost importance.