Hot answers tagged

60

It seems to be the painting Suppression of the Indian Revolt by the English, a painting by the Russian artist Vasily Vereshchagin c. 1884 According to the annotation on Wikipedia: It anachronistically depicts the events of 1857 with soldiers wearing (then current) uniforms of the late 19th century. The "photograph" originally appeared in a 1941 Nazi ...


59

First, the easier part on Christianity. As the other reply says, the British were (mostly) unwilling to convert Indians in order to avoid inflaming local religious sentiments. In fact, the British were so cautious on this that they would probably even tolerated the practices of sati and child marriage had some Indian reformers (such as Ram Mohan Roy) not ...


51

That's an interesting question. When India first gained independence from the United Kingdom on 15 August 1947 it was as The Dominion of India, with King George VI as king and Head of State. India became a sovereign democratic republic when the Constitution of India came into force on 26 January 1950. This repealed the Indian Independence Act, and removed ...


46

It is actually a bit of a myth that everyone believed the world to be flat until Columbus. It is true that a lot of ancient societies believed that as a matter of cultural mythology. This was true both for the ancient Greeks as well as the ancient Indians. However, any ancient navigator who looked to the horizon on the sea on a calm day could clearly see ...


39

Because it didn't have a choice: it had neither the will to defy the British Government, nor the ability to do so. Remember corporations are not people; its shareholders and directors were. In this case, most of them were British, owning properties and with aspirations in Britain. That alone made resisting a duly constituted Act of Parliament by force ...


36

I think the OP knows that the Dravidians were in India before the Aryans, and is asking why historians don't talk more about them. The answer is that Sanskrit (Aryan) scholarship has been going on in the west for centuries, while we still can't read the Indus Valley (probably Dravidian) script. Most of what we know about the Indus Valley civilization is ...


36

There are a good number of reasons why the British were able to do so, and in fact rule over India effectively for over a century. Disunity among Indian princely states. India was more a collection of warring princely states, at loggerheads with each other. The British sucessfully used this to play off one state against another. Add to it there was no ...


34

Personally, I don't think anything ever went particularly "wrong" with India. They only fell behind the civilizations of Western Europe, not the rest of the world. So the proper question to ask here is what suddenly went right with heretofore backward Europe. To my mind the answer to this question is clear: The printing press. Nearly overnight Europeans had ...


33

It looks fairly likely this story was invented around the turn of the 21'st Century. The hits against it are: No reference to it has ever been found any older than 1998 (reportedly from a American neo-gnostic publication). Lord Macauly is known to have been in the middle of a stint in India (halfway around the world) in 1835 when this was supposedly ...


33

In regards to the battle between Alexander and Porus, both accounts are correct, in their own way. Alexander won the battle, and received an acknowledgement of such from Porus; Porus won the war, by convincing the Greek army (if perhaps not Alexander himself) that continuing was pointlessly expensive. Both sides saved face through the reappointment of ...


32

I don't think there's much truth in this claim. Although the US does speak English, the spread of the English language is because British empire was the most successful amongst colonial empires. Although India was one of the important colonies (the so-called Jewel in the Crown), it wasn't the only one. There were other colonies in Australia, Canada, Africa ...


30

The answer is a very solid yes although I'd prefer the word Intervene rather than invade. India was one of the key possessions of British and Indian trade was crucial to British economy at that time. As long as British economy was strong, Britain would have been able to field expeditionary forces to thwart French ambitions worldwide. So that's where ...


28

Because China was actually pretty far from India. For most of the past millennia, China and India were not "neighbouring countries" in any meaningful sense of the word. Most Chinese empires did not actually stretch all the way to the Indian subcontinent. It seems you're considering China and India based on their modern borders, but that is misleading: ...


28

Khan is an adopted surname, especially popular in Pakistan and parts of India. It literally means "Leader" in Turkic languages, and can be roughly translated to "King." Genghis Khan can be translated to King Genghis without too much quibbling, so think of the surname Khan to be similar to the English surname King (As in Martin Luther King, Jr.) It came to ...


25

To begin, the following passage from Britain, the Commonwealth and the End of Empire by Dr John Darwin discusses the "staggering blow" Great Britain felt after granting independence to India. ... Repairing Britain The huge sense of relief at a more or less dignified exit, and much platitudinous rhetoric, disguised the fact that the end of the ...


25

Time and again India has seen some reformers who revolutionize the thoughts of the masses. When Buddhism was in full force in India, Adi Shankara was born to revive Hinduism. During the Mughal Period, Tulsidas, Surdas and others deeply imposed the faith of Hindus in God. Tulsidas wrote Ram Charitra Manas whereas Surdas composed many devotional songs about ...


24

Yes, surprising as it is, I found credible sources indicating that there was some discussion of offering India East Africa as a mandate. Perhaps it is useful for others who wish to read more about this a full detail of my sources. In "How India Became Territorial: Foreign Policy, Diaspora, Geopolitics (2014)" by Itty Abraham, I found this quote: On war ...


23

The British East India Company did not set out to conquer and rule India, nor did that situation manifest itself overnight, nor by any single battle or treaty. The British built ties with stable commercial interests in India, leaving the freedom to act opportunistically in Indian politics as the Mughal Empire crumbled outmaneuvered European rivals in ...


23

Madras* was bombarded by a German warship during World War I. That's the only instance I could find in either war of an Indian city coming under that kind of fire from German regular armed forces. Germany had no aircraft carriers, and their only real long-range bomber in WWII, the Heinkel HE 177, appears to have only been used in the Eastern and Western ...


23

Yes, Bose was welcome in Germany. The Germans could have denied him entry if they wanted to, and so there are no doubts that they were happy to see him in their country. However, Hitler repeatedly refused to issue a declaration supporting India's independence, and this suggests that he personally did not support Bose's cause. It also has to be remembered ...


22

It's because Hindusim is not a religion at all.Even if it is now considered as a major religion in India, it is having features of a culture more than a religion. The term "Hinduism" was coined recently. The culture in India is known as "Sanathana Dharama", which means "eternal dharma" or "eternal order". Actually it is a culture passed by ancient rishis ...


21

According to Freedom at Midnight by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins (I have a link to Wikipedia but have read the book multiple times), the idea for Pakistan came from Choudhary Rahmat Ali, a student studying in England who pitched the idea to Mohammed Ali Jinnah at a dinner. Choudhary Rahmat Ali is also credited with coining the name "Pakistan". Jinnah ...


21

Hitler did not consider Indians to be Aryans at all. Instead, he believed them to be barbaric Asians who did not deserve to enjoy freedom as a country. He wanted India to remain subjugated under the British (he said this openly in his book) permanently. He pointedly refused Bose's request to withdraw this statement in his only meeting with Bose. As for ...


20

From independent sources, I'd go with the India.com version: India never received any such offer. The UN actually existed during WW2. This is what the group of countries allied against the Axis powers called themselves. The Security Council was the group of countries that were actually the major allies supplying large numbers of troops in the fight, and ...


18

China had a permanent seat since 1945 As one of the "Big Four" allies in World War II (China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States), the Republic of China (ROC) was one of the founding members of the United Nations. President Franklin Roosevelt had acknowledged China's war effort in World War II and stated his desire to allow China ...


18

In 1943, some 3 million indian subjects of the British Raj died due to bengal famine. I think the most authentic and rich source for examining and finding evidences against Churchill in this incident is Madhusree Mukerjee's book, 'Churchill's Secret War', which reveals a side of Churchill's largely ignored in the West and considerably tarnishes his heroic ...


18

Indian WWI-recruitment poster was very peculiar. Material benefits, instead of patriotism, were employed to encourage recruitment. Indian recruitment poster. Urdu translation reads: 'Who will take this uniform, money and rifle? The one who will join the army. Source: Imperial war museum.


18

Legalities Modern India evolved out of the transitionary Dominion of India, which was created from territories of the British Raj. It is important to note that neither Bhutan nor Nepal were princely states under British India. In Nepal's case, the Himalayan kingdom successfully negotiated a Treaty of Friendship in 1923, in which Britain recognised Nepalese ...


17

This question raises a lot of passion among Indians and others alike for obvious reasons. The Aryan Invasion theory is not an Indian concept per se. This has been brought in by the so-called etymologists from Europe. Many of the latest studies which include cellular biology and genetics have revealed that there were never separate Aryans and Dravidians. ...


17

The Religion Factor To understand this, you have to understand Hinduism. Let me take up my own case- a Kokanast Maharashtrian Brahman. This is a sub-caste. The point of interest to us here is the amazing similarity in diversity in India. Hinduism (Sanaatan Dharm) is an individual, a highly individual religion. it is common to have the Father ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible