gimUNQ
No.318108
Why did princely state joined India it didn't turned out to be beneficial for them at all
kuX+Cw
No.318117
>>318108(OP)
>Why did princely state joined India
Yaar pajeet they didn't. Vallabhai sariyed them with the power of indian military
vFjxqp
No.318121
>>318117
They only sariyad hyderabad, and JK joined cuz porkis were attacking them
Rest were trapped under false promises of GOI
7e88Ya
No.318127
>>318108(OP)
The common subjects wanted to join the republic. Nationalism was all time high due to recently concluded independence struggle. Most kings followed the will of the people and where they didn't Patel used diplomacy and threat.
kuX+Cw
No.318131
>>318121
Yes, sariya the 2, rest will back of by themselves. Even if they didn't, what would fight of them? Commoners who have gotten enough of british and wanted independence from all that imperialism?
kuX+Cw
No.318133
7e88Ya
No.318134
>>318131
Most princely states acceded peacefully long before any sariya.
dMmIQI
No.318137
>>318108(OP)
>aur rajputana kiska ,bharat sarkar ka,aur ye sarkar kya karega tumhare liye ? BEHAN KA LAWDAAAAA
7e88Ya
No.318143
>>318133
It was just about ending zamindari system which was incompatibe with new republican project. Rajputs/landholding castes didnt technically 'own' the land to begin with. They were mere revenue collectors and administrators of the estates farmed by farmers (feudalism 101) and simply lost their power.
8CimcY
No.318144
>>318108(OP)
India shouldn't exist like what it is today.
The British should have divided it into the Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta presidencies as three separate nations when they left.
LBt9jp
No.318146
>>318144
you cant expect britcucks to be actually competent
gimUNQ
No.318148
>>318127
Wtf i hate patel maderchod now
7e88Ya
No.318149
>>318144
The thing is history has shown us that india has had several pan indian empires. Even if they left us divided sooner or later a dominant state would have emerged and brought reunification.
p1axbS
No.318155
Your little regionalist utopia will be raped to oblivion and made a nuclear wasteland if anyone today even tried to do it seriously. It's good kashmiri randi ka pillas being shown their aukat with heavy military deployment. Your little utopia is too insignificant in front of an once in a lifetime global power.
gimUNQ
No.318161
>>318155
STFU, no one is using nukes on their own land. And it depends all about who is demanding it.
I mean, if all Sikhs started demanding Khalistan, it’s very possible they could get it, because many Sikh generals and army officers would support them.
But they know Khalistan as a Sikh-Punjabi ethno-state is highly impractical and would be annexed by Pakistan in no time.
If the demand is feasible and you have backing it’s highly possible to get your own independent state.
7e88Ya
No.318163
>>318161
Khalistan will never be supported by punjabi hindus (35% of punjabi pop) and non jatt sikhs. Its just a pipe dream for jatt sikhs and pakistan.
8CimcY
No.318164
just rename punjab as khalistan and be happy
p1axbS
No.318166
>>318161
Retarded chamar, what happened in kashmir?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuses_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir
Kashmir has been raped into obvilion, it's simple the more you want to rebel, the more you will be raped and no don't expect people in military to believe in your regionalist collectivism, they don't care about it.
vkgKjc
No.318175
>>318108(OP)
Good, those rich chamaar kings deserve this humiliation. I don't like gaymocracy that much myself but the power of people>>>>>over some singular retard who claims to be descendant of muh suryadev. You are a bootlicker if you genuinely show sympathy for these kings.
gimUNQ
No.318188
>>318175
Nah I'm all in for a dictator like Saddam Hussein one who put his boot down on subhuman filth and actually gives a damn about improving his people's lives.
p1axbS
No.318190
>>318188
Fucking kill yourself manchild
vkgKjc
No.318192
>>318188
A dictator like Subhash Chandra Bose(if he were to rule us) are different from these kings who soley look for thier own profits over thier people most of the time with a few exemptions like the Jodhpur king.
gimUNQ
No.318209
>>318192
Kys bhangi
gimUNQ
No.318230
>>318227
Bhangi get mindraped whenever word "sub-human" is mentioned
vkgKjc
No.318249
>>318230
Tera bhi kila gobermint ne hadap liya kya pyaare jo itna toh rha.
37ONWu
No.318261
>>318249
kut dog
+XAjXz
No.318324
>>318127
>common subjects wanted to join the republic
Lmao, the common subjects didn't even know that they were being ruled by the British all this time.
the whole independence movement being "popular" is a misconception, whatever little mass support it had, specially mk gandhi's movements, they were all crushed by the government amd were infact irrelevant in 1947.
British left India on their own whim, and transferred power to tbe opportunists of the time, why do you think partition happened? because these opportunist parties weren't some ardent nationalists or whatever, they were simply politicians who wanted power, they didn't care of millions died in riots.
gandhi himself was a ideologycuck, the funnies t joke of all is the khilafat movement lmao, jeets were protesting for restoration ottoman caliph kek, and this is considered as le part of muh independence struggle, the turks themselves under ataturk were actually waging a real war of independence to establish a modern state of turkey.
More Jeets were employed under British Government to execute their will that were "fighting" for independence lmao.
vkgKjc
No.318344
>>318324
This, if not for hitler weakening brits, we would have still been ruled by them.
gJ7lNx
No.318349
>>318344
maybe but I think they would have left anyway, even before Hitler, British Empire was on decline, largely due to rise if USA, who do you think financed democratic revolutionaries in Europe? It was US, the first world war is actually what weakened Europe and the British.
The first world war in a true sense was a America's Jihad for Democracy in Europe and ultimately they won, German Empire, Russian Empire and Ottoman Empire all collapsed, British Empire ceased to exist soon too.
7e88Ya
No.318359
>>318324
>the common subjects didn't even know that they were being ruled by the British all this time.
What a retarded exaggeration. Nearly every district in india has had people who participated in the movement during the british era many were from humble backgrounds. Did people in remote bumfucks not know about habbenings? Sure, just like they not know to this day but stop with your retarded exaggeration.
gJ7lNx
No.318361
At the time of Joining, Princely states of India were promises certain rights and privileges, and it was all mandated by the constitution, however later on Indira Gamdhi removed a lot of these provisions and their power declined, it was a betrayal, many bhangis complain why erstwhile royal houses still conduct coronation ceremonies, but they don't know that the constitution literally gives them right to do so, even after the dilution.
Congress Government Under Nehru and Indira Raped the constitution actually, the first amendment diluted the right to equality by allowing reservations, TN high court high court had declared caste based reservation unconstitutional, many don't know this but they also removed right to property from list of fundamental rights from the constituon in 1978.
bhangis think it was lundebedkar who wrote the constitution and gave them reservation but it was BN Rau who formed the India's constitution and it had no provision for any sort of caste based reservation, it was Nehru who brought the first amendment that allowed reservation to SC/STs, later on in his life Nehru realised his mistake, because soon reservation became a political tool.
many don't understand but it never really started for the country.
vkgKjc
No.318365
>>318361
So reservation funding for a bunch of powerless kings got removed? Good.
SpHU2B
No.318367
>>318175
Rajputana was the best example of a king that actually cared for his people. Look at how orderly and planned Jaipur and Udaipur were then vs what they have become under the Republic of India
gJ7lNx
No.318368
>>318359
>What a retarded exaggeration
It's not
>Nearly every district in india has had people who participated
Nope, infact muh independence movement was dead in 1947, all of it was crushed by the government by early 1940s.
Bhai there was no coherent idea of India even back then, politicians were fighting for power over their own imagined states, princely states were worried for their own future.
more indians were employed under the government than there were in streets protesting for muh independence or whatever.
And your average people had no idea about anything.
SpHU2B
No.318372
>>318361
TL;DR: fuck Nehru and the Gandhis
gJ7lNx
No.318380
>>318365
>reservation
? It wasn't reservation gaandu, they were given these rights in return for agreeing to join dominion of India, the state was legally theirs and they weren't powerless either.
You are acting as if the congress was directing tbe power transfer, they weren't, the whole deal was mediated by the British governer who actually had the power, congress was just another party in the deal, there was no revolution that over threw the British Raj or the pricely states, infact most kings were popular among their subjects.
Congress government later on betrayed the terms of the agreement, and yeah then the kings were powerless, because they had already given away their states.
ALL I can say is unlike the congress government bhangis, they weren't neech subhumans.
7e88Ya
No.318383
>>318368
>muh independence movement was dead in 1947.
Pajeet is surprised independence movement ended after independence.
gJ7lNx
No.318387
>>318372
Those subhumans removed right to property from fundamental rights so they could grab privately owned land lmao, the first amendment allowed for reservations, amd there are endless such examples, Indira Gandhi nationalised all banks in india to seize people's money because the government under her was bankrupt.
these clowns ruined the country.
vkgKjc
No.318388
>>318380
They would have been crushed by the Indian army in case of a revolt like Hyderabad, so I don't think those kings had much of a choice. Also popularity of monarchy was waning all over the world.
vkgKjc
No.318390
>>318387
I'm not that mad at Indira Gandhi cause atleast she badly humiliated porkis.
gimUNQ
No.318391
>>318361
I suspect the Congress dynasty have a PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION style rulebook to eternally slave India under their rule.
gJ7lNx
No.318393
>>318383
Are gandu in 1947, British decided to leave Indian and brought all the opportunist parties to the table.
you mahatma gandu led movement was crushed long ago, in early 1940s, whatever was left of it completely died by 1945.
your mahatma gandu was fighting for restoration of ottoman caliphate and his bhakts were doing randi naach for that lmao, meanwhile actual turks were waging a wat against colonial powers and the caliph to establish modern turkey.
7e88Ya
No.318396
>>318380
Many popular former royals became politicians and won elections, so i dont see how being stripped off privileges was bad. If you want to continue ruling and feel are popular just get elected rather than being entitled brat and demanding muh monarchy. Also everything is fair in power struggle. They became monarchs through tradition and when the tradition ended and got replaced by republic it was only fair that they lost the throne.
gJ7lNx
No.318397
>>318388
Not really, you don't understand by the time of hyderabad, India was already largely united, in the early phase of negotiations it wasn't like that.
The kings had agreed to join india in return for their rights amd privileges, they even gave up legal title, the state, the land all of it belonged to them lmao, before signing the agreement they had enough power to form their own unified state, go and see the amount of land under the princely states.
gimUNQ
No.318400
>>318388
>Crushed by Indian army
You don't seem to understand their people were at highest ranking post in armies eho do you think armies consisted of mostly sikhs, rajputs and jats they wouldn't fight thier own people they only joined because of "Muh hindu brothers"
gJ7lNx
No.318403
>>318396
>stripped off privileges was bad
they weren't stripped of privileges early on, and were made collectors and top bureucrats in many cases, this was part of agreement.
Indira gandhi removed most of the terms later on, mostly because she was a dictator.
gJ7lNx
No.318406
>>318400
Indian army at that time was literally under the British governor, and many kings were top generals, the congress had no power.
vkgKjc
No.318408
>>318400
>do you think armies consisted of mostly sikhs, rajputs and jats they wouldn't fight thier own people they only joined because of "Muh hindu brothers"
They would still crush them, pajeets back then were unironically high off of secularism and pan India unity.
7e88Ya
No.318413
>>318393
Abe lodu i am no gandhian but the fact remains gandhi, bhagat singh, tilak etc. were popular among masses. There were different factions but independence movement was indeed a mass movement and regions like bengal, punjab, united provinces and bombay presidency were hotbeds for revolutionary activities.
gW+rI5
No.318415
>>318413
>the fact remains gandhi, bhagat singh, tilak etc. were popular among masses.
>MFW asaa raam bapu was popular among the bhangis even though used creampie their wives
7e88Ya
No.318430
>>318403
I know. They lost it all gradually. First the throne, then titles and finally the privy purse. It was all a matter of time and was bound to happen anyway once the republic was formed.
vkgKjc
No.318433
>>318420
All this randirona and still those chamaar kings are never getting their power back.
gW+rI5
No.318435
>>318433
>Lowbornes seething about kings who don't even exist anymore
We get it, he made your people sit on the floor, why seethe though?
vkgKjc
No.318437
gW+rI5
No.318438
vkgKjc
No.318441
>>318438
?? Anaan you're the one seethe defending some kings who don't even know about your existence.
7e88Ya
No.318443
>>318415
Irrelevant bs.
uTLSTe
No.318444
>>318380
>infact most kings were popular among their subjects.
Kings were still actually doing a better job taking care of their subjects tbh, I mean the irony is that UK still has its royal privileges for royalties so it is a little hypocritical that entire thing happened in the first place
gW+rI5
No.318451
>>318163
>Its just a pipe dream for jatt sikhs and pakistan.
Which is pretty funny considering jatts themself are not significant in Sikhism tbh, but somehow managed to make it about themself
K70BAo
No.318456
>>318144
Those have even lesser reasons to be united than India.
>>318149
Most pan Indian empires barely lasted a decade once they expanded southwards. The only one that did was Gupta Empire and they mostly relied in tributeries down South to maintain stability while uniting most of the North. Most of the other empires too were able to maintain stability when they existed mostly as a North Indian Empire.
I can see a pan North Indian federation emerging but since they won't have much access to the ports, their international influence will be less and Southern countries will most likely be bought under Chinese influence instead.
7e88Ya
No.318457
>>318441
He is probably a rajput or smthing who got told by his grampa how they were some big zamindars before the republic and now he seethes that posts of power are no longer hereditary. He thinks he lost his ancestral land or forest when in reality zamindars didnt even technically 'own' them but were mere administrators and revenue collectors.
vkgKjc
No.318464
>>318456
>Most pan Indian empires barely lasted a decade once they expanded southwards
7e88Ya
No.318466
>>318448
I am a UC, retard but anyway i am glad that we no longer have monarchy. I would prefer republicanism even in form of fascism anyday over monarchy which is just supported by muh tradition.
gW+rI5
No.318469
>>318457
>Saar you lost your lands you are raazpoot
No, I am a middle caste and it's very well known that only lowbornes seethe about rulers tbh due to their underwhelming contribution in when it is compared to better people, I am not even some "landowning" caste
gW+rI5
No.318470
>>318466
Whatever helps you sleep lowborne
gimUNQ
No.318471
>>318451
Nahh jat being marital+agrarian class have much advantage being sikh or muslim than being Hindu
vkgKjc
No.318472
K70BAo
No.318474
>>318464
You've a mountain range (Vindhyas) between them. It's not easy for a pre industrial power to maintain stability in a region which is geographically seperated. Most of those empires had their military spending go to bringing down rebellions in North West and South. Even Mughal Empire fell because of a rebellious kingdom below Vindhyas.
gW+rI5
No.318475
>>318471
>Marital
I think you meant martial but whatever works ig
>advantage being sikh or muslim than being Hindu
Also irrelevant since they themself were not all that relevant in Sikhi faith, which is why I said I always found it funny that they made the faith about themself, and became bone behind the attacks on Dalits and Chamars in punjab when Sikhism was against caste as its core values
gW+rI5
No.318477
>>318472
No anon, I am not your ancestor, who might have unironically licked boots, and you know it too tbh
gW+rI5
No.318479
>>318474
Interesting, so Vidhyas was more than just s religious meme, but actually held political and militaristic advantage as well
vkgKjc
No.318481
>>318474
If that was the case indian republic would have fallen long ago, also you guys couldn't do jackshit against Delhi sultans who came way before Mughals.
vkgKjc
No.318483
>>318477
>No anon, I am not your ancestor, who might have unironically licked boots, and you know it too tbh
Muthi maarke soja woh raja vapas ni aarahe.
7e88Ya
No.318485
>>318456
Thats how history is. All empires rise and fall but they ruled far more than a decade.
>tributary saar
Thats how you make empires in premodern times. You cant rule all areas directly even today which is why we have federalism. India has always preferred decentralized empires unlike han china. It is literally in our blood and national character to have decentralized empires just like it is in the national character of the chinese to always revert to mandate of heaven(currently possessed by CCP) after a period of bloodshed.
gW+rI5
No.318488
>>318483
Why would you doxx your forefathers like this anon? Aa tu maarde, teri ghar ki bhi aurate yahi karti hogi unke samay me
K70BAo
No.318493
>>318481
>Delhi Sultan
Nigha Tuqlaq's pan Indian empire barely lasted half a decade lmao.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QN41DJLQmPk
They were even less stable than Mughals who somewhat maintained sovereignty lasting a few decades at least.
I blame cbse text books that show these empires
K70BAo
No.318495
>>318493
In case you don't know, this was the empire 3 years ago.
gimUNQ
No.318496
>>318475
>and became bone behind the attacks on Dalits and Chamars
Can't blame them literally everyone with long exposure with them start getting genocidal thoughts
vkgKjc
No.318497
>>318485
>mandate of heaven
tbh whoever rules over Delhi rules over India (historically), so in a way Delhi is unironically our mandate of heaven.
gW+rI5
No.318498
>>318485
>It is literally in our blood and national character to have decentralized empires
State goverment is partially why this nation is a shit hole, even more so thanks to state police as it goes unchecked, so that is retarded. Like one of the posts said, eventually one of the empire would have emerged as dominant regardless
vFjxqp
No.318499
>>318493
That map itself is wrong, Delhi sultanate never had direct control of whole rajasthan
7e88Ya
No.318500
>>318469
I didnt even seethe about rulers even once, retard. All i did was deconstruct your pro monarchy rhetoric and ludicrous claims about masses not even being aware of british presence in india.
K70BAo
No.318501
>>318485
>fall but they ruled far more than a decade.
Not really, maybe few decades at best.
Once again the only exception was Gupta and to a lesser extent Mughals.
>Inb4 Mauryas
They were incredibly unstable and had plenty of rebellions after Ashoka.
gW+rI5
No.318504
>>318496
I find it fascinating that all the gypsies that also were untouchables and labelled as sat shudras as they migrated away from India, ended up in many different countries. Some of them were pre russian empires, ottoman and few others where they adapted the local faith, were punished first for repeated crime and eventually were executed which is very interesting because gypsies did the same crimes as dalit in India, theft, rape and also stealing children and murder
gW+rI5
No.318506
>>318500
Such cope towards people who aren't alive is not healthy, it shows a horribly hormonal behaviour anon, stop it
K70BAo
No.318507
>>318499
Most of these maps are made in extant claims, sometimes tributeries just gets lumped together and no one bothers with marking the rebellion regions(Like pic related showing regions not under maurya and rebelling).
vkgKjc
No.318508
>>318506
Ironic.
7e88Ya
No.318509
>>318497
Not really. It was pataliputra for mauryans and guptas and kannauj during tripartite struggle. Delhi owes its existence as capital to turkic muzzie empires. The shift was caused by shift from infantry based armies to horse archers.
gW+rI5
No.318512
>>318508
Literacy has failed you horribly, it's clear you are too hurt, using words you don't understand
7e88Ya
No.318513
>>318498
I was the one who said it. We are shit due to centralization we need more federalism while also being an empire.
K70BAo
No.318517
>>318497
>whoever rules over Delhi rules over India
No
It's actually Bihar kek
Whoever conquers Bihar will eventually become a pan Indian ruler.
vkgKjc
No.318518
>>318509
I mean as a recent case then yea, but you can't refute that if future empires were to rise after the hypothetical fall of indian republic then thier main motive would be to capture Delhi.
zsJpjK
No.318519
K70BAo
No.318520
>>318509
Memes aside, I think it's Bengal which is the actual mandate of heaven of India.
gW+rI5
No.318521
>>318518
In terms of a military advantage, not really, not anymore, it won't really serve any purpose in this day and age
vkgKjc
No.318522
>>318512
Insane mental gymnastics to defend some chamaar kings existence like a bootlicker.
gW+rI5
No.318523
>>318520
How so?
vFjxqp
No.318527
>>318507
Muslims and libradus do it intentionally
K70BAo
No.318531
>>318523
It alone accounted for majority of imports and exports of the subcontinent. In fact iirc bengal region alone was 10% of world gdp back then.
gW+rI5
No.318532
>>318522
Insane mental gymnastics by chamaar of kings when his ancestors were bootlickers
7e88Ya
No.318533
>>318501
You are just nitpicking. Most large countries had multiple cycles of rise and fall of empires in india. When people claim there was no india before brits saar and are shown historical examples of pan indian unity they always shift goalposts about what count as 'unification'. I dont see them doing the same for other countries. No one questions unity of china, persia and japan that too had lots of infighting historically and were unified by foreign origin empires multiple times.
gW+rI5
No.318539
>>318531
That makes sense, i wonder which state would be the modern equivalent of the mandate of heaven if we actually went back to imperialism and small empires broke out somehow, I would assume Gujarat, but that is a stretch, we can't gauge absolute potential state of a state by who is running it
37ONWu
No.318550
Why are you pajeets arguing since noon over nothing burger
gW+rI5
No.318551
>>318533
>No one questions unity of china, persia and japan
People do actually question the unity of all three mostly because persia was fragmented, I mean persia is not even a thing any more. The only true exception would be Japan because Sengoku era was dedicated to actually united all islands as a one nation with some purpose of uniting nation at all cost rather than ruling it. I like to think it was possible due to such a small size of the nation, which would have been case in India after Mauryan or Maratha empire too
gimUNQ
No.318552
>>318550
Bangali rand have arrived soon he will start calling random people zutt and derail the thread.
7e88Ya
No.318553
>>318507
Its anti india anti right wing wiki editors who are pushing for that map. They cant bear the fact that india had a pan indian empire before mughals and brits. They do it deliberately. Its so obvious when you dont see any other map shown with this 'le network core model'. Somehow british empire has australian desert when in reality they only ruled the southern coast. Archaemenid, mongol empire etc all are shown as one solid mass but mauryans are being singled out. It is gonna reach a point where only magadha is shown as mauryan territory and only the various routes are shown under mauryan control.
vFjxqp
No.318556
There would have been 4-5 first world countries in the subcontinent if princely state didnt joined the republic
Mewar, Travancore, Hill states, and many more
They already were richer than half of india and had hinduism as a state religion
37ONWu
No.318558
>>318552
dont forget the indra posting
K70BAo
No.318562
>>318533
>China, persia and japan
None of these examples are remotely comparable anon.
No one pretends like China as it's now it's united for most of history. People only argue that Han China(Pic related) was united. While arguing that any other part of China today was united for a long time is just cope reading of history.
Same for 'Persia'(Which btw is only 50% of Iran in reality).
Japan is different because they always had a united king but different generals controlled different regions, it's comparable to state of Germany, which are one ethnicity fighting over different rulers.
Our situation is similar to China. Core Hindustan(Region above Vindhyas and below Himalayas) have had always relative stability, cultural continuity and far more unity than. If you argue this region had lots of unifying empires, I would agree.
But to argue regions also came under such unity is just cope reading of history, just like chink nationalists claiming Tibet because of old unstable maps.
X63Wbk
No.318564
>>318556
Is any of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar first world?
K70BAo
No.318566
>>318553
No one argues there weren't pan Indian empires for mughals and brits. But none of them were stable outside Guptas. This is just a historical fact buddy.
gimUNQ
No.318567
>>318556
Trvke
vFjxqp
No.318570
>>318564
Is any of them hindu ? Nepal was always poor, i mentioned rich states only
vFjxqp
No.318572
Former capital of mewar (Udaipur), there are many small cities like this, which looks even more better
7e88Ya
No.318573
>>318551
>People do actually question the unity of all three mostly.
No they dont. At least not as they question india. They always shift goalposts as to what constitute as historical unity when it comes to indian history. Its usually regionalists, leftists, pakis, muzzies, bhimtas and whites who push this idea that india as a country didnt even exist before the british. By their logic we should say there was no Germany before 1990.
vkgKjc
No.318580
>>318572
It's a trash heap if you aren't near the monuments, have visited it myself.
7e88Ya
No.318582
>>318566
Quantify 'stability' please. Which empire on earth wasnt unstable to a degree and marred by separatism?
gW+rI5
No.318586
>>318550
Silence we are talking about invading bengal if we lose democrussy, and become war lords yaar don't derail it. Wett your rossogollas and await my arrival worm
J4D6Iv
No.318590
>>318552
We get it, he raped you anon, stop ruining a good thread
K70BAo
No.318592
>>318573
>Quantify 'stability' please. Which empire on earth wasnt unstable to a degree and marred by separatism?
Ruling over and maintaining suzerainity maybe half a century maybe?
The only pre industrial empires that succeeded were Guptas, Mughals and British.
gW+rI5
No.318595
>>318573
I actually agree with this, mostly because it is the senseless barking of random people and all of the rules they establish can be easily throw for any nation in existence, specially, like you said, if one shifts goal posts constantly
vFjxqp
No.318601
>>318580
Government dont take care of city, most of the monuments are managed by royal family
gW+rI5
No.318606
>>318562
>Japan is different because they always had a united king but different generals controlled different regions, it's comparable to state of Germany, which are one ethnicity fighting over different rulers.
True, they evaded this by making the ruler that is the emperor a figurehead who met the religious obligation while warlords did their own thing with no consideration, it was only under Oda Nobu it changed, leading to one of most brutal war with idea that they should have a war to end all the wars. It actually worked and i feel like North and South India, both should have just done this in their respective territories
vkgKjc
No.318613
>>318601
Only the newer castles which have been converted into hotels by the royals, the old castles are all under govt control.
vFjxqp
No.318626
>>318613
And newer castles are in much better conditions compared to old ones
7e88Ya
No.318641
>>318562
As expected shifting goalposts.
>Han china
Even that has seen long stretches of disunity. Mongols invaded china when they were divided. While i agree they had longer unity than us due to a different national character, it came at the cost that they would have massive bloodshed each time transfer of power happened. There is no parallel to bloodshed in chinese history. China in its current form has its precedence as Qing empire founded by foreigners from north.
>Persia
I can write long essays questioning idea of persian identity going by their history where they have seen longer foreign rule than native rule. They got ruled entirely by greeks, arabs, parthians mongols, turks for much of their history. Moreover the eastern iranian region has always been distinct from western persian heartland.
e5ohKz
No.318655
>>318108(OP)
Because randputs are damn stupid lol they were even close to European royalties instead of being conscious of socialism uprising in Europe they rather focused on comfort and exploiting poor people, they have no promise no conviction thats why they fell so hard against socialist forefathers of Indian republic because they had vrill while randput monarchs had none. Its still funny to day the British helped mullas to create Pakistan, I have heard the helped the monarchs of gulf states too but in the end randputs got nothing when they were quite close to British
7e88Ya
No.318659
>>318592
So do you agree germany has never existed as a country. They have never been under a polity for half a century.
vFjxqp
No.318661
>>318655
Their downfall is brutal, now you can find more OBCs larping as rajput than original rajput
K70BAo
No.318663
>>318641
>Even that has seen long stretches of disunity
Just like Hindustan :)
>There is no parallel to bloodshed in chinese history
Maybe because Indians in general are less violent? Not to mention Indian kings were less prone to centralization and were just happy receiving tribute.
>China in its current form has its precedence as Qing empire founded by foreigners from north.
Have you talked to Chink nationalists? Everyone of them hate Qings lmao.
>longer foreign rule than native rule
I want arguing India was ruled by foreigners buddy. That was not my point.
>Moreover the eastern iranian region has always been distinct from western persian heartland.
Exactly
K70BAo
No.318669
>>318659
Do you think India and German situation are the same?
I think you still don't get my point. No one is arguing no one recognized 'India' as a region before the British lol.
vkgKjc
No.318674
>>318655
This kek, even jews were able to get israel through brits.
7e88Ya
No.318680
>>318663
Maybe you should go through the thread to understand what the initial argument was instead of yapping
7e88Ya
No.318683
>>318669
There was no germany before 1990.
7e88Ya
No.318703
>>318669
>India' as a region.
Which i what i dispute. India wasnt a mere region or subcon. It was a country under mauryans, guptas, mughals. They were sending envoys to their neighbours and were sovereign states ie country.
K70BAo
No.318705
>>318680
-_-
I know exactly what you are going through. Just because people recognise one region as a single united geographical region doesn't mean that region will unite by its own accord automatically.
In fact the opposite, most such regions were united externally by an invading force.
You bring up China, but the actual middle kingdom is just the South Eastern part of China today. No one other than coping chink nationalists recognize other parts of China as 'China' but as external nationalities brought under Chinese rule.
Same for Persians, only the central part of the nation is actual 'Persia'. Even Iran recognize this and use Iran as their name instead of Persia.
Just because these meme nationalities and cope reading of history exist don't mean everyone doing the same would also be correct.
>>318683
Stop acting retarded anon. You know what I mean.
7e88Ya
No.318707
>>318683
*going by their logic
K70BAo
No.318713
>>318703
>It was a country under mauryans, guptas, mughals
No it was not. First of all concept of a 'country' was non existent then. Envoys were sent as representatives of the dynasty, not the 'country' nor the 'region'.
hs6sxV
No.318717
>>318108(OP)
>Blackpiller cucks are now shilling for traitors who sold out or bri'ish
In keeping with their cuck creed I suppose
7e88Ya
No.318739
>>318705
Then you need to read the definition of country. Mauryan india, gupta india, mughal india were all countries. Any sovereign state is a country. And mauryans ruled deccan for 80 to 100 years. Even fucking tughluqs ruled tamil nadu for 43 years.
7e88Ya
No.318742
>>318713
Country == sovereign state
Dynasty== government
Understand the meanings of technical words if you intend to debate.
hs6sxV
No.318745
I need to what state you are kanging about before I take this seriously
K70BAo
No.318754
>>318739
>Then you need to read the definition of country
There's no point in projecting current political realities to a past.
>Mauryan india, gupta india, mughal india were all countries.
Even Mauryans themselves didn't recognise themselves as a 'country', often referring to 'Southern kingdoms' or regions as separate countries that come under their suzerainity.
The only ruler among them that considered the entire sub con as a single region was Mughals who referred the whole region as Hindustan and only because to them every one of them are infidel kaffirs lmao.
>And mauryans ruled deccan for 80 to 100 years
>Even fucking tughluqs ruled tamil nadu for 43 years.
Where are you getting these claims from lmao.
Age of dynasty =/= Age of Empire
By your logic entire India was ruled by Mughals until 1857.
hs6sxV
No.318758
>>318745
Also, also state kanging is just OBC chauvism. If you're UC, you're retarded for falling for it.
K70BAo
No.318765
>>318742
Do you think the 'states' then represented a region?
K70BAo
No.318768
>>318754
Or referring to North West parts of their empires as 'Yavana' kingdoms.
K70BAo
No.318770
I blame CBSE texts books that just show maps of these empires at maximum extent and retards actually believe this is how it was during its entire extent.
7e88Ya
No.318777
>>318754
Mauryans referred to india as Jambudvipa.
>Southern kingdoms' or regions as separate countries that come under their suzerainity.
Like the way Raj referred to 'princely states' and current union government does to state governments?
>Where are you getting these claims from lmao. I am talking about rule not just dynasty. Pull up any 'india every year' video and see for yourself. Mauryans ruled deccan for 80 to 100 years before satavahanas.
7e88Ya
No.318781
>>318777
I am talking about rule not just dynasty. Pull up any 'india every year' video and see for yourself. Mauryans ruled deccan for 80 to 100 years before satavahanas.
7e88Ya
No.318786
>>318770
I know, retard. I am not sub110 iq. Even british ruled much of india only for 150 years. They were confined to bengal and eastern coast in 1800.
K70BAo
No.318789
>>318777
>Like the way Raj referred to 'princely states' and current union government does to state governments?
Fucking yes 😭
And British nationalists don't waste their time trying to argue that India was part of some pan British nationhood
Now do you get my point?
>Muh sources
Buddy please. And your sources? CBSE text books? Do you believe Tuqlaqs were able to maintain control of TN from Dalli for 43 years? They rapidly lost control after a mere 5 years and it was taken over by whichever governer they left afterwards( I think you're confusing Madras sultanate with Tuqlaqs).
K70BAo
No.318795
>>318789
Sorry it was Madurai Sultanate
>The Ma'bar Sultanate, also known as the Madurai Sultanate, was a short lived kingdom based in the city of Madurai in modern-day Tamil Nadu, India. It was dominated by Hindustani speaking Muslims.[1] The sultanate was proclaimed in 1335 in Madurai led by Jalaluddin Ahsan Khan, a native of Kaithal in North India,[2] declared his independence from the Sultanate of Delhi.
K70BAo
No.318804
7e88Ya
No.318805
>>318789
>Fucking yes.
Good. Yet princely states were counted as part of British India by Crown, retard. Are indian state governments separate from union government and Union territories by your logic retard? If you arent sovereign state you arent a country.
>And your sources?
I am perhaps wrong about tughlaqs but mauryans ruled deccan for 80 to 100 years before satavahanas. Watch any india every year video.
7e88Ya
No.318807
>>318804
Mauryans ruled deccan for 80 to 100 years retard then they got succeeded by satavahanas in south.
K70BAo
No.318809
Reply
Bookmark
Hide
Select Post
Close
>>318805
> If you arent sovereign state you arent a country.
Once again, please stop projecting modern definitions to past empires 😭
>I am perhaps wrong about tughlaqs but mauryans ruled deccan for 80 to 100 years before satavahanas. Watch any india every year video.
We've less sources citing their decline, unlike mediaeval empires. Most such videos are just going by guess work. Consider this >>318804
7e88Ya
No.318823
>>318809
>please stop projecting modern definitions to past empires.
Thats not relevant pajeet. Saudi arabia is a kingdom and it is still a country. Russian federation is a defacto empire ruled by Tsar Putin yet it is a country.
>mauryans
Pajeet why are you showing me shungas? Ofc mauryans declined and got succeeded by shungas in north and satavahanas in south. Duh. But they did rule deccan 80 to 100 years before getting succeeded by satavahanas.
K70BAo
No.318825
>>318823
>Russian federation is a defacto empire ruled by Tsar Putin yet it is a country.
Do you know Russia have officially recognised 'countries' with in its state and call them republics while other Russian regions are just called oblasts.
7e88Ya
No.318845
>>318825
They arent countries. By that logic then even scotland and england are countries when in reality its just one country the UK.
K70BAo
No.318848
7e88Ya
No.318857
>>318848
These are older names and have stuck. You are just arguing semantics now.
K70BAo
No.318859
>>318857
Just like you?
7e88Ya
No.318887
>>318859
When did i argue semantics? Certain people claim india wasnt a country before the brits. When they make this claim and dont define what they mean by country ofc one will consider the most commonly understood definition ie sovereign state. What made UK a country? What makes Kingdom of saudi arabia a country? What makes Tang China, Qing China 'china' but Mauryans, guptas, mughals 'empires' and not 'india'. What made empire of japan and Third Reich during ww2 countries? What is the oldest country? If they cant answer these questions then they should stop stupid statements like 'india was never a country before brits saar'.
K70BAo
No.318930
>>318887
>When they make this claim and dont define what they mean by country ofc one will consider the most commonly understood definition ie sovereign state
India wasn't a unified sovereign state with a unified sense of commonality before the British. Better now?
>UK
>Saudi Arabia
They weren't. Until Britons united for former and British unified the latter.
Is Arabia(Generic name for Arab nations) a country before? We had pan Arabic empires before. You see now the problem with applying modern definitions?
>China
It was called middle kingdom, I don't think anyone refers it to a country in modern sense.
And they were united by a shared sense of cultural belonging that existed throughout the region, THAT did exist in MOST of NORTHERN INDIA but not the entire subcontinent.
Do you believe people in Punjab are closer to people in Tamil Nadu culture wise than they are to people in Pakijab?
I would definitely argue though people in Punjab are closer to people in Western UP than they are to Pakijab. And they're definitely closer to UP in culture than they're to Pashtuns despite latter being closer geography wise.
That is how cultural continuity looks like. And that kind of continuity is only seen in vast plain regions like South East China and North India.
My issue is when people misuse this historical fact to claim cultural continuity with regions that were geographically seperated like Chinks do for Tibet. South Indians(Once again not a dravidabhangi, because I believe Dravidian is a fake identity and should be recognised as 4-5 different ethnic groups), Marathas, Pashtuns, North Easterners, they're not really 'core Indians' but adjacent culturally similar groups like Manchus and Mongolians in China.
K70BAo
No.318939
>>318930
I'll refer to 'core Indians' as 'Hindustanis' because that's what they were historically referred as and they speak some form of 'Hindustani' as their native language. If you can find a better name to suggest, you can b give me that.
7e88Ya
No.319015
>>318930
>Until Britons united for former.
But what specifically made them a country as opposed to just being a kingdom?
>Is Arabia(Generic name for Arab nations) a country before?
No its only a region as of now housing multiple countries. It would be a country if it existed as a single sovereign state.
>India wasn't a unified sovereign state with a unified sense of commonality before the British.
This is called shifting goalposts. Wtf is unified sense of commonality? We are very diverse for there to be a monoculture but whatever pan indian commonality we have like hinduism/vedicism, sanskrit as civilizational and liturgical language, concept of sacred geography/bharat far predates the british. If you are arguing what constitutes a 'nation'(a people with common heritage) then that is separate from concept of 'country'(a geopolitical entity). Nevertheless, the fact remains brits didnt create this commonality, if any, either. It far predates them. If anything the only reason they were able to maintain stable functioning government here was because indians were already accustomed to running large state apparatus.
sYK3rO
No.319031
>>319015
>Nevertheless, the fact remains brits didnt create this commonality, if any, either. It far predates them
Sure, sure, let's assume that's the case then.
Which entities are you sure of that achieved this 'unity' in this entire region besides the British that lasted around a century?
NiF62x
No.319038
>>318108(OP)
GOI/congress got Indian Military for free from Brits, no princely states had any chance against it mate, i would have preferred a smaller and divided India that way i could have moved to a cold war era yankee supporting country and migrate to usa to fuck gorimems
7e88Ya
No.319045
>>319031
Which unity? Geopolitical or civilizational?
Mauryans, mughals, guptas, marathas all ruled 60 to 90% of subcon for centuries. At times you would have a northern and a southern dynasty ruling half of the subcon akin to chinese northern and southern dynasties.
Civilizational unity existed independent of any empire. Why do you think tamil cholas were calling themselves aryaputra, patronizing sanskrit and fetching water of ganga to commemorate their digvijay if there was no cultural unity whatsoever? Why did Shankara emerge from south? Why did hindavi swaraj emerge in deccan with marathas? Many more such examples.
sYK3rO
No.319066
>>319045
>Mauryans, mughals, guptas, marathas all ruled 60 to 90% of subcon for centuries
That's very vague. For reference, Northern India is just around 70% of the subcontinent.
I was specifically asking for those that did unite vast majority of the area(~90%) and managed to maintain the rule for around a century.
It's funny you bring up Mauryans and Marathas when their rule was marred with instability after instability and there were other lesser known empires that ruled over 60% that did last around a century but I guess since they don't show them in cbse books as 'saar pan Indian Empire before brits saar' they're irrelevant.
And please don't tell me Mauryas, we didn't even know they existed before brits discovered Ashoka's stupa and people actually believed Sandrokottus of Alexander's texts referred to the Gupta king Chandragupta before it.
>Why do you think tamil cholas were calling themselves aryaputra, patronizing sanskrit and fetching water of ganga to commemorate their digvijay if there was no cultural unity whatsoever?
Please don't deflect sirs, I wasn't arguing nobody in the subcontinent wanted to claim divine noble heritage from le glorious ancestry. It's the reason why our history was so fucking mess because every one wanted to larp as suryavanshi or chandravanshi and got rid of any fact that might counter such claims.
7e88Ya
No.319126
>>319066
I am done with all these shifting goalposts and nitpicking. Believe whatever you want. Its all subjective interpretation of history at the end of the day.
