The British were quite impressed by the wealth of the Maharajah's when the first arrived on the coast of the western part of India for trading. The wealth and lifestyles and traditions of the Raja's were clearly superior then the British. Now India wasn't 1 country. There were hundreds of kingdoms in war with eachother and the Muslims. So the Brits would fight and help 1 leader of a kingdom to conquer another, very smart but dirty. The Maharaja's though the Brits could be a factor to get rid of Muslim rule in the North, which occured. Actually the Brits got rid of the Muslims and unified India when they were forced to leave due rebellion.

Didn't India get united several times in it's history? The Mauryan empire under Ashoka the Great nearly has the same size as present day India or even the whole South Asia for that matter

Yes he did. And after his reign it became a puzzle again.

The muslim and Hindu kingdome coexisted peacefully under Akbars rule he adopted many hindu religion customs and created his own religon called Din-i-Ilahi. Hindus and Muslims both fought for freedom from British and Muslim rule was not in parts of north india but in south india too but most of them faced problems in establishing the legitimacy rule

Too bad British India couldn't co-exist peacefully, it would have been nice to see.

Im glad they dint we would be treated as second class citizen in our own native country

Well as long as it not under British rule. xP

Bahaha hindu and muslim nationalists would start ethnic cleansing like they use to burn british women and childen in middle of city halls

Is this really happened? Never heard before. So, there are quite a big population of British in India?

I think if Maurya Empire still running on till today, South East Asia too will be apart of India. Imagine how vast India is with large maritime area.

wow lol I guess I didn't know that.

Yup and Black Hole of Calcutta

If the English unified India they had a reason for it. Usually, it had to do with making profit for themselves. Also, remember the English used India to grow Opium. They then sent this Opium to China which became a major problem for China. And it affected many people of India.

It was united under Gupta empire again and a large part was again united again with HarshaVardhana

As far as I know, the total British red population never exceeded 50,000 during their Raj in India. It is preposterous to think of the British Indian Army consisted of only the reds, it was not true even in the Battle of Plassey of 1757. Rather, it was mostly consisted of Desi Sepoys and British officers. Most of the top administrative jobs were held by them, but the positions immediately below were held by the native Indians. There were of course some other Reds who came on business, trade, Church missioneries and some other professions.

The reds never took India as their native homeland, specially after they had conquered it. They would come, work and then would go back to England. So, their population at any point of time did not exceed 50,000. Someone correct me if I am wrong with this figure.

May be the british did some good to India but they purposefully created a mess (two nations from one) as they created else where (cyprus, palestine)

British did not unite India - they took advantage of political squables between different rajput states to gain control over India and then maintained a unified territory which it could plunder for money. British probably practised divide and rule when they controlled India and practised divide and rule to split India from large territories which were taken over by muslims ie Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Muslims are only a minority population in India and didnt threaten Indian unity. Muslims possible did live in peace with Indian hindu populations in India before the British introduced their divide and rule policy. Poeple think that Pakistan was only created because Jinnah was marginalised in the Congress Pary and had political ambitions to lead his own party and rule hos own territory and had ideas of posterity because he was dying of TB. If they had known he had TB they wouldn't have let him set up Pakistan. Muslims may have lived peacefully in India and I dont think there was a demand for a separate muslim state otherwise.

British mainly plundered and controlled India in the latter half of the British Raj. It did modernise roads and rail according to what was around at the time - Indians would have done this for themselves if the British were not in charge

I dont know if India would still have territories in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh and parts of Nepal if we still had a Maurya and Hindukush empire because the muslims were invading and conquering territories. Genghis Khan even got as far as Tibet Mongolia and converted Chinese there even though he couldnt rule Chinese territories. The muslims were quite barbaric in fighting and retaining territory. Even in the last few years Afghanistanis bombed and destroyed Indian Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan as oldas 1st century to 5thcentury.

India has had cultural influence over other parts of Asia via Buddhism and before that Hindu culture.

I didnt know British grew and traded in opium in the East India Company. I thought Opium was a Chinese trade. British are after opium land and trade in Afghanistan - part of their incentive for maintaining control and contributing to (taking advantage of redevelopment funds) development in Afghanistan

I doubt whole of SEAsia.....maybe indo-china or Indonesia

Yes, lets get one thing straight, India was united by Asoka, there can only be one unification of the Indian states, everything that followed it would be considered re-unification.

so he can argue that Britian re-unified India states, but Not Unified them.

Lets put this into context, The Mongols over ran India But could not conquer South East Asia.

So if an Empire much more powerful then India couldnt conquer South East Asia, what would make you think a weaker Indian Kingdom do it?

,,,

lol if you want to put it into context you need to mention that the Mongol Invasions of SEA stopped because they agreed to pay tribute. also the timing, Mongol invasions came wayyyyyy later when much of SEA was already established.

im skeptical as well, but there just is no way to know if Mauryan could conquer SEA back in 200 BC.

Who paid Tribute? please provide evidence, King Mengrai the Great of Lanna attacked the Mongols using guerilla war. The Mongols were unable to establish themselves in SEA left, King Mengrai resisted the Mongols Himself.

All you need to do is Look at any historical Map, SEA was never apart of Mongol Empire, those paying tribute to the Mongols were considered apart of that empire. Many Chinese Kingdoms were paying Tribute to the Mongols, and they were considered apart of the Mongol Empire, so why not SEA?

Dai Viet and Champa. for ex.

"Thus, Zhenjin's son ruled as Temür Khan for approximately 10 years following Kublai's death (between 1294 and 1307). Temür Khan decided to maintain and continue much of the work begun by his grandfather. He also made peace with the western Mongol khanates as well as the neighboring countries such as Vietnam, which recognized his nominal suzerainty and paid tributes for a few decades."

"Rather than engage the invaders directly, the Cham king and his troops retreated from the coast to the mountains and fought as guerrillas. Two years later, the Mongols left of their own accord. Sogetu was soon killed in another botched invasion of Dai Viet.[39] However, the Champa accepted the Mongol suzerainty 3 years later."
http://translate.roseville.ca.us/ma/enwiki..._of_the_Mongols

heres one on Myanmar
http://translate.roseville.ca.us/ma/enwiki...Battle_of_Pagan


you can read more here

http://translate.roseville.ca.us/ma/enwiki...t_Asian_vassals
East and Southeast Asian vassals

* Annam[15]
* Champa[16]
* Goryeo: Mongol Empire held an indirect control over Korean Peninsula, although the control was somewhat more strict compared to Southeast Asian kingdoms.
* Khmer empire[17]
* Sukhotai[18]


and you have the idea of tribute states wrong. the idea of paying tribute to China (in this case Yuan) does not mean those countries are part of the Chinese empire in a map sense.

what Chinese kingdoms do you think paid tribute? [i feel i should be more specific] when the Mongol invasions began and the north fell (Jin dynsaty, led by Jurchens who defeated the Northern Song. Song actually helped the Mongols), Southern Song claimed the mandate from heaven (hence it would be "China").

Song was defeated by Han generals of the Yuan (long after the mongol invasions), who was next to take the title.

its relevant to point out Kublai Khan was proclaimed the Emperor of China 8 years before Southern Song actually fell. these transitions are not always clean cut.

Lolzzzz, Who is talking about the Dai Viets and Cham's? The Dai Viets for most of their history have been under the Chinese, the Cham Kingdom was weak and eventually distroyed by the Dai Viets and Khmers.

I am talking about the Tai, and the Khmers, even the Burmese. The Khmer Empire resisted the Mongols conquest also. So both the Tai and the Khmers took on the Mongols and Won

we were talking about south east asia. that includes vietnam and champa.


you can read more here

http://translate.roseville.ca.us/ma/enwiki...t_Asian_vassals
East and Southeast Asian vassals

* Annam[15]
* Champa[16]
* Goryeo: Mongol Empire held an indirect control over Korean Peninsula, although the control was somewhat more strict compared to Southeast Asian kingdoms.
* Khmer empire[17]
* Sukhotai[18]



by the way, i found your source.

http://www.chiangraiprovince.com/guide/eng/40_05.htm

right?

i found some other...quotes relevant to Mongols in SEA.



5. The Mongols had unified SipsongPanna and northern Laos as Cheli, and had been set to invade Lanna since 1270. Close proximity to Cheli was not safe; the other capitals had been further north and Mangrai needed more distance.

Although the kingdoms of Sukhotai and Lopburi paid tribute to Kublai Khan's Mongol 'Yuan' dynasty (from about 1280 until 1299),

In 1393, Mongol rule over the middle Mekong Valley (LanXang, centered on LuangPrabang) ended.

100 years earlier when Nongseh was annexed by Chinese under the Mongols).

http://www.chiangraiprovince.com/guide/eng/40_05.htm

Mongols never ruled India. You are confusing them with Mughals.

What are you talking about? The Mongols never conquered India either. The Delhi Sultanate had successfully repelled a number of Mongol invasions. If you are referring to the much later Mughal dynasty though, that really has nothing to do with the Mongols, besides its founder Babur being a distant descendent of Chingis Khan. That doesn't really mean anything though, as Babur was mainly a Turk raised in a Persian culture with an army mostly consisting of Indians and Afghans. And he wasn't the one who expanded the Mughal Empire across India either, but it was his mostly Rajput descendants who did that for him.

As a matter of fact, one South Indian kingdom, the Chola Empire, did successfully conquer large parts of Southeast Asia (namely the western islands of the Malay Archipelago and the coastal regions of Indochina), though the occupation only lasted for several decades at most before the Chola army suddenly left. I think the purpose of the invasion was probably just to exact tribute though (or maybe just plunder) rather than conquest.


The thing about the Maurya Empire is that, although it was already very large (consisting of modern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Afghanistan and eastern Iran), it could have expanded even more than that if Ashoka the Great didn't suddenly have a change of heart after his conquest of the Kalinga kingdom. After seeing the large number of civilian casualties he was responsible for, he wanted to change his ways by adopting Buddhism and taking an anti-war stance. Instead of conquest, his new mission became the transmission of Buddhism across the world, by sending missionaries south to Sri Lanka, east to Southeast Asia, north to China, and west to the Hellenistic kingdoms.

There is indeed no way of knowing what would have happened if Ashoka didn't have this change of heart and instead retained his previous 'conquerer' mindset. Maybe he would have eventually clashed with the Hellenistic kingdoms to the west or even invaded Southeast Asia to the east? Buddhism probably wouldn't have become a major worldwide religion either if Ashoka didn't send all those missionaries across the known world.

i actually dont know what SEA was like in 200 BC. I think it could be possible to get control of some of SEA back then since im pretty sure most of the groups that the Mongols fought were not established back then. If it did happen I dont think it would last though. A lot of groups from the land we call China today moved or were pushed south to SEA.

What has the Mughals, or the Mongols, got to do with British in India? Did Britain leave a legacy for India to build on? I also do not believe that it was Britain that wanted to split India and Pakistan, but it was Mohammad Ali Jinnah who insisted on a separate territory for Muslims because he felt that under India the Muslims would be discriminated but I am sure he (Jinnah) did not realise the cost for the separation.

I think SEA would certainly have been easier to invade in 250 BC than it was in 1250 AD, since SEA didn't really have any powerful kingdoms until Funan in the 1st century AD. However, the real Maurya Empire collapsed in 185 BC, so even if it did invade SEA, it wouldn't have much of an impact on the region. On the other hand, Ashoka's proselytism of Buddhism had a larger impact on SEA than any possible invasion could have done.


Jinnah and his Muslim League weren't the only ones to blame, but Hindu nationalists at the time also supported his cause, as they feared the prospect of Muslims once again ruling over a Hindu majority like in the Mughal era. In theory, the partition of India would have been a win-win situation for both the Muslim and Hindu nationalists alike, as the Muslim nationalists wouldn't have to fear discrimination from a Hindu majority, while Hindu nationalists wouldn't have to fear the Muslims gaining too much power. In practice, however, it all eventually backfired when the Hindu-Muslim riots broke out and the Indo-Pak Wars began soon after the partition.

Jagger:


It was Hindu India's loss to Islam.

This is an incorrect argument. Your argument is based on assumptions, not facts. For your information, Mongols never conquered India. Mongols had invaded India several times but beaten back each time. You can refer to the list of Mongol conquests in this link -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Conquests

Hindu nationalists were opposed to partition of India, it is in core ideology of RSS that partition of India was wrong. It was Jinnah and Congress Party which were responsible. In fact Hindu nationalists became more aggressive during late 40s because of their opposition to partition.

So it seems once more, Moutbatten/the British, the Congress Party wanted a quick and easy solution and so agreed to appease Jinnah. Did it pay dividends? I believe it simply sowed the seeds of discontent for the following years. The end in not yet in sight.

Out of those 12 million displaced, 7 million of them were Muslims and 5 million were Hindus & Sikhs. I'd say that's more of a loss for Muslims rather than Hindus. Besides, it was only the Muslim-majority regions of 'Hindu India' that were 'lost'.


The point is that many Hindu nationalists at the time agreed that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations that cannot co-exist. They would have been more than happy to see the Muslims leave India, although the loss of some Indian land to the Muslims may not have been what they had in mind.