Did the British Raj represent Greater India?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by molly bloom

More 'pathetic' Islamic Indian architecture:

This was the building the stone for whose construction came from 25 temples which were used as stone quarries. You can still see Hindu carvings in the base.

[Dinner]

British India.

[LordShiva]

All of that, plus Nepal, Tibet, Maldives, and Mauritius, will be ours again soon

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


They never got a chance to consolidate, and you never had to bear with their rule in any real sense.

That will be news to anyone who knows anything about the Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba, Muslim rule of Sicily, or indeed Muslim rule of the Balkans.

From the 8th Century until the 16th Century there was a Muslim presence in Spain, the Muslim rule of Sicily (followed by the Norman dynasty) produced a dynamic hybrid civilization of Norman French, Italian, Jewish Moorish and Greek antecedents- responsible for, amongst other things, 'The Book of Roger', written by Abdullah al Idrissi, who takes for granted that everyone knows:

...the earth is round like a sphere.

in 1154. He also fashioned a planisphere from precious metals, and makes mention of the consumption of spaghetti.

Norman-Arab architecture in Palermo:

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva
All of that, plus Nepal, Tibet, Maldives, and Mauritius, will be ours again soon

If the cultural spirit of India manages to get out of its current stagnation, that will happen without much effort on our part. If not, then it will take some more time.

"Soon" is a very relative word, Shiva.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


It IS quite pathetic, isn't it, when compared with what these people tried to copy?

Nice view of Isfahan. What a shame that in order to belittle Fatehpur Sikri ( a site which combines Islamic and Hindu architectural influences) you get your dates in a bit of a muddle.

Fatehpur Sikri: construction begins in 1571, on the orders of the great Moghul Emperor, Akbar. It is completed 15 years later.


Isfahan- capital of the Safavid Empire. Shah Abbas moves his capital here from Qazvin only in 1590. The 'new' city which is famous for its buildings was only commissioned after 1602, a full sixteen years after Fatehpur Sikri had been completed.

In any case, Safavid architecture (and indeed much other architecture in what is now modern day Iran) has many different roots- in Buddhist architecture for instance, in the architecture of the Seljuk Turks and the Kushans- who also incorporated Iranian elements in their art and architecture.

I don't know anyone who imagines that art, religion or science operated in hermetically sealed environments, certainly not in what are now Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India.

More Moghul splendour:

[BeBMan]

I'm just wondering how aneeshm would objectively judge the "patheticness" or "non-patheticness" of such buildings.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by BeBro
I'm just wondering how aneeshm would objectively judge the "patheticness" or "non-patheticness" of such buildings.

And your answer for 10 points is:


'Were they built by, designed by, built for, or used by Muslim babykilling war machines from outer space ? (& certainly not from Immortal India, whose eternal greatness is well-known)


The aneeshm position:

[BeBMan]

That pic

[molly bloom]

An example of superior Hindu culture, thought et cetera.


Looking for 'facts' B.J.P. style:

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by LordShiva


QFT.

India has been deeply affected by all invaders, from the Aryans to the Muslims to the British. Elements of all of their cultures have been incorporated into a unique and vibrant result that we can be proud of today.

Perhaps we should start a thread on how German (Hanoverian) rule represented Greater Britania. Great Britan has been deeply affected by all invaders, the Celts, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, French (Normans) and Dutch, and has incorporated elements of all their cultures into its own.

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC after 1850 the British empire was in effect a "dual empire", with the throne of India having semi-independence. During WW1 the British empire put the war effort in the middle east under command of the forces of the Indian empire. After the war the governments of the new middle east dependencies of Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Palestine reported to New Delhi, not London. I'm not sure, but I think that other British asian colonies, such as Malaysia and Singapore may also have actually been under the authority of the Empress of India. It would appear then that "Greater India" during the rule of the raj incorporated much more than India Sri Lanka and Burma, but infact stretched from the Suez canal to the International Date Line.

When oh when will Juggernaut resume its former glory? Perhaps they should start by resuming control of the lost provinces of Pakistan and Iraq.

Thsi sorta reminds me of Babylon 5 and the Centauris. Maybe the Indians need to make an alliance with "The Shadows" (the CIA).

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Perhaps we should start a thread on how German (Hanoverian) rule represented Greater Britania. Great Britan has been deeply affected by all invaders, the Celts, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, French (Normans) and Dutch, and has incorporated elements of all their cultures into its own.

That's exactly my point - the more recent an invasion is, the greater the (mis-placed) tendency to lament its ill-effects.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva


That's exactly my point - the more recent an invasion is, the greater the (mis-placed) tendency to lament its ill-effects.

So now, invasions are good things? By that definition, the country which has been invaded by everyone else in the world has the most vibrant culture.

What twisted world are you living in?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by aneeshm


So now, invasions are good things? By that definition, the country which has been invaded by everyone else in the world has the most vibrant culture.

What twisted world are you living in?

A country/culture/whatever *can* profit in certain ways from cultural exchanges even when they are brought by war and conquest. That doesn't mean that war and conquest are inherently good things, that they are preferable or ethical. It's just that complex developments are hard to describe with just "good" or "bad".