History not understood despite the nectar of independence!

- Unveiled: Jay Vasavada

- The map of political India as it is today was not under the hands of a single powerful ruler. In which northeast-south-west-north everything is under one flag, one constitution

Question: How many years did India remain under British slavery? The answer to this is that by immediately watching WhatsApp Forward and YouTube videos of folders, the self-proclaimed pundits will soon give 150 years. Busso used to speak for years. The calculation is easy. Robert Clive won the Bengal for the East India Company on the 19th. And in the 18th, power was transferred to India.

But India is not just Bengal. The British defeated Tipu Sultan in Mysore (today's Greater Karnataka) and occupied it in the 19th. The Sikh Empire, which was strengthened by Ranjit Singh's expansion, was defeated in the 19th century. In what we call a thousand years of slavery, the Marathas, who had a very large empire for one hundred and fifty years, lost to the British in 1918. And it is true to write 'English', because that was the rule of the original company. The official occupation of the British Empire came after the proclamation of Queen Victoria and the 19th War of Independence, which lasted a total of 30 years.

But if you look at the map of 'India' (then Greater India which was not Pakistan-Bangladesh) which was to get independence from the British Raj, then the British were on 90% of the land and 3% of the population. The remaining 90% of the land and 5% of the population was under the domination of kings and nawabs in the princely states. See the paradox here. In terms of population, the British ruled over half of India. But less so in terms of area. There were kingdoms in spite of the small population of five parts ૫૬૫! (2 were in Saurashtra!) They were very small. The shrewd British, however, allied themselves with him instead of trying to win the battle everywhere.

Suffice it to say 'connection'. As happened in Saurashtra, the British Resident Representative was present everywhere to oversee the administrative affairs. (Some also ruled by proxy) The kings and nawabs were allowed to enjoy respect, personal treasures, etc. The British give flamboyant titles like Rai Bahadur to the cannon salute but no princely state should have its own independent fighting army! Where to fight when the army is not strong and the security is under the umbrella of the British? How to win if you fight? Those who were strong were defeated by the British in stages and after showing strength in the beginning, they did not even give a shit in the 19th! So independent existence is true but it does not affect the British Raj. Double advantage to the British. To enjoy benefits without accepting small responsibilities.

There was an Islamic rule in India before the British, a statement says. What is the whole of India? There was no universal political definition or map. Ashoka, Kanishka, Harsh, Chandragupta, Rajaraja Chola, Krishnadevaraya ... the list is long, but when the kings are strong, their conquered, divided, subjugated areas, their empire expands and gradually their heirs prove weak or shrink when they lose. Is destroyed. Thus the era of rule returned. Otherwise there would be different dynasties like Maurya, Gupta, Pallava, Chola, Krishna.

This is in the history of the world. The huge map that China puts forward is of the empire of Genghis Khan, who defeated such a local king from Mongolia instead of his different dynasties. Which lasted for some time. The same is true of Indian slavery, of foreign rule. In 1191, Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Mohammad (Shahbuddin) Ghori from Afghanistan. In the second year, in 114, Ghori defeated Prithviraj and laid the foundation of foreign power. The thrilling stories of the sixteen war arrows are in the book 'Prithviraj Raso'. This is plain history. But in a people who love our emotional and imaginative worlds more than reality, the history of story-poetry and the history of factfiles are intertwined. Moreover, due to the traditional view of life as a myth, historical documentation has not been the same everywhere in India. Documentary evidences are special after the eleventh-twelfth century written to be cross-verified. That is why the history of slavery is better known. The old ones have to fill in the blanks.

Let us return to the original point. Ghori did not rule India, but handed it over to Ghulam Qutbuddin Aibak. This was the regular entry of the Islamic regime in India after the entry of the fanatical Mohammad Ghazni who came to break and loot Somnath. But ruling India is a bit of a mess. Slave dynasty, Khilji dynasty, Mughal dynasty, no one has ruled over the whole of India according to today's map. All those sultanates were more than enough for North India. Going forward he had to face the heroic Kshatriyas and other strong kingdoms. We have many epics like Suheldev, Maharana Pratap and Hemu (he was a Brahmin). Among the Mughals, Babur came from outside. But the rest were born here, died here. At that time, India's economic prosperity was very high. The largest kingdom in this area belonged to Akbar and it became more famous due to its nature. But the whole of what we understand today as India did not rule the land. In fact, the separatists of Kashmir also consider Akbar's conquest of Kashmir as a 'starting point' as 'Kashmir's slavery'. The South was undefeated.

The heroism of the Marathas (did Bajirao forget?) Who won 181 battles in two hundred years is wonderful. The masculinity also mixed the culture of the Peshwa of the Chittapavat Brahmins. (Which is somewhere in the root of Savarkar's Hindutva ideology.) But it is also a well-known fact that the struggle of Brahmin versus Dalit (according to today's language) was also planted in it. That is why Mahatma Phule and Dr. from Maharashtra. Fiery reformist revolutionaries like Bhimrao Ambedkar also came later. In the mythological definitions of culture, other classes at that time felt exploited due to curiosities. And that crack is just like an earthquake today.

So even though the Marathas won, they could not make an impact in India, which is called Empire, with the exception of the Shivaji period. Even before the Peshwa conquered the same territories as Bajirao Mastani wrote at the time of film release from the area, he retained almost the same monarchy there, no agent Nimi (whether Maharashtrian dynasties like Scindia, Holkar, Gaekwad expanded to states like Madhya Pradesh or Gujarat) quarter (quarter of income) Getting. Maintaining a glorious tradition of devotion.

But what is the effect of the overall administration? What about the administration of the regime? Ashutosh Gowariker's habitual long boring film for Anthel should be the third battle of Panipat. Ahmed Shah Abdali and the Marathas clashed on 15 January 191, 3 km north of Delhi. In which the Afghan (this Afghanistan Ghazni, Ghori, Abdali and Inderkatli Fardhana's Babur will appear to be standing at the turn of the history of India!) Abdali won. Later he took the name Durrani. When he ruled in Afghanistan, Abdali called himself 'Durr-e-Durran' (Great Pearl of Pearls, Pearl of Pearls) and his tribe was called Durrani. In the midst of his inner turmoil, he became interested in the rich treasures that the Mughals of India had amassed. But just winning, looting, chanting slogans of one's own religion is not good governance. Not diplomacy.

So, despite the fact that Abdali defeated the Marathas and conquered India, in addition to the bravery to go and fight in any unfamiliar territory at the same time as the British ruled, the British at that time felt a lot of work in the dawn of scientific research. Better technology, clever diplomacy in addition to weapons, loyal nationalism. (No one has betrayed the crown of native England that takes months to sail for money.) And the vision of a long-term administration. So despite being a richer Mughal empire than the British (when India accounted for 15% of the world's GDP), their heritage forts and tombs were sufficient. But after the British left, the parliamentary system, the civil service, the army, the calendar, the police, the judiciary, the administrative language. Roads, Archaeological Survey, Museums, Meteorological Department, Maps, Schools-Universities have all changed form and survived today, even stronger! Not only in India, where he ruled. Such as, Africa.

This 'system approach' brought by the British with the tyranny of trade was new to India which was divided into different kingdoms! But when we say Africa to understand a name, it is geographical. But if Gujaratis go inside, they will know how much variety there is. Tanzania and Kenya, Rwanda and Zimbabwe are not all the same. Alas, there are many castes and tribes in one country. Alas, when the Gandhi-like Nelson Mandela came to power after a long imprisonment for South Africa, the white supremacy was gone, but inside, only Zulu and Xhosa, thousands of people were killed in the 20-2 riots between the two black tribes! In an effort to avoid a clash between the cultural identities of the newly liberated tribes, Mandela has agreed to set up an arbitration tribunal on a permanent basis.

This is the same internal conflict in the Arab world. Big identity all Muslims. But don't confuse the UAE with Qatar in the clash of cultural identities! Ditto, Mongolian faces and 'Far East' countries that look alike because of Buddhism. China, Tibet, Taiwan, Mongolia, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea, North Korea ... don't mix anyone inside. Some even fight forever!

This means that political unity, social unity, constitutional unity of civics cannot come from being under one title in terms of skin color, cultural customs or language or faith. When the word heresy did not exist, we believed in the same religion, fought among the rulers or misinterpreted the caste system and exploited the weak. Where are the outside villains in the Mahabharata? Brothers of the same clan have fought against each other. Thus both Rama and Ravana are Shiva devotees in faith. (Did Rameshwaram forget?) But nature is thought to be face to face, Rama is said to be far away, Vibhishan does not mix with Ravana. Krishna established Sudharmasabha as the beginning of democracy. But in his life he was constantly fighting for the destruction of iniquity. The legacy of Sudharmasabha did not last long after Yadavasthali.

Let us always remember the republics of Vaishali and Licchavi. Between the Janak Dynasty and the Karnataka Dynasty, democracy was established 12 times instead of a republic. Only then does the next experiment fail! Vaishali, Licchavi, Dwarka, everything fell into the abyss of time - democracy was not digested by the people of India, it was achieved. Because then what is our 'local identity' today? When someone wins, after the pride of being an Indian, his state, his district, his village, his caste - all the identities will be glorified at once. To see. Be it an Olympic champion or an IAS topper. It is woven into our DNA. Even all our progressive minds cannot escape from this blueprint of thousands of years of identity.

Then it has to be accepted. If you accept, how can democracy be maintained? That is why it is not known when all the experiments of democracy in India went awry. Jinnah's dream was a secular democracy in a Pakistan independent of India. What kind of salad has come out of it and what kind of democratic drama is being played by the mullahs-military collusion. It's in front of the eye! Despite being of the same religion, Punjabis and Balochs have not settled there. Iran did not mix with Iraq. Strong cultural identity differs. These include language, dress, food, festivals, habits, etc. From the Bengali language war against Bengali, a whole piece called Bangladesh became a new country from Pakistan! What Gandhi said was that 'division in the name of religion is a mistake. The country will not survive in the name of religion, one division will lead to more division. That came true in 191! Alas, the Soviet Union has disintegrated into a brainwashing cult that has become more anti-religious than anti-communist.

So what we call Bharatvarsha is a cultural name. But the map of political India as it is today was not in the hands of a single powerful ruler. In which northeast-south-west-north everything is under one flag, one constitution. Not only that, but it lasts. Not only does it last, but elections are held regularly. Not only do elections take place, but in spite of so many headaches, corruption, bigotry, confusion, casteism, nationalism, even the winners are afraid of the elections and play tricks to please the voters! The worship of Shiva, Durga, Rama, Krishna and the faith of Chardham are in the geographically vast bed of the Twelve Jyotirlingas or Fifty-one Shakti Peeths in India, and the foreigners, according to their understanding, called them Hind or India. But also a cultural identity. There are differences like Arya-Dravid in culture. Swami Vivekananda and Narasimha Mehta, both Vedantis, may have fish in one diet and not in the other. If you count the films of the South, how many divisions, Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu ... if you count them as Malayalam, then the right thriller, award winning artist and semi-porn will all come! In short, have a stereotype generalization to understand. If you look inside the rest of the variety is immense, Saurashtra is different from Kutch, Mehsana and Valsad. In Saurashtra, Halar and Sorath are culturally different ... so unity in diversity is a wonder, a great and a challenge for India. Azad is the only witness to the agitation for linguistic states in India.

The well-known incident of 1917 was also the reason behind the Hindu-Muslim soldiers' attack on the British rule in North-East India. After the spark spread, all joined for freedom. But whose freedom? When India's fold was successful, Bahadur Shah Zafar was to sit in Delhi again. Jivastosat fought for the respective states, territories against the rest of the British. Salute to his heroism. But as shown in today's films, there was no dream of freedom giving a map and an arrangement for the entire people of India!

Just remember this exactly. Enough to explain that a book should be written so far is explained in the article because next Sunday we will go beyond its number in the spectrometer whether Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is not only a Mahatma in 150 years, not only a hero in the country but also a true father of the nation!

Yes, this text so far is only for now to understand factually, logically, genuinely. It was just an introduction. Explaining the issue without going into too much detail. Fact-finding in the age of Forwardia folders gossiping in the name of history. Gandhiji's name does not have to be mentioned by the bourgeois American capitalist that he did not take Modi-Saheb to Ahmedabad Ashram even though the previous President Trump did not have time. Amidst his mistakes, stubbornness, shortcomings, he also looked to the Taliban king of Afghanistan to understand what he had accomplished and to stop the argument on the second October without understanding the 'half naked fakir' of Churchill's words.

Xing Thing

"A slow flame of firm aggression coming from the deep pit of the eye, a pointed nose between the emaciated cheeks, a skin color that is darker than a mustache and a bunch of black hair, a weak figure with a deep personality of distracted and concentrated power ... such is the radical, The Messiah, the angel, the savior of contemporary India ... the India that depends on a person every day for its liberation and freedom, whose name is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi! ” )