Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jaipur’s Last Stand

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 76 posts

Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand

#11

Post by truth_ »

vishnugupta wrote: post #6

Fascinating story. This brings fourth how complex a country India is. Before (and even during) the British rule India was a ruled tens of of such princely states each in turn had hundreds of low level feudal lords. While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc., India truly became a single political en…

> While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc.,

This is only true for non-Presidency regions. This was not true for Calcutta and Bengal, Madras and Madras area, and Bombay and Bombay area.

Not coincidentally, these regions were, and still are more progressive areas of India.

Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand

#13

Post by phekunde »

thedravidian wrote: post #10
vishnugupta wrote: post #6

Fascinating story. This brings fourth how complex a country India is. Before (and even during) the British rule India was a ruled tens of of such princely states each in turn had hundreds of low level feudal lords. While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc., India truly became a single political en…

> I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India Most of the people in my state, and a lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India". India seems to expect us to fall to the ground and worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense, and we decline. We don't belong to anyone other tha…

Looks like the movie theaters are not yet open in Tamil Nadu!

Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand

#14

Post by antihero »

user-the-name wrote: post #12

What a ridiculous article. Nothing but fawning over aristocracy. Borderline misogynistic too with quotes like "Indira could not stomach a woman more good-looking than herself and insulted her in Parliament".

It's also odd that there's another comment critiquing the article, but it is marked as dead?!

Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand

#15

Post by throwaway636536 »

thedravidian wrote: post #10
vishnugupta wrote: post #6

Fascinating story. This brings fourth how complex a country India is. Before (and even during) the British rule India was a ruled tens of of such princely states each in turn had hundreds of low level feudal lords. While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc., India truly became a single political en…

> I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India Most of the people in my state, and a lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India". India seems to expect us to fall to the ground and worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense, and we decline. We don't belong to anyone other tha…

> lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India"

Speak for yourself/Tamil Nadu. I'm from Karnataka (a southern state) and majority of kannadigas love India and are patriotic.

> worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense

Why do you believe that north indian language and religion are nonsense? I've lived in New Delhi for more than half of my childhood and I don't think North Indians are backward relative to South Indians. Although they are relatively poor.

Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand

#16

Post by phekunde »

vishnugupta wrote: post #6

Fascinating story. This brings fourth how complex a country India is. Before (and even during) the British rule India was a ruled tens of of such princely states each in turn had hundreds of low level feudal lords. While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc., India truly became a single political en…

Some of what you said is not true. There were attempts made to unify "India" even before the British came to India. Infact the term "Hindu", "Hindi", "India", "Hindustan" is not Indian in the first place. The words "Hindu", "Hindi" and "Hindustan" were given to the people risiding east of the Indu/Sindhu river by the Persian/Arabic visitors and invaders. And the word "India" was derived from the word "Hindustan" by the European invaders and visitors as such: "Hindustan" became "Indostan", and then "Indostan" was further shortened to "India". So people visiting/invading the eastern parts of the Indu/Sindhu river were considering the people there as one civilisation if not one country. But there were attempts made before, as far back as Chanakya, to unify the people under one rule.

Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand

#17

Post by phekunde »

throwaway636536 wrote: post #15
thedravidian wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would say only the millennial generation onward do Indian citizens feel they belong to India Most of the people in my state, and a lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India". India seems to expect us to fall to the ground and worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense, and we decline. We don't belong to anyone other tha…

> lot of Southern states do not feel that "we belong to India" Speak for yourself/Tamil Nadu. I'm from Karnataka (a southern state) and majority of kannadigas love India and are patriotic. > worship "India's language is Hindi", "India's religion is the Aryan worshipping flavour of Hinduism" and other nonsense Why do you believe that north indian language and religion are nonsense? I've lived in New Delhi for more tha…

> Why do you believe that north indian language are nonsense?

Hindi language should first correct the pronunciation of words like "Baink" for Bank, "Baal" for Ball, "Daaktar" for Doctor etc. And then thinking of enforcing that language on rest of the country.

I am curious, why Samskrut is not used as a common language for India, like how Hebrew resurrected as a language of Israel? With English as second language, and mother-tongue as the the third language. Samskrut has a treasure trove of important literature that not many in India understand!

Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand

#18

Post by pritambaral »

newyankee wrote: post #9

The article claims that Nehru and Gandhi hated princely dynasties and ironically they themselves are now a political dynasty unwilling to share power with non family members

The Gandhi dynasty is not descended from the M.K "Mahatma" Gandhi who fought for independence. It is descended from Nehru though, through Indira Gandhi (née Nehru).

Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand

#19

Post by vishnugupta »

phekunde wrote: post #16
vishnugupta wrote: post #6

Fascinating story. This brings fourth how complex a country India is. Before (and even during) the British rule India was a ruled tens of of such princely states each in turn had hundreds of low level feudal lords. While British did unify India in terms of governing it, the people always recognised themselves with the king's region. E.g., Mysore region, Hyderabad kingdom etc., India truly became a single political en…

Some of what you said is not true. There were attempts made to unify "India" even before the British came to India. Infact the term "Hindu", "Hindi", "India", "Hindustan" is not Indian in the first place. The words "Hindu", "Hindi" and "Hindustan" were given to the people risiding east of the Indu/Sindhu river by the Persian/Arabic visitors and invaders. And the word "India" was derived from the word "Hindustan" by t…

I am aware of the origin of the words India and Hindu which I find bemusing.

> So people visiting/invading the eastern parts of the Indu/Sindhu river were considering the people there as one civilisation if not one country.

I conjecture it is natural for foreigners at that time to refer to the land (and hence the people residing there) east of Sindhu river as India/Indians. For them it was just an alien/different region. For example, to refer Asoka as Indian ruler as in "king who belongs to India" and not "Ruler of India".

I'm curious to know if the contemporary people living in different parts of Indian land felt as if they belonged to India as a whole. Though possible, it is highly unlikely IMO. I highly doubt if a farmer in a village in Kerala would consider a village in Punjab as belonging to his nation.

> But there were attempts made before, as far back as Chanakya, to unify the people under one rule.

I've read/seen this in popular stories (Chanakya serial from 1990s is decent) but I don't know how authentic they are. I'd love to read more on this topic, preferably by historians. My naive search was fruitless. One thing to note is that Indian historical records from that period are extremely rare making it all the more difficult. It's a pity that Indians of that didn't write as much as Romans did.

Re: Jaipur’s Last Stand

#20

Post by girishso »

pritambaral wrote: post #18
newyankee wrote: post #9

The article claims that Nehru and Gandhi hated princely dynasties and ironically they themselves are now a political dynasty unwilling to share power with non family members

The Gandhi dynasty is not descended from the M.K "Mahatma" Gandhi who fought for independence. It is descended from Nehru though, through Indira Gandhi (née Nehru).

Nehru did fight for independence though.
Post reply on HN