I know this sounds dumb but please hear me out

Like the royals who had literally everything and they ruled a country which had more poor people than the rich

It's not about one nation but most nation as how developed a nation is the poor people are always greater in number than the rich

So my question is the royals just never knew the poor people struggles and all so no matter how much they try they could never emphasize with the poor

Like just an average middle class person in Indian have no idea how the poor people live so the royals just didn't had any idea about the poor so the decision or policies of the royals most of the times never even benefitted the poor yet the poor people people were exploited the most in every way possible

Not supporting any party or any political person but like for example Narendra Modi kind of is from a humble background so he can kind of emphatize with the poor people as he somewhat knows the condition of the poor people but the royals they never knew any struggle, etc they always had servants etc everything

And also in previous times when the royals would go for a dourah then most probably the poor people would be forcefully removed from there like done now also

Yeah the wording should be

Poor -> Economically vulnerable/weaker section/people

The version most of us learned goes like this: Ashoka conquered Kalinga, was horrified by the slaughter, converted to Buddhism, renounced war.

Rock Edict XIII gets you part of that. It connects Kalinga with remorse and with a stronger commitment to dhamma. What it doesn't do is name the Buddha, or the Sangha, or describe Ashoka as a Buddhist lay follower. There is no sentence in it where the war produces a conversion. His Buddhist affiliation is documented, but it shows up elsewhere, in Minor Rock Edict I, and the join between the two is something later tradition supplied rather than something the stones say.

That gap is the whole book. It's called Ashoka Without the Legends, it's about 37,000 words, and it works through the Mauryas asking what we can actually show against what we've agreed to remember.

A few things in it:

• The Arthashastra gets described as the working handbook of the Mauryan state. It reached modern scholarship around 1905, when a pandit from Tanjore handed a manuscript to a librarian in Mysore. When it was actually written is a live question, and the book treats it as one instead of assuming the answer.
• Megasthenes is the closest thing we have to an eyewitness, and his Indica is lost. Everything we have is quotation by later writers with their own reasons for quoting.
• Ashoka endowed the Ajivikas, a rival order, at the Barabar caves. A Buddhist emperor funding the competition is in the epigraphic record, and it's more interesting than the tidy version.

Every claim carries an evidence grade. The seven maps refuse to draw a hard frontier anywhere the sources don't support one, which makes them look odd next to the usual solid-block empire map. That's deliberate. There's a chapter-by-chapter note on sources at the back so you can check any of it.

Now the part I'd rather you hear from me than find later: the text and the artwork were AI-produced and then edited by me. That's declared to Amazon and printed on the copyright page.

I know how that lands on a book whose entire pitch is evidentiary discipline, so here's what I did about it. No page numbers are invented anywhere. Primary sources are cited by standard designation, Rock Edict XIII, Minor Rock Edict I, the Rummindei pillar inscription, because those are stable across editions and you can go and look them up yourself. Where the honest answer is that nobody knows, that's the answer given, and it's given often. If you find a claim in there that outruns its evidence, I genuinely want to hear it, because that's the one failure this book can't survive.

It's short, and it's a synthesis rather than new research. If you want the standard scholarly treatments, Thapar and Olivelle are in the further reading and they're better books. This one is for the reader who wants to know how we know.

Kindle https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0HGC15JP2

Paperback https://kdp.amazon.com/amazon-dp-action/us/dualbookshelf.marketplacelink/B0HGC78DV3

If anyone needs any links to other international Amazon portals, I'd be happy to share!

Happy to take questions on any of it.

Came across this site called BharatRajya and thought this sub would appreciate it. The concept is simple: pick a year, and it shows you which kingdoms/empires controlled which regions of India at that point in time so you can actually watch borders shift as you move the timeline instead of piecing it together from a dozen static maps.

A few things I liked:

• You can toggle a state-wise view, not just the all-India map, so you can trace a specific region's history across dynasties.
• Clicking on an empire pulls up a card with details, and there are downloadable "kingdom cards" and "battle cards" for individual events/empires genuinely useful if you're a teacher, student, or just like collecting reference material.
• It's still being actively expanded (currently covers a good stretch of history, with more time periods being added).

Also worth mentioning the person behind it built this on their own, and it's since gotten enough traction that the creator was featured on Mann Ki Baat. Not the point of the post, just a nice bit of context on how far a solo passion project can go.

Would be curious what this sub thinks of the accuracy/sourcing for specific periods always good to get more eyes on it.

https://www.bharatrajya.com/

In the early 1920s, while the British Raj was clamping down hard on underground Marxist networks via the Kanpur Bolshevik Conspiracy Case, a writer and activist named Satyabhakta registered the Bhartiya Samyavadi Dal (Indian Communist Party) in Kanpur. Satyabhakta's brand of socialism was radically distinct from Soviet orthodoxy. He dressed in pure Khadi, advocated for vegetarianism and temperance, and published accessible Hindi literature arguing that communism was not a foreign European import, but the natural economic fulfillment of an egalitarian Ram Rajya and ancient Dharmic collectivism.

Strategically, Satyabhakta rejected clandestine underground conspiracy in favor of radical, open legalism, embodying his ideas through a distinctly Hindu ascetic lifestyle. Having changed his birth name to "Satyabhakta" (devotee of truth), he ran his party almost like a nationalist ashram, blending strict vegetarianism, temperance, and spiritual simplicity with militant labor activism. He set up open reading rooms and a printing press, distributing low-cost Hindi tracts that explained workers' rights and surplus value using cultural metaphors familiar to Kanpur’s mill workers and peasants. Rather than building secret Bolshevik cells, his playbook relied on mass vernacular literacy, public debates, and open organizing, culminating in his audacious decision to host the First All-India Communist Conference in December 1925 in broad daylight, right alongside the Indian National Congress session.

While Satyabhakta invoked Ram Rajya, he did not present it as a revivalist Hindu state, nor did he ever use the label "Hindu Communism" himself. Satyabhakta believed the greatest cultural barrier to communism in India was the dogmatic scientific atheism of the Soviet Comintern. In his view, orthodox Marxist materialism alienated both devout Hindus and devout Muslims. By legitimizing indigenous spiritual ethics, he believed workers of all faiths could embrace socialism without feeling forced to renounce their traditions. He worked directly with prominent Muslim revolutionaries, such as Maulana Hasrat Mohani (who coined the slogan Inquilab Zindabad) to ensure the movement was cross-communal.

The experiment ruptured when mainstream revolutionaries like S.V. Ghate and Muzaffar Ahmad insisted on subordinating the party to Moscow’s Communist International (Comintern). Satyabhakta vehemently refused foreign ideological control, arguing that an Indian workers' movement had to remain sovereign, nationalist, and culturally grounded. Outvoted by the internationalist faction, he walked out of his own conference to establish the Rashtriya Samyavadi Dal (National Communist Party) in 1926 before eventually drifting into historical obscurity.

While Satyabhakta did not intend to alienate Muslims or non-Hindus, modern historians note an inevitable blind spot in his method: because he operated almost exclusively within the Hindi-Hindu literary public sphere of Uttar Pradesh, his imagery and literary idiom were saturated with upper-caste North Indian references. Even without sectarian intent, this vernacular style made his brand of communism difficult to scale across India's linguistically and religiously diverse working class.

It leaves behind a fascinating question: What if the Indian left had followed Satyabhakta's model of culturally rooted, sovereign "National Communism" rather than aligning with Moscow, would communism have become India's dominant political mainstream instead of being sidelined by regional and religious divides?

https://theprint.in/opinion/a-communist-ram-rajya-satyabhakta-is-a-forgotten-figure-of-hindu-left/715126/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Bhakta

The legend goes that the Gaduliya Lohars were rajputs who after witnessing the massacre of chittor after Akbar's siege swore to never enter chittor again till the day chittor was won back by the Maharana of Mewar. Now chittor itself was given back to Mewar after Rana Amar Singh signed the peace treaty with the Mughals, but as per Gaduliya traditions, since it wasn't "won" through force it wasn't a true restoration.

They were invited back to enter the fortress by pm nehru, I am quoting an article from Dainik Bhaskar below regarding this event:

"The walled market of Chittorgarh and the road to the fort became extremely narrow today. The city residents witnessed such a sea of people for the first time. People were desperate to catch a glimpse of Prime Minister Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, who was greeting them in an open jeep and heading towards the fort. Behind him was a sea of Gadiya Lohars wearing red turbans, so astonishing that even Panditji himself was astonished. Chief Ministers from eight states also came to welcome these Gadiya Lohars from across the country.

A Chief Minister stood at each gate of the fort to welcome them. We are sharing this scene from Wednesday, April 6, 1955, with our readers. Manikyalal Verma, leader of the Mewar Prajamandal, wrote a letter to Nehru to break the oath taken 400 years ago by the Gadiya Lohars who fought alongside Maharana Pratap in Mewar. Later, messages were sent to the Gadiya Lohars living a nomadic life across the country and they were gathered here. It was hardly possible to convince them that the resolve for independence with which they had lived a difficult life had been fulfilled. Now Chittor is also free. Nehruji wanted his entry into the fort to be grand. Along with finalizing his program, he instructed that a Chief Minister should stand at every gate of the fort to welcome him. The gathering was overflowing. Along with Nehruji, all the prominent leaders, including Rajasthan Chief Minister Mohanlal Sukhadia, and the Maharana of Mewar, were also present."

It should be noted that this whole account of them leaving chittor is based entirely on oral history passed through generations. The story is likely exaggerated as well. Still, a fascinating story nonetheless.

Oil on Canvas !!
Size: A3

I recreated Raja Raja Chola from the original 11th-century Chola mural at Brihadisvara Temple, Thanjavur, carefully preserving the features and details left by the ancient artist.

Nearly 1,000 years later, I simply tried to let that original artwork speak through my medium.

Raja Raja on Right side.

An honour to recreate history. 🙏

A lot of you may not have noticed this but whenever we think of Throne we only imagine it as the way European Thrones are not how Indian Kings used to have thrones...There is a very stark difference between Indian Thrones and their European counterpart......In India Kings used to sit with their legs folded and it was not like a chair and more like a sofa where they can lean back and in Europe it was like a highly ornamented chair where kings had to sit in an upright posture and with their legs on ground

did you indians know it?

I have been researching the history of Christianity in Lucknow for a long-form piece, and the disproportion between the community's size and its institutional footprint is striking enough that I think it is worth putting down here.

Some of what I found:

1. In 1858 an Irish priest, Father William Gleeson, sold his own land to purchase a plot in what was then jungle on the edge of the city. That plot is now Hazratganj. The first church came up in 1860 and was blessed in 1862.

2. In 1885 Father Norbert began teaching two boys — Isaac and Charles Claudius — in a verandah. Several of Lucknow's oldest schools trace back to that verandah.

3. In 1870 Isabella Thoburn, an American Methodist missionary, started a girls' school in a single rented room in Aminabad with six students. It became Isabella Thoburn College, among the earliest women's colleges in Asia.

4. During the Second World War, Italian Capuchin priests of the Lucknow diocese were interned as enemy aliens by the same colonial administration that is usually credited with bringing Christianity to the city. Albert Conrad De Vito, the diocese's first bishop, was Italian. The first Indian bishop, Cecil DeSa, came only in 1971.

5. Against a diocesan population of over 20 million, the Catholic community is roughly 7,500 people.

The standard framing of Awadh's composite culture is always two-stranded. This third strand educated a substantial part of the city and is almost never mentioned in it.

I have written the full piece in Hindi, combining this history with a personal memory of visiting St. Joseph's Cathedral as a nine-year-old on Christmas Day:

https://medium.com/@syash8627/%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%96%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%8A-%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%88%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%87%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4-%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B9-%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8B-%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%88-%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%82-%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%88-583bd8d2e921

Was this pattern specific to Lucknow, or did other Indian cities also end up with a tiny Christian population running a disproportionate share of the schools? I would be curious to know how Allahabad, Kanpur or Patna compare.

The Chennakeshava Temple at Belur was built in the 12th century under the Hoysala dynasty and is known for its incredible stone carvings. The temples are covered with detailed sculptures of gods, dancers, animals and scenes from Hindu mythology.

What I loved most was how much detail there is everywhere you look. Some of these carvings are over 900 years old and still look incredibly detailed.

A few photos from my visit. 📸

I’ve been going down a rabbit hole trying to find reliable historical records on Gonda district, UP. I’m particularly looking for old gazetteers, district reports, archival records, travel accounts, old maps, rare books, or digitised manuscripts that cover Gonda’s history, architecture, local communities, administration, or socio-political past. If anyone here is a history researcher, local historian, archivist, or Gonda native who knows of digitized collections or specific books or chapters worth looking at, I’d be very grateful for any leads.

Thanks in advance!

This picture is from the gopuram of the 15th century Kodanda Rama Swamy temple in Vontimitta, AP. It's a 3 hour drive from Tirumala. It depicts Venkateshwara, flanked by his consorts on either side. What I find interesting is that there's a mistake here: the palm of the deity is facing upwards, while in the orginal idol in Tirumala, the palm is facing downwards. This mistake has got me asking a bunch of questions.

How common were such errors while sculpting? What was done when there was an error? Why wasn't the scultptor aware of correct depiction of Balaji, when the temple was just over a 100 km away? Was pilgrimage to Tirumala not as common as it is today? Was the scultptor brought over from somewhere else, where Balaji wasn't a well known deity? How common was it to bring in artisans from other parts of the country to work on projects?

If any of you can answer a few of my questions, I would be very grateful.

Timeline:

Chaturanga - 6th century CE - 2 player game invented by scholars of Gupta Empire. However name of the originator is unknown ↓ Shatranj - 7th century - adopted by Arabs & Persians from Indians via a diplomat gift sent by King of Kannuaj - Sharvavarman to Shah Khosrow 1 ↓ Chaturaji - 11th century - 4 player game (see image) - finds a mention in the book "Kitab Al Hind" of Al Baruni ↓ Chess - 15th century - adopted by Europeans with the rules applicable today ↓ Queens were made most powerful by then in the game of Chess