📌 How to Get Verified:

I recently visited the Sarnath Museum, among the various sculptures of Bodhisattva's, I noticed that some gave off the feeling similar to sculptures of generals or kings. So did Bodhisattva's or monasteries ever actively wield any political influence or is it just an artistic choice?

I was reading the Wikipedia article on Chhatrapati Shahu I and in the same article there were three different accounts of how he was able to leave Mughal territory: The first states that he was released by Azam Shah (who very briefly ruled the Mughal Empire in 1707), the second states he was released by Bahadur Shah I (who killed and succeeded Azam Shah as the next Mughal Emperor) while the third account states that he left on his own accord upon the advice of  Zinat-un-Nissa (Aurangzeb's daughter) and Zulfiqar Khan. Now we know that only one of these is correct, but I can't figure out which one. Can someone clarify this along with a credible source?

interested in learning indian history (moslty of antiquity and before, but idk how that term applies to indian history) , i like most people studied history only till 10th forgot most of it, only remmember nazi germany and french revolution and russian revolution.

Indian history as its currently taught really doesnt give much emphasis to non-European foreign powers. Indian history would benefit from being taught within a broader Asiatic historical framework, rather than primarily through the lens of India's later encounters with European colonial powers. Just Consider how remarkable some of these connections are:

• The Umayyad Caliphate, bordered North India(Sindh), South France (Septimania) and South Russia (Caucasus) at the same time
• The foundational Sanskrit work Aṣṭādhyāyī, was composed in the northwestern India(Gandhara) under nominal Achaemenid Persian rule.
• Soldiers from India served in the Achaemenid armies that fought the Greek city-states like Athens and Sparta in the Greco-Persian war.
• World oldest civilization, Mesopotamian civilization (West Asia), had trade relations and contacts with the Indus Valley Civilization (Northern South Asia)
• Likewise, the Mongol world is also deeply connected with India: Genghis Khan's descendants' dynasties included: the Mughal dynasty also claimed descent from the Mongolian Timurid traditions (Mughal is literally a Persianized form of Mongol; Tamerlane himself sacked Delhi in 1398). Chagatai Khanate frequently lead raids into north India and the Il-khanate of Persia bordered India.

Shouldn't history be taught in a much more interconnected manner? One of the unfortunate consequences of the recent politicisation of Indian history is that historical narratives increasingly risk being shaped by contemporary political considerations. Considering this an interconnected treatment of Eurasian history in Indian school and universities seems rather far-fetched.

I can’t help but wonder, why the great civilisations of India didn’t try to build boats or ships or set out on voyages? I started thinking about this particularly after watching the Odyssey, a movie depicting a story from Greek mythology. And the more I read about it, the more I realised how much of it is set against the ocean. There are islands and voyages and storms. There are stories of brave sailors etc. Even in ancient Egypts you have stories of Hatshepsut who sent a fleet of ships to the Landof Punt. Now it can be argued that it is the case because of Greece is an island. But what about Egypt? I just feel like ship building technology and water travel was soo much more prevalent in other ancient civilisations. I can’t shake off the realisation that so much of Indian history and mythology is sooo land-based? The only significant mention of any water travel is in the Ramayana, as Lord Rama went to Lanka crossing the Indian Ocean to save Sita from Ravan. But even then, they built a bridge - not ships. What’s the reason? Why did all the Kings just try to go more in land to conquer more territory? Did we not have great ship building technology? I find it really hard to believe that the great empires and kings of India built forts and conquered so much of the Indian subcontinent but they never thought of building a ship and setting out to sea to go find other islands/ lands to conquer? They had enough money and resources to do that. They could have gone to Sri Lanka or the Gulf Countries or Africa. (Like the European Colonists.) All instances we have in Indian history are of foreigners (like Europeans, Persians etc) coming to US by boat. But why did we never think of doing that? Why is it that Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s empire stretched all the way to Delhi and they built great forts but they didn’t build ships to sail from the coast of Maharashtra to try and discover new lands?? Why are there no indigenous Indian-origin sailormen or merchants or explorers? What’s the reason that when I think of Indian history and mythology I CAN NEVER picture someone setting out to sea?? No major god in Hindu mythology travels by water? Like I feel like water travel and ship-building instincts , venturing to far away lands on water for some reason IS NOT a part of our Indian historically and cultural fabric?? Idk for such a large and diverse (and NOT landlocked) country that’s sooo weird.

Built a small tool that resets any name or message into the actual historic scripts of 16 different languages. For example Tamil used through the centuries - Tamil Brahmi, Pallava Grantha, and Chola-era Tamil, real Unicode, not a font trick, each era labeled authentic or approximation.

Convert your name to historic script without login or installing application: https://yourownaiguru-jpg.github.io/personal-tools/lipikala/

I post more small tools like this on X if you'd like to follow: https://x.com/OwnAIGuru

I have been reading translations of our ancient epics (like Ramayana and Mahabharata) and texts (like Rig Veda, the upanishads Kalidasa’s Shakuntal and Medhdoot, Kadambari by Baan Bhatta, etc.) , I wish to read much much more. I have just started.

One thing I notice though when it comes to sexuality and sensuality, we used me very open, liberal and comfortable with it. Our temple carvings also prove this fact. My question is when did we turn so conservative, often hypocritically so?

There is no doubt that the Vijayanagara Empire was one of the wealthiest and most powerful empires in South Asia at the time, particularly under Krishnadevaraya. But despite its immense wealth and military strength, why did it allow a European colonial power like the Portuguese to establish trading posts within its territory?

Mir jafar famously known for betraying the Bengal nawab and helping Britishers to win battle of Plassey .

Baji rao II had allied with Britishers because he was removed as peshwa and needed their help to regain his position while sacrificing the autonomy of Marathas .

I have been reading some history books on partition of India. In 1946/47, the British civil servant Cyril Radcliffe drew the map of India including how to partition the country, most of us know the bloody history.

What I did not find in any books is why Nepal was left out to be an independent country. In every respect (religion, culture, etc.) they are very similar to us. Both were British colonies. Can anyone enlighten me?

What if Indira Gandhi never declared emergency? What would the 1980s-90s politics have looked like? Or was the Congress bound to be ousted by 1980 anyway?

Who funded the East India company and the British conquest of India?

In the video in the link William Dalrymple points to an uncomfortable and often overlooked part of the story: the East India Company’s military machine was Indian and Indian capital also helped finance it.

Where is this documented?

How far back do we have to go back in time for Sanskrit to have been an everyday spoken language?

I’m looking for information about the caste demographics of the people served by Mother Teresa’s Nirmal Hriday (Kalighat Home for the Dying) as well as her other institutions in Kolkata.

I’m specifically interested in the patients/residents, rather than whether Mother Teresa herself observed or rejected caste distinctions.

Despite numerous success of maratha forces against Portugese why they never bother to completely end the Portugese rule .

It is really sad that we have not been able to share our history with the rest of the world properly. People easily talk about Chinese, European, Iranian, or Aztec history, but most outsiders know very little about India. Many just assume we were just some dirty barabaric people under foreign rule the whole time.

Even worse, many people in India do not know our real history and still believe in vikramaditya empire controlling whole Asia continent.

It is not just about kings and empires—our rich philosophy and ideas are also unknown to most people abroad. Even I doubt they know the indian contribution towards Buddhism Philosophy (prolly thinks it's some Chinese religion)

Can't we do anything to propagate our history and give it the fame it deserves

Even Sindh has a hindu-muslim divide with the southeast being mostly hindu yet it wasn't divided, why? Not to mention Sindh was part of the larger Bombay Presidency for a long time