Hello Everyone! I was wondering if any of you had heard of cases of Chitralis, or Dardic people in general, coming from Pakistan to India? I had ancestors who were Chitrali from Lucknow that lived and resided there for years and keeping common northern South Asian phenotypes (Red hair, Blue eyes, extremley pale skin). I was wondering how did genetics like that even get there. Also, for the sake of family members of mine who deviated and got blond hair and blue eyes, how would such uncommon phenotypes persist in South Asia? Would they not be like me (wheatish brown skin, dark brown hair, Jet black hair)? Thank you, I appreciate it.
Also, please do not think I am trying to be one of those Pakistanis who is colorist and whatnot, This is a serious and genuine question since my family are urdu-speakers yet have such ancestry of decades of being in present-day India.

Thank you, Namo Buddhaya.

Are there any evidences of there being stone paved roads in India? What did people do in ancient times during monsoons. Not travel at all? What about commerce? Transportation of goods etc?

Is it true that Tipu sultan provided 8000 pagodas annually to guruvayoor temple?

What could be the possible reason for this as Burma was also a part of the British Raj?

.

This scenario is extended and more detailed from the previous one.

In this extended timeline, Jahangir never ordered the execution of Guru Arjan Dev and maintained peaceful relations with the Sikhs. He also began to build a Mughal navy with the help of the East India Company. These changes to his policies fostered better relations with the Sikhs, which were one of the main reasons behind rebellions in northern India and the subsequent decline of the empire. Jahangir successfully repelled the Safavid invasion in 1622, keeping Kandahar under Mughal rule. This region was crucial for trade, which would have strengthened the economy of the Mughal Empire.

The trade initiatives and the development of a Mughal navy with the East India Company continued under Shah Jahan's reign.

Aurangzeb was not a religious fanatic; he maintained a policy of secularism .He never imposed jizya and cultivated good relations with both Sikhs and Hindus. Without the imposition of jizya, there would have been no Jat revolt, Sikh rebellions in northern India, or strained relations with the Rajputs, who were considered the backbone of the empire. Aurangzeb also succeeded in integrating the Pashtuns into the Mughal Empire through cultural exchange and strong relationships with local governors, meaning there would be no Pashtun rebellion, which had previously damaged the empire.

Aurangzeb had also reformed the Jagirdari System in which he implemented a more centralized system of revenue collection where land grants were more closely regulated, ensuring that the crown retained greater control over income and administration, hence avoiding the Jagirdari crisis. He also created Bureaucratic structure which helped The emperor to control Jagirs, Reduce corruption and Reduce the chances of Rebellions

Aurangzeb initiated Deccan expansion but only captured the northern territories of the Golconda and Bijapur Sultanates, which means there would be no prolonged Mughal-Maratha wars. He also recognized the Ahom Empire as an independent kingdom.

After the First Anglo-Mughal War, Aurangzeb expelled the East India Company from India instead of allowing them to trade. He died ten years earlier, in 1697, and ensured a secure and peaceful succession for his son, Bahadur Shah I.

After Aurangzeb's death, Bahadur Shah I ascended to the throne in 1697. He maintained the stability of the empire and peaceful relations with both the Rajputs and Sikhs. Bahadur Shah I also ensured a smooth succession for Azim-ush-Shan. Additionally, he initiated trade with France.

Without the instability caused by Aurangzeb's death, the Sayyid Brothers never became kingmakers, and nobles like Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah and Zulfiqar Khan did not gain significant influence in the Mughal court. Instead, Rajput chiefs could have emerged as the kingmakers of the empire.

Following Bahadur Shah I's death, the absence of instability in the empire meant that Mirza Azim-ush-Shan was never killed in 1712 and instead became the Mughal emperor. Azim-ush-Shan was much more experienced in governance than Jahandar Shah. Under his reign, art and trade flourished, and he ruled the empire until the early 1730s.

After Azim-ush-Shan's death, there was a brief war of succession lasting two to three months, during which Azim-ush-Shan's nephew, Rafi ud-Darajat , won the struggle after killing Farrukhsiyar and ascended to the throne. Rafi ud-Darajat never had tuberculosis , gaining the experience needed to govern the empire. Without the Mughal-Maratha wars and Sikh rebellions, Rafi ud-Darajat managed to repel the Afsharid invasion of the Mughal Empire, ruling until the late 1740s.

Without the Maratha invasion of northern India, there would have been no Afghan invasion either.

The Mughal Empire would require capable rulers and constant adaptation to the new world to survive and thrive.

Nowadays diwali is all about burning crackers only, did people in the past also burn crackers and fireworks to celebrate diwali. I somewhere read that mughals used to do fireworks.

In practice, however, the Dīn-i Ilāhī functioned as a personality cult contrived by Akbar around his own person. Members of the religion were handpicked by Akbar according to their devotion to him. Because the emperor styled himself a reformer of Islām, arriving on Earth almost 1,000 years after the Prophet Muḥammad, there was some suggestion that he wished to be acknowledged as a prophet also. The ambiguous use of formula prayers (common among the Ṣūfīs) such as Allāhu akbar, “God is most great,” or perhaps “God is Akbar,” hinted at a divine association as well.

How truthful is this claim? Was Din-i-ilahi meant to be a reformed version of islam or a seperate religion? Also, has he ever claimed to be a prophet, as the article claims? Lastly, why did the descendants of Akbar drift towards more conservative religious beliefs?

I read somewhere that Ram Mohan Roy's father sent him to Patna to study Persian and Arabic since Persian was the language of bureaucracy during that time. After returning from Patna, he is said to have showed immense disgust towards the religious practices of his vaishnavite father and shaivite mother. He refused to bow down before the idols. His mother, Tarini Devi, was convinced that her son became a muslim upon his education in patna and sent him to Benares to study Sanskrit, Vedas and Upanishads. This only strengthened his monotheistic beliefs. He was convinced that the Vedas and Upanishads never preached idol worship or polytheism.

I don't know how credible this narrative is, but it seems to be pretty popular. On what basis is Roy claiming that Hinduism is monotheistic? In a letter to the ministry of foreign affairs of France he said,

It is now generally admitted that not religion only but unbiased commonsense as well as the accurate deductions of scientific research leads to the conclusion that all mankind are one great family of which numerous nations and tribes existing are only branches. Hence enlightened men in all countries feel a wish to encourage and facilitate human intercourse in every manner by removing as far as possible all impediments

Were Rammohun Roy's arguments based on conviction or was he actually trying to spread rationalism guised as Hinduism?

In the end, Yesubai lived a very satisfied life, after coming back to the Deccan, living five to ten years with her fortunate son and then bidding farewell to this world.

In 1690, the Badshah Aurangzeb imprisoned Yesubai and kept her in his camp. In that calamity, she behaved extremely cleverly and spent her days up to 1707 very tactfully.

https://ndhistories.wordpress.com/2023/05/16/mother-yesubai/

Marathi Riyasat, G S Sardesai ISBN-10-8171856403, ISBN-13-‎978-8171856404.

The Era of Bajirao Uday S Kulkarni ISBN-10-8192108031 ISBN-13-978-8192108032.

Reading up currently about the mamankam festival and came upon the following statement - ‘According to Duarte Barbosa the king goes to bathe at a temple tank with much fanfare. Thereafter, he prays before the idol and mounts to the scaffolding, and there, before all the people, he takes a very sharp knife, cuts off his throat himself and he performs this sacrifice to the idol. Whoever desires to reign for the next 12 years and undertake this martyrdom for the idol, has to be present looking on at this, and from that place the Brahmins proclaim him the new king.(Duarte Barbosa mentions this to be the kingdom of Quilacare and not Calicut of which he has given very detailed accounts of the life and customs of the people there including the Samutiri in the first chapter of vol 2)’

My question is where exactly is Quilacare in Kerala ?

Basically the title is my question. I wanna know the aforementioned about the Aryans. Is there any written record of them except the Rig Vedas or not ?

My understanding was that the sramanas founded their ideas as an opposition to the Vedic faith. But I can't help but notice that in the time when the sramana traditions originated, the Vedic religion wasn't much influential. Why were the sramana traditions developed then?

When did Hinduism arrive in Kerala? I have seen certain articles saying the Vedic religion gaibed fround in the region as a result of the actions of the kadamba king Mayurasharma. How credible is this view point?

Many medium and large cities are located in this region, such as Lahore, Amritsar, Faisalabad, Multan, Ludhiana, Gujranwala, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, etc. It is more urbanized than some areas in the central and eastern parts of the country, such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar?

This is what wikipedia says:

The conquest of Sindh (and areas of Punjab) in modern-day Pakistan, although costly, was a major gain for the Umayyad Caliphate. However, further gains were halted by Hindu kingdoms during Arab campaigns. The Arabs attempted to invade India but they were defeated by North Indian kings Bappa Rawal of Guhila dynasty, Nagabhata, of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty and by the South Indian emperor Vikramaditya II of the Chalukya dynasty in the early 8th century.

But I have also seen some people saying that Bappa Rawal is, apparently a folk lore hero of Rajasthan. Is he documented somehow?

Hey, I'm a history research scholar and was looking forward to access the BORI digital library,but am unable to.Is the link broken or did they shut down the digital library?Can somebody help me in this regard.

The Wikipedia only mentions World war 1 and World war 2 I am more curious about Mysore than other, but be free to tell about others.

I recently came across this rather interesting passage when reading this by Dr.Ambedkar.

Microsoft Word - thoughts-on-linguistic-states

https://preview.redd.it/g8uttgi79ixd1.jpg?width=1076&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5bcf5ebb12db66653d243d4d02cfcc30b046a7ca

It looks like Mr.C. Rajagopalachari wanted some sort of separate federation of southern and Northern states, somewhat like the Eastern and Western Roman Empires.

Given the rise in Linguistic Chauvinism in places like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra, and the growing dissatisfaction with delimitation that is coming in the future. Do you think this idea would have been better for the states than the system we currently have?

How do you see this gap resolving in the future without any drastic changes? Is there any historical precedent for such a thing happening in other areas of the world?

https://preview.redd.it/fdknebtiaixd1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=86f6f78ec78dab15b41ccb03bcbb50f31c083cf1

Photograph by Thomas A. Rust, 1870. Prayagraj.

My cousin's 6th grade textbook mentioned that women in early Vedic period could choose their husbands, widows could remarry, and they participated in community meets (Samitis). It sounded too good to be true.

I am interested as to who can fit this bill. Atal is the one that is mostly called the best to come but again there could be other candidates for this title as well.

https://preview.redd.it/xyttcbd4taxd1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=80c6a04a9d3e8f08bdf7022c30264412f65035ab

I'm genuinely curious about this as a Muslim Sindhi from Sindh. Growing up we always heard from our elders we are the descendants of people of Indus Valley civilization.

From what I know the only written source that discusses the Aryans is the Rig Vedas.

Now I have read the Rig Vedas has 10 books called Mandalas so can can anybody tell me which mandalas actually contain mentions of Arya people and link me up with some good English translation of it (I want a translation and explanation done or at least approved by authentic scholars).

I'm interested to know also how did people come to conclusion that we descend from Iranian farmers (like how do they know those were Iranian farmer or do their samples just match those found on skeletons in Iran) or Steppe people or what.

How true is this: "there was occupational mobility among the upper caste namely Brahmin Kshatriyas Jats Vaishyas Khatris There was little to no occupational (not social) mobility for other lower castes. Regardless of the job a Brahmin or Kshatriya performed, he was still a Brahmin or a Kshatriya"?

Also why did they not make any attempts to completely annex the Nizam's territories?

I am intrigued to know what the true divide and rule was during the British rule, as we say, 'the British divided us'. Is this the truth?

Edit: Some are painting a bad picture on me for preaching Jesus or looking at my comment history and judging that I am favouring the British. No, I do not intend to be a jerk here and I just wanted to have an honest discussion. In fact I wanted to see the views and perspectives that's it. If you're not in unison with what I do, it is totally fine. I'm not here to create ruckus.

https://youtu.be/SnW3zAxWOMA?si=nf8Yh60kX-FcXBKz