The world is recognized as having four ancient civilizations, ancient Babylon, ancient Egypt, ancient India, and China.
But why did Marx say that the history of India is that there is no history? If India has no history, then why is ancient India recognized as one of the four ancient civilizations? Are the various confusing operations of Indians in modern times related to their historical origins?
Next, I will carefully interpret the difference between India and ancient India, and how India has been conquered again and again in history, and has always maintained self-confidence.
Will Bulk India dream of unifying the South Asian Empire?
First of all, India, as a modern country, and ancient India, which is considered one of the four major ancient civilizations, have nothing to do with each other. Although both are called "India", ancient India is actually a geographical concept, which includes what is now Pakistan and part of India.
Indus Valley
Its location is probably between the Indus Valley and the Ganges River Basin.
Moreover, among the four ancient civilizations, the only ancient civilization recognized by the international community is the People's Republic of China, and the other three ancient civilizations have basically disappeared in the long river of history.
Ancient Babylon in the Two Rivers Valley was destroyed by the Persian Empire as early as 539 BC, and the original ancient Babylonian culture was replaced by Persian culture. The rise of Islam in the Middle Ages wiped out the remnants of ancient Babylon from its roots.
Although ancient Egypt in the Nile River Basin has preserved pyramids and various hieroglyphs and sculptures so far, its cultural heritage has also disappeared in the long river of history, and today's Egypt is also an Islamic country, believing in the green crescent moon and stars, and the belief in the nine-pillar god and ancient Egyptian language have only become symbols.
Peacock Dynasty
As for ancient India, it didn't even have a de facto unified dynasty. The ancient civilization of the Indus Valley was declared to be extinct in 1750 BC, and after the fall of the peacock empire, the last native empire in the Ganges Valley, the Ganges River Basin has been invaded by foreign tribes, and then the invading non-Ganges River valley natives have established their own empires here.
Each of these foreign empires has its own culture, and the genes originally from the Peacock Empire are gradually replaced by conquest iterations until they disappear. In 130 BC, the Daetsuki people, affected by the Han-Hungarian War, came to the Ganges Valley and established the Kushan Empire; in 1526, the Mongols established the Mughal Empire on this land, and their rule continued until the arrival of the British.
Why is it that there was no de facto unified dynasty in ancient India? Because of these empires, the place of ancient India has never been directly ruled by the central government, similar to the feudal system in Europe, the ancient Indian region has always had a large number of small states, these small countries to the empires in the ancient Indian region to submit, and in their own acres and three points of the land to exercise their own rights.
This did not change until the British established British India on the South Asian subcontinent, and the Mughal Empire, which was destroyed by the British, was even torn apart to the point that the upper rulers were Muslims, and the ruling base of the native states embraced Hinduism.
Alexander conquered India
Britain, which had established a colony of British India, was even less likely to unite the native states of the South Asian subcontinent; on the contrary, they were very happy to see it, and one after another of the native states was divided and colonized by them, and they could not organize an effective struggle against colonial rule. For nearly a century, from 1858 to 1947, India was a mess.
It was only when the British finally discovered that colonizing India was no longer worth the losses that they hurriedly squeezed out a modern government for India, leaving a unified framework.
Indian believers
Beyond that, what other ways do you know that India doesn't have its own history?
Does India, the world's largest illiteracy rate, read its own history?
In fact, Marx's original words when he said that India has no history of its own are:"India has no history at all, at least no known history, and India's history is only the history of the invaders." ”
I believe that through the introduction of the ancient Indian region in the previous article, I believe that you have a clear understanding of the ancient Indian region.
However, in addition to these foreigners who remained in India to establish an empire, there is a long period of Indian history when they were invaded by people and left a period of time when they turned around and left.
Around the 12th century BC, the Aryans entered India from Iran, and although they did not establish a unified dynasty, they succeeded in turning the indian natives into minorities and slaves, and pioneered the caste system that has survived in India to this day.
In the 6th century BC, the Persians who destroyed ancient Babylon also came, and this time the Aryans and Indians became the targets of beatings. After the Persians were sent away by Alexander the Great, in 330 BC, the South Asian subcontinent ushered in a new master. This time, however, Alexander left, leaving only a part of the Greeks to rule the region.
Ancient India
Then there is the establishment of the peacock dynasty, the first dynasty of the indian indigenous people, and there is a famous indian movie called "Ashoka", which tells the story of Ashoka, one of the most outstanding emperors of the Peacock Dynasty.
Instead of unifying writing and metrics as his contemporary Qin Shi Huang did, Ashoka strengthened the caste system pioneered by the Aryans, which he considered to be very beneficial to his rule, and his conjecture proved to be very correct.
After that, there is the aforementioned Kushan Empire, where the ancient Indian natives supported only one dynasty and became conquered again.
Moreover, these countries, without exception, have never had fixed territories, or even unified the entire Indian Peninsula, and thanks to the low-level state system, there are always one or two powerful states that can compete with the empires on the South Asian subcontinent.
In addition to the history of India written by the invaders, there is also a problem that these countries that traveled north and south in ancient India did not seem to like to record their own history.
The British conquered India
This seems a little difficult for the people of the mainland to understand.
Because ancient China has also been invaded by foreign tribes several times, the record of history has never been broken. And since the birth of the chinese language, the record of history seems to have been rooted in the cultural genes of the mainland, and the mainland has always attached great importance to the recording of history.
But the fact of India is that Indians do not like to record their own history, there is no decent ancient book, the most inherited is the mythological story. There are also many dynasties in India, and there are no shortage of ancient states large and small, but without exception, they are unwilling to revise history, and unofficial history books are more like novels, strange talks, and gods and immortals fly everywhere.
As for the reason, one speculates that there is no unified script and language, and there are still thirty languages used in India with more than one million people, and although the script is uniformly used in English, the number of illiterate people in his country is as high as 270 million, and the illiteracy rate ranks first in the world.
The Indian people
Such a country, its area has been ruled by foreign aggression for a long time, all its civilizations have not had a unified script and language for a long time, its existing regime has not had a fixed territory and a unified land for a long time, its cultural classics have no solid records and records, only religion and caste system are passed down in the same vein, saying that such a country has a history, it is better to think that Roman orthodoxy is in Tongliao, or Zhangjiakou.
So why did such a country that could not count three generations up and down where it came from, after entering the modern era, became confused and confident, and repeatedly made operations that people could not understand?
Seeing the Indians is like seeing the ghosts of the British Empire
Who gave India the courage to feel that it had never come before or since, and that it could compete with the People's Republic of China for Tibet?
Naturally it is British.
Who made India continue to provoke repeatedly and repeatedly provoke on the border after signing the Treaty of Friendship?
Naturally, it is still British.
So, who immediately embarked on the hegemony of small countries after getting rid of its colonial status, pursuing a forward policy, and trying to become the boss of the South Asian subcontinent?
Naturally, it is still British.
In international diplomacy, there is a widely circulated saying: to see Indians is like seeing the ghosts of the British Empire. India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, is a typical example of these people, and it is also the most capable one.
Nehru
The British gave India a framework of a modern state and hurried away, and it was Nehru who filled in the framework little by little, and it is no exaggeration to say that it was Nehru who made India look more like a country, otherwise India would still be like the ancient Indian region, scattered.
In 1947, there were still six hundred native states in The territory of India, declaring independence, which was in fact a loose confederation of states with their own armies and armies, and the central government of Jawaharlal Nehru was no different from the ancient empires of history.
In response, Nehru introduced his own "forward policy", sweeping away the unwilling states and successively annexing some states and kingdoms that did not belong to India, such as the Kingdom of Sikkim at the foot of the Himalayas.
Nehru began to present himself as the "successor of the British Empire in South Asia", ostensibly opposing hegemony with China, but in fact practicing hegemonism himself.
South Asian subcontinent
And because of India's geographical location and natural resources, on the one hand, Indians feel that their country is promising, on the other hand, india is left and right after independence between the United States and the Soviet Union, which can be described as two superpowers "serving" India, which is a treatment that Indians who have been oppressed by foreign countries for thousands of years are simply unimaginable.
As soon as it came and went, India was in a state of flux, and coupled with the ambitions of Nehru's "British successor" and a series of modernization policies, India's self-confidence naturally began to explode.
Then there's the 1962 plot that Chinese's people are familiar with.
World War I beat India to the point of self-recognition and Nehru to the point of depression.
However, South Asia is a magical land, and the Ganges is a magical river, after all, we can't understand how people can accept that burial and bathing can be carried out simultaneously in one river.
India is naturally a magical country, it has no history, but it says that it has a rich and colorful culture; it has no strength, but it says that it can become a permanent member of the Security Council; it should have shared the hardships with its brothers in the third world countries, but it is bent on being the successor of the colonial empire. It was supposed to work hand in hand with China, but it chose to repeatedly violate China...
But so far, as far as the director is concerned, he has been praying for India every day.
Pray that the water of the Ganges will really cure all diseases for the people of India.