History of British India [Lec 03]

[@FloraJoannaK]

Hi! Just wanted to say this is a massively understudied subject where I live (Finland) and that I enjoy these lectures as I pump the iron and hit the boxing bag. The lecturer's energy gives me a nice boost too. 👍👍

[@IndoTitus_Pullo]

A fellow Indian student here. Ping me if Indian history interests you. I might have a plethora of books, videos, and a vivid way of colloquial way of explaining Indian history beginning from Eurasia formation to coming in of Vedas to Roman Empire and it's influence on Ancient India to role of spices to India becoming a nuclear power.

[@amandadasilva9550]

I am studying The British Empire as a subject of my undergrad here in Portugal. Their Eurocentric view of the matter really bothers me; they see Vasco da Gama as a national hero. Happy I found this video to better understand this topic. Thank you, Mr Vinay Lal!

[@pradumnakumarmishramishra2933]

Hey, I am also studying British period

[@mohammedsajeed9398]

17:55 Sir, My question is that, Is the the orientalism is a strategic, tactical predetermined approach that through which the orientalist can gain power on others?

[@stanpreschlack6196]

i think (in said’s description) it is not so much calculated, but exists in the context of and in service of imperial power, the orientalist themselves is operating in good faith but being reductive and supremacist, the political entities use these orientalist views to then justify their imperial hegemony if that makes sense

[@bharat7529]

amazing... view counts are a laugh on the so called UPSC aspirants.

[@johnsrinivasan4507]

200000 Britishers ( out of which only 100000 were Military and Government officers ) ruled over 300 Million people. How was this possible?

[@ddarshils]

There's no short concrete answer to that question. Watch all the lectures to glean your own answer.

[@TheLazyGeneTV]

Follow the money?

[@ShivamYadav-yr9bw]

Same as china,use,or other non democratic countries ....at that time people don't know about democracy...it feels impossible but at that time it was very easy ....I can explain it but I don't want to waste time I am a non medical student it's not my subject but briefly I can say they started from a small part as a trading company then started taking decisions and by bribing kings , ministers..,they use several tactics ...I can't explain it in comment box you can watch or attend lectures

[@meowwwww6350]

This fact blows my mind ever fkimg time i think about it!😮

[@beyza1271]

So what are the pillars of Mughal Empire? I just couldn't get the last part:(

[@tapan97]

I'm late here, but assuming you're talking about the different methods of administrative devolution through which the Mughals sustained their rule, there are three separate solutions which Prof. Lal mentioned (you have understood the first two but I'm just going to mention them in order to summarise): 1. Rule over extremities: This is when regions at the periphery of Mughal imperial influence are devolved to local chieftains who exercise rights over taxation, administration and defense over those regions but in return have to accept Mughal suzerainty and pay a share of taxes. 2. Alliances: These are kingdoms which Mughals have defeated in war, but instead of deposing their rulers they enter into alliances with them in order to secure their loyalty. For example, in the western kingdoms of the Rajputana, defeated rulers were offered the option of marrying their daughters into the Mughal household, thus strengthening their bond. 3. Mansabdaris: This system involves incorporating the defeated rulers as a subordinate within the administration system as officers or provincial governors of the empire. These governors are called 'mansabdars' which are categorised according to the number of army personnel they are allotted and are privy to a seat in the royal 'durbar' (court). This is somewhat similar to the first system (which may have caused the confusion) but their are important differences. Unlike the Nawabs of Bengal, the 'mansabdars' were not considered rulers but rather military officers/employees under the Mughal throne. Therefore, their rank was not hereditary but subject to transfer, removal or replacement by the emperor. Additionally, they had no right to collect taxes. To understand through another lens, there are three different fates a subjugated ruler could face under the aegis of the Mughals. He could be asked to enter into an alliance with the Mughals in which his kingdom would remain intact (option 2); he could be left with the powers of taxation and administration within his kingdom while having to accept subordination to the emperor and pay tribute (option 1); or he could be maintained as a local military governor (a 'mansabdar') in service of the crown. There was of course another- and more common- option, simply being removed from his seat of power which came under the direct rule of the Mughals. This comment has turned out to be quite long, do ask for clarification in case something is unclear.

[@ashwinramaswamy4059]

​@@tapan97 Thanks for the great summary :)

[@tapan97]

@@ashwinramaswamy4059 glad that you find it helpful :)

[@ambika7793]

🙏🙏🙏

[@mr.morgans2305]

so basically the portugal's became pirates