Karl Marx - British Rule in India

[@DemonetisedZone]

Greetings from Scotland, i have watched a few of this man's videos on Marx and Marxism and i am deeply impressed, we don't have anyone im aware of who speaks so well on the left nevermind Marx in UK We in 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Scotland see ourselves as The Last Colony Of England

[@TaimurRahman-English]

@@DemonetisedZone thank you comrade.

[@niteengupte]

@DemonetisedZone Have you not considered Ireland which is still colonised.

[@nofearofwater]

How though, we in Wales like Scotland are treated the same as English while having our own senates, while having majority ethnic populations while being subsidised by them this does not fit the definition of colonial settlers as we’re the majority, nor colonial exploitation Scotland even was formed through a union not conquest We cannot compare ourselves to the East India Company nor the natives in the Americas and I actually find that very insulting to them

[@KromoO-z3h]

I would add ireland to the list as well

[@thecrimsondragon9744]

That’s ironic since the Scots played such a huge role in the empire. You were more their colonial partners than anything else.

[@rajsingh-uw8ly]

The amazing thing is that it has been over 150 years that Marx put down what we call Marxism and they are still talking about it - this shows how relevant and important he is to the present and the future of human societies and to capitalism , which learned it’s great lessons from him to survive

[@thinkforyourself518]

He's only important because he is stating history (or trying) as he sees it in that moment. It's just important clues to help hs see the generational trauma that existed then and has been amplified 1000×, today over time without any intervention.

[@rajsingh-uw8ly]

@ I tend to disagree - if you lived or grew up in India , as I did , you might understand why Marx is important today - these things he’s said about India he said more than a century ago and listening to this it seems he’s talking about India of 2024 . These insights about India , Marx has touched its very soul which is still unchanged and that’s why largely India is still unchanged , no matter the “progress”

[@devil1000ish]

5:03 Hindu is a geographical entity not a religion. After realising this,the Hindu right wing today calls itself sanatan(eternal) in order to distinguish itself from the geographical term(Sindhu river)that was bestowed upon them by Islamic conquerors. I always wanted to know what Marx thought about India. Interestingly he wrote an account on 1857 Indian rebellion in great detail apart from a few articles in newspapers. Great to know more things marx wrote about British India from one of my favourite left-wing intellectuals from South Asia. Love and revolutionary greetings from India and solidarity with the working class of Pakistan as well as the world.

[@Himanshu_Khichar]

The word "Hindu" does have roots in geography, however, Hindu right wing prefers Santan Dharma as opposed to Hindu because the former is the word that was used in ancient times, whereas the latter is coined by outsiders. It's the same mentality behind Turkey changing its name to "Turkiye", Iran rejecting the name "Persia". There is nothing exceptional with the Hindu right wing in this regard.

[@Himanshu_Khichar]

There are only Islamists in Pakistan, no "working class people". 😂😂😂

[@devil1000ish]

@Himanshu_Khichar how many times hindu term has been used in ancient texts?

[@Himanshu_Khichar]

@@devil1000ish Read again what I wrote.

[@devil1000ish]

@@Himanshu_Khichar then why in religion column it is still used as Hindu not sanatan and why didn't you write sanatan right wing instead of hindu right wing? Why did hindus suddenly started calling themselves hindus instead of sanatanis and why suddenly they have started to distance themselves from the term "Hindu"?

[@sabirgondal2005]

Wondering How Much powerful a figure was Karl Marx in History? The ,pride, power, art and wisdom united in his language...

[@mattluck2826]

Fantastic quotation.

[@atulkanagat4034]

Marx knew very little about India and its civilization.

[@Bruh-jw2ze]

As an indian who happened to come across this clip, i tip my hat to you sir Brilliant summarisation of Marx's views I always wondered why the west vilifies him so much despite his socialist stances representing the political system governing the numerical majority of humans on the planet Great presentation, gave me Jordan Peterson vibes but in a hindustani context Would love to see your take on the idea of a reunited subcontinent and what reforms and radical changes would need to be enforced to realise it sooner than later Cheers

[@Dr.MukhtarAhmad-t2l]

Sir a greate informative and enthusiastic lecturer as usual

[@WhyClaudius]

Marx's analysis of India gave me the chills, I believe it's the most accurate explanation of Indian history

[@RM-yf2lu]

If this impressed you, you don't know much about history and don't care much about historical accuracy

[@WhyClaudius]

@RM-yf2lu I don't know much about history that's why I'm watching this channel

[@mattluck2826]

@@RM-yf2lu the smug liberal intellectual (you) cannot fathom other world views. in a very dialectical fashion: the more liberal you become the more intolerant you become.

[@anya4745]

If you are a 19 th century white racist or a complete idiot this is your idea of history.. no serious historian will take this assessment seriously now ..

[@atulkanagat4034]

@@WhyClaudius That is truly distressing. He knows nothing, and you know even less.

[@Cabnobeco]

Contentment on your face while teaching ❤ from India

[@Lakshya_Plays_Minecraft]

One of the best and most influential philosopher

[@russoempoa]

Great lecture! Greetings from the Soviet citizen!

[@sho3bum]

I loved this lecture! I'll pay for a series of these lectures

[@KromoO-z3h]

Stop wasting your money. He is just repeating everything lenin said like a puppet. You can find everything online but I advise you against wasting your time because lenin could not understand India at all yet he wrote about it

[@ghamandi]

Please keep posting these lectures!!!

[@ayushkumarsingh6458]

WHEEL at center of Indian flag represents Wheel of Dharma, inspired by Ashokan Sculptures, its a Buddhist symbol representing basic duties (Dharm) of person. It has nothing to do with charkha...

[@swastikpragy5404]

He is talking about the first prototypes of the Indian Flag which literally had a Charkha in the middle. Eventually they incorporated both the Wheel of Dharma AND the Wheel of Fabrication into our flag.

[@krishnavishwakarma1969]

Charkha was in congress party s flag ..

[@ajeebe3399]

Excellent presentation Simple,effective and informative Kudos With love from Kerala

[@BallyBoy95]

Very insightful analysis. Going to be following more of Dr Taimur Rahman, enjoyable and educational, at the same time.

[@shehzadshah4104]

I have been to Petra and it truly is wondrous. There has never been any major river near Petra, which was a city of the Nabatean kingdom, an oasis civlization whose wealth was built on trade, not agriculture. The problem with Marxists is that they have the same approach as the religious; whatever is written in the holy texts of Marxism is true a priori, and they begin from there, whereas the truth is that Marx had some worthwhile ideas, but was essentially riffing for much of the rest. His intellectual arrogance was enormous, and he admits no possiblity of being in error, but he was in fact no expert in much of what he wrote about.

[@butterchickenandnaan]

Wonderful lecture !!!

[@BikyBoi]

Marx gave quite a correct description of British India.

[@JoaoSantos-lv4rc]

that was an amazing talk. great speaker. ty for the share.

[@autumn9928]

absolute BANGER of a video Taimur sir ⚡⚡🔥🔥🔥⚒🪓⛏🛠

[@morningstararun6278]

Dr. Rahman, could you describe in a separate lecture, if Leninism would have contradicted with Marxism in this regard to India's village mode of production? As Marx was known for his Internationalism, and Leninism is rooted on the national liberation, and nationalist mode of production. I am wondering whether Marx and Lenin would have agreed or disagreed. Do you think that the closed and self-sufficient mode of production in Indian villages, be enhanced under a progressive communes after eliminating the social evils like caste system?

[@TaimurRahman-English]

Thank you for those excellent questions: This article shows that Lenin did not agree with Marx on the Asiatic mode of production. Second, no. I think that system has already been destroyed. revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv14n2/asiatic.htm

[@morningstararun6278]

@@TaimurRahman-English Thanks a bunch Dr. Rahman.

[@mattluck2826]

Great question. I don’t think they contest with each other. I think Lenin is further breaking down in a dialectical fashion what it means to be international coming from the nation state model. Lenin correctly understands you can’t just “abolish” or rid yourself of national tendencies it must be defeated via class struggle. This struggle begins by taking bourgeois nationalism and flipping it to proletarian nationalism. Then as a result you can begin to flip from proletarian nationalism to proletarian internationalism as a political program. All processes transform into new processes. Lenin just contemporized Marx.

[@aryeshsaini265]

Perfectly explained. Thanks a lot Dr. Taimur Rahman.

[@IrfanKhan1]

Which year was marx writing this? And thank you for this lecture

[@Mryajurarora]

Love the animated delivery!

[@samarthpandey683]

15:54 the symbol at centre of Indian flag is Ashok Chakra which is wheel of moral law aka Dharma or Dhamma Chakra

[@nerf2752]

He is a pakistani muslim.

[@TaimurRahman-English]

@@samarthpandey683 my mistake. I meant to say the Indian National Congress original flag. Not national flag.

[@samarthpandey683]

@@nerf2752 many Indians are unaware too, the confusion stems from early version of tri color (pre-independence) what had an actual charkha at centre instead of the Ashoka Chakra. It was Nehru who wanted the symbol of India’s greatest emperor to be adopted as national emblem which led to embrace of Dhamma Chakra & Sarnath Lion Captial.

[@samarthpandey683]

@@TaimurRahman-English yes, that did have the whole Charkha and it’s also source of misconception till date.

[@kalidasswaminathan4341]

Ashok Charka itself came from Buddhism which in turn came from the charkha wheel.

[@SouravDas-vi1jh]

Marx's reading and Ambedkar's analysis is very much alike

[@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer]

Ambedkar agreed with marx just disagree on violence

[@SouravDas-vi1jh]

@@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer yes I vaguely remember his comments on Marx

[@नास्तिककीकलमसे-ब8ड]

Ambedkar was a pragmatist, his analysis was not any historical activity, purely ideological and identity making practice that was.

[@patman-bp3qg]

Ambedkar was capitalist and hated communism because many lower caste in India were bourgeoisie as per Marx's definition (private property owners from OBC class)while many Brahmins were landless monks. Indian caste system isn't necessarily based on property ownership cause Indians see that as materialistic. That's the reason there's so much fetishization of poverty in India because poverty worship is ingrained in Indians.

[@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer]

@@patman-bp3qg You never read ambedkar

[@safdar1955]

What a wide and deep mind; Karl Marx?

[@anonymous-bs1xb]

Center of Indian flag is not Charkha, but Ashoka Chakra or Wheel of Dharma

[@sonachenab]

Very informative.. thanks.

[@TaimurRahman-English]

You're welcome. Please share.

[@amarnathjha8319]

Collapse of Indus Valley Civilization is a prime example in the context of India. People had to migrate in all directions because region could not survive without wter. Saraswati river also dried..

[@goodluck5642]

Brilliant. Thanks a ton

[@Arjava.]

Wonderful oratory 🙂

[@AbhishekG026]

1:30 frankly Hinduism isn't a monolith like Abrahamic faiths. To say Hinduism reflects the latter pole of 'pain and misery' is naive. Hinduism by its very definition, is capitalistic. Artha i.e., money forms the 2nd Purushartha after Dharma (duty/morality). Infact, Varna System is based on this mode of functional specialisation which is here being casually remarked as causing misery. Wrt self-torturing asceticism, you have to know that Sanyasa i.e., renouncement isn't compulsory and only the optional and last Purushartha of a Hindu. Infact, Sanyasa isn't at all about 'torturing', more so about preparing for Moksha if one desires so (Mumukshu). Sanyasa has many forms - Hatha Yoga which is being referred to as "self-torturing asceticism" is one of the ways. Not the only way, unlike. 11:20 good point tho. Although contested since no weaponary found in IVC. 13:10 the famines in British period were particularly not due to irrigation failure per se, rather the land revenue system that the British imposed, disincentivising any investment to improve agri productivity. (See Sarkar, 1989) 14:30 deindustrialisation and commercialisation. 15:47 OMG the ignorance, pls. That's Ashoka Chakra or Dharma Chakra not Charkha. It represents 24 cardinal values to denote the establishment of Dharma or writ of the State. Funfact, Rajneeti or Politics was defined by Kautilya as the duty of the King to lead masses from ignorance to awareness and abundance, aka Yogkshema. Pls falsify your arguments before saying so. 26:44 true. 29:54 haha. Brits didn't infact had a superior civilisation to say so. Maybe written and conveyed in a manner to subjugate the Indian mind post-1835 (refer Macaulay), in complete convergence with creating Knowledge Systems to support the British Raj and the Civilising Mission. 31:02 the regeneration was infact the plunder and loot of Indian resources to fund the Hampshire capitalists. Railways, comms and trade was specifically made to cater to cotton mills in England. Had it not been the case, England's stature would have been lower than that of France, to say so. To add, India had political unity at least since Mauryas, then the Guptas, various Rajput kingdoms in early medieval 11th century, later Mughals who actually took over from Delhi Sultanate. To say, India was never a political unit is a white agenda to justify the colonial loot. Indeed, in westphalian terms, one can claim so but not totally. The economic-cultural unity, by marxist logic, would infact entail the political unity of sorts. 33:12 sorry to inform you of the Grand Trunk Road, built upon the Uttarapatha of Ancient India, connecting to Silk Route. Likewise, Dakshinapatha was there too. Well built ports on eastern and western coasts were infact a proof of well built transportation system with the hinterland, not to mention the river trade in Ganga and Indus. This whole narrative of village isolation is about generalisation and generalisation only. 35:59 the hereditary nature of caste system was infact a result of feudalism of Medieval India, starting with the land grants of post-Gupta age with the subsequent fall of Roman Empire. (check) Indeed, caste system has been destroyed, esp post-1991. 38:00 which actually happened. Hindoos actually threw off the yoke. 40:35 haha. Hideous, pagan idol. Then actually goes onto appropriate Vedic Aryan Gods. Certainly, an Abrahamic hate or rather insecurity in the Marxian conclusion. Still the Vedic Aryan Dharma persists, to the dismay of many. Good discussion, Prof.

[@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer]

Shaat up Caste system is not over Hinduism is best suited for Monarchy Marx was against religion were abhramic bais strawman and Marx is pretty much correct.

[@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer]

British were superior who conquers you is superior

[@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer]

Rajputs had influence only in northwest regions not entire india Most of the time india was ruled by small kingdoms seems like you're really hell bent on Hinduism.

[@AbhishekG026]

​@@AveragepoliticsEnjoyerguess what? I'm a 'scheduled' caste guy. Hope you understand the emphasis and have done basic reading of Annihilation of Castes. What remains now is mere romanticism of some caste groups like Rajputs and Brahmins, that too subdued. Post-liberalisation economy has opened up avenues for erstwhile marginalised sections, blurring the traditional jobs. One Pandit who comes to do Yajna works full time as a factory worker here. Additionally, the Hindutva Poltics has consolidated the Hindu Identity with more than 44% Dalits voting for BJP in power. Had it not been for the large and dominant caste groups like Jatavs in UP, this % stands significantly increased. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[@AbhishekG026]

​@@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer funfact, Parmar Rajput were a major Rajput clan ruling the South India. Even if not exactly Rajputs in terminology, other Kings were indeed Kshatriyas. Better luck next time buddy. Hellbent on facts not propaganda. Considering smaller Kingdoms as sovereign, you wouldn't have then any political unit called India. There was a graded system, hierarchical. Centralisation varied and along with it the secessionist tendencies. But suzerainty remained as part and parcel until even 1857 when rebels claimed Bahadur Shah Zafar as their emperor.

[@parttimethinker7611]

what make an intelligent person a true intellectual? Compassion for the have not. Compassion for the sufferers. Asceticism is one who drove away all the desires, lust, comfort and anger to truly understand, to develop true compassion for the sufferers. Carl Marx had that compassion but without ascetic depth. In some circles, they’re called, attempting to reach Devayana. As a Hindu, it shouldn’t be a strange notion? The Indian has a culture that far superior to many others. They live a life that will lead them to Devayana. They knew what’s holding everyone back from being a truly good sage. Hindu without blind faith (rituals) and idols worshiping is Buddhism. Hoping the whole world could learn that wisdom from the Indian.

[@krishnavishwakarma1969]

Very clear conclusion

[@lakshmichithra1150]

Great talk! But I have doubts about the absence of trade in precolonial/ancient India, especially the whole of India. The south Indian kingdoms had trade relations globally. In fact archeological remains from Kerala indicates it had trade relations with Roman civilizations. And the south had been relatively insular to earlier invasions too. As it was spice trade that made India alluring for the West, I am unsure whether the description fits.

[@TaimurRahman-English]

@@lakshmichithra1150 such trade in luxury items has existed for centuries. But trade of everyday products has not existed.

[@lakshmichithra1150]

@@TaimurRahman-English True! Thank you!

[@Flyingthundergod4]

Petra looks amazing but it’s nothing compared to ellora caves but I’m sure Indians did this job only Indians who love their country and history will know what I mean 💪🏾🐐

[@achuthankurup]

@Flyingthundergod4 yes its true. I think so, too🙏✨️✨️🙏

[@hiteshpotdar6775]

Thanks a lot for this talk, Taimur. Yes, but Irfan Habib and Jairus Banaji have shown that the conditions and mode of production didn't really remain static even before colonialism.

[@hiteshpotdar6775]

And also the most prominent Pakistani scholar- Hamza Alavi

[@TaimurRahman-English]

@@hiteshpotdar6775 can they tell us what modes of productions existed and when?

[@hiteshpotdar6775]

@@TaimurRahman-English actually yes, Banaji quite explicitly shows that- Banaji challenges the rigid linkage between forms of exploitation and the dominant mode of production by highlighting the existence of wage labor even in medieval India, a period often associated with feudal modes of production. He argues that specific forms of exploitation, like wage labor, are not exclusively tied to capitalism or any single dominant mode but can exist across historical periods and social formations. This decoupling reveals the coexistence of multiple forms of labor and exploitation within a given mode of production, where no single form necessarily defines the period's dominant economic structure. Banaji’s perspective emphasizes the need to analyze labor forms in their historical specificity, showing that modes of production are shaped by a complex interplay of diverse and overlapping labor practices.

[@hiteshpotdar6775]

@@TaimurRahman-English In Irfan Habib's historiography (even though he doesn't say what Banaji argues, explicitly), particularly in his analysis of agrarian structures and economic systems in medieval India, a similar trend emerges where diverse forms of exploitation coexist within the dominant mode of production. Habib acknowledges the persistence of wage labor alongside forms like bonded labor and sharecropping in the predominantly feudal economy of medieval India. He argues that while feudalism characterized the overarching structure, wage labor was not entirely absent and played a significant role in certain sectors, such as craft production and urban markets. Like Banaji, Habib resists rigid categorization, showing how historical contexts produce overlapping and non-linear labor arrangements. This nuanced approach demonstrates that forms of exploitation, such as wage labor, cannot always be exclusively tied to the dominant mode of production, offering a more complex and layered understanding of historical economic systems.

[@kalidasswaminathan4341]

Excellent lecture.

[@aa6eheia156]

1:12 this picture is not from India. It's from Pashupatinath temple, Kathmandu, Nepal

[@rameshpatil1313]

Historical truth'

[@ShaileshRandive-u2f]

It's impossible to know any country without visiting it, Staying in it and learning is ancient language, Current language, Old religious and secular texts, It's Festivals, Value systems, Impacts of Tyrannical rulers, Foreign invaders Revolutions. Saints of that country, Their teachings and values etc... Karl Marx didn't visit India, Did not know Sanskrit, Didn't study even partially as by Maxmuller. Any Views are hypothetical and superficial. Those Indians who have sold their souls to foreigners are not expected to defend and present their own country as they are like the naughty boy who disowned his mother in favour of the candy donating auntie next door

[@eleghari]

I believe Marx is wrong about British having ignored irrigation. In fact most of the canals we have were built under British Raj's irrigation schemes. Side Note - A book recommendation): Blood and Water: The Indus Valley Basin in Modern History by David Gilmartin

[@TaimurRahman-English]

The article was written in 1853. At the time, the British had been truly neglecting this important work. Major famines were caused by the neglect of the British owing to this neglect.

[@eleghari]

Thanks! So basically the work on irrigation did not start till after East India Company was nationalized/ceded control to the British Government in 1858...

[@nandans2506]

It was not. This was mind you the era of industrialization and large scale projects. Most irrigation projects were taken by local rulers under British permissions. British always want to portray how they helped India but relatively India became orders of magnitude poorer under British rule and jumped back up significantly post colonial legacy. British didn't care about Indian interests and no amount of copium can convince anyone sane otherwise

[@JemingMyang]

intresting

[@DaraShikoh7]

Ahhh "My pride"...

[@yuvrajsingh-pw1st]

What a dillema for this guy? This guy is from pakistan who can't say anything about the "role of religion in depletion of their country" but can say whatever he want about other countries.

[@therealkendallroy]

what's your point?

[@cg8096]

your country itself very poor , go do labour work with ur father

[@sjkoroth2018]

Nice lecture

[@KameshUpadhyayula]

India is the land of periyar

[@Batega_toh_Katega_Hindu_108]

Periyar my foot

[@AudioPervert1]

Sahi hai janaab ... But Marx never visited India even once. Wahan baithey baithey sab likh diya!

[@azad923]

Marx was only analysing the political situation of India at the surface level.

[@TaimurRahman-English]

I live in South Asia. And yet I learnt more from Marx's analysis about the mode of production of ancient India.

[@thecomment9489]

Yep this is the same way they came up with the myth of Aryan invasion nonsense which has now been changed to migration because no signs of invasion were found. And this guy too talks nonsense. People of Indus valley didn't perish after their wells and rivers dried up. They moved eastward towards Indo Gangetic plains where many settlements as old as IVC have been found like Sinauli. But the agenda is set to somehow shoe the So-called Aryans came from outside of India.

[@tsawal]

He said a lot of good things about us aswell.. you just cant swallow the bad part

[@mazhab77]

Correction... Sab sahi likh diya.

[@moongrass217]

Some say the religion as Sanatana Dharma, I also feel it can be termed as Arya Dharma.

[@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer]

Who are you lecturing??

[@stevesmith4901]

University students. It's a classroom. He's a professor.

[@mindripperful]

Here in Auckland New Zealand. Born In Fiji. Long to Meditate and disappear into a cave in the Himalayas. So very displaced

[@mohdshariq5814]

Undivided India

[@purujitparashar4642]

The charkha is not the symbol. It is the Ashok Chakra representing the mauryan emperor Ashoka the great from 3 BC (before christ).

[@seculardharma]

no, read history dude. Chakra represents dharma. It was adopted from dharma chakra from buddhism.

[@purujitparashar4642]

@seculardharma the chahra is taken from the remains of Ashoka's capital Sarnath.

[@morningstararun6278]

@@seculardharma It is Ashoka Chakra mate.

[@AbhishekG026]

​@@morningstararun6278 Sanjeev Sanyal would disagree, so would anyone who has actually read up on Dharma Chakra (the cyclical nature of Dharma).

[@lazypops3117]

all of you are wrong, IN THE CONTEXT of the freedom struggle, the spinning wheel (charkha) was indeed a symbol of economic self reliance. At least understand the relevant context before speaking out or taking offense.

[@amarnathjha8319]

How long Central Indian Government would neglect Agriculture?

[@sonarbangla8711]

Dr Taimur, 'sabse achcha Hindustan amara' has a dark side to its history. When the Turks (Kuru) destroyed the JADU (Yadava) tribe in the Kurukshetra war, when the Kurus led by the Babylonians replaced what was 'pride of India' and replaced Sanatan religion with Semitic Hinduism and broke the spine of the Indians from which the Indians never recovered.

[@TaimurRahman-English]

What was it about the society of the "Sanatan religion" that it could not resist the "Semitic" invasion?

[@sonarbangla8711]

@@TaimurRahman-English Very good question. Vishnu Purana records Krishna preached the Sanatan religion to the Yadava tribe 11,000 bp: DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU EXPECT OTHERS TO DO UNTO YOU, this Indian theology was superior to the Semitic religion, so Babylonians and Harappans exercised control over the other. Like all imperial powers the Yadava tribe became greedy and lust for power. So when the Harappan civilization ended 1900 bc, due to climate change the Kurus from central Asia led by the Babylonians, came and destroyed the imperial Yadava in the Kurukshetra war 1500-1200 bc and replaced the Sanatan religion with Semitic Hinduism and avenged their ego.

[@MohamedAbdullahi-vd9iz]

​@sonarbangla8711 maurya empire was bannu israel

[@Dumpreligiondumppolitocs]

Now marx is proved wrong. Decentralization and nature are the solution. How much you can centralize and exploit nature. ? Community is more important than huge countries. Thats the gandhian thought.

[@TaimurRahman-English]

Don't you think that if decentralisation created a better relationship with nature, we wouldn't have the tragedy of the commons?

[@Dumpreligiondumppolitocs]

@TaimurRahman-English firstly nature sustains not just humans. Its exploitation beyond a limit backfires. That's now established. Secondly the unending greedy luxury lifestyle is limited to small portion of the " elite humans and possibly thier pets". So entire natural balance is put at peril to sustain urban artificial community of elites. . So decentralization with limited interference ( and that based on universal righteousness) may be the solution . As regarding worship of nature. Till something is not institutionalized in psyche as valuable and connected with the divine sustaining power , the vast majority will not become part of its conservation. No policing is needed when something has been institutionalized. Ingrained in the thought and made part of daily routine through rituals festivals customs and traditions. Eg , If it was auspicious and a duty to give new clothes and grains and cattle to the poor on festivals then the practice would die out. In all old Civilizations the festivals rituals traditions are serving multiple purposes. So decentralization with majority rural self sustainable economies compromised of community structures and connected to the government in hierarchical structure. As was the old structures ensures that no one is in a position to exploit. It becomes mutually dependent. The western model of development is actually a slide into uncivilized lootcracy immorality squalor, leading deranged populations of psychological wrecks. Present day western countries are proof of that.

[@patman-bp3qg]

Marx hated nature lol. He said openly man is master of nature. Nature being above man is fascist and nazi thinking. Hitler believed nature is everything.

[@Dumpreligiondumppolitocs]

@patman-bp3qg 😄

[@user-oq2rk7ep8f]

There is no such temple of selsette

[@shashikantgarud5649]

Industrial revolution started in various countries which were not colonies by British. So saying that because Of British Industrial revolution started in India is wrong analysis.

[@DilipMuralidaran]

How do you determine which deities are not pleasant to look at, like for example Kaali? What is the objective measure of what is pleasant and not? Why is the western notion of what is aesthetically pleasing, the standard for evaluating other cultures?

[@TaimurRahman-English]

@@DilipMuralidaran we don’t need western standards. Even our own standards are tainted by racism and casteism. She is the goddess of death and time. That which brings us life and joy is beautiful. That which brings us death we will universally regard as not beautiful.

[@Oo_Shade_oO]

Let's all be poor, together comrades! 🙄

[@greendragonspirit1646]

Communism?

[@PeterPotnoodle]

If everyone is poor then everyone is also rich. If there is no wealth inequality there is no power inequality, therefore everyone is free. Wealth inequality leads to slavery.

[@samanwaysanket12345]

I hope you got your comment paycheck bootlicker. 😊

[@ShivanshThakur-sh8ub]

​​@@PeterPotnoodle oh yeah instead of uplifting the poor masses lets downgrade the elites who are responsible for many things like industries, great idea genius. Why don't u set an example and donate all your money

[@SwatantraNandanwar]

Full Marx for India for a Progressive Agenda .

[@SouravDas-vi1jh]

North Indian's Reading of Kali is very funny

[@nerf2752]

He is a pakistani muslim.

[@SouravDas-vi1jh]

@nerf2752 ya Punjabi he is.. same ya.. not much different.. he also says thats how north Indians see Kali.

[@TaimurRahman-English]

@@SouravDas-vi1jh just making it more dramatic for effect. I am aware that there is much more to it.

[@SouravDas-vi1jh]

@@TaimurRahman-English I know I know.. I am not some master in Theology either.. But your lecture's are really amazing.. Concise, yet descriptive.

[@Lastman1900]

42:44 far left will nrver learn

[@khanduraj]

The British were not perfect but I take issue that the British did nothing to promote agriculture. The British established irrigation schemes in Northwest of India which brought huge areas under irrigation.

[@TaimurRahman-English]

@@khanduraj I think you will agree that that was not till later.

[@JMasque]

The British focused on the cultivation of cash crops like cotton and indigo, which required more water and land, reducing the availability of food crops, especially during famine periods.

[@JMasque]

While canals brought irrigation to certain regions, the "tail end" of the canals often received significantly less water, leaving farmers in those areas susceptible to crop failure during droughts.

[@KromoO-z3h]

The british obviously did way more damage than good, which was also done for their gain only

[@greaterbharat4175]

5:20 wrong it was not Persian it was avestan ( eatern Iranians) who called their own land as hapt hindu during early zoroastrianism era / mid Vedic era Turkemistan to Indus already was indo Iranian controlled region Which we see 16 Aryan land in avestan scriptures One of which was Indus also It was part their land also Persian ancestors were medes who migrated from this region ( turkemistan to Indus) mostly indo Afghanistan region Akkadian called them parsu We called one of old tribe who took part in Vedic civil war ( battle of the 10 kings) one of tribe is parsu/ parsu kshatriya ( khatraps)

[@TaimurRahman-English]

The Achaemenid Empire (c. 550-330 BCE) under rulers like Darius I referred to the region near the Indus as Hindush in their inscriptions, marking one of the earliest uses of the term. The Greeks, under Alexander the Great, adopted the Persian term and called the region India, based on the same root. Later, Arab travelers and invaders used the term Al-Hind to describe the Indian subcontinent and its people.

[@sureshpanikker5083]

​@@TaimurRahman-English, No, the term Hindu comes from Sanskrit and is originally a Sanskrit loan word into Persian. It was the Indians themselves who introduced this term to the Middle easterners. The S to H shift is a linguistic phenomenon seen in Northwestern Indian languages like Avestan, Sinhalese and even Gujurati. The migration of the word Hindu was from India to the west where you see its numerous forms.

[@sureshpanikker5083]

Ashoka, the Indian emperor, used the term Hind and Hindu in his inscriptions numerous times. There is no evidence that the term was coined by Middle eastern people.

[@mmekalmashhadi5467]

I don't understand what made Marx believe that other invaders of India, such as the Persians, Arabs, and Uzbeks, mixed into the Indian culture and considered themselves less civilised than Indian civilisation. There is evidence that they believe that Indian people are beneath them and that they imported most of their own culture here, and then the people of this land mixed their culture with their own and made something new. You can say that, but you cannot say that they left their own culture and became Indian; they had their own culture, and they imported it here, and by the way, the Arabs and the Persians had industrial revolutions, although not steam revolutions

[@TaimurRahman-English]

Marx is arguing that all previous invaders of India ended up accommodating themselves to the mode of production of India. They could not cause any deep change in the economic system of India. For example, none of these invasions lead to the break up of the caste system.

[@mmekalmashhadi5467]

@TaimurRahman-English "I wish to extend my deepest and most heartfelt gratitude for your invaluable assistance in aiding me to understand, which I shall hold in the highest regard.

[@patman-bp3qg]

They initially resisted mixing into indian culture but later on did anyway. Even creation of Urdu was for those reasons.

[@mmekalmashhadi5467]

@patman-bp3qg I am sorry but I disagree

[@sureshpanikker5083]

​Are you Iranian by nationality?

[@jasha9sandhu]

9.15 - absolute BS* reasoning. Fact is India is one of the very few countries which receives enormous rainfall for irrigation in the form of monsoons.

[@TaimurRahman-English]

@@jasha9sandhu all in one month. Not good for agriculture.

[@bang8534]

Karl Marx looks black in the thumbnail 😂😂😂

[@sanjaychauhan1116]

3:58 Totally incorrect, before British who was colonisers? It was i$lamic invaders and they did changed the social fabric of the land

[@Shade-Slayer]

Guy had some serious addiction of delulu copium

[@nerf2752]

He is Pakistani Muslim. the Secretary-General of the Mazdoor Kisan Party (MKP), formerly Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party (CMKP). He used to teach in Lahore. So he is a Muslim and Pakistani talking about India. He also decided to exclude mughuls conquest for obvious reasons. They were much worse than British. Then he proceeds to insult gods of other religion. 3 min this lecture is already filled with biases and false information. i would have written a long comment about all the problems in his religion but we are on YT. It will be funny to see anti-trust bring this company to its knees. I am also happy about what is happening to his country. Trump and cabinet will make sure Baloch people will get their country.

[@morningstararun6278]

"He also decided to exclude mughuls conquest for obvious reasons. They were much worse than British." That is how you bhakts get yourself spotted. As a matter of fact, Mughals didn't try to destroy the village mode of production in India, which was based on caste system. But it was the Brits who for the first time, destroyed the mode of production in village, and connected all the parts of India like never seen before. If the Mughals, destroyed your religion, how are you still worshipping Rama? Maybe the Mughals did a very poor job ruling over the Hindu community. You clearly didn't watch the video more than 3 minutes. And stop daydreaming that Trump is going to make Balochistan as a separate country. He might try to do that, but then he might also try to make Khalistan a separate country.

[@nerf2752]

​@@morningstararun6278 GRAPE!! 🍇🤣🤣🤣

[@morningstararun6278]

@@nerf2752 "Grape" is that word supposed to send me a deeply thought provoking message?

[@siddarth3955]

@@morningstararun6278 Mughals tried but couldn’t destroy our faith. Also Pakistanis should stay out of Indian politics and its discussion. The lecturer is obviously biased and his opinion won’t affect India in the slightest. Cope and we are proud to be Bhakts.

[@morningstararun6278]

@@siddarth3955 Yes, Mughals couldn't destroy the faith in the villages of India. That is exactly what Marx said, but the Britishers later laid the foundations for future destruction of this village system. But it per se didn't do any good to the commoners in Indian villages. Why am I telling you all this? You are probably someone who thinks that Ancient India had all the technologies like plastic surgery, organ transplantation, rocket science among other things. I am not saying Islam is based on facts, but at least they don't conflate religion and science, and constantly embarrass themselves with pseudo-scientific loose talk.

[@gaarn2672]

Nanha Taimur,... Afsana ka deevana ho rakha hai....Roz phone karti hai iss ko

[@mtarkes]

Are you a Marxist?

[@utkarshnegi2584]

India ka academic kabhi aage nahi badh payega bas marx ki hi chaat ta rahega koi naya idea socho. Yeh idea fail hogya 20th century mai hi

[@Kalanginathar143]

菲菜就是菲菜

[@youknow6968]

Marx had an incomplete understanding of India, hence his false conclusions. Ireland or Italy are single nations, with a single language, single culture and singular rule. There's no such equivalence in India. India was always merely a region, nothing more, nothing like Ireland or Italy. India has dozens of major vastly different cultural groups, vastly different languages, and it has never been a united unit. The roman empire lasted over a thousand years, the nearest equivalent in India lasted only few decades, that's nothing in comparison. India was created by the British through the act of conquest by defeating dozens of different kingdoms.

[@KiNGKuNTa986]

you are wrong in assuming that Italy or Ireland are one entity with a single language. Look at the formation of nation states after Napoleon.

[@mapleandsteel]

Most of Italy literally didn’t speak Italian until about the 60s when mass media educated the Italian people in the language

[@youknow6968]

@KiNGKuNTa986 you are wrong because you're working under false assumptions. Nations have varied through time, but it's the linear progression that's most important. Ireland is a single Ireland with a single identity and a single language, it evolved through time but it's singular. Similarly Italy evolved through time, the Roman empire lasted over a thousand years, they were Italians with a different flavour, it's the same people, nothing has changed. Through history their identities evolved, the spoken Italian varied greatly but it was essentially the same language, they standardised the same heritage. None of that applies to India. India has vastly different cultures. Vastly different languages, and vastly different people. Because India has always been an extremely diverse REGION, with broad similarities. Even today it does not have a national language because people refused to accept it, despite trying to enforce the hindi language, it hasn't worked. The comparison with Ireland or Italy is extremely lazy and actually just ignorant. Even today, a tamil or a bengali can move to let's say punjab and they'll be different visually for generations, unless they breed with the local population, that's how different they are. A polish person, or a Russian or any east European can move to England that's the other side of the continent and by the second generation, that's their kids will look and sound just like the locals. Europe as a whole is far more similar then India, the comparison with Italy and Ireland is plainly wrong on so many levels.

[@youknow6968]

@mapleandsteel please read my other reply. It's wrong to apply incomplete understandings, it's important to look at the whole picture otherwise we'll continue to feed lazy and incorrect interpretation of facts on the ground.

[@ZunaedRahman]

​@@ChefbyMistake why would leftists want to impose one language on 1.5 billion people? I don't think leftists in India ever said that.

[@achuthankurup]

1250 years occupation from Arabs and Europe all due to wealth and knowledge of India! So ,no any other country hasn't been wealthiest or knowledge like India! Not today's India, but,but 🇮🇳🙏🇮🇳🔥🙏

[@samarthpandey683]

@@achuthankurup wealth yes but not knowledge else why would we lose to invader?

[@achuthankurup]

@samarthpandey683 Without knowledge, how can someone could be wealthy! We don't have a colonial mind petrol ! Food agriculture cloth garments spice medicine jewls. Etc . You name it! Vedhas ,origin of knowledge Wisdom ! The rest of the Western world enjoy stone age we ancient Indian and Chinese were civilized world! Do you miss or lack history, my friend ! Or something else!?

[@achuthankurup]

@samarthpandey683 Sometimes jackals occupied lions due to misfortune! Muslim invaders were defeated 18 times! Then they made Aly with some other Hindu kings and got win the war business!

[@patman-bp3qg]

When did Arabs occupy india? I thought they lost.

[@samarthpandey683]

@@achuthankurup since your so well versed in history can you please name those Hindu kings who allied with Islamic invaders? Coz whenever such alliances happened, it’s recorded in history way back since the time of Alexander. Before you give me another wishy washy reply let me layout the time period - Islamic invasion started around 8th century CE, Islamic dynasty popped up 13th century CE & colonial rule in 18th century CE, what was happening during all this time with Hindu rulers who had so much wealth & knowledge? Or where Hindus allying with Muslims for 100 of years to supprot invasion & subjugation of India? What kinda of knowledge Vedas imparted wherein Hindus were unable to recognise & retaliate against Islamic aggressive over centuries? Surprisingly during Muslim invasion and dynasty Indian subcontinent’s share in world GDP continued to be high & excelled in all those industries you mentioned, so was Muslim rule good for India! 🙀

[@easternmystic-yj4ld]

British colonization was the best colonization happened to subcontinent compared to colonizations that happened before for thousands of years like aryan(Ydna R1a-Z93)and elamite(Ydna L-M20) ancestory related colonization and resulting caste system. British rule resulted in liberation of majority of population for the first time in it's history

[@praz7]

British colonization of Africa was also good then? Cause they destroyed tribal structure of Africa and brought technology such as wheel and machinery.

[@easternmystic-yj4ld]

@praz7 better than colonization of india which happened over thousands of years because the colonizers ultimately left with ideas and structure which Africans can later work on even if it takes time of one thousand years whereas india got cursed with permanent disunity and disharmony as the colonizing tribes always became the new caste in the hierarchy.

[@TaimurRahman-English]

Marx of the opinion that British rule did not result and could not have resulted in the "liberation of majority of population". British rule was vile and disgusting. It only scattered into India the material pre-requisites of its true emancipation; i.e. modern industry.

[@easternmystic-yj4ld]

@@TaimurRahman-EnglishMarx got many things right about subcontinent but not all and I was not talking about him. we know about the British rule because they kept proper records unlike dishonorable previous elites whose horrible actions can never be known. british transformed the society of the subcontinent for the better. Appearance of all the social reformers and founding fathers can only be possible due to european interventions, caste society can never allow these reforms on it's own.

[@TaimurRahman-English]

@@easternmystic-yj4ld I agree with you to the extent that the caste system was absolutely horrific. It was slavery. It had to be broken.

[@deura12]

never visited India but wrote about India

[@TaimurRahman-English]

He also wrote about the ancient Greeks. And he didn't live amongst them. Come to think of it, isn' that what all historians do?

[@deura12]

@TaimurRahman-English but for Greeks also it was a representation by someone else. Did marx rely on the Christian colonisers and their representation of us? Also, you do realise it was the failure of European Christians to understand dharma and hence we've the words like Hinduism/buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism etc?

[@MrCartmannn]

Cry about it

[@utkarshsingh-rp2dq]

​ @deura12 Do you have specific problems with this lecture, or are you just simply talking about something else?

[@utkarshsingh-rp2dq]

He doesn't necessary.Has to live in a place to write about it.

[@KromoO-z3h]

What a waste of time

[@desiputtar89]

There's no such thing as British rule. The term British rule or British Raj or British India is coined by Western historians, not Indian historians. Plus none of the Indian freedom fighters before 1947 ever referred to Britishers as rulers. Even Subhash Chandra Bose who spearheaded the Indian National Army 🪖 (INA) never referred to Britishers as rulers. We are falsely taught that there's something called British rule due to flaws in the Indian education system. Anyone who coined the term "British rule" has committed the biggest blunder in history writing or intentionally created a false narrative and misled millions of people even up to this day. It was simply a British occupation of foreign lands. Britishers were just a bunch of foreign tyrants that should not 🚫 be referred to as rulers. There were just a bunch of British elite and aristocrats who only intended to make huge profits (rather than ruling) in India by exploiting the resources and the local population whereas the majority of Brits barely knew of India's existence.

[@anmolsingh9025]

Complete BS by Marx. My evidence? Ashoka by Romila Thapar. A supposedly marxist writer -:). Land run by single monarch from afghanistan to Southern most tip of India.

[@morningstararun6278]

He mentioned Ashoka in this video. You didn't watch the full video, did ya?

[@samarthpandey683]

Ashoka wasn’t discovered by the time Marx wrote this, in fact it was efforts of British that at end of 19th century Ashoka’s true grandeur was revealed n acknowledged by archeologist & historians. As Marx noted, we Indians weren’t even aware of our own history. No Indian Brahmin could even read Ashoka’s stone edicts as they were written in Brahmi lipi which James Princep deciphered.

[@morningstararun6278]

@@samarthpandey683 I was saying the fact that Dr. Rahman mentioned Ashoka, not that Marx wrote about him. If Ashoka wasn't discovered by that time, then how would you expect Max to have written about him? And you call that as BS by Marx? And southernmost tip of India my ass. There were three Tamil Kingdoms in the South namely Chera, Chola and Pandiya, that were completely outside of the Ashokan empire. Ashokan empire Buddhism had an influence, but those parts of India weren't ruled by Ashoka. My evidence? Even Ashoka himself said so in the writings of his pillar.

[@samarthpandey683]

@@morningstararun6278 my comment was not in response to you, think I posted by mistake. I agree, Parts of Southern region were outside Ashoka’s empire.

[@samarthpandey683]

@@morningstararun6278 posted my views in response to ur comment by mistake, it was againt the main commenter.