11-15-2006, 04:57 PM
In standard Indian historiography, the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, is generally considered as the beginning of the period of Moden India. This does not mean that modernity suddenly emerged in India when Aurangzeb died, rather to suggest that it was an important even a watershed in Indian history.
What can be the reasons for 1707 to be considered as the beginning of Modern India? Was it that significant an event. I feel we need to look deeper. What essentially is modernity. When does a society evolve to become Modern. Take Japan's case, its watershed is considered to be 1853, when the US Admiral Perry did a blockade of Japan forcing it to open its economy for trading with other nations. This had far reaching consequences for the political and social set up of Japan. It was the trigger which displaced the Samurai elite with their feudal medieval set up and ushered industrialization of Japan. Just about 50 years later, in 1905 Japan's navy was strong enough to defeat a European power like Russia.
Is 1707 that significant a date in Indian history. Medievalism did not die out with Aurangzeb, rather I believe it lasted more than a century after that.
In 1818 the British conclusively defeated the Marathas and thus the last of the Indian powers outside of its rule. Should 1818 be considered the important date. But Maratha power was majorly destroyed in the Battle of Assaye in 1803, when Scindia and Bhosle's forces were defeated by the British. For that matter should 1857 be considered that date, as that conclusively showed that feudal India was no match to imperialistic Britian, but an India with national consciousness was a serious threat. Please compare, in 1857 was India any more modern than say China or Japan. Yes telegraphy and railways had just been introduced, but that had not seeped into the society or become part of life. the life of an average Indian was hardly different from an average Chinese or Japanese, maybe more the poorer due to British oppression.
I would not like to say anymore, as I feel this is a discussion point where more can contribute.
Regards,
Kartik
What can be the reasons for 1707 to be considered as the beginning of Modern India? Was it that significant an event. I feel we need to look deeper. What essentially is modernity. When does a society evolve to become Modern. Take Japan's case, its watershed is considered to be 1853, when the US Admiral Perry did a blockade of Japan forcing it to open its economy for trading with other nations. This had far reaching consequences for the political and social set up of Japan. It was the trigger which displaced the Samurai elite with their feudal medieval set up and ushered industrialization of Japan. Just about 50 years later, in 1905 Japan's navy was strong enough to defeat a European power like Russia.
Is 1707 that significant a date in Indian history. Medievalism did not die out with Aurangzeb, rather I believe it lasted more than a century after that.
In 1818 the British conclusively defeated the Marathas and thus the last of the Indian powers outside of its rule. Should 1818 be considered the important date. But Maratha power was majorly destroyed in the Battle of Assaye in 1803, when Scindia and Bhosle's forces were defeated by the British. For that matter should 1857 be considered that date, as that conclusively showed that feudal India was no match to imperialistic Britian, but an India with national consciousness was a serious threat. Please compare, in 1857 was India any more modern than say China or Japan. Yes telegraphy and railways had just been introduced, but that had not seeped into the society or become part of life. the life of an average Indian was hardly different from an average Chinese or Japanese, maybe more the poorer due to British oppression.
I would not like to say anymore, as I feel this is a discussion point where more can contribute.
Regards,
Kartik