After watching this, I am thinking what rubbish I was studying till now. How interesting a subject can be has no limits. I want to study now. Study deeply about history, and other fields too from great teachers like you. Thank you very much Sir for providing me a better perspective to look forward to studies.
I'm so happy to find this channel!! Actually, English isn't my first language, but everything is explained so well, that even I understood nearly all of the lecture!! Thanks, I'll definitely continue watching your videos
In his opening remarks this lecturer reveals in his use of the term "Britishers" an ideological bias not worthy of academic discourse. I listened on, only to discover this initial signal confirmed in the broader perspective taken up throughout the remaining hour or so. Disappointing, to say the least.
Before British marathas were ruling India and before maratha Aurangzeb the mugal king. Did you know In 1700, the exchequer of the Emperor Aurangzeb reported an annual revenue of more than £100 million, or $450 million, more than ten times that of his contemporary Louis XIV of France, while controlling just 7 times the population Until British Started looting India in the name of civilization.
Professor , it seems you are biased, may be there are reasons for your biases, any way, it was a great introductory lecture, I really liked it, it was not at all boring...I am just interested in understanding why you guys have such views... for that reason I planning to watch whole lecture series...hoping other contents are as interesting as the introductory lecture...I was looking for a complete indian history lecture series from some indian university professors, but could not find one...
He takes a 'slightly different' view all the time. Talks AS IF violence was some kind of European invention, ignoring centuries of bloodshed. Another edgy opinion he gives about afro-americans not being full citizens without even citing an argument.
@@manubhatt3 This is quite simply not true, and is indicative of a viewpoint steeped in racial spite. Look up Assyrian and neo-Babylonian conquests and their treatment of the Jews and other subjugated races, hell, even most Mongol campaigns and their treatment of any racial group whom they could not or had no desire to assimilate. Racial violence is as old as race, most conquest-based empires have employed it, and to try and frame it as the "white man's sin" is myopic and gross, and will not age well in the context of a future world history. There is more compassion hidden in exhaustive nuance than there is in casting lazy aspersions without proper evidence. I'm sorry human history can't conform to your racism.
@@djoooop I would recommend the book , India Persianate age by Richard m Eaton to understand why the conquest by Afghans and Mughals were more on political grounds than on religion lines. Even destruction of temples were a political act and was done even by local indian rulers as well . So though I agree that it was violent ,thy did not have the British idea of superiority over the local populace
@@shsh-rf7mi Thanks for your recommendation. Without trying to be dismissive, I do want to say that here you have a (contemporary) western professor who disagrees with the Indian PM for example, who reduced the medieval period to “1200 years of slavery” (from the Indian perspective). So to me it’s a bit weird to say that those older historical works were written by biased westerners and we should now ignore not only them but also the statements of Indians themselves, politically motivated or not. All this in exchange for another western view that seems to practice moral relativism mostly when its suits their narrative. Eventhough the conquest of India wasn’t as destructive to the Indian culture as the conquest of the Americas to their native populations, I’d argue that political and religious motivations were heavily intertwined in both histories.
I disagree with his argument that African Americans are not as socio-economically advanced as white Americans, or in his words not full citizens, because of oppression. It's a non sequitur. After he makes that claim, he then turns around and says basically that Barack Obama's election to the presidency isn't evidence that he's wrong. Question: has any other country in the world with a white majority of citizens ever elected a mulatto president?
@@Rook_i_e what a poor critique. That's basically just saying "you're wrong" in a roundabout manner. Adding no new insight or adding anything. Boring and forgettable. It's not even a clever slogan. This is Facebook boomer level retort. Step it up. Even if I thought in slogans, this wouldn't land.
![History of British India [Lec 02]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q3eiZjzhRGg/mqdefault.jpg)
![History of British India [Lec 02]](/img/tr.png)
Never in my life, I have heard a lecture of history with such enthusiasm. Credit goes to you Professor.
18:05 lecture start
Thanks man
Hehehe I was wondering when it will actually start. Thanks 🙏
God's work
Dude you saved me.
Undoubtedly Most relevent comment ......
After watching this, I am thinking what rubbish I was studying till now. How interesting a subject can be has no limits. I want to study now. Study deeply about history, and other fields too from great teachers like you.
Thank you very much Sir for providing me a better perspective to look forward to studies.
I graduated college six years ago, and you make me miss learning, Dr Lal!
I'm so happy to find this channel!! Actually, English isn't my first language, but everything is explained so well, that even I understood nearly all of the lecture!! Thanks, I'll definitely continue watching your videos
Who is watching from india........?
Me , Regularly
Me haha
Me too
Y
Me!🇮🇳
30:01
Absolutely true that before hindu term coined as a religious name, they were called themselves as sanatanies,vishnavies,.....
आपका धन्यवाद करने के लिए शब्द नहीं है
बहुत खूब
विनय लाल जी ब
I discover your channel today!
Great stuff!!
marking my attendance because why not, i liked the lecture!
What a fantabulous lecture he is!
great lecture! so engaging
Hello from four years later! You are amazing!
Great information ❤️
Great lecture 🔥❤️🙏👍🏼
What's the group of people he refers to at 34:37? Amadias? Some group of muslims?
Sir could you please share the seminar version
In his opening remarks this lecturer reveals in his use of the term "Britishers" an ideological bias not worthy of academic discourse. I listened on, only to discover this initial signal confirmed in the broader perspective taken up throughout the remaining hour or so. Disappointing, to say the least.
He is not even mentioning the marathas. They were one of the prime reasons for the decline of Mongol (aka mogul) oppressors.
Bro this lecture series is about British India
abe champu british india mein maratha kaise aayega
Can somebody share the pdf reading matrial
Thanks for sharing 🙏 how interesting
I would like to know what existed in India in the 200 years before British India , Professor. Only then can I understand the History of British India.
Before British marathas were ruling India and before maratha Aurangzeb the mugal king.
Did you know In 1700, the exchequer of the Emperor Aurangzeb reported an annual revenue of more than £100 million, or $450 million, more than ten times that of his contemporary Louis XIV of France, while controlling just 7 times the population
Until British Started looting India in the name of civilization.
In the starting point East India Company known as Jhon company......
Wow, great lecture.
Why I don't have these kind of professors in my college
Excellent
Good professor
death of Aurangzeb was because of sikh guru. guru gobind singh ji.. 👍
Jay govind
Zafarnama
@Kay Ray then why he's teaching rubbish
Before 10 day i am watching this for graduation exam 😂
#SpeakUpForSSCRailwayStudents
Yaha bhi aa gye bhai 😂
@@gauravsinghrajpoot2070 Ya
@@gauravsinghrajpoot2070 oo bhai...🤣🤣🤣
WTF
Professor , it seems you are biased, may be there are reasons for your biases, any way, it was a great introductory lecture, I really liked it, it was not at all boring...I am just interested in understanding why you guys have such views... for that reason I planning to watch whole lecture series...hoping other contents are as interesting as the introductory lecture...I was looking for a complete indian history lecture series from some indian university professors, but could not find one...
Might be the fact that you're biased and that's why you think he is
@@yjain5673 Might be the fact that you’re biased that you think he’s biased as he thinks the professors biased 🤌
@@dimplemaini might be
Elaborate discussion
I prefer teachers who are not bossy.
He takes a 'slightly different' view all the time. Talks AS IF violence was some kind of European invention, ignoring centuries of bloodshed. Another edgy opinion he gives about afro-americans not being full citizens without even citing an argument.
@@manubhatt3 This is quite simply not true, and is indicative of a viewpoint steeped in racial spite. Look up Assyrian and neo-Babylonian conquests and their treatment of the Jews and other subjugated races, hell, even most Mongol campaigns and their treatment of any racial group whom they could not or had no desire to assimilate. Racial violence is as old as race, most conquest-based empires have employed it, and to try and frame it as the "white man's sin" is myopic and gross, and will not age well in the context of a future world history. There is more compassion hidden in exhaustive nuance than there is in casting lazy aspersions without proper evidence. I'm sorry human history can't conform to your racism.
There is no doubt African Americans are second class citizens. As a non American, it’s so easy to see that.
@@djoooop I would recommend the book , India Persianate age by Richard m Eaton to understand why the conquest by Afghans and Mughals were more on political grounds than on religion lines. Even destruction of temples were a political act and was done even by local indian rulers as well . So though I agree that it was violent ,thy did not have the British idea of superiority over the local populace
@@shsh-rf7mi Thanks for your recommendation. Without trying to be dismissive, I do want to say that here you have a (contemporary) western professor who disagrees with the Indian PM for example, who reduced the medieval period to “1200 years of slavery” (from the Indian perspective). So to me it’s a bit weird to say that those older historical works were written by biased westerners and we should now ignore not only them but also the statements of Indians themselves, politically motivated or not. All this in exchange for another western view that seems to practice moral relativism mostly when its suits their narrative. Eventhough the conquest of India wasn’t as destructive to the Indian culture as the conquest of the Americas to their native populations, I’d argue that political and religious motivations were heavily intertwined in both histories.
I disagree with his argument that African Americans are not as socio-economically advanced as white Americans, or in his words not full citizens, because of oppression. It's a non sequitur. After he makes that claim, he then turns around and says basically that Barack Obama's election to the presidency isn't evidence that he's wrong. Question: has any other country in the world with a white majority of citizens ever elected a mulatto president?
Too woke
You’re watching a lecture about colonization...
@@goodluck5642 your mom
@@Rook_i_e what a poor critique. That's basically just saying "you're wrong" in a roundabout manner. Adding no new insight or adding anything. Boring and forgettable. It's not even a clever slogan. This is Facebook boomer level retort. Step it up. Even if I thought in slogans, this wouldn't land.
@@philhudson3619Most people are not going to write whole essays in a TH-cam comment section.
@@silence6605 I know peanut