Abstract
The model of surrealism that is nowadays contrasted in Indian history for the New Period is classically and unsatisfactorily dangerous, based on the colonial model formerly depicted by James Mill. From the point of view, it refers only to the religious structure of the 'ruling class' (and, by the way, not even to the whole ruling class). From a political point of view, it emphasizes the divisive elements present in the Indian historical tradition, which means ‘Hindu’ with ‘Indian’ and ‘Muslim’ with ‘invader/foreigner’. The present article aims to portray a scientifically more inclusive and politically less dangerous new model by building on the notion that Indian history is part of world history and, consequently, part of the main socio-economic development and parcel of the Indian subcontinent. The most relevant socio-economic development worldwide. The resulting model depicts the divisive elements of the Indian experience by specific religious strands historically present within Indian society, and illustrates the fundamental unity of Indian history and its relationship with it, focusing on socio-economic development. History of the rest of the world.
 |
| History of the World as Part of India |
The possibility of decades of grand
narratives in the last decades, which aim to interpret history in its totality,
has been put into doubt. I think grand narratives are those that give history
its meaning and make history a meaningful undertaking. In turn, grand
narratives require appropriate categories. In particular, the general history
of the people, which is the superiority of an active grand narrative needs a
proper period. But, to define an appropriate term, we must be aware of two
problems. The first is that the categories we employ must be powerful enough to
organize in a meaningful way, if not all, the least important events. The
second problem is that any category we use - and therefore, any termination -
is hidden in itself - or not hidden - on the agenda.
If we consider these events, it is
immediately obvious. The chronological model now in Indian history based on colonialist
categories is both unsatisfactory and characterized by a (not so) hidden agenda
that is politically dangerous. An attempt should be made to create a new model
that is suitable from a scientific point of view and is less dangerous from a
political point of view. It is my argument that this is a result from which
world history related to Indian history can be traced, and the history of India
can be seen as part of the history of the world. Accordingly, in the remainder
of this article, I will begin today by dwelling on both the colonialist roots
of colonialism and such circumcision should be abandoned. From there I will
discuss the relationship between world history and Indian history. In doing so,
I will conclude a new model with the explicit objective of making it
scientifically more inclusive and politically less dangerous than the old
model.
James Mill's period
The
most accepted and least controversial in India. History is still based on the
one proposed by James Mill in his History of British India. As everyone knows,
such a word has been expressed in Hindu, Muslim, and British periods of Indian
history. Since Mill's time, the only change has been a cosmetic one: the Hindu
period has become the ancient period, the Muslim period has become the medieval
period, and the British period has become the modern period, while the
post-independence period was the 'contemporary period' is sometimes used.
 |
| History of the World as Part of India |
Acceptance
of this period is made easy by the fact that different languages (Sanskrit and
Pali, Persian, and Urdu, English and modern oral languages, respectively) are
needed by Mill to study each of the different periods. However, as already stated above, the
traditional magnitude proposed by Mill is both unsatisfactory in nature and
politically dangerous.
Naturally,
Mill's classification, while it refers only to the religious structure of the
ruling class, is unsatisfactory even for so limited a people. In fact, if we
consider the great merchant-financiers and hereditary geopolitics (rais, raos,
ranas, Chaudhuris, and khuts until recently collected as part of the ruling
class with the term zamindars). No 'state in Muslim India was
ever ruled by a class that was entirely Muslim. But even though we refer to
the structure of the upper crust of the ruling class and define it as built by
the nobles, that is, the great nobles who controlled the military power of the
Sultanate and later, the Mughal Empire and its successors, the Mill religion.
The based classification does not apply. Already during the Delhi Sultanate,
the religious creations of military nobility began to change, especially during
the reign of Ala-ud-din Khilji, in which more recently Muslims and some
non-Muslims were close advisers to the Sultan and governors. Was converted between,
governors of the provinces. Later, during the Mughal Empire, beginning with the
reign of Akbar, military nobility was holistic from a religious point of view,
a large and influential part of it was built by Hindus, and such orthodox
Islamic rulers as Aurangzeb also worked during the reign. The successor states
had the same condition.
Even
once it has been said, even though the ruling classes of Indian 'Muslim' states
were made entirely by Muslims, the trap created by the mill is mostly relevant
economic, political and social, which would be incapable of keeping the facts,
As a result, it will become largely irrelevant anyway. However, at the end of
the day, we should be tempted to end the mill by making it less irrelevant to
the view that it is politically dangerous. In fact, it emphasizes the divisive
elements present in the Indian historical tradition, 'Hindu' with 'Indian' and
'Muslim' with 'invader/foreigner'. It is no surprise that this colonial
classification of Indian history has been undergoing a new lease of life since
the rise of Hindu fundamentalism - both in its 'hard' version and its 'soft' -
since the 1980s. But, the consequences of Hindu fundamentalism at work -
including civil strife and murder killing - are for all to see. Any intelligent
person should try to use his salt to get rid of any category that suits his
results. Hence, the importance of showing the irrelevance of Mill's period and
providing a more satisfactory, secular rather than religion-based, termination.
To
do this, we have to broaden our heuristic net compared to Mill and his
epigraph. As anticipated, I will try to reach this result by coming back to
world history. In particular, I will base my discussion on the methodology
teaching of Chicago world historians, in particular - even if not exclusively -
William H. McNeill and Marshall GS Hodgson, and other world historians, did not
necessarily belong to the Chicago School, such as Janet L. Abu-Lughod, 4 André
Gounder Frank, I would propose a period based on the assumption that Indian
history is part of world history.
Accordingly,
the remainder of this article will be divided into two parts:
(a)
sketching out periods relevant to the history of the world;
(b) The church history of the relevance of the above world period to the Indian.
In
doing so, I will use the traditional categories of historians of the West,
'Ancient Age', ‘E Medieval Age', ’Early Modern Age’, and ’Modern Age’. However,
it should not be considered falling back on urban-centric borders: the assumption is that, if European history is part of world history, then change
and continuity in Europe is bound to be part of change and continuity around
the world.
The Periods of World History
The Ancient Era
The Ancient Era can be traced between the ninth
millennium BC and the end of the fifth century or the end of the sixth century
CE. It begins with the agricultural revolution, which enabled the development
of the first civilizations created by the inhabited population. All major
civilizations - Western, Middle Eastern, Indian, Chinese - took shape between
the sixth millennium BCE and the first millennium BCE. After McNeill, I would
call the sum of civilizations created by the inhabited population as 'Ecumene'.
The
rise of the first civilizations and, until the eighteenth century CE,
represented the main dynamic of world history by interactions between the
Ecuador and nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples. Those who lived outside the world
or in inhabited places residents.
 |
| History of the World as Part of India |
The
world-system built in the period beginning in the first century reached its
apex during the first two centuries of the Christian era. Then, with the third
century, the process of decline began in various parts of the civilized world.
The reasons for this incident are not entirely clear, but plague and attacks
are larger than nomadic ones among possible explanations. Furthermore, in a
world where long-distance trade played an important economic role, it assumes
that the economic collapse of parts of Acumen would have harmed the rest of it.
The Medieval Era
 |
| History of the World as Part of India |
In the first phase, a counter-protest emerged for the prevailing process of
localization of both political power and economy in the medieval era. This
counter-trend manifested in the seventh century with the rise of the Islamic
world order centered in the Middle East, as well as North Africa and Spain in
the West, and in the Middle East extending to Spain and the Indus Valley. Among
the characteristics of this Islamic world system were: the growth of new
cities, the concentration of political and economic power in these cities, the
rise of long-distance trade, and the rise of a new monetary economy.
Starting
in the eleventh century, positive economic change Signs also began to appear
outside the Islamic world. These processes were completed during the thirteenth
century. At that time a new world order extending from Europe to China came
into existence.
The
characteristics of this new world system were the rise of new cities, the
revival of some old cities, the development of long-distance trade, new growth, and monetary. The spread of the economy was final and, but not least, an effort
to concentrate on the increasing share of political power on behalf of many
people of the ruling monarchy. This last development was made possible by a
growing economy, where monetary expansion became widespread. It was the growth
of wealth and its concentration of wealth in the form of concentrated precious
metals, which made the effort of centralization by the monarchies possible.
 |
| History of the World as Part of India |
The Early Modern Age
In the early modern era of the fifteenth century, the consequences of plague and
agrarian crisis were futile. Economic and demographic growth once again
developed itself. The most obvious symptom of the turning of the tide is
illustrated by the launch of two ambitious programs of geographic
reconnaissance at two extremes in Portugal and China. The Chinese effort was
abandoned soon enough, but the Portuguese effort continued throughout the
century and beyond. This was due in part to generating America's first Spanish
discovery, as a Spanish, Dutch, English, and French enterprise in both the
Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. The result of all this was both the opening of
new high-sea routes and, ultimately, the European conquest and colonization of
the American continent. For many reasons - economic, political, cultural - this
last development was very important for both Europe and the world. Accordingly,
Columbus' arrival in the new continent in 1492 can be maintained as a highly
symbolic dividing point between the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era.
 |
| History of the World as Part of India |
1.
The continuous growth of the world population (despite demographic catastrophe
in the Americas, directly or indirectly due to European conquest);
2.
Entertainment in the fifteenth century of a world order, which grew to include
America, in the sixteenth;
3.
Development of new military technologies based on the use of rapidly skilled
firearms; And, as a result of the proliferation of efficient firearms,
4.
Behind the external and internal boundaries, and, last but certainly not least,
5.
A new - and currently invincible - process of centralization of the state.
According
to many, the period beginning with European discoveries is characteristic of
the worldwide rise of European hegemony. In my opinion, however, among others,
Andre Gunder Frank and Robert Marks have challenged this notion in a very effective way, showing that the economies of China and India were more advanced
than contemporary European economies. In fact, until the eve of the First Opium
War, the average standard of living. The Chinese were better than the average
European standard of living. Furthermore, some skepticism is possible about the
fact that Chinese politics was, in the eighteenth century, more efficient than
anything that existed in Europe, which was, quite clearly, by most of the main
representatives of European Enlightenment was understood going up, once all of
the above is taken into account, it is difficult to accept the idea that the
sixteenth-century was the starting point of a worldwide European hegemony. As
it will be argued in the following section, European hegemony over the rest of
the world and, in particular, Asia was established in a period involving only
the termination of the eighteenth century (the retreat of the Ottoman Empire in
the face of Russian invasions, Approved by the Treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca in
1774) and the fifth decade of the nineteenth century (First Opium War,
1839–42).
The Late Modern Age
The
Late Modern Age, as we can define as the Late Modern Age - and usually classified
as the Court of the Modern Age - habitually begins with one or both of the
following events:
1.
England The Fulfillment of the Industrial Revolution in the Second Half of the
Eighteenth-Century;
2.
French Revolution (late eighteenth century) and his Napoleonic sequel (early the nineteenth century).
 |
| History of the World as Part of India |
Taking
all the above into account, I argue that the late modern era began with the
political and military hegemony of the West over the rest of the world. Accordingly,
we can legitimately define it as the age of Western hegemony. The rise of
Western hegemony, in turn, is a process that began in the late eighteenth
century and the late nineteenth century, including the rolling back of the
Ottoman Empire in Europe, the temporary French conquest of Egypt, and the
imposition of British hegemony. In the Indian subcontinent (with the Third
Mysorean War, 1799, and the Second Maratha War, 1803–06).
It
is worth noting that the rise of Western hegemony was not a by-product of any
superiority European, whether industrial or French. This was thanks to the
results of the revolutions but was the result of a new mode of warfare, which,
in turn, was not the result of better weapons but better organization. As
demonstrated by O'Connell, it was based on a systematic and brutal form of
training that transformed individual soldiers into human automata according to
a pre-established sequence of movements in all circumstances and fighting any
terrain Used for. This new system was adopted by all the main European armies
during the sixteenth century, by the Maurice of Nassau, the Prince of Orange,
and the Stadtholder of Holland, in the sixteenth century, with the beginning of
the Beau even more. Deadly, and later the contingent of Pike-Men and Halberdiers
need to overcome the need to integrate the infantry design with the task of
protecting the Fusiliers from attack. In this way, European infantry troops
acquired such flexibility of maneuvers and such an ability to sustain a
constant amount of fire that they became practically invincible in head-on
conflicts with armies such as Asians, including the same type there was a lack
of organization. It was a time when the rolling back of the Turkish Empire in
Europe and the European conquest of India began.
 |
| History of the World as Part of India |
The
technological armies through which the West conquered Asia and Africa existed a
complex industrial system. It is possible that after one realized the other as
an Asian state, technological armies could not be formed only by purchasing
weapons in Europe and building some ordnance factories. At the end of the day,
a complete reorganization of the sociopolitical system was necessary to create
an industrial state. Only this authentic revolution made it possible to create
new technically armed forces, which could counter the plan of parity with the
people of the West.
The better military organization makes possible the early rise of European hegemony
around the world. This hegemony, in turn, came to its fullness and became
dramatically unattainable due to the dramatically unstoppable growth that the
West experienced as a result of both economic signs of progress related to the
Industrial Revolution and driven by political and organizational power. did. By
the French Revolution. In fact, Western hegemony has been representing world
history from the year 1800 until now, and hence, the label of 'Age of Western
Dominance' is more appropriate than the Late Modern Late Era or Modern Age.
Regarding
Western hegemony, for the first time in history, a world system was created,
different from all previous world systems. In fact, the new world system that
came into existence at the turn of the eighteenth century was characterized by
1.
It coincides with the world;
2.
It was organized in a hierarchy around a major center.
With
all this in mind, we can reduce the age of Western supremacy to the Late Modern
era or stages, characterized by the fact that the locales of power, though
settled in the West, spanning from one region to another. Moved away with.
Accordingly, we can divide this period into three stages:
1.
From the second half of the eighteenth century up to the Second World War, this
showed the world hegemony exercised by some European powers in the late nineteenth
and twentieth centuries, the first United States. America and later Japan went
to add himself;
2.
From the end of World War II until the dissolution of the Soviet Union from
1991, characterized by world hegemony practiced by the United States and the
USSR;
3.
A feature of world hegemony used by the United States, namely a position even
after these lines were written, but which, increasingly, are drawn to its end
in the not too distant future.
The Relevance of the Period
of World
Indian History of India
 |
| History of the World as Part of India |
The Ancient Era
From
the ancient period revolution to the fifth century CE. The socio-economic
characteristics that characterize the history of the subcontinent are similar
to the drawings in the previous part of this article. Indeed, with the rise of
the Indus Valley Civilization around 2600 BC, Indian history can be seen as the
development of an ever-expanding urban civilization. Thanks to archeology, we
now know that urban civilization in India did not disappear with the fall of
the Indus civilization in 1500 BC. Other urban civilizations were contemporary
with or after the Indus civilization so that the subsequent collapse - however
significant - could be considered a temporary setback in the development of the
urban world in India. In the Mauryan period (317–185 BC), Indian cities -
although technically less advanced than the cities of the Indus civilization -
were present in larger and much larger parts of the Indian subcontinent.
The fraternity has also shown that the subcontinent was already bound to the Middle
East by trade during the period of the Indus Valley Civilization. During the
Mauryan period, relations between India and outside grew rapidly, while a
complex network of new roads was built in India. After the disappearance of the
Mauryan Empire, the development of the urban world, and the construction of a
continuously expanding road system continued. During the first century BC, the
Silk Road was opened in Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent was connected
with it. During the first century, high sea voyages became common between The Red Sea and the west coast of India and the eastern coast of India and the
Malacca Strait.
It
only began with the third century CE - as once again shown by archeology - the
trend reversed itself in India and began to decline in the urban world. Not
only did the Gupta Empire collapsed in the early sixth century, but it also
witnessed the disappearance of most cities in the Indo-Gangetic Valley.
The Medieval Era
With
the sixth century, the downward trend had already become evident during the
Gupta era 'Golden Age'. At that time localization in rural areas of both
economy and political power became the dominant feature of the age. By that
time, most of the cities had disappeared in most of the subcontinent, and those
still living were either religious centers or military headquarters. As in the
case of the Abbeys in Europe, temples become the main centers of political and
economic power. Monetary circulation almost disappeared and in practice, most
surviving coins, unearthed by archeology, are high-value gold coins.
Apparently, they were less for political reasons than for economic reasons,
that is, they were given age by kings. Much of the trade was a local trade and
barter was the main role in making this possible.
 |
| History of the World as Part of India |
This the general picture is the same, which is characteristic of other parts of Ecumen,
including Europe. However, it does reflect some notable exceptions to the
south, where the Pallavas of Kanchipuram (beginning of the end of the sixth
century) and the Cholas of Tanjore (tenth-twelfth century) ruled the states
where cities and long-distance trade took place. . Maritime trade, in
particular, was important. Despite cities and long-distance maritime trade,
most of the geographically politically controlled socio-economic structures
controlled by the Pallavas and Cholas seem to be characterized by feudal or
semi-feudal characteristics. But even though we see the Pallava and Chola
states as sociology-economic characteristics that characterize the medieval period,
the fact that the Pallavas and Cholas cannot be considered as anything
different from the two exceptions to the general rule. Again this is not a
feature of India, as shown by comparison within Europe. In the Cholas times,
surviving in Byzantine cities in Europe and the Near East - particularly, but
not only Constantinople - in the sixth-eighth century, the stability and
long-distance still existing currents of the thriving monetary economy flourish.
Eastern Roman Empire. Specialty trade cannot be regarded as changing the
general situation in Europe. It is characterized by the collapse of the urban
sector, the radical contraction of the monetary economy, and the virtual
disappearance of long-distance trade. Equally, in the same period in which the
Pallavas flourished in India, the rise of Italian cities in the northern part
of the peninsula became the center of long-distance trade in Europe and the
Mediterranean, which did not change the overall reality. A feudal
socio-economic system prevails in large areas of Europe as well as Italy.
As
the remainder of the Ecumene, a counter-trend in due time emphasized the
position of localization in rural areas of both political power and economy.
Indeed, with the rise and unification of the Delhi Sultanate in the thirteenth
century, a new phase became apparent. The main destinations of the Sultanate
were several new cities, inhabited by the new Islamic ruling class, their
servants, and the service categories that served their needs. A large trade
with the Middle East became an important feature of the Sultanate's economy. In
an area such as the Indian subcontinent, where it was not easy to breed
vigorous horses due to climatic reasons, this trade was started to obtain war
horses to combat Mongol invasions. 32 Expanding an economy and specialty. The
importance of the urban area and the existence of significant streams of
long-distance trade made possible the transfer of political power from the
country's main cities. The story of Balban (1246–1287) to Ala-ud-din Khalji
(1296–1316), Muhammad bin Tughluq (1325–1351) of the Delhi Sultanate can be
seen as a continuous attempt at political centralization.
 |
| History of the World as Part of India Muhammad bin Tughlaq |
In
fact, this attempt at political centralization, which reached its apex under
Ala-ud-din Khalji, began to experience increasing difficulties during the reign
of Muhammad bin Tughlaq. There is no doubt that the Sultan's peculiar
character, a ruler who was both gifted and deeply flawed, played a role in
initiating the decline of the Sultanate not only as a political entity but
socio-economic Ignoring the system that came into existence in India during the central phase of the Middle Ages. Muhammad bin Tughlak's personal oddities and
clutches, however, were not merely on the strength of the game and were
certainly not the most important. This suggests the fact that the turning point
in this Sultan's reign was his unsuccessful attempt to suppress the rebellion
in Ma’bar, which was a direct result of the plague that killed both Muhammad
bin Tughlak's army and the Sultan himself. It was part of the epidemic that
began in China in the 1320s and ravaged the whole of Asia, Europe, and North
Africa, heading west for a century. Furthermore, although further research is
necessary to give a clear answer to the problem, it is reasonable to assume
that the troubles in the Gangetic doab, which were worsened by Muhammad bin
Tughlak's misplaced policies and widespread use of violence. The setting — due
to a long-term agrarian crisis that, for ecological reasons, in the Gangetic
Doab, as elsewhere in Ecumene, was hitting the traditional and most developed
area of high agrarian production.
As
a result of the failure of Muhammad bin Tughlak's policies; his death subsequently;
there was a reaction in the decision by his successor, Feroz Shah (1351–1388),
to abandon the centralization policy pursued by his predecessors. Accordingly,
the same socio-economic characteristics that had remained the most widespread
states of India, which had prevailed at the beginning of the Middle Ages, began
to reassure themselves. Furthermore, it can be argued that the change of policy
implemented by Feroze Shah played an important role in weakening the Sultanate
politically and militarily. After the death of Firoz’s, it suffered the
inability of the Sultanate with the invasion of Timur’s which tells of the sack
of Delhi and the virtual destruction of the city (1398) as well as the actual
collapse of the Sultanate. Whatever power was in the hands of the Delhi Sultans
disappeared on the eve of Timur's invasion, causing political and economic
power to return to the regions to a large extent. This situation did not change
as the century progressed. Indeed, while the reincarnated Delhi Sultanate was
gradually brought under its suzerainty during the fifteenth century, brought
over most of the Indo-Gangetic valley, it was unable to abolish any form of
close central control over the great nobles. Was, who continued to act like
their younger kings. Its own fiefdoms, which, in turn, encompassed most of the
geographical area covered by the Sultanate. Accordingly, the New Delhi
Sultanate remained, broad, a decentralized feudal structure. Besides, Ibrahim
Lodi (r. 1517–26), the last Delhi Sultan, was forced to withdraw land revenue
in cash and payback.
For a long time, historians have shown that the fourteenth – fifteenth. What were
the other main Indian states in the century as the Vijayanagar Empire as a
central military monarchy? In the late 1980s, however, Burton Stein — generally
regarded as the most important authority on the subject — conclusively
discovered that even Vijayanagara was a largely decentralized political
structure, with a greater number of nobility than feudal kings. There was
nothing more than to preside over a set of powerful feudal lords.
The Early modern era
During
the reign of Akbar (1556–1605) the land tax was once again paid in silver.
Similarly, long-distance trade once again became very important, as shown by,
among other things, the fact that silver was transported to India through
trade. Many great cities became the mainstay of the empire. Akbar centralized
the power of the state, even though this centralization was not led to its
ultimate consequences. 39 It was only under Akbar's third successor, Aurangzeb
(1658–1707), that territorial over-expansion - which the Deccan The invasion of
India began in 1681 - with the fact that the process of centralization of the state
power was left incomplete by Akbar and his successors, which were, in the last
century, the breakup of the Mughal Empire. Ended the process. . By the 1720s
the empire had become a sort of loose federation of truly independent
provinces, over which the imperial paramount was nominal. Furthermore, large
contingents of the subcontinent passed through the Marathas. Like the
contemporary Mughal Empire, Maratha dominance was not a unified imperial
structure, but a loose union of genuinely independent monarchies.
Until
a few decades ago, this and the fact that the various Indian states were
constantly at war with each other led to The resulting historians characterized
the eighteenth century as an age of 'collapse and depression', or, in less
sentimental terms, a deep phase of political and military anarchy (interrupted
by the rise of colonial power), as well as economic collapse. However, recent a scholarship has conclusively shown that the century had two salient features:
(a)
that many Indian states that emerged in the eighteenth century had a degree of
centralization that was characteristic of the Mughal Empire;
(b)
of the fact Overall, India's economy showed itself to be extremely resilient,
even though parts of India, including the symbolic and politically important
region of Delhi was devastated by the war.
Even
the regions, for example, in the Deccan, which Was devastated by the war, the
ability to bounce back appeared. Still, on the eve of colonial conquest, most
of India was characterized by a prosperous economy. Monetary circulation was
increasing rather than decreasing and long-distance trade remained important.
In the eighteenth century, India strengthened its position as the most
important exporter of ready-made and semi-finished cotton and
cotton-blended-silk fabrics worldwide. In turn, this determined a complex
economic and financial organization.
The Late Modern Era
 |
| History of the World as Part of India |
 |
| History of the World as Part of India |
The above proposed period, of course, has its strengths and its weaknesses. In my
opinion, it is much more satisfying than traditional periods, the fact that it
takes into account economic structure and general political development, rather
than narrowly focusing on the religious structure of the upper crust of the
ruling class. To do this, the proposed analytical model focuses on the
fundamental unity of Indian history and the basic unity that binds Indian to
the world experience. On the other hand, this model reflects the divisive
elements of the Indian experience from the different religious narratives
historically present within Indian society.
Clearly,
the not-hidden agenda behind this model is one that, on the one hand, mankind
Emphasizes the basic unity and equal value and dignity of many people in which
it is structured, and on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of religion
as a divisive factor.
Once
this is said, this model The obvious objection that can be made is that it is
designed to integrate cultural and religious factors without serious effort.
Here the relevant questions become: Is there a cultural unity corresponding to
different eras as defined in the above model? And, if a cultural unity does not
exist, is the proposed term acceptable? Should we try to create a new period
based not only on socio-economic and political factors but also on cultural and
religious factors?
These
are all very important questions, which have proper answers. Personally, I
believe that the above-proposed refinements can be refined as well as shown to
be relevant on religious and cultural levels. But, no doubt, additional
research is needed on the subject, which will have to be carried out by both
scholars with relevant analytical tools for a deeper examination of India's
cultural history and a broader vision. It is capable of comparing culture with
social and economic and political history in both India and the world. And this
is an act that the author of these lines voluntarily leaves to others.
Also, Read
*COVID19 the challenge in India lockdown is the global epidemic of COVID 19, affecting about 85 percent of the world. Surprisingly the most affected are the developed economies of Europe and the United States, despite its advanced health system and a very favorable doctor/population ratio. On the other hand, Asian countries have done well in spreading 'Contagion'. China is moving towards normalcy, with South Korea and Japan managing to control the spread, while SE Asia is doing a good job of managing the spread. * [image: COVID -19 Challenge in India] *Right now everyone's eyes ar.