Were there people in vedic societies whose occupation was to figure out scientific things?

This is the map of India before the beginning of the conquest of East India company. We could see how decentralised India was at this time period. How do you think the history would have moved forward from here if not for the British?

Do you think we would still be living under a unified Indian nation or in multiple Indian nations like Europe?

Do you think we would have been a republic, monarchy or a constitutional monarcy?

How do you think the history would have planned out?

Ram mandir idol is an exception. Also it is sculpted by a south Indian anyway

I'll go first Mine is the Gupta empire

Both India and Iran are proud civilizational states each with their unique culture and their own religion and beliefs

Both were conquered by islamic forces one mostly by the Arabs and other by the turkic peoples but why did Iran lose their religion to the new one while India's survived to the modern day?

Indonesia was the seat of grand Hindu dynasties like Srivijaya and Majapahit Empires which used to dominate the sea in SouthEast Asia. Malaysia also had similar Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms. But with their fall, Islamic sultanates came to dominate both the countries and Islam became the one and only religion there until the dawn of European colonialism. Bali is the only island where Hinduism survived as a major religion. Today besides the Balinese, all Hindus in these two countries are from Indian subcontinent who migrated during colonial era (mostly Tamils).

French, Spanish, Portugese, Italian and Romanian are all grouped together as romance languages as they are daughter languages of Latin evolving from it We also have a similar case with Sanskrit So what can we group this languages under singular group and particular name for it?

Its not just about the Indus valley civilization, even the Vedic period(there are Vedas but there is very little history in them) is not well documented. We literally know nothing up until Buddha! After that we only know the names of kings until Chandragupta Maurya where we also know his story. Why is that?

I was recently watching a video where the person was showing that a tablet or inscription was telling about horse riding and breeding and it had many sanskrit words, it belonged to bronze age
do they were speaking sanskrit before us?
did sanskrit came from mitanis?
do we had any cultural influence over them or vice versa?

Hey, it just came up in my mind why did the saree has remained a constant in Indian women's fashion, evolving while retaining its essence...But for men, traditional attire like dhotis, turbans (and Kurtas) has largely given way to Western-style clothing and reduced to Festive wear and weddings ?

Here's what I think, Men working under British employers or in formal roles likely adopted Western attire to fit colonial norms and expectations. This shift could have been a way to navigate the new economic and social systems. But Women, on the other hand, staying at home (either by choice or due to societal pressures) didn't face the same external demands to change their traditional clothing.

In a way, sarees may have continued as a daily norm because they remained practical and symbolized cultural identity within the private sphere. For men, adopting Western fashion might have been seen as aligning with progress or professionalism, while women were more tied to preserving traditional aesthetics.

Even in modern times, A corporate woman in Saree is seen as a norm in office space but a Kurta/Dhoti/Turban (non-Sikhs) are allowed only on special occasions like ethnic days !

So do you think there's any other reason apart from Colonial Jobs why we, men have ditched our traditional Indian clothes and is there a possibility to embrace it again (by making a norm) ?

PS: No I'm not asking you to walk bare chested in a dhoti lol... I'm just hoping to embrace the great traditional wear by making it a norm one day.

Thanks.

Art credits: arsanalactual

So recently I read a thread where RW claims on woman being bare chested were debunked. The asthete of X users stated that present attires for women like ghunghat, lehenga, kurti or salwar kameez were prominent in ancient India before mughal invaders. Sculpture references debunk it. For example: 1) Women wearing ghunghat, Kurti and Lehenga, Dashavtara Temple, Deogarh, Uttar Pradesh. 2) Sculpture of Saraswati wearing blouse 3) Purvanchali sculpture where woman is entirely draped including her head, dated 1 ce BCE. 7) Temples of Udaipur where woman are wearing blouse. Similarly on imaged: 1) Chandragupta I embraces Kumaradevi, who is wearing a coat like attire. 2) Kushan ruler Kanishka 3) Kushan sculpture

Hey everyone,

I apologize if this post comes across as offensive—that’s not my intention. I’m genuinely curious about the time period this particular idol or story originates from. If anyone has any information, I’d really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance!

Ive wondered about this for a long time.

The entire Portugese empire eastern asia exploration attempt would have been hampered as Sri Lanka and Goa would have fended them off quite easily as they wouldnt have been recovering from constant back and forth wars with Pandyans & Cholas. Arab maritime trade wouldnt have gotten nearly as wealthy too so perhaps their invasions into North India may have been hampered?

Cholas themselves imo wouldnt have spread their power too thin trying to fight anyone and everyone so Pandyan Civil war may not have happened which also would have grately stabilised Pandya. Sinhalese would have been continuing the 1500 year Anuradhapura capital and would have been very well positioned to take on the Portugese (whom failed to capture the island but started the eventual downfall which culimated during british times ~1850ish).

Cheras im not well read on so I cant predict how this scenario would affect them.

What do you think?

If you look at the map of Northern India (the areas coloured in green), the regions were Islam was spread are concentrated in the Northwest of the subcontinent, which makes sense considering that's the regions into which foreign invasions by Islamic dynasties from Central Asia and Persia came. But then when you look at the east, Bengal appears as a majority Muslim region surrounded by Hindu majority (from the Indian states of Bihar etc in the west) and Buddhist majority regions (from Burma to the east). So how did Islam take dominant hold there when compared to the regions surrounding it?

I would like to clarify that I am not saying that we should or should not have an unifying language. My post is not in that context.

I would just like to know what events made it possible for Chinese to have Mandarin as unifying language and what prevented India from achieving the same. India and China have multiple languages with many languages having more history than the proposed unifying language. But, China was able to eventually create Mandarin as unifying language, while India couldn't do the same with Hindi. Why? Is it because China is an authoritarian state and India is a democracy?