Why were Indian empires so weak post 1000 AD?

[TM Riddle]

Because first 'documented history' we have, is somewhere around the whole Bimbisara-Prasenjit-Ajatshatru period. Prior to that, there are literally no written history of the kings and the only thing mentioned prior to it, is the Mahabharata - which is half history, half fantasy.

There are also no epigraphical inscriptions of Indian rulers prior to this period.

In that case , my question to you : Are the written accounts only way of knowing or corroborating a region's history?

 

[Traveller55]

I say so because I once did research on the Maurya empire and I found that there was very little corroboration and too much reliance on legends and folklore. Even the rise of Chandragupta Maurya cannot be ascertained with a degree of reliability, let alone all the exploits later. A lot of what we accept as history is derived straight from the Vedas Hindu mythology

Err, false.
Ashoka is quite literally the anchor of South Asian history.
'Devanampriya Priyadarshi' is associated with Ashoka (as in Ashoka is named with that epithet) in Kalinga inscriptions.

Ofcourse the start of Chandragupta himself would be clouded- dynastic founders are either very well documented or very poorly.
But Chandragupta himself is well corroborated in Greek history as Sandrocottus. So his existence is not myth either.

For the first pan-subcontinent empire, it is natural that their rulers would suffer from a fair degree of mythification.

 

[Traveller55]

In that case , my question to you : Are the written accounts only way of knowing or corroborating a region's history?

If not for written accounts, inscriptions or coin hoardes, there is literally nothing else to go on.

 

[TM Riddle]

If not for written accounts, inscriptions or coin hoardes, there is literally nothing else to go on.

There are no written records of IVC and their culture either (if you are gonna bring up the seals then the script hasn't been deciphered yet). Going by your logic , should we question the entire finding?

 

[Traveller55]

There are no written records of IVC and their culture either (if you are gonna bring up the seals then the script hasn't been deciphered yet). Going by your logic , should we question the entire finding?

IVC is not historical. Ie, we know nothing about them. We know nothing of their politics, who were their kings, what type of government they had, etc. etc.

its like the same story with pre 5000 BC mesopotamia. We have Ubaid culture. Or the Samarra culture.
Or more recently, the European cultures like Urnfield, Beaker culture etc around 1000-2000 BC.

Yes, we have their stuff, we know how people lived in those times in that part of the world. But thats it.

History is account of who ruled from where, what they did, how they did, etc.

At that point, the culture just becomes an archeological find, thats it.

What i meant to say, is we know nothing of the history of the subcontinent - apart from the fact that it was inhabited by farming peoples who made cities - prior to 500s BC. And sometimes, like in the 3000-1800 BC period, the cities were quite sophisticated.

 

[Slog]

There are no written records of IVC and their culture either (if you are gonna bring up the seals then the script hasn't been deciphered yet). Going by your logic , should we question the entire finding?

The claims arent the same.

what we know about them is deciphered from artefacts, irrigation system, infrastructure etc

the focus is not on kings and their impact or exploits etc

 

[TM Riddle]

The claims arent the same.

what we know about them is deciphered from artefacts, irrigation system, infrastructure etc

the focus is not on kings and their impact or exploits etc

That's just one way of looking at history . To me the social , cultural and economic life of original inhabitants matter far more than just studying about a bunch of Kings and Nobles and in IVC's case we have plenty of information available about how general population lived , their religious beliefs , trades with other civilizations etc . That's plenty of info for a civilization with no deciphered written records.

 

[rahulrulezz]

There are a lot of myths being perpetuated as true facts.

First and foremost, the myth of India always having consisted of small kingdoms and being politically weak most of the time.

Let us investigate what we know of Indian history -

We are taught that the 1st pan-Indian empire in Indian history is that of the Mauryans.

However, the Mauryans largely succeeded the empire that had been created by the Nandas 100 years earlier.

When Alexander came to India, politically the North-West was fragmented - the reason being almost all of it had been under the Iranian Achaemenid empire which had fallen to Alexander. However, all the small kingdoms and republics that Alexander fought against were very fierce warriors and the Greeks had a very very tough time. On approaching Gangetic plains, the Greeks learnt that what awaited them was the mighty confederacy of Gangaridai and Prasii who were very powerful. The strength of these confederies deflated the hopes of Alexander's troops and they demanded instant ceasing of further conquests. Read history of Alexander's march in India for more.

The above shows that in Alexander's time, the ancient Indians (Pakistanis & Indians) were quite a military force to reckon with, even when they had small republics & kingdoms.

After the death of Alexander, one of his generals, Seleucus, inherited most of his Iranian empire. This Seleucus, invaded India - which had united under Chandragupta, to conquer those regions that Chandragupta had conquered from Alexander's army after his death. However, Seleucus met with a resounding loss. Rather than winning back those territories, Seleucus lost all his territories between the Indus and the Kabul to Chandragupta. A majority portion of Afghanistan and Baluchistan passed into the hands of Indian political leadership.

Though there were ups and downs, these frontier regions always defined the western boundaries of India for outsiders up until the time of Arabs.

The Persian empire of the Arsacids and Sasanians hardly made any conquests in that frontier region.

When the Arabs finally conquered Sindh in 712 AD, it was after a long decades old effort which started right from 644 AD. However, the Arabs never were able to conquer the Hindu Kingdoms of Kabul and Zabul which straddled Afghanistan and Pakistan. These powerful kingdoms survived upto 870 AD when Zabul finally fell to the Safarids. The Kabul Shahis, however, existed right upto the extinction of their royal house in 1026 AD under Ghaznavi.

So, the frontier of India fought on for more than 3 centuries against the Arabs, who eventually gave up all hope of ever conquering those regions. It was finally left to Mahmud Ghaznavi who conquered them.

-------

The reason why Mahmud Ghaznavi had such a great success in India was due to 2 factors :-

1. The 1st was that he was a very gifted and energetic military leader. There was no comparable leader in India at that time who could match him in these traits.

2. North India, where his campaigns were limited to, had fragmented into smaller kingdoms, after the fall of the mighty Gurjara Pratihara empire. If people are unware of this glorious empire, please search in google, you'll know all there is to know about it. The Pratihars were rulers of North India for more than 2 centuries and were the backbone of Kabul Shahi might in the northwest as well. The Arabs of the 8th & 9th centuries, recorded that the Pratihars were the greatest enemies of Muslims (i.e. the empire of the Caliphate) in India and the small Islamic kingdoms of Mansure & Multan in Sindh, the only remnants of Islamic power in India at that time, greatly feared them. The Arabs, after conquering Sindh, had made inroads into NW India reaching deep into Gujarat and perhaps even Rajasthan & Madhya Pradesh. However, soon enough they were driven back comprehensively and the great state that arose in response to these Arab incursions was the Gurjara Pratihara empire.

Unfortunately for these Pratihars, they had two very powerful neighbouring empires to contend with, the Palas and the Rashtrakutas. The Rashtrakutas were more powerful than the Pratihars. Infact, the Arabs considered them as one of the 4 great empires of the world. These Rashtrakutas almost always defeated the Pratihars whenever they battled each other.

Finally in the 10th century, a great invasion by the Rashtrakutas on the capital of Pratihars, Kannauj, almost totally destroyed their power and the various feudatories of Pratihars carved their own little kingdoms. These various feudatories formed most of what later came to be known as the the Rajput dynasties.

Hence, North India had not recovered from this fall and Ghaznavi entered the right place at the right time. had Ghaznavi met the Pratihars at their peak, he would have been easily driven back to his place and he would not have been the celebrated figure that he is today.

----------------

Similar things can be said about other periods of Indian history but the post will become unreadably long.

To come to the point, Indian civilization was a very vibrant one before the 11th century. It influenced the entire region of South East Asia comprising modern day states of Indonesia, Burma, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam etc. All of this region was so thoroughly Indianised that the Arabs considered it a part of Al-Hind.

Similarly, the region of Afghanistan as well as vast majority of regions in Central Asia were heavily influenced by India in their pre-Islamic period. The modern Xinjiang region of China, had several kingdoms in the pre-Islamic period, all of them were heavily Indianised. Indianised also was the region of Balkh or Tokharistan. Sogdiana, a country above Tokharistan, was not Buddhist, but here the Hindu religion (for lack of a better word) deeply influenced these multi-religious people. The influence on China also goes without saying.

Such an enormous amount of cultural influence could not have been wielded by India if it was a people of weak pusillanimous disposition. The evidence clearly shows that in the pre-Islamic period, the Indians must have been a very vibrant, adventurous & brave people.

However all good things come to an end. That is the nature of this world. Indian civilization from the 11th century began to recede and its civilizational footprint began to shrink. It rather began to absorb influences from outside.

There is no shame in accepting that during the period of Islamic invasions, 'Hindu' India was not politically a strong counterweight. However, we should remember that the cause of Hindus was not so hopeless as imagined here :-

1. The powerful Vijayanagar Empire was the richest empire in India at its peak and the Delhi Sultanate or any other contemporary Islamic dynasty in India could not match its richness and affluence. It lasted from 1336 upto 1646. However its political power already greatly declined in 1565.

2. Hemachandra Vikramaditya, also known as Hemu, was on the verge of establishing Hindu rule over Delhi before he died of a freakish arrow in the battle against the teenage Akbar which he was clearly winning.

3. There was Rana Sanga who had defeated Ibrahim Lodhi several times and had ambitions to rule Delhi and hence North India. The greatest battle Babur had in India was not with Lodhi but with Rana Sanga.

4. The Marathas had conquered majority of India at the expense of Mughals before the rise of the British. Infact, the 18th century in India was dominated by the Marathas.

This is top notch post, and the best post I have read on PP. Amount of information in brief points, amazing. People should read this post who want to know what happened in India before Delhi Sultanate. Are you the original author of this post or did you take it from some one else.

Btw I m a huge Indian history buff!! It’s hard to find much information before Sultanate.

 

[Slog]

Err, false.
Ashoka is quite literally the anchor of South Asian history.
'Devanampriya Priyadarshi' is associated with Ashoka (as in Ashoka is named with that epithet) in Kalinga inscriptions.

Ofcourse the start of Chandragupta himself would be clouded- dynastic founders are either very well documented or very poorly.
But Chandragupta himself is well corroborated in Greek history as Sandrocottus. So his existence is not myth either.

For the first pan-subcontinent empire, it is natural that their rulers would suffer from a fair degree of mythification.

can you read properly?

Where have I called Chandragupta;'s existence a myth?

Ive said his exploits have a lot of fluff and have strong elements of mythification which you actually agree with

 

[Hitman]

Kingdom in my place ruled for 600 years from 1228 to 1826. Not even mughals could beat them. Now that's an achievement. Only issue is, they were silent guardians and never really made them prolific.

They faced only two loses. Against myanmar and british.

Our Assam

 

[Hitman]

Akbar was the only Muslim emperor who was truly great. The rest, I wouldn't even classify them as animals since it would disgrace all animals on earth. They were a curse to humanity.

 

[Pakistanian]

They couldn't modernize their armies and war strategies. Divisions and rivalries between different Indian kingdoms definitely played a role.

 

[TM Riddle]

Akbar was the only Muslim emperor who was truly great. The rest, I wouldn't even classify them as animals since it would disgrace all animals on earth. They were a curse to humanity.

Lol read about siege of Chittorgarh and the bloodshed that followed afterwards. The Great Akbar ordered the slaughtering of 30 thousand people who were trapped inside the fort including many civilians.
Truly great my foot!

 

[TM Riddle]

Our Assam

Mughals did conquer Assam at one point. It was just that holding it for a longer period was quite a daunting task considering the extremely difficult terrain.
As soon as the Central Mughal authority waned , Ahoms rebelled again and declared themselves independent.

 

[Hitman]

Lol read about siege of Chittorgarh and the bloodshed that followed afterwards. The Great Akbar ordered the slaughtering of 30 thousand people who were trapped inside the fort including many civilians.
Truly great my foot!

There goes every bit of my appreciation for him down the drain. I swear I had no bloody idea about the siege. I, till this day believed Akbar was the only Mughul emperor who was above hatred for Hindus.

 

[TM Riddle]

There goes every bit of my appreciation for him down the drain. I swear I had no bloody idea about the siege. I, till this day believed Akbar was the only Mughul emperor who was above hatred for Hindus.

He was a jihadi of sorts in his initial days of rule. But tbf he did change later on and became completely secular during last years of his reign.
But Chittor would always remain a blot on his legacy. Innocent people were massacred that day without any mercy. Rajput ladies performed Jauhar again.

 

[Hitman]

He was a jihadi of sorts in his initial days of rule. But tbf he did change later on and became completely secular during last years of his reign.
But Chittor would always remain a blot on his legacy. Innocent people were massacred that day without any mercy. Rajput ladies performed Jauhar again.

That is what I believed he always was. In fact the only inappropriate thing I thought till today of his was him beheading the Hindu king Hemu.

 

[TM Riddle]

That is what I believed he always was. In fact the only inappropriate thing I thought till today of his was him beheading the Hindu king Hemu.

Yeah a narrative of sorts has been created in India to project him as some sort of Great humanitarian and kind ruler who respected all religions and sought to promote harmony among masses.
This is only partially correct as he was completely opposite at the beginning. You should read the works of Abu Fazal , the famous poet who accompanied him to Chittor. Hindus have been repeatedly called as infidels and idol worshippers who must be annihilated completely.

 

[Hitman]

Yeah a narrative of sorts has been created in India to project him as some sort of Great humanitarian and kind ruler who respected all religions and sought to promote harmony among masses.
This is only partially correct as he was completely opposite at the beginning. You should read the works of Abu Fazal , the famous poet who accompanied him to Chittor. Hindus have been repeatedly called as infidels and idol worshippers who must be annihilated completely.

And that is exactly what me and my father always believed till today. Abu'l Fazl was apparently one of the nine jewels of his court, isn't it?

 

[TM Riddle]

And that is exactly what me and my father always believed till today. Abu'l Fazl was apparently one of the nine jewels of his court, isn't it?

The very same. Wrote Akbarnama which details the exploits of Akbar .
He has repeatedly insulted Hindus during the siege and called Rajputs all sorts of names.

 

[hussain123]

Lol read about siege of Chittorgarh and the bloodshed that followed afterwards. The Great Akbar ordered the slaughtering of 30 thousand people who were trapped inside the fort including many civilians.
Truly great my foot!

It is poor to judge past rulers by today's standards.it was a state of nature world and massacares pillage etc were part and parcel of that period.

 

[jagatk]

It is poor to judge past rulers by today's standards.it was a state of nature world and massacares pillage etc were part and parcel of that period.

He is confusing khilji with Akbar but i don't there was ever a time where killing 30000 civilians was not considered a genocide and the man committing not a monster.

 

[hussain123]

I'm not twisting story,dude. Its a fact that Islamic invasions have been barbaric, targeted public, looted them. Few of them left after stealing, but few of them stayed behind.
Shivaji as a sixteen year old started rebelling, Alexander as a 20 year old started conquering the world. That's not the point. Iran, Iraq, Egypt were so easily converted to Islam 100% , but Hinduism didn't. I can talk about my Rajput ancestors who chose death instead of converting, few of the rajput clans converted like we see in Pakistan, people have this " rana" sur name. You can make it all nice, sugarcoat it by saying that they converted because they saw something amazing in Islam and they converted.LOL. But the truth these people were just scared of dying, hence converted once they were defeated in a war.
There are hundreds of references on internet how these people were converted to Islam.. !!.. Hundreds of temples were razed to ground by mughals and they built a mosque on top of it. Babri masjid in Ayodhya is just a tip of the ice berg. There are hundreds of mosques like that.

Rajput ancestors?not sure if you post here but i still remember you saying you those when you used to masquerade as a pakistani here tht had a muslim father and a hindu mother.whatever happened to that story?was that a story afterall.

 

[hussain123]

He is confusing khilji with Akbar but i don't there was ever a time where killing 30000 civilians was not considered a genocide and the man committing not a monster.

Remember berlin mass rape?ethics in 20th century?

 

[jagatk]

Remember berlin mass rape?ethics in 20th century?

You are confusing history being written by victors and not condemning genocidal maniacs because they lived 100's of years ago.

This doesn't get much traction because who won but I am sure Germans remember it same with the Bengal famine and Churchill being a mass murderer. Just because it isn't well known doesn't mean it is acceptable.

 

[TM Riddle]

He is confusing khilji with Akbar but i don't there was ever a time where killing 30000 civilians was not considered a genocide and the man committing not a monster.

Am I ? Read Akbarnama dude . Abu Fazl has described the entire events leading from Akbar heading to Mewar to eventual submission of Chittorgarh. This was the 3rd johar. You are the one who's confusing it with the 1st Shaka and Johar which occured in the times of Alauddin.
Unlike some here I don't obtain my history knowledge from reading Wikipedia articles .

 

[TM Riddle]

It is poor to judge past rulers by today's standards.it was a state of nature world and massacares pillage etc were part and parcel of that period.

Sure but by the same token we shouldn't hurry to bestow the title of 'Great' on the Kings who were part of mass slaughter campaigns.

 

[jagatk]

Am I ? Read Akbarnama dude . Abu Fazl has described the entire events leading from Akbar heading to Mewar to eventual submission of Chittorgarh. This was the 3rd johar. You are the one who's confusing it with the 1st Shaka and Johar which occured in the times of Alauddin.
Unlike some here I don't obtain my history knowledge from reading Wikipedia articles .

Not a history buff, but jauhar was a decision rajputs took not the invaders. Can't consider that as genocide on akbar's part. What happened with khilji was civilian murder on orders of khilji. Is there any written history that says akbar ordered killing of those people?

 

[troodon]

It is poor to judge past rulers by today's standards.it was a state of nature world and massacares pillage etc were part and parcel of that period.

Killing and massacring is a crime of the highest order be it today or 1000 years ago.

The invaders did massacre people to win their battles. We did not invite Mughals to invade us. We did not invite Turks who are thousands of miles away from Indian subcontinent to come and invade us and rule us.

All these Mughals and Turks had no business to do with India. They are foreigners who attacked subcontinent unprovoked and killed thousands and lakhs just to spread their empire and in the process Islam. Shameless people are those invaders and no need to glorify their actions.

 

[jagatk]

Ok earlier didn't google it just got confused my bad.

 

[TM Riddle]

Not a history buff, but jauhar was a decision rajputs took not the invaders. Can't consider that as genocide on akbar's part. What happened with khilji was civilian murder on orders of khilji. Is there any written history that says akbar ordered killing of those people?

Read my earlier post in reply to Hitman. He ordered killing of 30 thousand innocents most of whom were civilians. I wasn't including Jauhar in that since by the time siege was broken and Imperial forces entered the fort , jauhar has already occured. What left were the non Rajput civilians who were then sentenced to death en masse.

 

[Slog]

[MENTION=130700]TM Riddle[/MENTION] - Any examples of great kings in India who ruled over a significant empire (let's say size of akbar's empire) for a considerable time period and didn't take part in campaigns of mass murder?

Ashoka was involved in among the bloodiest wars of all time aswell. Ofcourse he changed later but those lives don't come back do they? By very essence conquering lands results in death

 

[Slog]

Mughals are undeniably great

Folks here seem to want everyone to sit in their own jhonpri by the Ganges lol

 

[TM Riddle]

[MENTION=130700]TM Riddle[/MENTION] - Any examples of great kings in India who ruled over a significant empire (let's say size of akbar's empire) for a considerable time period and didn't take part in campaigns of mass murder?

Ashoka was involved in among the bloodiest wars of all time aswell. Ofcourse he changed later but those lives don't come back do they? By very essence conquering lands results in death

There's a difference between conquering and invading other kingdoms and straight up order a death sentence for hordes of civilians whose only fault was they were at a wrong place at wrong time. For instance , I had no problems with Turks slaughtering Rajputs since that's what they signed up for. It's the mistreatment of general populace which irks me most.

Speaking of Kings who didn't go on rampage of mass killings and yet acquired a significant territory for themselves, Umm Well off the top of my head There was one Chandragupta Vikramaditya of Gupta dynasty.
His father Samudragupta also known as Napoleon of India was a great conqueror as well but desisted from butchering innocent souls. There might be one or two off incidents but overall his reign was free from such brutalities.

 

[TM Riddle]

Mughals are undeniably great

Folks here seem to want everyone to sit in their own jhonpri by the Ganges lol

Mughals were undoubtedly great. No one is denying that. Their contribution in the field of art , architecture , administration etc was immense and unlike their Western Turkic brethren they were undeniably sons of Hindustan.
Dunno why are you getting so worked up for no reason at all.

 

[TM Riddle]

Jhopri by the ganges
India was one the richest lands in the ancient and medieval times and was famous worldwide for her huge wealth and fertile lands.
These Invaders who some of you lot take so pride in were the ones living in Jhopris and thus always itched to control the area around Indus and Ganga Yamuna doab for the riches it had to offer.

 

[raju420]

Any of the invading barbarians (Qasim, Aibak, Ghaznavi, Ghori, Suri, Mughals, British) never had control of the country side they were only in charge of few selected cities (Lahore, Delhi, agra, surat, etc). They left the local governance to the local Zamindars and nawabs only getting money from them.

Indians never understood until they got educated in 1800s that they don't have control at the larger aspects beyond their villages and thus India became independent in 1947.

Barbarians that destroy universities, music, arts, culture and language have actually never ruled any part of the world.

 

[troodon]

[MENTION=130700]TM Riddle[/MENTION] - Any examples of great kings in India who ruled over a significant empire (let's say size of akbar's empire) for a considerable time period and didn't take part in campaigns of mass murder?

Ashoka was involved in among the bloodiest wars of all time aswell. Ofcourse he changed later but those lives don't come back do they? By very essence conquering lands results in death

What happens in India is a matter of Indians. What Ashoka did was wrong and at least he repented and converted to Buddhism.

What did Mughals do? What did the other maruaders and conquerors do after they killed thousands? That's right. No repentance. Instead, they ruled our behinds like bosses and we glorify their history to no end.

If it is okay to murder thousands in the quest to rule, then it was okay for Native Indians to be butchered by Europeans.

It was okay for Spanish to murder thousands of Native South Americans to establish their empire and spread Christianity.

Tomorrow if USA attacks some country and rule them and in the process spread democracy, it is okay too.

Everything is fair in love and war right.

 

[Hitman]

The very same. Wrote Akbarnama which details the exploits of Akbar .
He has repeatedly insulted Hindus during the siege and called Rajputs all sorts of names.

I just ordered the first volume of the English translation of 'Akbarnama', the book by Abu'l Fazl. Hope it'll be a fascinating read.

 

[TM Riddle]

I just ordered the first volume of the English translation of 'Akbarnama', the book by Abu'l Fazl. Hope it'll be a fascinating read.

He was a great poet. Provided some fascinating insights inside the Mughal administration.

 

[Hitman]

He was a great poet. Provided some fascinating insights inside the Mughal administration.

I love reading history. Nothing fascinates more than learning about history and visiting historical sites. I absolutely love it.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Who was that barbarian who burnt libraries and universities? I don't recall the names.

 

[TM Riddle]

Who was that barbarian who burnt libraries and universities? I don't recall the names.

Aapke apne Bakhtiyar Khilji Sahb. The conqueror of Bihar and Bengal.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

He was a jihadi of sorts in his initial days of rule. But tbf he did change later on and became completely secular during last years of his reign.
But Chittor would always remain a blot on his legacy. Innocent people were massacred that day without any mercy. Rajput ladies performed Jauhar again.

India has certainly come a long way from women setting fire to themselves to preserve their honour in the face of defeat, I think this is probably a good thing. Otherwise the old custom of sati would still be expected to be observed, I don't think the modern world would take kindly to it, and rightly so.

 

[TM Riddle]

India has certainly come a long way from women setting fire to themselves to preserve their honour in the face of defeat, I think this is probably a good thing. Otherwise the old custom of sati would still be expected to be observed, I don't think the modern world would take kindly to it, and rightly so.

You are right. This self immolation stuff belonged to the middle ages only and has no place in the modern society. Thankfully Indian Govt has enacted quite severe laws to prevent anything of that sort from happening.

 

[ex-q-zit]

India Restoring Cambodia's Temple Complex Angkor Wat: Foreign Minister

The Angkor Wat temple complex in Cambodia is being restored by India because our civilisation is not limited to India, but is spread across countries, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Sunday said.

Addressing the Kashi Tamil Sangamam on the subject 'contribution of temples in society and nation building' being held here, Jaishankar said, "There are temples not only in India, not only in the Indian subcontinent, but in many regions beyond."

"I had gone with the Vice President to see the biggest temple in the world -- the Angkor Wat temple complex. Today, we are restoring and renovating the temples in Angkor Wat. These are contributions which we are making outside because the civilisation of India has gone beyond India," he said.

"So, today when we are restoring, rebuilding, and re-energising Indian civilisation, our task is not only in India. Our task is all over the world. But, it is not only where our civilisation went, it is also where our travellers went, our traders went, our people of faith went," he said.

Recalling his days as India's ambassador to China, the minister said, "Some of you know that for many years, I have been an ambassador to China. I have seen the remnants of Hindu temples even in China on the east coast." He said that there is a very special connection between Ayodhya and Korea, whose people want to be associated with the developments in Ayodhya, he said.

He also mentioned that Shrinath jee temple in Bahrain, and said, "All these were established by our people, when they went out. It is a matter of pride for us that we are building a temple in UAE, that we got approval to built a temple in Bahrain. We have done a lot of work in Vietnam."

"So, how do we today take our culture out, take our values, our philosophy, our way of life and share it with the rest of the world through activities outside. We are very committed in the foreign ministry to doing that. We also support what people of India are doing outside ... There are more than 1,000 temples in the US," he said.
Also Read

Here's How Akhilesh Yadav's Lord Vishnu City In UP May Look LikeHere's How Akhilesh Yadav's Lord Vishnu City In UP May Look Like
Taj Mahal Second Best UNESCO World Heritage Site After Angkor Wat: SurveyTaj Mahal Second Best UNESCO World Heritage Site After Angkor Wat: Survey
Lasers Uncover Hidden Secrets Of Cambodia's Ancient CitiesLasers Uncover Hidden Secrets Of Cambodia's Ancient Cities

He said that there are 3.5 crore Indians and people of Indian origin abroad, who have taken Indian culture with them abroad. "So, it is also our efforts today to support them, and we do it in different ways."

Jaishankar also informed the audience that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pledged ₹ 200 crore to build a Ramayan Circuit into Nepal, "so that all of us will have an opportunity to visit our heritage in close quarters."

"Even in Sri Lanka, we restored the Thiruketheeswaram Temple in Mannar. This temple was closed for 12 years. So the fact that we took interest, made efforts, has made it possible for the revival of that temple," he said.

Thiruketheeswaram Temple, one of the five sacred Ishwarams dedicated to Lord Shiva, is venerated by Shaivites throughout the subcontinent and the temple was testimony to the most difficult period in the history of Sri Lanka as it was closed for 12 years during the armed conflict and reopened in 2002.

The minister also said that in Nepal after the 2015 earthquake, many temples were damaged because they were old. "We have committed USD 50 million for restoration of cultural heritage in Nepal."

NDTV