China vs India | The State and the Society

In China, people did not, do not and would not take indian into their opinion about policy. The only trouble that india gov creates is that it try to inherit British empire and bully its neighborhoods.

India was unified multiple times and all of them were remembered as success stories and with nostalgia by later kingdoms.
The Maurya Empire was built not by Ashoka but by Chandragupta Maurya and Chanakya who were Hindus.
The Arthashastra written by Chanakya was later found in a manuscript library in Tanjavur, Tamil Nadu, which is southern India.
The drama Mudra Rakshasha was written during Gupta period which shows people remembered the unified Mauryan India as a desirable and peaceful period.
It is wrong to say there was no urge or incentives to unify.
1. The two golden ages of Indian art, culture and literature occured when India was unified.
2. Multiple warring states means war. Duh. So unified state is necessary for peace.
3. The underlying values and structure of Indian society is the same. They face similar problems and solutions lie in mutual cooperation. Looking at Pakistan and its caste system along with orthodox Islam I would say religion is irrelevant to social problems. Its a social problem not a religious one.

This is why us Chinese often see India as a joke of a society

Indian’s system is so built on lies. Religious slavery

This is exactly why you clowns shouldn't cover Indian history when their only source is jacshiet that was created by western researchers, wtf was Bharat? That every kingdom considered themselves part of? What tf was Hindustan during Mughal & Maratha rule? Wtf was Indica as what Greek called it? What was Tianzu/Indu or Indo as what Japanese/Chinese called it? Yall don't know anything but will keep crying "it's Hindu nationalist propganda"

This is absolutely incredibly

为什么印度人总爱和中国比呢？😂而中国人却懒得和印度比。

I wonder if the western states have the upper accountability, yes we got the election, but if you have to choose from sleepy alzheimer patient and a man who could only be called a clown, what kind of upper accountability this is. The political climate is now becoming more and more extreme, you have only identity politics and 'CHINA!', the federal governments and states are more and more incompetent, even drug control is getting worse and worse, I can't understand why babies being poisoned by fentanyl can be blamed on China, there is no other country in the world that has a problem with fentanyl because of China's exports.

Unification of a civilization isn't always necessarily materialistic or physical (borders), like that of China.
We consider China as unified because we have seen it exist at various times in history as a unified state with one ruler.
On the other hand, the India itself is unified various times in history, not by borders but by values and spirituality. So, India while still being divided into hundreds and thousands of pieces, kept seeing itself unified in the past.
If someone would desire, I am ready to point out the 8th century persian travellers description of what are the borders of India, despite the nation within itself beinf divided intensely. Thus, proving that unification or "one-ness" shouldn't always be decided in the terms of physical borders.

One thing to note: India, for sure, is constructing its state, and it is already surpassing the West in some aspects. An Indian would find it unremarkable that a fruit vendor can accept a digital payments system with no transaction fees; there are people who are still unbanked in the US, and the credit card lobby would never accept giving up their digital tolls.

Let’s put aside some historical errors in the video, because those may not be important.
I think the video author’s stance on issues of history and civilization is actually still influenced by factors from the Western-centric stance (i.e. so-called cultural freedom and pluralism), although not completely.
To use a saying often cited by Chinese scholars, the Chinese civilization was a very premature civilization in world history. This precocity of civilization allowed the Chinese Empire to reach heights in history that all other ancient civilizations and empires had not reached until the Industrial Revolution in the West.
Of course, I also agree with the author that China needs some changes to give society greater freedom.
But I don’t think that Europe’s political model or liberal approach is China’s goal for future change.
In fact, I think Europe (if we consider Europe as a whole) is more similar to India, but Europe has a higher structural level of social development than India due to cultural and religious reasons.
However, the actual social structures of the two are similar. They are both underdeveloped civilizations before the modern industrial revolution. Therefore, the entire society cannot form more advanced productive forces and then form a highly unified and sustainable country in terms of culture and governance structure. This result is the general trend and direction of the development of human society.
Obviously, neither Europe nor India has been able to produce such a high level of thinking and productivity in history, so it has always been a mess. The modern industrial revolution in Europe has made a lot of money for itself, but it cannot change the general direction of the whole to continue to be unified. This cannot be stopped by human power. The so-called cultural freedom and diversity are, to a certain extent, just Europe's helpless beautification of its own mess. Although I also believe that appropriate cultural freedom and diversity have their place. And India needs to go further in the future.
China, because of its ancient civilization and productivity that was far ahead in world history, achieved integration prematurely. However, it deviated from the main direction during the integration and began to move towards excessive centralization. So I said that I only agree to a certain extent with the author's suggestions on the direction of social development that China should have.
no doubt,
The integration of European society and the integration of Indian society cannot stop here. China's overall social structure today is the development direction of Europe and India. This process cannot be stopped. Despite the difficulties, China's historical practice has proved at this point.
However, China's excessive prematurity has also caused it to deviate from the direction of social freedom. If China does not carry out further political reforms and support appropriate social liberalization reforms, then China's future development will also be in great trouble.

AS A CHINESE, I LOVE MY INDIAN BROTHERS 🇨🇳❤🇮🇳

China Numba waaan ❤😂😂

the idea of a "strong society" in India versus China is elegant, but completely flawed.
in truth both countries' state regimes use extensive propaganda to coerce the society; the historical failure of the Indian state in the 20th century is not because society has held it to account, but because power has been entrenched and misused, much like in corrupt regimes like post-soviet Russia. the very idea of state has been to secure a lifetime job and live with an elevated sense of importance, it is a self-serving institution. this is in fact very similar to Chinese family plutocracies.
the indian state fails not because social structures prevent it, but because the democratic process has been hijacked to serve personal interests, and stir up discontent via propaganda. it's one corrupt regime replacing another, and people constantly hoping for betterment.

your analysis of India is flawed. never take the brahmin scriptures at their word, they seek always to ESTABLISH religious supremacy, not reflect the true social order. in fact in India, like everywhere else, the kings had ALL the power. This is evident in various mythical stories where kings are practically all powerful, and brahmins only seek their favour. and historically king Ashoka radically withdrew from Vedic tradition to sponsor Buddhism.
Marx is more prescient than you give him credit, he who controls the money indeed controls the society.

In the video you say Indians were not militarily powerful. Read some more history dude instead of relying on the single book you have mentioned. Despite direct ferocious attacks by the abrahamic expansionist religions, we are still hyming the same Gayatri Mantra from ~4000 years ago.Forever grateful to the veers this land has given birth to.

You have reproduced some common misconceptions about India in this video.

The caste system was actually very fluid, and grew more rigid only during and after the Gupta period.
Many famous Indian kings, generals and merchants came from lower castes, and were "promoted" to higher castes due to accumulation of power. Case in point, the powerful Chalukya emperors originated from a clan of shepherds. Shivaji, the popular Maratha emperor, was from a low ranking soldiers family.

Caste structure cpuld not survive through complete and non flexible rigidity. Powerful and ambitious people were able to join the ranks of the higher castes, and once they did so they had a vested interest in maintaining the social hierarchy.

Education was not limited to the brahmins alone. that is BS. Kshatriyas and Viashyas too were well read. India had powerful merchantile organisations and banks streching across south and southeast asia during the medevial era. This could not exist if reading and writing was only limited to brahmins alone, and without a legal framework and means to settle disputes.

Coming to armies, Indian history has been one of a violent and bloody contest between kings seeking to expand their territories and influence. Large standing armies were raised and maintained, and during the medevial era while the Abbasid and Ummayid caliphates were conquering all over asia and parts off europe, their invasions of northern India were repeatedly repelled and defeated until they gave up.

Also during the 10th -11th century the hindu chola empire conquered and established hegemony over swathes of south east asia. Could a strictly non meritocratic military have done that ? During the same period there large cultural movements against caste frameworks in modern day Karnataka. All this goes to show that caste system was not as rigid as it is made out to be today

I have not seen a more comprehensive and better explanation about the history of India. You actually talked about how we were invaded so many times and how British left us with intentionally defunct made systems. However, you did miss a lot of information. There are plenty of records in the form of vedas and shastras. Also, education was never restricted to brahmins. Only religious education was restricted to brahmins. Plus there were educational structures. Infact, we had the oldest boarding schools where basically the teacher would become the child's parent. Also, this way children of other castes were also adopted in as rishi disciples which were monks. However, they would give up their previous live for devotion.
We also had the oldest university, the Nalanda University, try searching about it.
Now coming onto the topic of state vs society.
Kingdoms come and go. Kings change hundreds of times. All the people who live now will be gone in a hundred years. Even the universe will die out in a few billion years. What institutions make sense now and work may become meaningless in a few centuries. Even written records only survive for so long. The reason India barely has very few written records of ancient times is probably due to the fact that our ancestors knew that such systems won't survive. What remains are the people. People live through the changing times, and so do the languages they speak and the culture they have. Society shall remain.
That is why a large part of our culture and history was passed down through word of mouth. A state is a system of institutions and any system can be improved upon, especially one which was intentionally made to dysfunctional. But you cannot change societies easily, nor can you change ethical values. Our strong societal systems indicate just how deeprooted and based on human nature our principles are. If a system opposes the nature of the people it can't sustain. Also, the fact that you can't put a time scale on our society probably indicates that Indian society is older than we think.

Caste system... That's how you start Indian history?!

Although the general argument has merit. But this notion that India didnt adopt horse archers and gunpowder is higly eronous. Gupta armies of medieval India were horse-archer-driven armies. Kushans again were reliant on horse archers. Elephants weren't used as melee weapons they again were archery platforms. India adopted gunpowder before even the Europeans. Medieval India was a gunpowder-heavy society. Later medieval India 1 in 3 people owned multiple or more muskets.Just because some Indians paint a flowery picture of ancient India. Warfare was brutal even then and involved all the horrors of war.

As a student of Indian history and World History … there were different schools of Indian historiography, the kind this guy is interpreting is the Marxist Historiography or say the Cambridge schoo of Indian historiography which demeans Indian cultural diversity and everything that is essentially indian as if we are a bunch of defective society and nothing was good at all…

Are you Chinese or Indian? Then how can your video be what the two groups think of their society?

Indian civilization is far older than Chinese civilization.

Also one more interesting thing, Indian state and society perform exceptionally well when not in India. The medieval period of Indianized South East Asian kingdoms were very effective and somewhat more uniting than Indian counterparts. Even though they were essentially ruled by either the Kalinga lineages or the South Indian lineages. It seems like the main roadblock is while the South East Asian kingdoms were largely homogenous, the lack of homogeneity in India hinders everything.
Also before someone claims, no I'm not advocating for making India homogeneous lol.

Regarding the western public , I never really understood this apparent underline india hatred when compared with china in any way or form , chinese development is a very recent phenomenon so after like 50 or so from now they will very equal in strenght with india maybe a slight advantage given shitty chinese demographics , yet even if china is the defacto enemy of west of this century they still hate india some way more siting poverty while just 30 years back china was as poor as india ( per capita ) it is kinda wierd .. but anyways you just have to not give a fuck nd accept the general internal racism in west regarding india nd just move on .

Sir, have you read Bhagwat Geeta? Do you know about Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma? What you are saying about it, you talk about caste, caste came to India 2000 years ago. Before this, there used to be a caste system based on the work a person did.Therefore, first you have to understand your caste system, so first of all you have to read Rigveda, you will know that caste system is not based on birth, but on the ability of the person to do work. You have to understand that Brahmins never stopped any person from studying. For this you have to see the history once. In universities like Nalanda, not only local but also foreign students used to study.And there used to be no discrimination against anyone. The knowledge that China has today has been taken from India only. Chinese language Mandarin was not even invented. Even older culture and Tamil language was present in India. One thing is that Indian civilization and culture is very old like Chinese civilization, 7000-5000 years.

I apologise but I have to object. India’s culture never systematically had a caste system. It was a foreign import by the colonists. Although india has jati and vara system to understand it needs a deep understanding of the spiritual essence of the lane. Secondly when did india lose to the Greeks …you mean Alexander ? . He only won against Porus …he was a minor king in border land Punjab …India(the subcontinent) had enough military strength to defend against the Greeks.

Your videos really make Whatifalthist look like a toddler.

Man, this video is absolutely amazing and has taught me, an Indian a lot of things about India which I myself did not know about. Keep this level of videos up, and I hope there will be more videos on India

lof of info is wrong not made toxic out of ignorance.

Tell me your a liberal without telling me your a liberal

Ok , i want to leave some comment on such intuitive video .
1.
What if , just like china where state become the civilizational habitual force , which is above morality and can establish set of moral to function it's own
2.
India has spiritual civilizational force , and all the socital norm is for the spiritual cause made by not the state but the bhramins . In that way here also socity is playing card for civilizational value to maintain . I love it though 😊 ,
3.
For west i think the charch system has evolve and give birth to one of best orfanizational power , like the politics in britain has the civilizational force .
4 .
I really think in future the socity of west can face consiquence of over materialism , decline of cristianity , i think india can help , on the other hand india has not able to master the organisation it borrowed from west , as well as today india is not ready to give the world what it has ,
But i think if not whole west the america will form a bond with india for both , for the chinese i whould say although the state is supreme but socity is the reason for change of state dynasty , ccp will not remain but before that the world could face again the colonization . For the muslim country i would say it will have no choice but to accept the political system from west .

Strictly not true that China was the oldest, or the longest existing state. This title belongs to ancient Egypt. It does not exist now, but technically is the first and the longest lasting.

Just a few correction is that mingling,marrying and moving among caste where taking place but that changed after some time around AD400-AD600 years, bhramins forced upon rigid strict rule for different caste to change regardless of their abilities to move. And the other is these five division of caste is a western concept rather there were many caste and within a caste there are several division.

Your depiction of India's history looks like exactly how a Leftists would have written it. Don't worry, we are correcting it and removing the made up facts being spread in the name of history.

A video praising the Chinese and beating India... Great video, keep up the hypocrisy❤

You assertion that Indian state is weak is in a way true, it is a work in progress. However, your knowledge of Indian history is just plain WRONG and is based on Colonial-Christian propaganda rather than fact... Saying Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras didn't know how to read is a monumental joke because that is very easily disproven.. Valmiki who wrote Ramayana which is one of the most influential epics of not just Indian history but human history, was a member of Valmiki community, who are shudras. Similarly the Pandavas and Kauravas in Mahabharata were all highly educated. Indian merchants were also educated and were practicing systematized trading as far back as 3500BCE.

Say something very funny.
My elementary school spring outing. . . We are building roads here. . An ancient tomb was dug. . The workers found the epitaph. There are detailed records of his life from birth to death. . Then his descendants were found 40 kilometers away. His descendants confirmed his identity and burial location with a "genealogy".
And we in elementary school. . You can fully understand that person's life. . . Epitaph + copper coins + porcelain + tomb form. His age can be completely determined. It is an ancient tomb dating back 1,200 years. . . Currency is "开元通宝". . . The epitaph is {September of the seventh year of Wude-武德七年九月初三}

印度世界第一，❤

You missed out on the population factor of India. India, a poor country recieving no aid from US or Russia, is still able to build affordable healthcare. I'd like to point out India is between socialism and capitalism, which kept it poor for decades, but still gave rise to a strong society. Also, coming back to healthcare, we really need to think what "good" healthcare infrastructure really means (which I understand can be a point of debate).

Everyone is talking about how good it is, but I’m just feel like suiiiii Dynasty epik

I have always heard and known about the rich heritage of China but this video gave me a real appreciation of China's history and its state and culture. Even as an Indian myself, I learned quite some new things about the state of princely states before any major inavsions and how our society was modeled. I hate the caste system of India and very much dislike the strong bend and influence of religion on governments. Thank you for such well researched, in-depth videos on such wide breadth of topics and histories.

A lot of inaccuracies regarding indian case.

Will list some quick ones
1. Brahmins didnt restrict literacy.

Highest sort of education(including learning vedas) was open to warrior and trader class.

While working class people could learn vocational skills but they were not debarred from anything except apart from directly learning vedas

Cliser to our times, british surveys themselves bore this out in great detail

See a beautiful tree by dharmapal which cites copious amount of british data to prove how education was open to all casts and in fact lower castes frequently outnumbered higher castes

And this was indigenous system and was similar if not much less sophisticated than during earlier times

2. Mauryans had centralised administration.

An elaborate treatise called arthashastra by chanakya (4 th century BCE)exists, delianating entire administrative structure and principles in great detail.

And this man was one of the founders of mauryan empire, surely enough, mauryans followed Arthashastra model

Curiously, Chanakya doesnt claim originality for wntire content in arthashastra, he cites earlier political thinkers and their schools hence establishing that a well thought out structure of state, administration etc existed well before 4th century BCE in India

Another error is thinking that mauryans got forgotten by indians and were only made prominent due to british hand.


Guptas exclusively modelled themselves on Mauryans.

One of the greatest and most famous drama/play in Indian history, "Mudrarakshas", was written under Gupta imperial dynasty which was exactly regarding how chanakya and chandragupta seized power from Nandas.

A great political thinker named Kamandaka during gupta times explicitly mentions and draws upon chanakya in his treatise called "Nitisara" on administration and political theory

3. Caste was not so rigid and in fact every pre industrial society had a sort of hereditary caste system .

Indians gave it a sort of religious sanction, thats all

4. Indians didnt get conquer by greeks or Persians.

Both of these invaders only managed to annex a frontier province of India

In fact chandragupta handed a crusing defeat to selucus Nicator, most able successor to alexandrian empire.

Coming to Huns, indian record too here is much more better than european or even persian one.

While huns could almost entirely crush sassanians (killing sassanian emperor) and wreak havoc in roman empire, contemporary Guptas under skandagupta could crush Hunas.

Even after 70 yrs after this victory when hunas could makes inroad into india, they would get crushed by a gupta empire rump state


4. Idea that foreign invasions created indian nation state is a bogus one unless your definition of nation state is very exclusive one.

India was and is a civilizational state.

Arthashastra and even Vedas have concept of Chakravarti, a supreme emperor who lords over entire subcontinent.

Decentralisation at a village level DOES NOT mean no nation, its a different type of nation

In fact, one Purana (popular religious text) defines Bharata (india) amd Bharatiyas (indians) in a crisp but clear way.

I dont understand how can yiu make this argument at all

Rest in power. Now let me block and unsubscribe.