Northern and Southern India from 7th Century to 17th Century

471 Words2 Pages
How did the northern and southern parts of India differ, from about 7th century CE to the 17th CE, in terms of political structures and stability? Northern India had a very chaotic political system and nomadic invaders trying to take over, until King Harsha temporarily unified Northern India until he was assassinated. Then, it fell since Harsha could not restore permanent centralized rule. In contrast, the southern part of India did not have the same major problems of wars and invasions. It was also politically divided, but by two kingdoms, the Chola and the Vijayanager Kingdom. Chola was financed by maritime trade and the Vijayanager Kingdom had trade links between India and distant lands, and the caste system was the main part of organization. In what ways did the basic principles of Islam and Hinduism clash so profoundly? In which areas of India did Islam sink the deepest roots? Why? Although Hinduism and Islamic cultures were slightly similar, they differed as religions. In Hinduism, there are many gods and spirits, whereas in Islam it is strictly monotheistic. Islam sank its deepest roots in Delhi because Hinduism and Buddhism temples were destroyed and overrun with Islam ones. Melaka also has deep Islamic roots because although it started out Hindu, it gradually became the most prominent Islamic region. What parts of Southeast Asia adopted different aspects of Indian culture and what were they? Funan was the first place to adopt Indian culture, and it adopted the use of Sanskript. Funan borrowed the term “raja” which means king. Other parts of Southeast Asia were influenced by Indian culture because Indian merchants brought their faiths and the ruling elites of Southeast Asia picked up some of the Indian political system, while still keeping some of their own. It also worshipped Hindu gods such as Vishnu and Shivra, while remaining

More about Northern and Southern India from 7th Century to 17th Century

Open Document