Well, first of all, much of India's history was written by Brits, is factually incorrect and later was written by communist historians and has nothing to do with reality.
So that's what is going to change. All thanks to the Americans who don't give a flying trump about British propaganda, actual maps and history have been surfacing for the past 15 years.
For example, this is the actual Mughal Empire, but what the British showed was a totally different map, implying that all of India was one big Mughal Empire, which is funny because Marathas(Hindu Empire), Hyderabad (Muslim Empire), Vijaynagar, Jammu(Hindu and Muslim), Nepal, and a host of giant empires would have had something to say about that claim. These empires are not even mentioned. Indo-China, including Burma, Cambodia, Laos (Buddhist Empires) isn't even mentioned.:
![[Image: P0301010101.jpg]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kTWnWRFT-bQ/Sg5BpEJhVuI/AAAAAAAAAFk/3l-ncgcVRys/s320/P0301010101.jpg)
and this is the Maratha Empire after multiple battles with Mughals. Americans didn't omit this history, but the Brits did. So, the actual map still made it into the world:
![[Image: Marathas.GIF]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Marathas.GIF)
This is post Mughal decline, when the Nepalese overran much of British India in the east. The British had to sign a treaty to get those lands back.
![[Image: Joppen1907India1805a.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/Joppen1907India1805a.jpg)
and this is the actual British "empire":
![[Image: india-map-prepartition.jpg]](http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/india-map-prepartition.jpg)
As you can see, not much changed between 1805 and 1947, the period when the British claim to have ruled all of India (which means they claim to have ruled from Afghanistan to Laos). But, the maps show something different.
This is important mainly because the British couldn't win anything worth winning. People used to be poor in "United Provinces", Bihar and Bengal, and there were no rulers and no standing armies to protect these lands because they didn't yield anything. Same thing with much of tribal regions currently divided between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They "conquered" these parts with Indian militia comprising of 600 men(Bengal), 1000 men(UP), and so on and then wrote about their valor which is funny. Who did they fight?
Might I also add that the sun did not set on the British Empire because Indians and Gurkhas helped them conquer much. The moment the Indians dipped the Brits in Karachi and Mumbai, they ran. This is the part that did not make it to the History books. I think its time we put it in the history books and correct any discrepancies.
Barbarics like the British had a few years of glory. They can't beat the Mughals in art, Hyderabad in wealth, or Gurkha in valor. If they really had "ruled" all of India, they would have taken away the wealth of the Nizam of Hyderabad who was at the time the richest man alive. But Nizam had a standing army. Instead they starved the already poor people of Bengal.
