Tens of thousands join pro-Palestinian marches across Europe
By Caroline TAÏX
Tens of thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters marched in European cities Saturday calling for an end to the war in Gaza, amid concerns the Iran-Israel conflict could spark wider regional devastation.
In London, AFP journalists saw tens of thousands of protesters, who waved Palestinian flags as they marched through the British capital clad in keffiyeh scarves.
In Berlin, more than 10,000 people gathered in the centre of the city in support of Gaza, according to police figures.
And in the Swiss capital Bern, march organizers estimated that 20,000 people rallied in front of the national parliament, urging the government to back a ceasefire.
There have been monthly protests in the British capital since the start of the 20-month-long war between Israel and Hamas, which has ravaged Gaza.
This Saturday, protesters there carried signs including "Stop arming Israel" and "No war on Iran" as they marched in the sweltering heat.
"It's important to remember that people are suffering in Gaza. I fear all the focus will be on Iran now," said 34-year-old Harry Baker.
"I don't have great love for the Iranian regime, but we are now in a dangerous situation." This was his third pro-Palestinian protest, he added.
Saturday's marches comes amid heightened global tensions as the United States mulls joining Israel's strikes against Iran.
Tehran said Saturday that more than 400 people had been killed in Iran since Israel launched strikes last week claiming its arch-foe was close to acquiring a nuclear weapon, which Iran denies.
Some 25 people have been killed in Israel, according to official figures.
One marcher in London, a 31-year-old Iranian student who did not want to share her name, told AFP she had family in Iran and was "scared".
"I'm worried about my country. I know the regime is not good but it's still my country. I'm scared," she said.
Gaza is suffering from famine-like conditions according to UN agencies in the region following an Israeli aid blockade.
Gaza's civil defense agency has reported that hundreds have been killed by Israeli forces while trying to reach the US- and Israeli-backed aid distribution sites.
"People need to keep their eyes on Gaza. That's where the genocide is happening," said 60-year-old protester Nicky Marcus.
In Berlin, demonstrators gathered mid-afternoon close to the parliament, some chanting "Germany finances, Israel bombs".
"You can't sit on the sofa and be silent. Now is the time when we all need to speak up," said protester Gundula, who did not want to give her second name.
For Marwan Radwan, the point of the protest was to bring attention to the "genocide currently taking place" and the "dirty work" being done by the German government.
In Bern, demonstrators carried banners calling on the federal government to intervene in the war in Gaza, expressing solidarity with Palestinians.
The rally there was called by organizations including Amnesty International, the Social Democratic Party, the Greens and the Swiss Trade Union Federation.
Slogans included "Stop the occupation", "Stop the starvation, stop the violence", and "Right to self-determination".
Some marchers chanted: "We are all the children of Gaza".
The overall death toll in Gaza since the war broke out has reached at least 55,637 people, according to the health ministry.
Israel has denied it is carrying out a genocide and says it aims to wipe out Hamas after the Islamist group's October 7, 2023 attack on Israel resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people.
© 2025 AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Today
2 hours ago
- Japan Today
Netanyahu says he'll push ahead with Gaza City takeover and renewed ceasefire talks
Palestinians carry the body of Mohammed Al-Sukni, who was killed while trying to reach aid trucks, as his mother sits at the front of the vehicle before his funeral in Gaza City, Thursday, Aug. 21, 2025. (AP Photo/Jehad Alshrafi) By WAFAA SHURAFA, SALLY ABOU ALJOUD and MELANIE LIDMAN Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday he will give final approval for the takeover of Gaza City while also restarting negotiations with Hamas aimed at returning all the remaining hostages and ending the war on Israel's terms. The wide-scale operation in Gaza City could start within days after Netanyahu grants final approval at a meeting with senior security officials later Thursday. Hamas said earlier this week that it had agreed to a ceasefire proposal from Arab mediators, which — if accepted by Israel — could forestall the offensive. The Israeli military has begun calling medical officials and international organizations in the northern Gaza Strip to encourage them to evacuate to the south ahead of the expanded operation. The military plans to call up 60,000 reservists and extend the service of 20,000 more. Israeli strikes meanwhile killed at least 36 Palestinians across Gaza on Thursday, according to local hospitals. A renewed offensive could bring even more casualties and displacement to the territory, where the war has already killed tens of thousands and where experts have warned of imminent famine. Many Israelis fear it could also doom the remaining 20 or so living hostages taken by Hamas-led militants in the Oct. 7, 2023 attack that ignited the war. During a visit to the military's Gaza command in southern Israel, Netanyahu said he would approve the army's plans to retake Gaza City, and had instructed officials "to begin immediate negotiations on the release of all our hostages and an end to the war on terms acceptable to Israel.' "These two things — defeating Hamas and releasing all our hostages — go hand in hand," he said. It appeared to mark Israel's first public response to the latest ceasefire proposal drawn up by Egypt and Qatar, which Egyptian and Hamas officials say is almost identical to an earlier one that Israel accepted before the talks stalled last month. The proposal would include the release of some of the hostages in exchange for Palestinians imprisoned by Israel, a pullback of Israeli forces and negotiations over a more lasting ceasefire. Israeli troops have meanwhile already begun more limited operations in Gaza City's Zeitoun neighborhood and the built-up Jabaliya refugee camp, areas where they have carried out several previous large-scale raids over the course of the war, only to see militants later regroup. The military says it plans to operate in areas where ground troops have not yet entered and where it says Hamas still has military and governing capabilities. So far, there has been little sign of Palestinians fleeing en masse, as they did when Israel carried out an earlier offensive in Gaza City in the opening weeks of the war. The military says it controls around 75% of Gaza and residents say nowhere in the territory feels safe. Hundreds gathered for a rare protest in Gaza City on Thursday against the war and Israel's plans to support the mass relocation of Palestinians to other countries. Women and children held placards reading 'Save Gaza' and 'Stop the war, stop the savage attack, save us,' against a backdrop of destroyed buildings as Palestinian music played. Unlike in previous protests, there were no expressions of opposition to Hamas. 'We want the war on Gaza to stop. We don't want to migrate. Twenty-two months … it's enough. Enough death. Enough destruction,' said Bisan Ghazal, a woman displaced from Gaza City. In Israel, protesters marched Thursday night in Tel Aviv holding banners that read 'The people will bring back the hostages' and 'How much blood will be spilled?' Among the demonstrators was Dudu Dotan, who said Netanyahu is endangering the remaining hostages by moving forward with the planned Gaza City offensive. Of the 50 still being held in Gaza, Israel believes about 20 hostages are still alive. 'This way will not bring the hostages back,' Dotan said. "Every hostage he brought back, he brought back through deals. And every time he tried to bring them back with military force, he caused the hostages to be killed.' Plans for widening the offensive have also sparked international outrage, with many of Israel's closest Western allies — but not the United States — calling on it to end the war. 'I must reiterate that it is vital to reach immediately a ceasefire in Gaza, and the unconditional release of all hostages to avoid the massive death and destruction that a military operation against Gaza City would inevitably cause,' United Nations chief António Guterres said at a conference in Japan. At least 36 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire across the Gaza Strip on Thursday, including 14 who were seeking humanitarian aid, according to local hospitals. The military says it only targets militants and blames civilian deaths on Hamas because it operates in densely populated areas. The Israeli military said it killed several armed militants in the Morag Corridor, a military zone where people seeking aid have repeatedly come under fire in recent weeks, according to witnesses and health officials. Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza had earlier reported that six people were killed in that area while seeking aid on Thursday. It was not possible to reconcile the two accounts. The Media Freedom Coalition, which promotes press freedoms worldwide, called Thursday for Israel to allow independent, foreign news organizations access to Gaza. Aside from rare guided tours, Israel has barred international media during the war, in which at least 184 Palestinian journalists and media workers have been killed. 'Journalists and media workers play an essential role in putting the spotlight on the devastating reality of war,' said a statement signed by 27 of the coalition's member countries. Israeli airstrikes also destroyed a tent camp in Deir al-Balah, the only city in Gaza that has been relatively unscathed in the war and where many have sought refuge. Residents said the Israeli military warned them to flee shortly before the strikes set the camp ablaze, and there were no reports of casualties. Families, many with children, could later be seen sifting through the ashes for the belongings they had managed to take with them during earlier evacuations. Mohammad Kahlout, who had been displaced from northern Gaza, said they were given just five minutes to gather what they could and evacuate. 'We are civilians, not terrorists. What did we do, and what did our children do, to be displaced again?" The Gaza Health Ministry said Thursday that at least 62,192 Palestinians have been killed in the war. Another two people have died from malnutrition-related causes, bringing the total number of such deaths to 271, including 112 children, the Health Ministry said. The ministry is part of the Hamas-run government and staffed by medical professionals. It does not say whether those killed by Israeli fire are civilians or combatants, but it says around half are women and children. The U.N. and many independent experts consider its figures to be the most reliable estimate of wartime casualties. Israel disputes its toll but has not provided its own. Hamas-led militants started the war when they attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducting 251. Most of the hostages have been released in ceasefires or other deals. Hamas says it will only free the rest in exchange for a lasting ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal. Mari Yamaguchi contributed from Tokyo. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Japan Today
2 hours ago
- Japan Today
Trump administration reviewing all 55 mil people with U.S. visas for potential deportable violations
By MATTHEW LEE The State Department said Thursday that it's reviewing the records of more than 55 million foreigners who hold valid U.S. visas for potential revocation or deportable violations of immigration rules. In a written answer to a question posed by The Associated Press, the department said that all U.S. visa holders are subject to 'continuous vetting' with an eye toward any indication that they could be ineligible for the document. Should such information be found, the visa will be revoked and, if the visa holder is in the United States, he or she would be subject to deportation. The department said it was looking for indicators of ineligibility, including visa overstays, criminal activity, threats to public safety, engaging in any form of terrorist activity, or providing support to a terrorist organization. 'We review all available information as part of our vetting, including law enforcement or immigration records or any other information that comes to light after visa issuance indicating a potential ineligibility,' the department said. Since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has thus far focused on deporting migrants illegally in the United States as well as holders of student and visitor exchange visas. The State Department's new language suggests that the re-vetting process, which officials acknowledge is time-consuming, is far more widespread. The administration has steadily imposed more and more restrictions and requirements on visa applicants, including requiring all visa seekers to submit to in-person interviews. But the review of all visa holders appears to be a significant expansion of what had initially been a re-vetting process focused mainly on students who have been involved in pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel activity. Officials say the reviews will include all the visa holders' social media accounts, law enforcement and immigration records in their home countries, along with any actionable violations of U.S. law committed while they were in the United States. 'As part of the Trump Administration's commitment to protect U.S. national security and public safety, since Inauguration Day the State Department has revoked more than twice as many visas, including nearly four times as many student visas, as during the same time period last year,' the department said. Earlier this week, the department said that since Trump returned to the White House, it has revoked more than 6,000 student visas for overstays and violations of local, state and federal law, the vast majority of which were assault, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and support for terrorism. It said that about 4,000 of those 6,000 were due to actual infractions of laws and that approximately 200–300 visas were revoked for terrorism-related issues, including providing support for designated terrorist organizations or state sponsors of terrorism. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
The Diplomat
9 hours ago
- The Diplomat
The Historical Great Powers of Asia: South Asia
Procession on the occasion of a Durbar (audience) of the Mogul Emperor Akbar of India, which includes his sons, high Indian and British dignitaries, soldiers, elephants carrying the royal insignia (standards with sun, umbrella, fish etc.), palanquins and closed bullock-carriages for the ladies, camels, horses and gun-carriages. This piece is part of a series of articles covering the medieval and early modern great powers of each of Asia's regions: East Asia, Central and North Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and West Asia (the Middle East). Each article discusses the great power dynamics of the main powers within that particular region as well as how the main powers of each region interacted with those of other regions. To view the full series so far, click here. South Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, sits in the middle of Asia, athwart the land and sea routes between West and Central Asia on one hand and Southeast and East Asia on the other hand. India had the world's largest economy, accounting for between a fourth and a third of the world's wealth, by the start of the common era, and continuing for 15 centuries. In 1000 CE, at the heart of the medieval era, the Indian subcontinent was more populous than China, and its influence and culture spread far and wide over Asia. In his book, 'The Golden Road: How Ancient India Transformed the World,' historian William Dalrymple described how India was at the center of an 'Indosphere,' wherein 'the rest of Asia was the willing and even eager recipient of a startlingly comprehensive mass transfer of Indian soft power, in religion [Hinduism, Buddhism], art, music, dance, textiles, technology, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, mythology, language [Sanskrit] and literature.' Dalrymple went on to note that the centrality of India's economy and culture in Asian history has since been obscured by an overly Sinocentric view of history, which confines India to the role of an 'almost passive observer of, and a lucky recipient of largesse from' the main current of history, the interaction between the West and China via the so-called 'Silk Road.' In reality, most of Rome's overseas trade was with India, and the volume of commerce across the Indian Ocean, far exceeded the overland Silk Road. The Indosphere was much larger and more influential than the much smaller Sinosphere. It was India that Christopher Columbus sought to reach, and it was India that the British viewed as crucial to their empire: 'as long as we rule India, we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it, we shall drop straight away to a third-rate Power.' It is true that the political unity and bureaucratic efficiency of China gave it geopolitical weight and strategic coherence that has been unmatched by most Indian states; it is also true that India has been on the receiving end of foreign colonialism to a greater extent than China. But in general, India's culture and economy have been more influential in world history, and its interaction with the Islamic and Western worlds has only served to spread its influence even wider. Dalrymple attributed this lopsided understanding of history to Chinese branding and India's political fragmentation, though the latter should also be seen as a sign of dynamism, because it facilitated local development and autonomy, even if it made geopolitical projection more difficult. Even today, modern India sometimes seems so absorbed with managing domestic sociopolitical issues — negotiating between and balancing the interests of different castes, regions, ethnic, and linguistic groups — that foreign policy and geopolitics seem to be secondary concerns. This, along with India's physical geography, contribute to a sense that India's strategic perspective is often insular. Place in the World But Indians did have a sense of the world and their place in it. The Mughals maintained diplomatic relations with the Chinese, Persians, Ottomans, and various European nations. According to Nana Fadnavis, a Maratha minister in the 18th century, the world's five great powers were the Qing Empire of China, the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain, France, and of course, the Maratha Empire of India. Although the ancient Sanskrit text, the Arthashastra, envisions a centralized bureaucratic state, in practice, most Indian polities from the Gupta Empire (220 CE-550 CE) onwards were decentralized, with local leaders, caste-based groups, and others managing local affairs. According to Indian historian Aniruddh Kanisetti, merchant guilds and nadu assemblies in villages of the Chola Empire of Tamil Nadu, which flourished between 848-1279 CE, raised or denied kings revenue and initiated the construction of temples, irrigation projects, and other infrastructure. This pattern of rule persisted for over a thousand years, well into the Islamic period. Douglas Streusand, a professor of international relations, noted in his book 'Islamic Gunpowder Empires' that the Mughal government 'floated' above provincial society: it 'did not interact directly with the general population but collected revenue through local intermediaries (zamindars).' Any major Indian empire, even one that controlled a portion of the subcontinent, would be quite dynamic and powerful, second only to whichever Chinese dynasty was ruling at that time. Geopolitical observers across medieval Asia would describe the largest Indian empire of their day as one of the world's great powers. Even if Indian kings did not control the entire subcontinent and were concerned with domestic issues, by concentrating so much wealth and population, they were able to impact world events. Mountainous Barriers One of the defining features of the subcontinent's geopolitical posture are the mountain ranges separating it from the rest of Asia, particularly the Himalayas and Hindu Kush mountains. George Nathaniel Curzon, the British viceroy of India between 1899 and 1905, described these mountainous barriers as some of the 'most durable,' and noted that 'the labor in crossing a mountain range is commonly great, particularly for armies…' The Himalayas, the world's highest mountain range, rise sharply from the subcontinent. They are over 2,500 kilometers (1,550 miles) long and up to 400 kilometers (250 miles) wide. According to historians Catherine Asher and Cynthia Talbot, writing in 'India Before Europe,' this has 'largely sealed off access to the subcontinent from the north.' Indeed, barring some skirmishing between local Himalayan states, the Himalayan frontier did not feature prominently in Indian geopolitical history before the establishment of the modern Sino-Indian border. The subcontinent's mountain ranges, together with a string of deserts in its west and sparsely populated swamps, hills, and rainforests to the east of Bengal, render the region almost an island. It has some of the best natural frontiers imaginable. Much of southern India forms a large peninsular plateau, the Deccan, which is surrounded by the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. Seas, mountains, and deserts, while serving as barriers to conquest, were not impenetrable, and also served as highways for commerce and the spread of culture. In particular, peninsular India was the hub of Indian Ocean trade, propelled by using monsoon winds to navigate large distances. India thus has a geographic and cultural coherence that was noted by both Indian and non-Indian observers. Despite its political fragmentation, India was a term that always referred to a concrete place, variously known as India, Bharat, Hindustan, and Jambudvipa. While mountains had defense advantages, they also made it difficult for Indian states to project power outward into the rest of Asia. Furthermore, there was generally little desire to do so, as the effort and cost were not worth the return of holding onto large portions of Central Asia or Tibet. Conversely, most invasions of the subcontinent came from the direction of the lower of the two major mountain ranges abutting the subcontinent — the Hindu Kush — because it is easier for an army to descend from high ground into a plain than for the opposite to occur. The wealth and population of the subcontinent, moreover, made India a frequent target of invasions from Central and Western Asia. Curzon suggested that an Indian state could avoid this situation by controlling as much of a mountain range as possible, so as to place 'both the entrance and the exit of the [mountain] passes in the hands of the defending power.' This logic led to the forward school of the British in pushing India's boundaries outward to the Durand and McMahon Lines, which today form the borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and India and China. Another key geopolitical characteristic of South Asia — of utmost importance to premodern polities — was its enormous population. The first Mughal emperor, Babur, observed that India had 'unnumbered and endless workmen of every kind.' The historically famed wealth of India is due more to this than any other factor. With this large labor pool, India was able to produce much to export, whether cotton or gold or spices, all of which are found elsewhere. India's large population can be attributed to its climate and monsoon season, which allows multiple harvests in a year and several staple crops, including rice and wheat. A large population is also a large tax base and reservoir of military manpower, a fact that both the Mughal and British empires found useful in projecting their might globally. Medieval India As India entered what historians call the medieval period in the sixth century CE, the Gupta Empire, which had ruled the north Indian plains for three centuries, was disintegrating, often in the face of attacks from Central Asia by the Huna — people related to the Huns who fought the Roman Empire. Although the Huna were defeated, they set up many statelets in Afghanistan and western India. Much of India fragmented into numerous regional kingdoms after the disintegration of the Gupta Empire. Historians Asher and Talbot described this as a 'normal course of affairs in such a large and diverse area,' one featuring different ecologies, cultures, and subregions. States often sought to expand their power not through direct conquest — taking and holding too much territory was difficult — but through the mandala theory, in which states projected power outward through circles of tributaries. But India's state system was unable to achieve a stable balance of power, as in Europe, because of the occasional appearance of large empires that wiped away regional entities and sought to unite the subcontinent. It would be difficult to describe the course of events in medieval India in a single essay; India's innumerable kingdoms had different geopolitical strategies and imperatives. Some, like the Cholas of Tamil Nadu, developed significant overseas influence that was rare among premodern Asian polities, projecting power into Southeast Asia. However, one overarching pattern emerges: India's dominant states were concentrated in three zones, and each of these contained a leading empire of its day that tried to achieve dominance over the rest in order to become the subcontinent's paramount power. On top of this, invaders — usually Turkic — from the steppes of Central Asia or Persia often entered the fray by way of Afghanistan, establishing states in western or northern India that sought to expand over the rest of the subcontinent. The first of these three zones is the western part of the Deccan plateau, a mountainous region comprising Maharashtra and Karnataka. A succession of powerful empires dominated the Deccan and expanded toward the populous Gangetic plain of north India from here: the Vakatakas (220-510 CE), the Chalukyas of Badami (543-753 CE), the Rashtrakutas (753-982 CE), the Chalukyas of Kalyani (957-1184 CE), Vijayanagara (1336–1646 CE), and the Marathas (1674-1818 CE). Similar to Afghanistan, the mountainous terrain of this region made it difficult to conquer, and contributed to a local culture of hardy warriors. By the time of the Marathas, the people of this region were known for their guerrilla techniques and use of swift light cavalry, according to historian Richard M. Eaton in 'India in the Persianate Age: 1000–1765.' The second of these three zones is the densely populated eastern Gangetic plain, which corresponds to the regions of Bengal and Bihar. Formerly the heartland of the powerful classical Maurya and Gupta empires, the overall might of this region declined during the medieval era, though it was home to extraordinarily wealthy dynasties. These states tended to be less successful than those in other parts of India in projecting power. Prominent empires from this region include the Palas (750-1161 CE) and the Bengal Sultanate (1352-1576 CE). The most successful use of this region in establishing a subcontinental empire, however, was by the British, who established their control over Bengal after the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Subsequently, the British were able to marshal the resources of Bengal to expand throughout India. The third zone is the western part of the Ganges valley — which includes most of modern Uttar Pradesh and Haryana — and the surrounding hilly and arid regions in Rajasthan and the Malwa plateau of Madhya Pradesh. This has been the dominant region throughout much of the subcontinent's history, and became even prominent during the medieval era. Much of the time, it has been the base of power of dynasties that invaded India from Central Asia, but its proximity to the borderlands of the subcontinent also engendered the formation of local mighty warrior peoples, ranging from the Rajputs to the Sikhs. It was from this area that the Rajput warrior clans, who dominated much of India for centuries, originated; Hindi, India's most prominent language, comes from here; the heartland of Mughal power was here. This zone largely overlaps with the Aryavarta of the ancient Vedic period, which stretched from the Himalayas to the Vindhyas of central India and encompassed the doab, the region between the Ganges and Yamuna rivers. While the densely populated doab has been a source of power for many empires, many of the region's ruling groups originated in the hilly regions abutting it, from Rajasthan, Malwa, or Afghanistan. Prominent states in this region include the Pratiharas (730-1036 CE), the numerous Rajput kingdoms that originated as tributaries of the Pratihara state, such as the Chauhans and Sisodias of medieval Rajasthan, the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526 CE), and the Mughal Empire (1526-1858 CE). The rivalry between the empires of the three zones for supremacy over the subcontinent is epitomized by the tripartite struggle between the Pratiharas, Palas, and Rashtrakutas for the central Ganges valley and the city of Kannauj in the 8th and 9th centuries CE. The Pratiharas emerged victorious in this struggle, but power continued to vacillate between the three polities, especially between the Rashtrakutas and the Pratiharas. While much of the energy spent by these subcontinental powers was over India, they were also able to pay attention to threats from outside South Asia. Both the Pratiharas and Rashtrakutas defeated the Arabs, who had established themselves in Sindh, checking Muslim expansion into India for centuries. At the end of the 12th century, the Ghorid Empire, based in modern Afghanistan, overran much of northern India after defeating Rajput dynasties. Delhi Sultanate Subsequently, the Delhi Sultanate, ruled by various dynasties of Afghan or Turkic origin, was founded in 1206 CE. The Delhi Sultanate briefly expanded over much of the subcontinent, but faced the familiar problem of being unable to control all of India, with breakaway sultanates appearing in Gujarat, Malwa, Bengal, and the northern Deccan's Bahmani Sultanate (1347-1527 CE). It also had to contend with powerful Hindu rivals in Rajasthan and Vijayanagara in southern India. Eventually, the Mughal Empire replaced the Delhi Sultanate in 1526 CE. Founded by Babur, the ruler of Kabul and a scion of the Turko-Mongol Timurid dynasty, the Mughals spent much of their heyday — over two centuries — trying to establish their rule over all of India. Like previous dynasties, they had to particularly contend with powers based in eastern India and the Deccan. Babur described Vijayanagara and Bengal as among the most powerful and wealthy kingdoms in Hindustan. In eastern India, these included the Bengal Sultanate, the Sur Empire (1540-1556 CE), and the later breakaway nawabs of Bengal, who were eventually subdued by the British. The Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb (ruled 1658-1707 CE) spent most of his reign trying to conquer the Deccan region, which included successor states of the Bahmani Sultanate and the nascent Maratha polity. Ultimately, they were unable to do so, and the Marathas dominated much of India for the 18th century. While most subcontinental empires during this period, such as the Mughals, were focused on dominating South Asia and fighting other powers in the region, they kept an eye on their geopolitical position vis-à-vis the rest of Asia, even if this was not prioritized. For example, the Mughals sought to dominate the approaches to the subcontinent via Afghanistan, sending armies to Balkh (Bactria) to fight the Uzbeks and to Kandahar, which frequently changed hands between the Mughals and Safavid Persians. Both the Cholas and Marathas recognized the importance of controlling the seas neighboring India and guarding the approaches to the subcontinent. Yet the fact remains that due to the geographic and demographic features of the subcontinent, Indian powers often perceived it to be fruitless and unnecessary to expand too far beyond the region's boundaries. It was enough to dominate the subcontinent to become a major power in the world. By doing so, they would automatically control over a quarter of the world's population and wealth. Anything more would have been overreach. As the medieval period transitioned into the early modern and then modern eras, the British Raj came to rule over most of India, either directly or indirectly. This era had its ups and downs, but from a geopolitical perspective, the British left India a favorable strategic legacy. Modern India is a coherent nation-state that does not have to expend its resources and energies fighting other regional states, although an echo of this tradition exists in the Indo-Pakistani rivalry today. Modern India, as a united state, has natural boundaries in most places, a large demographic and economic base, and the ability to patrol and protect both the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean. India is in a good position to project power and influence other regions in Asia and take its place as one of the great powers of the world.
