Search results

The unit Light year is used to measure a distance and not time.:lol:

India is doing better than Afghanistan or Pakistan. So don't worry about us.

No, eastern India was for the longest time under direct British rule and today eastern India is the least developed region of India. On the other hand the most developed state of India is Kerala because Kerala was never under British rule.

The Punjab and the rest of Pakistan could have flourished under the Maratha rule. During the British period the princely states that were ruled by the Maratha rulers in Gujarat and Maharashtra were the most developed regions of whole India. Even today Maharashtra and Gujarat are some of the most...

BD can't compete with most of the Indian states like Gujarat, Maharashtra and south India. There is still a long way to go for BD. And BD should be grateful to India for giving them freedom from Pakistani rule.

Well, I have to admit that I didn't know that BD was doing so well lately. Thats good for BD. I know that Pakistan had a bad impact on the development of BD and I read that Pakistan even forced the people of BD to change their language and their writing system. It would be great if BD starts...

Its not like that the whole northern Indian subcontinent is underdeveloped. BD, Pakistan and Indian states like UP and Bihar give a bad name to the northern Indian subcontinent. States like Gujarat and Haryana are doing well and are able to compete with southern India.

The Rashtrakuta rulers defeated the Arab invaders and the Vijayanagar kings defeated the Turkic invaders but as far as I know there were not any conflicts between Chola rulers and Muslim rulers.

He doesn't have anything to do with Central Asian Turks. He is a descendant of Anatolian people who were conquered by the Central Asian Turks and were forced to change their language and culture.

It was because of the Vijayanagara Empire and Maratha Empire that Sri Lanka never came under Turkic or Mughal rule.

Sri Lanka was lucky that it was never under Turkic rule during the medieval period. Its thanks to the medieval south Indian warriors, who defeated the Turkic invaders in southern India, that Sri Lanka was never under Turkic or Mughal rule. Otherwise Sri Lanka would probably be as poor as...

Well, southern India was lucky that it was only for a short period of time under Turkic rule and some parts of southern India and Sri Lanka were never under Turkic rule. Afghanistan and Pakistan were for a long time under Turkic rule and the Turkic rulers completely destroyed these regions. The...

Yep, one of the main reasons for the underdevelopment of Pakistan is that there are a lot of tribal communities who are not really interested in hard work or education on the other hand there is only a small number of tribal communities in Gujarat and the people of Gujarat are well known for...

This is one of the reasons for the underdevelopment of eastern India. But what about Pakistan and Rajasthan? Rajasthan and parts of Pakistan were ruled by princely states and were not for a long time under British rule but Pakistan and Rajasthan are still less developed than southern India.

This discussion is not about UP. When you compare BD, northern India and Pakistan with southern Indian states like Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu its pretty obvious that southern Indian is far ahead. In fact Maharashtra has a higher GDP than Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Afghanistan and Bangladesh are even less developed than UP. Only Gujarat has a high development.

Its true that southern India was ahead during medieval period(7th - 16th century) and in the 18th century under the rule of the Maratha Empire and Mysore kingdom but that wasn't the case during ancient period(4th century BC- 6th century CE)

Southern India and Sri Lanka are more developed than Afghanistan, Pakistan, northern India and Bangladesh in terms of Human development, literacy rate and GDP. But this was not always the case. From the 4th century BC to the 6th century CE parts of northern India was more developed than southern...

I hope this won't happen. Don't get me wrong. I consider Shivaji Maharaj one of the greatest kings in Indian history but the huge statue will be a waste of money. There is already a statue of Shivaji Maharaj in Agra the formal capital of the Mughals on the other hand there is not even one...

Thanks By the way did you watch the Brazilian serial Caminho Das Indias which seems to have been a hit in Brazil.