Buddha was a Nepalese ethnic.
Buddhism originated from Nepal/India, but then got persecuted substantially within India, and found refuge in Pakistan's land. From within pakistan, it developed, especially the Northwest and Swat/Afghanistan.
Disappearance of Buddhism From India: An Untold Story
Gautam Buddha was an Indian Prince (Kshatriya Caste), which ruled the Kingdom of Kosala which roughly corresponds with modern Uttar Pradesh.
Lumbini is located in a district bordering India, and for all intents and purposes,is considered a part of ancient India.
That does not however take anything away from the Nepalis.
As far as your claims of persecution are concerned, considering the widespread mixed hindu-buddhist-jain religious structures dating well into the 12th century before the arrival of Islamic invaders, it would hardly seem that there was any ideological enmity between the faiths.
Its true that the social structure did change over time, but it was a gradual evolution like most other religious developments within India.
History can be divided into mutually exclusive sections in fact. Whatever happened within the borders of modern day Pakistan during history, is the history of the land area known as Pakistan. Whatever happened within India's borders is the history of India.
That's completely wrong and very irresponsible. Did Babur change from Pakistani to Indian once he crossed the border?
History has many layers, and its highly unfortunate that it has to be chopped up for national pride, but even so, its best avoided as far as possible.
LOL. Oh BULLSHYT. No part of the term "India" means East
Here's a quote from Megasthenes (300C BC) (I have quoted him before, but just to refresh your memory):
"India then being four-sided in plan, the side which looks to the Orient and that to the South, the Great Sea compasseth; that towards the Arctic is divided by the mountain chain of Hēmōdus from Scythia, inhabited by that tribe of Scythians who are called Sakai; and on the fourth side, turned towards the West, the Indus marks the boundary, the biggest or nearly so of all rivers after the Nile."
A map to help interpret the paragraph:
The term "India" was coined with reference to the "Indus River". Nothing to do with East of it.
No denying that, but it was used to describe the lands to the east of the Indus, which would include eastern Pakistan.
Similarly, the term "Hindustan", also a corruption of the Indus river, would later be used by the Middle-easterners to describe the lands east of the Indus.
The modern border is not an arbitrary line. There is a reason that Islam spread along only up till the Indo-Pak border. It was definitely not arbitrary.
And that reason was the constant migration of western tribes into the Indus valley and the consequent dilution/wiping out of indigenous peoples.
Compared to today's standards they were idiots, though for their time, they were remarkably advanced..Sort of the USA of today. However, placing such emphasis on their geographical knowledge, and assuming the mistakes they made as fact, is just regurgitating what we know to be incorrect..that is idiocy.
I don't understand - on one hand you use the terms invented by them to describe the subcontinent - and on the other - you claim that they had the wrong definition?
It seems that you are employing double standards by selectively choosing the stuff that conforms with your own ideas, and rejecting the stuff that doesn't by discrediting it.
Actually its Lahauri, not Lahori. And he was from Persia.
