Once again my example is genuine since the size of the Arabian Peninsula is the size of India. That difference is minimal.
Why are you talking about the Indian Subcontinent still? I already told that the Arab world of today is 3 times bigger than that and located on the two biggest continents on the world and several historical regions of the world.
My point was that no "Indian" empire has ever controlled land outside of the NATIVE Indian Subcontinent. Hence it is pointless to compare it with the Arab civilizations/empires that in size are only beaten by the extremely short-lived Mongol Empire and the British and French modern-day Empires that came to existance 1000 years after.
The achievement of conquering your own home and establishing your own authority there is not as big an achievement like conquering extremely vast territories outside of your native lands and controlling that for centuries and influencing the new areas in every way possible. An influence that is still felt on every field this very day.
Again, I dont understand why you keep claiming that 'Indian subcontinent' is our 'home'. Is it because its called a subcontinent?
Because Indian subcontinent varies in extreme from part to part.
I said if you really wish to compare this, compare the size of the empires instead of their geographical location.
Another factor here is the population. Indian subcontinent is heavily populated, whereas Arab world si not. It was always a challenge to manage large populations, whereas Arab world has extensive very less inhabited deserts and thus were easier to control.
Anyway "Indian" is not a single ethnic group by an RECENT nationality. We are discussing from a completely wrong perspective.
As a
nationality, yes. India is recent.
Well, I already told you that the size of those empires is still significantly bigger than that of the "Indian" ones.
I really dont have any idea about Arab empires. Was
one King controlling all the Arab world, or whether there were different kings of different regions but all Muslim.
I really dont have much idea.
Is not most of all the architecture you see, main Indian tourist attractions etc. not a legacy of the Mughal Empire? What about all the foreign words, many of Persian, Arab, Turkish origin that you Indians have absorbed into your own languages and claim as your own now? How did nearly 20% of the Indian population turn Muslim suddenly? Thanks to the Mughals.
The mughal empire was the last Indian empire. That automatically means that they would have most impact.
The same way, British empire was the last empire which ruled India - and they have had
even more of an influence on India.
I hope you understand the logic. Influence is maximum when it is most recent.
That said, you should know that
13% of India is Muslims.
That main tourist attractions of
North India are of Mughal heritage. There are equally important attractions in West India, South India and East India which are not of Mughal Heritage.
Once again, what is Indian exactly? That is new construction that is less than 70 years old. They married mostly Northern Indians who have close to nothing in common with the Indians of the South other than Hinduism.
The different empires ruled both North and South India in varying degrees. We never called it India then, we called it Bharatvarsha.
The reality is that they were FOREIGNERS. Intruders who conquered lands in what is now India. People of a totally different descent, religion, culture etc. You did not absorb them out of your free will but they absorbed you.
So we can say that if the British and French who stayed in some parts of the Arab world for a few decades could be claimed as local "Arabs" if they just married a few locals and absorbed their culture on us and made 20% of us Christians while committing massacres in the process.
The invaders were turkic, yet over time they became Indian more and more. They influenced India and India influenced them. They put down roots here - in India.
They became Indian with
generations, not decades. With their sons and daughters and THEIR sons and daughters.
They intermarried with other Indian kingdoms to strike alliances. That is how it eventually became an empire from a kingdom - an Indian empire.
There is a reason I said that British empire is British not Indian despite the fact that they ruled India for over a century.
Also did the Mughals not commit many atrocities and where they not hated by the local Hindu masses? Is that not exactly why most Indians hate Islam?
They did. Only in North India. Mughal influence was limited in South India.
But the Hindus also committed attrocities on Budhists, the Sikhs on Hindus, the Budhists on Hindus.
Lastly is it not correct that many Northern Indians claim ancestry from outside of India? Why is that?
Because there were studies that said that ancient North Indians came from Persia. They were called Aryans.
There are an equal number of studies that say this is not so.
What is important here is that I dont get how this is relevant or of significance in either case.
Certainly of no interest to me.
I haven't taken your advice i am waiting for it to get fixed soon. Yeah right as if the mods are online most of the time and they would immediately do something of that sort it would probably take months for mods to do anything, considering how they aren't very regular
That triggers some very misandrist streaks in me 
