I would beg to say that you shouldn't "oversimplify" things.
Again, you cannot show conclusively that Hinduism was created in a vacuum - there are limitations to what we can know about various civilizations and developments as we go further and further back in time. Therefore to arbitrarily pick one spot in time - when Muslims came to the subcontinent, is flawed.
Nothing exists in a vacuum, therefore nothing is technically foreign.
Right, nothing is foreign. Dude..listen to what you are saying.
When we say that the earth is a sphere, we draw a line somewhere, because if we want to be really "truthful', the earth is irregular in shape.
Similarly, if we say that an American is a foreigner in India, we draw the line at the the international boundary of India, and anyone who enters India from outside that boundary is a foreigner.
Is there a logical explanation as to why that border should be drawn in that very spot, and not anywhere else? Perhaps not.
But that's the way things are.
Since India today is a country, we study Indian history from that perspective, just like Chinese history, or Korean history, or French history, even though these countries too never existed to their present extent.
So, if we compare the cultures that existed within the boundaries of modern India in ancient times with Islam, we find that Islam was foreign.
And its influence on India was far from beingn.
That is all i have to say on the matter.
And cherry picking makes for a biased and flawed definition, one that serves a particular agenda - in this case the Hindutva one.
Please elucidate what the agenda of Hindutva is?
If you are feeling insecure because Bal Thackeray might decide to "reconquer" Pakistan, then relax, it ain't gonna happen/
My point exactly - you are arbitrarily drawing the line to make the Muslim rulers "foreigners" because it suits your agenda, but that has always been how cultures evolve, and civilizations rise and fall. South Asia was no different.
Yes, I totally agree. My "agenda" is to interpret history from an Indian perspective.
If you consider that dangerous or dishonest or whatever, then that's your opinion.
If you have a right to define "Pakistani History" on your own terms, then even I have the right to define Indian history on my terms.
That is a modern narrative, created to give legitimacy to a Hindutva narrative (similar to Ummah), and to give legitimacy to the modern Indian State.
Well I can say that Islam is being misused to give legitimacy to the Pakistani state, even though the boundaries of Pakistan have no legitimacy whatsoever.
They divide Afghan and Baloch lands right across the middle, they include disparate ethnic groups (even "ethnic group" by the way is an arbitrary definition")
The only reason the Durand line exists is because Durand drew it!!
So why subvert my arguments when yours are mirror images.