There are millions of buddhists in India and several districts that are majority Buddhist. I am curious, how many Buddhists are in tolerant Pakistan? Are there any Buddhist majority districts?
It doesn't take a genius to see that in the India, the places with the most muslims are those that were ruled by Muslim empires the longest. Muslim rule in UP and Bihar lasted about 500 years, so those states have some of the largest Muslim populations in India. Whereas states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Nepal, and the Northeast were never ruled by Muslim Empires for any significant amount of time, so they have almost nonexistant Muslim populations.
India was never majority Buddhist at any time in its history. And Ashok was the only Buddhist leader of India. Do you have any evidence for a supposed Buddist genocide in India?- show a Map of ancient Buddhist Indian empire that was almost all of India
- shows another map with about 1% of modern India where Buddhist still exist.
You Indians are a special kind of retarded.
And why on earth would you ask where the Buddhist are in Pakistan?
Even a rat knows enough history to know that we have first hand accounts of Arabs from the 7th century that said the land was all Hindu.
Meaning that...
BUDDHIST WERE KILLED OFF BY HINDUS BEFORE ISLAM EVER ARRIVED TO INDIA
Seriously, you Indian IT scammers and rapist are given the same training
"when cornered just say "what about Pakistan""
well what about Pakistan
You killed off all the Buddhist and now pretending like you didn't.
Hindus cannot tolerate minorities, they killed the Buddhist previously and they will kill the Muslims now.
First of all, I don't know what you mean be "before Hindus came along," because it is a historically established fact that Hinduism predates Buddhism.
And there are plenty of Buddhist stupas in India, many of which date back as far as 200 BC. such as Sanchi. Many of the holiest sites in Buddhism are in India.
It is not uncommon for names of cities and other locations to change. By your logic, renaming Bombay as Mumbaii is biased against British heritage, because the British named the City Bombay even though the local Maratis called the area as Mumbai.
It is a historical fact that Allahbad was called Prayag before the Mughal era. Whether it should be renamed to Prayag is a whole other issue. The irony is Allahbad is actually a holy spot for Hindus, since it is the location where the Ganges and Yamuna converge.
Once again, i am not saying I support such renaming, I am simply stating a historical fact. Although you still do not seem to understand the fact that the history of India does not begin and end with Muslims.
So what were we then? Martians? Do you seriously think the Mughals were the first Empire in India? The Mauryans, Nandas, Shungas, and guptas all controlled more land than the Mughals and for a longer time.
By your logic Pakistan is only 70 years old.
But Pakistan was.
Can you name me any reputable scholars who have made such claims? Genuinely curious. Especially considering Meghasthenes gave a pretty clear account of Mauryan-era India. That and the fact that Ashok's pillars have been found all the way from Kandahar to Odisha, and all were from the same era.
Just give your inferiority syndrome a rest man. I would have some respect for you and other Indians if you simply accepted Hindustan was at its strongest under the mughals and the British, and because of your inherent bias you wish to erase that deliberately. The rest of these elephant riders did very little in comparison in terms of statecraft and empire building. I suppose the marathas gave the world the sheer stupid idea of bringing families to war camps. Didn't last long that one.With the exception of the brief period of Aurangzeb that lasted under 100 years, The Mughal Empire was comparable in size with the Guptas. And the Gupta period is considered by historians to be the golden age of India.
The Cholas also controlled more area than the Mughals if you include their tributary states in Southeast Asia. BTW, the Cholas were the only South Asian Empire to expand outside of South Asia.
Chandragupta Maurya only converted to Jainism after he abdicated the throne, and his son Bhindusara who succeeded him was a Hindu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bindusara
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya
The fact is India was one of the world's most ancient civilizations prior to the Mughals. In fact, the reason why Central Asian invaders who founded the Mughal dynasty invaded India was because it was one of the world's most prosperous regions at the time.
As for Pakistan, many "Indus Nationalists" consider modern-day Pakistan to be over 4000 years old. I have read many of their threads in the Pakistan History section, and I find them fascinating.
I can tell you don't know much about South Asian history. India was the strongest under the Mauryans. Not only did the Mauryans have more land area than any other Indian empire, they also were able to fully expel Greeks form South Asia.
Man give your nonsense a rest. It's annoying.... Gupta this maratha that....British are ok but mughals haram. Your anti-Muslim bias is pathetic and blatant.
Well lets just say I disagree with your comparison of pre-Islamic Empires to the Muslim Empires. But I actually agree with you about the Mughals being a product of their times. the fact is all of the bad things the Mughals did(looting forced conversion, etc.) were acceptable during their time. If anything, the Eurpopeanswere worse in that rgard.(For example, Spanish in South America).
Ok so you routinely respond to half my post while disregarding the more important criticisms I level at you and the nation state of India. Fair enough.
