Why didn’t the Hindus of India ever defeat an invading army!

[SIPRA]

The racial, genetic and ethnic differences between Pakistanis and indians is FAR greater than that amongst Pakistanis. The indians are a completely different race and peoples to us.

indian so called "Muslims" now are just as much if not more anti-Pakistani than indian hindus and sikhs. Even those that have been the victims of sanghi oppression. They are just as much our enemies as other indians.

I agree to both of your points, with some reservations. But, still, we cannot, on this logic, modify the ideological basis of Pakistan and revise the history, after the effect.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

I agree to both of your points, with some reservations. But, still, we cannot, on this logic, modify the ideological basis of Pakistan and revise the history, after the effect.

No need. The ideological basis of Pakistan is Islam. But that doesn't negate the fact that Pakistanis are also a difference race and genetic group to indians.

 

[magra]

You type like some sort or delirious revisionist, for example , Kolkata was literally patched up from 3 villages Kalikata Gobindapur and Sutanuti,by the British, or say Bombay, it was a group of seven islets covered by samphires and palm coconuts, inhabited by native fisherfolk before the Europeans arrived. But it seems you will literally say anything ,how typical and expected.

Cities grow whenever and wherever trade increases and population moves. We hardly need to thank British for creating Bombay for their own export needs. It seems you will thank them even for your existence.

Japan was highly literate, first rate productive ,regimented united economy,as pristine as today's Japan,only replaced by more high rise building right now ,they bought railway lines from British,India got their's built by British,huge difference. Japanese are a complete different beast and and different society than the likes of India which is more akin to Africa overall,I'm not talking about some feudal empire with the leaders living an opulent life,I'm talking about real modern states.

Take another example then - Thailand (and there are many others). These nations built railways without being colonized. India was the wealthiest nation under Mughal rule and could have easily brought in expert engineers from the world to get railways built. Remember that Taj Mahal was built a mere 200 years before British came.

Like India (not that there was something called India back then) was even in a state to compete,British had developed modern textile industry ,that decimated the rest of competition,even europe and US tried hard to steal British trade secrets. British saved India by scaling up textile production and incorporating it in the vast trade network and infrastructure chain of British empire, because unlike Japan,or China,overall India was literally a jungle divided in dozen of odd states .

British developed modern industry due to the huge sums they looted after conquering India. Without India and other colonies, Britain would have remained a backwater island and actually not even Britain as Scotland would have parted ways from England.

https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/China/0910

bluemarblecitizen.com

Top 10 Spice Producing Countries

www.bluemarblecitizen.com

Paa Jee

To me, the fundamental conflict, between India and Pakistan, is essentially Hindu-Muslim conflict, with its roots, lying in ideological differences, historical animosity and a peculiar Hindutvadi interpretation of medieval history. These were the basis, which were propounded by All India Muslim League, and our Quaid, while demanding for Pakistan. They were amply clear, by 1930s, that Indian National Congress, Mahasabha, and other Hindu political organizations, have an unambiguous intent of replacing "British Raj" with "Hindu Raj", by the sheer brutal force of their majority, where Muslims would be subjugated second-class citizens, with their rights being persistently usurped and trampled upon.

To transform, this great ideological struggle, based upon principle of Right of Self Determination, into some sort of Indus-Ganga conflict (with ancestral, genealogical and geographical undertones), in my view, is post de facto revision of independence history, to which I don't ascribe; though, I don't doubt the positive intent of its proponents.

Principal reason, for the attack of India on Kashmir (Muslim majority state), in October 1947, was an effort to destruct this ideological basis. When Quaid called Kashmir as "jugular vein" of Pakistan; it was more in a metaphysical and metaphorical sense; since he knew that this attack is the first stepping stone to undo ideological foundations of Pakistan, and towards attainment of "Akhand Bharat" dream.

Not to forget, that India is held together, against ethnic centrifugal forces, by the grip of ideological power of "Hinduism", whatever it is, and not by some so-called "Indianness".

Till 1910s, the freedom struggle of subcontinent was united without religious fissures. Jinnah was a Congress leader known for Hindu-Muslim unity. Non cooperation movement in 1919 jolted British and they thought that the only way to weaken the struggle is to sow seeds of communal discord. They started encouraging religious organizations like Hindu Mahasabha, Muslim League and started suppressing secular ones like Congress. Ones the seeds were sown, things progressed naturally and mutual mistrust widened over the years leading to partition.
We are still fighting among each other, paying billions of dollars to UK, US, China etc for weapons to use against each other.

 

[Naofumi]

Wait, you mean only need speaking Turkic is a Turkic tribe? In other words, Turks are a nation marked by culture, not by descent?

Is it not obvious? Widespread ethnic groups are widespread due to this reason, Latin nations are all result of Roman empire's and don't share common descent. Even Germanics like English are Celtic by majority of their DNA makeup - even excluding them Austrians share more descent with "Central Asian" Magyars and Slavic Czechs than their fellow Germanic cousins from Netherlands and speaking of this even North and South Chinese have differences in genetic makeup due to different intermixing in the respective regions. Ethnicity above is the feeling of belonginess through shared cultures, language and habits. That's the logical result of natural human tendency to assimilate.

That is open to question and I would disagree as even the term 'Hindu' is a British classification of recent origin

You should stop throwing this term British classification and should pick up better sources to back up your arguments. It was the British that classified disparate archeological remains as Indus Valley Civilization, the savages inhabiting were not equipped enough to even realize what archeology is and what it tells about their own origins. So, going by your own route of throwing this term, Indus valley is nothing but British farce, won't you agree?

Is India another term for Hindu religion? If so why you need to claim Nepal which is actually more Hindu by % then India and other places like Bali and South East Asia.

Why didn’t the Hindus of India ever defeat an invading army!

This is the title of the thread, I didn't claimed anything.

The tribes of Pothohar and Safed Koh following the Ghaznavid invasions would henceforth mostly side with invading forces.

LOL
Bajaur massacre - Wikipedia

"Marching at dawn, we dismounted by the spring of Bābā Qarā in the valley of Bajaur. At Khwāja Kalān’s request the prisoners remaining were pardoned their offences, reunited to their wives and children, and given leave to go, but several sultans and of the most stubborn were made to reach their doom of death. Some heads of sultans and of others were sent to Kabul with the news of success; some also to Badakhshan, Qunduz (Kunduz), and Balkh with the letters-of-victory. Shah Mansur Yusufzai,—he was with us as an envoy from his tribe,— was an eye-witness of the victory and general massacre. We allowed him to leave after putting a coat (tūn) on him and after writing orders with threats to the Yusufzai."

Invading forces were often successful regardless of the support of the local tribes, disparate tribes were of little match to actual organized armies but would still force invaders to spend considerable time and casualties trying to subjugate them.

The primary motivation for siding with invaders included the opportunity to loot as well as a chance to gain better post-invasion geopolitical footing, often by being able to declare independence from Delhi-based polities, an example being how the Gakhars were able to carve out a formidable Kingdom in Pothohar by siding with Nader Shah in his invasion of the Mughal Empire.

It was for these same reasons why the tribes of our region primarily sided with the British during the Indian mutiny.

View attachment 778745
View attachment 778746

This British excerpt for example names the opportunity to loot Hindustan and a "dislike for the Poorbeah (Easterners/Hindustanis)" as the main motives for Punjab and "the Border" regions (KPK) siding with the British during the Indian mutiny.

The situation was so bad during the Mongol invasions that the Delhi Sultanate would often send massive armies to ravage and devastate the region so that it would be incapable of supporting any invading force.

View attachment 778752
View attachment 778753

There were more Rajasthan and (latter Maratha) based revolts than from Punjab during the entire Sultanate + Mughal period. Everyone wants to be the captain of his own ship, everyone likes freedom. Aurangzeb spent his all life fighting revolts of Rajasthanis, nascent Bharatpur-Dholpur state(s) of Suraj Mal and of course Marathas. I don't see much of conterminous Punjab in rising up in revolts, they were awkwardly docile lot once conquered.

So these invasions started getting successful cause these clans started joining them in these invasions for the loot, geopolitics?

What of the joining them? Second Mughal Emperor Humanyun who spent his life outside subcontinent (in Iran, Central Asia getting assistance against Delhi-Bihar based Suris) married a Delhi region based lord's daughter NOT any Potohari or any other.

Gazetteer of Ulwur : Powlett, P. W. (Percy William), b. 1837 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

In these struggles for the restoration of Babur's dynasty Khanzadas apparently do not figure at all. Humayun seems to have conciliated them by marrying the elder daughter of Khanzada Jamal Khan, nephew of Babur's opponent, Khanzada Hasan Khan Mewati, and by requiring his minister, Bairam Khan, to marry the younger daughter of the same Mewati.

But the power centers of both countries are carrying Thier historical beef into the 21st century

What power center? When did the Punjab served as a power center (except during Sikh states)? Whom did they conquered? What did they built outside there lands? Where did they spread their culture/language? What native religion/sect they developed and spread? What advancements the courts of their Kingdoms produce? NIL, nada.

Look at us North Indians, from Afghanistan to tip of Tamil Nadu, from Balochistan to Nepal, everyone speaks our tongue. We ain't in the same league bro.

 

[SIPRA]

Is it not obvious? Widespread ethnic groups are widespread due to this reason, Latin nations are all result of Roman empire's and don't share common descent. Even Germanics like English are Celtic by majority of their DNA makeup - even excluding them Austrians share more descent with "Central Asian" Magyars and Slavic Czechs than their fellow Germanic cousins from Netherlands and speaking of this even North and South Chinese have differences in genetic makeup due to different intermixing in the respective regions. Ethnicity above is the feeling of belonginess through shared cultures, language and habits. That's the logical result of natural human tendency to assimilate.

You should stop throwing this term British classification and should pick up better sources to back up your arguments. It was the British that classified disparate archeological remains as Indus Valley Civilization, the savages inhabiting were not equipped enough to even realize what archeology is and what it tells about their own origins. So, going by your own route of throwing this term, Indus valley is nothing but British farce, won't you agree?



Why didn’t the Hindus of India ever defeat an invading army!

This is the title of the thread, I didn't claimed anything.

LOL
Bajaur massacre - Wikipedia


There were more Rajasthan and (latter Maratha) based revolts than from Punjab during the entire Sultanate + Mughal period. Everyone wants to be the captain of his own ship, everyone likes freedom. Aurangzeb spent his all life fighting revolts of Rajasthanis, nascent Bharatpur-Dholpur state(s) of Suraj Mal and of course Marathas. I don't see much of conterminous Punjab in rising up in revolts, they were awkwardly docile lot once conquered.

What of the joining them? Second Mughal Emperor Humanyun who spent his life outside subcontinent (in Iran, Central Asia getting assistance against Delhi-Bihar based Suris) married a Delhi region based lord's daughter NOT any Potohari or any other.

Gazetteer of Ulwur : Powlett, P. W. (Percy William), b. 1837 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive




What power center? When did the Punjab served as a power center (except during Sikh states)? Whom did they conquered? What did they built outside there lands? Where did they spread their culture/language? What native religion/sect they developed and spread? What advancements the courts of their Kingdoms produce? NIL, nada.

Look at us North Indians, from Afghanistan to tip of Tamil Nadu, from Balochistan to Nepal, everyone speaks our tongue. We ain't in the same league bro.

You are too late. Thread has already gone cold.

 

[MH.Yang]

Is it not obvious? Widespread ethnic groups are widespread due to this reason, Latin nations are all result of Roman empire's and don't share common descent. Even Germanics like English are Celtic by majority of their DNA makeup - even excluding them Austrians share more descent with "Central Asian" Magyars and Slavic Czechs than their fellow Germanic cousins from Netherlands and speaking of this even North and South Chinese have differences in genetic makeup due to different intermixing in the respective regions. Ethnicity above is the feeling of belonginess through shared cultures, language and habits. That's the logical result of natural human tendency to assimilate.

Chinese civilization is not only a civilization of cultural inheritance, but also a civilization of descent inheritance. DNA from Longshan Culture proved that the Y chromosome of Chinese 4000 years ago was O3. However, more than 80% of the Y chromosome of modern Chinese still is O3.
It's wrong to talk about ancestors completely without descent. If you claim to be a descendant of a nation, do you need at least 40% descent? For example, the Chinese generally believe that the ancestors of the Turks were the Byzantine Empire.