Your views about Invasions of India

[FULL_METAL]

Nowadays India's ancient past is glorified with animations and CGI graphics, carefully crafted revisionist history books and the absurd right-wing rhetoric on Vedic science.

But the reality is far form it. The invaders must have been shocked by the people and their culture when they arrived. A fragment of the original local culture still exists in certain parts of India, this should give you an idea:

Cannibal monks:

Incredible images show life of India's cannibal Aghori tribe | Daily Mail Online

Gandu fugla deshi do you have any idea about ancient indian culture, architecture and stuff? if not I wud humbly request you to visit the threads running on the same subject. U see I am not a hindu but when u post derogatory ignorant remarks about my country it hurts, so please don't provoke me to strip your country or religion in this very forum.

Thanks

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Bud, we don't glorify Timur. Timur does not represent our civilization. He glorified Genghis Khan, the man who destroyed the Islamic golden age. Timur only used Islamic for political gains.

I'm no fan of the crazy mofos called ISIS. Ask Wahabbi-Salafi forumers to defend them. ;p

Well some rulers destroyed temples for political reasons and it was not for service of Islam

 

[Luca1]

Nowadays India's ancient past is glorified with animations and CGI graphics, carefully crafted revisionist history books and the absurd right-wing rhetoric on Vedic science.

But the reality is far form it. The invaders must have been shocked by the people and their culture when they arrived. A fragment of the original local culture still exists in certain parts of India, this should give you an idea:

Cannibal monks:

Incredible images show life of India's cannibal Aghori tribe | Daily Mail Online

The diversity of Indians are amazing. There are the Austroids that first left Africa and entered India, the Dravidians the aryan invaders and then Muslim invaders and finally the British.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Bud, we don't glorify Timur. Timur does not represent our civilization. He glorified Genghis Khan, the man who destroyed the Islamic golden age. Timur only used Islamic for political gains.

I'm no fan of the crazy mofos called ISIS. Ask Wahabbi-Salafi forumers to defend them. ;p

Irrelevant. At worst the violent tendencies of Islamic civlizations get morphed into different things in differet eras. (Timur then, Bagdadi now). Administration was always better under local rulers- Chandragupta Maurya's state and bureaucracy being the greatest accomplishment of his age.
The civilizational benefits of arts could have come through trade.

The diversity of Indians are amazing. There are the asteroids, the Dravidians the aryan invaders and then Muslim invaders and finally the British.

Robin Layley fat and ugly

 

[Maira La]

The diversity of Indians are amazing. There are the asteroids, the Dravidians the aryan invaders and then Muslim invaders and finally the British.

You forgot the dinosaurs. Anyways you got the chronological order of the invasions right!

Gandu fugla deshi do you have any idea about ancient indian culture, architecture and stuff? if not I wud humbly request you to visit the threads running on the same subject. U see I am not a hindu but when u post derogatory ignorant remarks about my country it hurts, so please don't provoke me to strip your country or religion in this very forum.

Thanks

No offence intended. Point is all the invasions and migrations contributed to the rich culture of India. You can't single any one out (Vedic invasion) and say the rest have contributed nothing. Much of the local attire (especially in the North West), great architectures and cuisine (meat based) are contributions from the Islamic civilization. Would you deny it?

Irrelevant. At worst the violent tendencies of Islamic civlizations get morphed into different things in differet eras. (Timur then, Bagdadi now).

Germans are an awesome nation, but would you insist "the violent tendencies of Germans get morphed into different things in different eras? (Hitler)"

Salafism and Baghdadi are entirely new creations, like Hindutva and Modi. Hinduism (or the many local religions that are collectively called Hinduism) before India's creation had nothing to do with today's violent Gujarati/Marathi style Hindutvaism. Just an analogy.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

You forgot the dinosaurs. Anyways you got the chronological order of the invasions right!



No offence intended. Point is all the invasions and migrations contributed to the rich culture of India. You can't single any one out (Vedic invasion) and say the rest have contributed nothing. Much of the local attire (especially in the North West), great architectures and cuisine (meat based) are contributions from the Islamic civilization. Would you deny it?



Germans are an awesome nation, but would you insist "the violent tendencies of Germans get morphed into different things in different eras? (Hitler)"

Salafism and Baghdadi are entirely new creations, like Hindutva and Modi. Hinduism (or the many local religions that are collectively called Hinduism) before India's creation had nothing to do with today's violent Gujarati/Marathi style Hindutvaism. Just an analogy.

actually that Nazi phase is among the few 'cultural'/ racial phases of volence in german history. A lot of their wars were on political issues. The Islamic tendencies are not a 20th century phenomenon, in fact it was a factor that decided how patel looked at the partition. He was quite happy with it and had commented that getting rid of martial (restive) races would be on the whole good for stability of India. He, Mountbatten and Maulana Abul Kalam azad had predicted that internal factionalism would lead to the partition of Pakistan in about 25 years - like clockwork that happened too.
The question is - was a superior cultural heritage coming in- no.

 

[Dr Gupta]

The Moghuls/other invaders were smart in some aspects when they banned cow slaughter to keep the peace but their acts of destroying temples, forced conversions did not work as we still standing and the temples been rebuilt such as Somnath.

As for the Portuguese they were brutal like the Spanish in South America but I know first hand from my backpacking trips to Colombia, Peru etc the Spanish are disliked today for their actions.

The reason the Marathi's, Rajput's, Sikhs rose up was due to their barbaric actions, Shivaji who was secular (his commander was a Muslim) build a Mosque and Temple when he became king. This is the idea of India today hence why he respect him but have no love for the likes of Aurungzeb who killed the Sikh Guru because he refused to convert by the sword.

Anyway today is 2015, dharma is everywhere in the world from Moscow to Lima

The spread of dharma and Indian culture is universal! I was surprised to see a Hindu theme hotel in Colombia and many locals knew and greeted me with Namaste

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

The Moghuls/other invaders were smart in some aspects when they banned cow slaughter to keep the peace but their acts of destroying temples, forced conversions did not work as we still standing and the temples been rebuilt such as Somnath.

As for the Portuguese they were brutal like the Spanish in South America but I know first hand from my backpacking trips to Colombia, Peru etc the Spanish are disliked today for their actions.

Were these British and Portuguese and mughals had local support? How it was possible for few thousand to rule over such huge population ? I heard that troops of British were not more than 60 to 70 thousands and ist also true for Portuguese.

 

[Dr Gupta]

Latin America

Were these British and Portuguese and mughals had local support? How it was possible for few thousand to rule over such huge population ? I heard that troops of British were not more than 60 to 70 thousands and ist also true for Portuguese.

Everyone knows it was via the sea that the empire was born. They destroyed the Marathi and other merchant ships which traded with Arabia and Africa which resulted in the birth of the British Empire establishing a foothold. After that the good old fashioned divide and conquer tactics were used to cement their grip and expansion through the East India Company.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Everyone knows it was via the sea that the empire was born. They destroyed the Marathi and other merchant ships which traded with Arabia and Africa which resulted in the birth of the British Empire establishing a foothold. After that the good old fashioned divide and conquer tactics were used to cement their grip and expansion through the East India Company.

Then its fault of native Indians if they were divided among themselves and were busy oppressing their own kind whether low caste or women whether these raja mahraja or princes were busy in pulling legs of each others which gave opportunities to outsider for attack

 

[Dr Gupta]

The Raj could not function without the cooperation of millions of Indians. Many filled the Indian army in senior ranks and as foot soldiers. Others served in the navy or the undermanned police force.

Then its fault of native Indians if they were divided among themselves and were busy oppressing their own kind whether low caste or women whether these raja mahraja or princes were busy in pulling legs of each others which gave opportunities to outsider for attack

Your forefathers were native Indians too

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

No offence intended. Point is all the invasions and migrations contributed to the rich culture of India. You can't single any one out (Vedic invasion) and say the rest have contributed nothing. Much of the local attire (especially in the North West), great architectures and cuisine (meat based) are contributions from the Islamic civilization. Would you deny it?

During the Mughal period (1526–1858) in the 16th century, the gross domestic product of India was estimated at about 20.1% of the world economy.

An estimate of India's pre-colonial economy puts the annual revenue of Emperor Akbar's treasury in 1600 at £17.5 million (in contrast to the entire treasury of Great Britain two hundred years later in 1800, which totaled £16 million). The gross domestic product of Mughal India in 1600 was estimated at about 21.3% the world economy, the second largest in the world.[17]

By the late 17th century, the Mughal Empire was as its peak and had expanded to include almost 90 per cent of South Asia, and enforced a uniform customs and tax-administration system. In 1700 the exchequer of the Emperor Aurangzeb reported an annual revenue of more than £100 million.

In the 18th century, Mughals were replaced by the Marathas as the dominant power in much of Indian, while the other small regional kingdoms who were mostly late Mughal tributaries such as the Nawabs in the north and the Nizams in the south, declared an autonomy. However, the efficient Mughal tax administration system was left largely intact.

By this time, India had fallen from the top rank to become the second-largest economy in the world.[17] A devastating famine broke out in the eastern coast in early 1770s killing 5 per cent of the national population.[18]

Economic historians in the 21st century have found that in the 18th century real wages were falling in India, and were "far below European levels

source : Wiki

 

[Dr Gupta]

My ex gf told me everything happens for a reason (let me explain)

Yes the British/others looted, raped and pillaged us. We had the partition and the deaths of millions. But we gained too!
think about where in the world Indians are located?

Guyana
Suriname
Fiji
East Africa
South Africa
Trinidad
etc, etc

Now how did Indians end up there? due to the Empire of course!

 

[Dr Gupta]

During the Mughal period (1526–1858) in the 16th century, the gross domestic product of India was estimated at about 20.1% of the world economy.

An estimate of India's pre-colonial economy puts the annual revenue of Emperor Akbar's treasury in 1600 at £17.5 million (in contrast to the entire treasury of Great Britain two hundred years later in 1800, which totaled £16 million). The gross domestic product of Mughal India in 1600 was estimated at about 21.3% the world economy, the second largest in the world.[17]

By the late 17th century, the Mughal Empire was as its peak and had expanded to include almost 90 per cent of South Asia, and enforced a uniform customs and tax-administration system. In 1700 the exchequer of the Emperor Aurangzeb reported an annual revenue of more than £100 million.

In the 18th century, Mughals were replaced by the Marathas as the dominant power in much of Indian, while the other small regional kingdoms who were mostly late Mughal tributaries such as the Nawabs in the north and the Nizams in the south, declared an autonomy. However, the efficient Mughal tax administration system was left largely intact.

By this time, India had fallen from the top rank to become the second-largest economy in the world.[17] A devastating famine broke out in the eastern coast in early 1770s killing 5 per cent of the national population.[18]

Economic historians in the 21st century have found that in the 18th century real wages were falling in India, and were "far below European levels

source : Wiki

1 AD

• India's economy had a 52.9% share of world income, the largest in the world.

 

[Maira La]

My ex gf told me everything happens for a reason (let me explain)

Yes the British/others looted, raped and pillaged us. We had the partition and the deaths of millions. But we gained too!
think about where in the world Indians are located?

Guyana
Suriname
Fiji
East Africa
South Africa
Trinidad
etc, etc

Now how did Indians end up there? due to the Empire of course!

That's how sub-saharans too ended up all over the world. Is it something to be proud of? Hmm..

Administration was always better under local rulers- Chandragupta Maurya's state and bureaucracy being the greatest accomplishment of his age.

The problem with South Asians. We pass off opinions as facts. You could say "in my opinion".