Yes only about 75 years. It's an interesting experiment. For almost it's entire historical and geographical span, humankind has been unable to live without some kind of religion to explain it's place and purpose in the universe.
The world needs to thank their lucky stars that the Nazis weren't Muslims.
But chinese fan bois here don’t understand geography. It’s all asper their imagination
Building and deployment for war are very different things.
The Mughals didnt make India richer country.
That's true economically. I'm more interested in the social experiment.
Even prominent Atheists such as Douglass Murray and Richard Dawkins support a Judeo-Christian ‘culture’ or they think society is lost and will deteriorate.
Can’t really argue with this assessment. But my only critique is that DRDO has been a mixed bag. Your missile programmes have been effective but projects like the Tejas and Arjun have been failures.
The Mughals didnt make India richer country.
India was the richest even pre-Mughal era contributing to 30% of world GDP eatimates. So stop with this non-sense as if Mughals did something great.
Development Centre Studies The World Economy Historical Statistics
Following his The World Economy: a Millennial Perspective, Angus Maddison here offers a rare insight into the history and political influence of national accounts and national accounting. He demonstrates that such statistical data can shed light on the analysis of economic phenomena such as...books.google.com
Mughlas were oppressive rulers and forced their religion on India. There are still many temples down south and North which were decimated by Mughals. You may have affinity towards them for being Muslims but obviously thats not the case house history and Indians look at.
Aurangzeb is considered as a tyrant and his actions towards his brethren is a prime example of it.
The problem lies with manufacturing capacity. Even now, our aircraft manufacturing capacity is barely at 25 I presume. It will take lot of time to scale up. But again, growth is exponential in general. Cant fault DRDO as their R&D projects have been invaluable for us.
I was may be harsh but PPers portray Mughals as some benevolent rulers which they weren't. Very few rulers were in-fact good administrators. Its in the past anyway.
I believe that's either a misinterpretation of their writings or a failure of imagination on their part. Societies not based on Judeo-Christian culture have thrived for the vast majority of human civilization. So that's not a question at all.
I think that's a dated, lazy, Western mainstream media driven view of the current Chinese economic model.
Yes they no doubt have a lot of history with that. My previous employer fought a long legal battle with our Chinese partner on proprietary information theft. It's unfair though to see them permanently through that lens.
Pre Mughals it was the Delhi sultanate and the Lodis and tukhlugs etc so your point means nothingThe Mughals didnt make India richer country.
India was the richest even pre-Mughal era contributing to 30% of world GDP eatimates. So stop with this non-sense as if Mughals did something great.
Development Centre Studies The World Economy Historical Statistics
Following his The World Economy: a Millennial Perspective, Angus Maddison here offers a rare insight into the history and political influence of national accounts and national accounting. He demonstrates that such statistical data can shed light on the analysis of economic phenomena such as...books.google.com
Mughlas were oppressive rulers and forced their religion on India. There are still many temples down south and North which were decimated by Mughals. You may have affinity towards them for being Muslims but obviously thats not the case house history and Indians look at.
Aurangzeb is considered as a tyrant and his actions towards his brethren is a prime example of it.
Most English people revere the vikings for their lifestyles, ethics and the prosperity they brought to the uk especially while the romans were constantly on the borders
India was considered the riches almost from 1000 AD which is before the dynasties you have mentioned. Its easy to ignore the facts but thats the case. India is the richest and hence has been the center for invasions during that period. It’s not like Mughals or other rulers cane here and made a turn around. India riches come from its large agricultural lands, spices / textiles trades and being the center of trade routes but not like Mughals has brought money to our lands.
And?? They are considered richest because they looted from our land. And thats the whole point. Britishers were also the richest from colonization era and so what??
See the demographics of India and its the ruling regions are where muslim areas are concentrated. South India has lower muslim demographics except for sultanate regions like Hyderabad, Mysore etc. Its not out of benevolence that non-muslim population was left behind. Did you gorget some abhorrent practices like Jizya tax based on religion?? And the population growth of Muslims in India post-1947 has been tremendous thanks to secularism which is fine. Else, India is still 80%+ Hindus. Muslim rulings / nations are not the most secular ones even today and you think they are in 1500’s?? Thats a farce.
If most Indians think Mughals with adulation, then we wouldn't have this discussion on why Indians are demonizing Mughals right? Indian muslims have affinity towards them for religion and it ends there.
Nothing abhorrent about Jizya lol. Muslims have to pay Zakat under Islamic law, non Muslims don’t have that so they pay Jizya. Jizya is to be used for infrastructure and public services just like Sadaqah from Muslims is used. People are ok with paying taxes today which most of the time go to fund illegal wars but Jizya is abhorrent when it’s to be used on the citizens paying it collectively?
*as people.
Jizya tax is way higher than zakat. During Aurangzeb time, Jizya ranger more than 20% and zakat is 2.5%
sanukay.wordpress.com
Jizya tax is way higher than zakat. During Aurangzeb time, Jizya ranger more than 20% and zakat is 2.5%
And the concept itself is religious tax. Why would a non-muslim have to pay Jizya because it is mentioned in Quran? This is blatant religious discrimination of the least and it is not abhorrent? And its used for citizens?? As if Mughals are some benevolent rulers.
How Aurangzeb used taxation to suppress Hindus is well documented.
Indian History Part 84 Aurangzeb Section II Alienation of the Hindus 1. The Jat Rebellion
Canberra, 20 January 2021 BACKGROUND Aurangzeb had won the Mughal throne as the champion of Sunni Muslim orthodoxy against the liberal-minded Dara, who had claimed the mantle of religious tolerance…
And FYI, the jizya tax was on top of land tax or import taxes that existed during that time. Jizya was mainly to fill the coffers of the rulers. And the definition itself is not for infrastructure and all.
“
Jizya is
a tax on non-Muslim subjects in an Islamic state, historically understood as a fee for protection from the Muslim ruler and exemption from military service”
May be that was case in Quran but Hindus were not exempt from military. As part of tax collection, Rajputs paid the jizya collected from people to Mughal era. Infact, Aurangzeb has reintroduced this after removal from Akbar regime (who is infact considered a bit secular of the mughals). And this disproportional tax was one of the primary catalyst for Sikh rebellion during that time.
There are a lot of Muslim countries that are fair for Non-Muslims, and mostly likely better than any subcontinent country.
Even if Aurangzeb applied it fairly on paper, like any country in those times, in practice it could have been harsh by the tax collectors. It’s hard to control these things if people in administration are not honest.
This is an unnecessary racist post in an otherwise wonderful discussion thread and it seems no different from some of the Indian trolls. Even I as a Pakistani origin person condemn this post.
you started thread about genetic superiority of Pakistanis compared to Indians. you are lecturing others?
Well I stated a fact that is backed up by an actual Harvard research paper tied to facts as opposed to people calling each other as "spinach eater" or "terrorist" as mindless hate trolling. The reason for this supposed genetic superiority (or supposed lack of from Indias' pov) is sadly due to multi-generations of children within a small gene pool in India. For some reason my post was deleted because some PPers did not read it well enough and blindly reported it as a hate post.
True about one's perception of superiority and inferiority.
Pakistan has always put the hand of friendship towards India for a broader peace in the region but unfortunately all these good will gestures and endeavors have been met with hostility.
Recently, Pakistan invited Indian EAM to the SCO conference in Islamabad but still the Indian side didn't show any warmth and instead blamed Pakistan recklessly for a fishy incident like Pahalgam attacks. So bearing in my mind the current bloodshed in Balochistan, would it be plausible for Pakistan to wish for another leader like General Zia-ul-Haq just to deal with India.
A brief overview of Pakistan India relations under General Zia-ul-Haq
General Zia-ul-Haq played a significant role in shaping Pakistan's hostile stance against India. After coming to power through a military coup that deposed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Zia implemented a strategy known as "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts," which involved covert warfare, militancy, and backing of Mujahideens aimed at liberating Kashmir and Punjab.
Zia's approach to India was marked by a mix of military brinkmanship and nuclear ambiguity. In a 1987 visit to India under the guise of watching a cricket match, Zia warned Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi that any attack on Pakistan could lead to a nuclear war with devastating consequences for India, emphasizing that while Pakistan might be destroyed, the Muslim community would survive, but Hinduism could vanish from the earth. This threat highlighted the intense hostility and the high stakes of the Pakistan-India conflict during his regime.
Despite these tensions, Zia also engaged in limited diplomacy, such as his unannounced visit to India in 1987, which was part of "cricket diplomacy" aimed at easing border tensions. However, his tenure was largely defined by the militarization of Pakistan's policy towards India and the promotion of Islamist policies internally.
In summary, Zia-ul-Haq's stance against India combined aggressive covert operations, nuclear deterrence threats, and occasional diplomatic overtures, all within the broader context of Pakistan's long-standing conflict with India over Kashmir and regional dominance
The paper conclusion is that Indian gene pool is to isolated for a long time and that could lead to some diseases.
I think Pakistan definitely should demand for another Zia. More of his brand of theocracy is the only salvation
Every person has some good and bad facets to his personality, the thing I mentioned in OP pertains to his iron fist stance towards India at a time when Pakistan could have been easily sandwiched and devoured in the Cold War dynamics and India's blatant hostility
It gets even weirder. The paper states that the good genes are found in the upper caste indians and our islamist pakistani buddy seems to provide a justification for the caste system
Please open a separate thread if needed. I can refute the points you raise but I do not want to derail the discussion here.
