Why were Indian empires so weak post 1000 AD?

[Slog]

Time and again they got plundered by foreign invaders so many times that its not even funny.

When Mughals came, by and large, they had to fight against existing non native Muslim empires to take control than have to fight against local indigenous empires.

I was recently shocked to find out that even in South India there were Muslim empires to the point that there were both Shia and Sunni empires fighting each other for influence.

Once these empires had been present for long enough time to be called locals they too were attacked and fought against as the Europeans gained increasing influence and eventually formally colonized the country.

The question is that were the local Hindu majority that disorganized or disunited that apart from some stands they gave little resistance and let others run over them?

 

[Fallen King]

The invading armies were barbaric, at least too barbaric for India. Ancient society was progressive back then, and their economy was amazing despite of their internal differences. They didn't have concept of the nation back then meaning every provinces didn't fight under the same banner, therefore they were caught off-guard at their worst possible time. Hence easy victory for barbaric invading army.

For the same reason progressive ancient Bagdad couldn't handle barbaric Genghis Khan and his army either.

 

[Deosai]

Kumars don't like fighting, servitude is easier

 

[Cracket]

There was a lack of general unifying force. In the end, who knows really? The Romans, Persians, Greeks never really threatened India mostly due to distance and the resources that would be needed to conquer it, so the cultures just fought and competed amongst themselves. There was no drive or motivation to stand united against any foreign force.

In the grand scheme of things though India is pretty much the only nation with China that has kept its identity together since creation. India along with Iraq and Egypt (Mesopotamia) was the cradle of human agricultural civilizations post hunter-gatherer era of our species. Its been home to many cultures, yet was never robbed of its national identity and culture, despite invaders. India unlike Egypt and Iraq kept its originating identity intact through time. The administration itself was conquered by Mughals and then the Brits, but no one managed to conquer the people themselves.

Today, the Islamic world are brutalizing each other in factions perhaps far worse than the Indian empires ever did.

 

[Deosai]

There was a lack of general unifying force. In the end, who knows really? The Romans, Persians, Greeks never really threatened India mostly due to distance and the resources that would be needed to conquer it, so the cultures just fought and competed amongst themselves. There was no drive or motivation to stand united against any foreign force.

In the grand scheme of things though India is pretty much the only nation with China that has kept its identity together since creation. India along with Iraq and Egypt (Mesopotamia) was the cradle of human agricultural civilizations post hunter-gatherer era of our species. Its been home to many cultures, yet was never robbed of its national identity and culture, despite invaders. India unlike Egypt and Iraq kept its originating identity intact through time. The administration itself was conquered by Mughals and then the Brits, but no one managed to conquer the people themselves.

Today, the Islamic world are brutalizing each other in factions perhaps far worse than the Indian empires ever did.

There was never no Indian nation nor any unified India except for 3 short and rare times in history, ancient India is comparable to Europe as a subcontinent not nation-state or empire like Greece or Persia.

You say India retained your culture, but what culture? Assamese,Ladakhi,Tamil or Marathi culture?I don't see a common thread, just an artificial confederation of many nations.

 

[Slog]

There was a lack of general unifying force. In the end, who knows really? The Romans, Persians, Greeks never really threatened India mostly due to distance and the resources that would be needed to conquer it, so the cultures just fought and competed amongst themselves. There was no drive or motivation to stand united against any foreign force.

In the grand scheme of things though India is pretty much the only nation with China that has kept its identity together since creation. India along with Iraq and Egypt (Mesopotamia) was the cradle of human agricultural civilizations post hunter-gatherer era of our species. Its been home to many cultures, yet was never robbed of its national identity and culture, despite invaders. India unlike Egypt and Iraq kept its originating identity intact through time. The administration itself was conquered by Mughals and then the Brits, but no one managed to conquer the people themselves.

Today, the Islamic world are brutalizing each other in factions perhaps far worse than the Indian empires ever did.

Thats the question.

Did the inhabtants of the Indian subcontinent ever really see themselves as one entity.

India the country is a British construct

For example. Till the British came and colonized the whole area, the subcontinent had not existed as a single entity for over 2 millenias.

I really doubt there was anything such as an 'indian Identity'

 

[speed]

There was never no Indian nation nor any unified India except for 3 short and rare times in history, ancient India is comparable to Europe as a subcontinent not nation-state or empire like Greece or Persia.

You say India retained your culture, but what culture? Assamese,Ladakhi,Tamil or Marathi culture?I don't see a common thread, just an artificial confederation of many nations.

Also we Muslims took 1/5 of their 'ancient india'.

 

[Deosai]

Also we Muslims took 1/5 of their 'ancient india'.

haha yes, it's funny Indians can't visit the great ancient cities of Harappa and Moen-jo-Daro, so they haven't preserved anything, if any thing they lost the most important cities of ancient 'India'.

 

[Thivagar]

Ever heard of the Chola Empire ?

Every part of of the globe had its own Golden and Dark ages. The ancient South Asia had it's golden period before BC along with the Egyptians, and then later from 8th century CE till 13th century CE. The Europeans had their Dark Ages between the same time when South Asia had it's second' Golden Period. The Arab/Muslim's had their golden period during this time as well. Europe was backward as hell during this time. Africa had it's own golden time. Since the Europeans were the latest to have their golden period (14th century till 20th century) we remember them and think of them as progressive, successful and superior.

 

[Itachi]

Kingdom in my place ruled for 600 years from 1228 to 1826. Not even mughals could beat them. Now that's an achievement. Only issue is, they were silent guardians and never really made them prolific.

They faced only two loses. Against myanmar and british.

 

[enkidu_]

There was a lack of general unifying force. In the end, who knows really? The Romans, Persians, Greeks never really threatened India mostly due to distance and the resources that would be needed to conquer it, so the cultures just fought and competed amongst themselves. There was no drive or motivation to stand united against any foreign force.

In the grand scheme of things though India is pretty much the only nation with China that has kept its identity together since creation. India along with Iraq and Egypt (Mesopotamia) was the cradle of human agricultural civilizations post hunter-gatherer era of our species. Its been home to many cultures, yet was never robbed of its national identity and culture, despite invaders. India unlike Egypt and Iraq kept its originating identity intact through time. The administration itself was conquered by Mughals and then the Brits, but no one managed to conquer the people themselves.

Today, the Islamic world are brutalizing each other in factions perhaps far worse than the Indian empires ever did.

The Persians always wanted to control the Indus areas, and if Alexander the Great went there and fought against Raja Porus of Jhelum it was mainly to emulate the Persian emperor Darius the Great, who's Achaemenid empire controlled half of the world's population, including modern Pakistan. In fact, the name "India" itself comes from the Greeks, who borrowed it from the Persians, named after the Sindhu/Indus river (in Pakistan.)

If mainland/gangetic India was relatively spared by foreign invaders, it's because Pakistan served as natural border against western marauders. The local resistance of peoples from the Potohar made sure that foreigners - from Persians to Mughals - had hard time getting souther. You can read Aitzaz Ahsan's "The Indus Saga" where he beautifully exposes, in detail and with an exquisite style, that overlooked part of history.

As for Indian "national identity", not only the concept of nationalism was foreign to everyone before Europe's 19th century romanticism, but even today a Tamil Hindu and a Punjabi Sikh are dissimilar in terms of ethnicity, culture or even world-view. India is a federation of many nationalities (like Pakistan), not a nation stricto sensu.

China is the only longest-surviving "nation" (anachronistic, but let's admit), because there's ethnic homogeneity (Huis) and cultural continuity.

 

[Sandeep]

Chola, Vijayanagara, Maratha, Travancore.. there were many South Indian kingdoms, even during the Mughal rule. But you would not know about them.

 

[Fallen King]

Kingdom in my place ruled for 600 years from 1228 to 1826. Not even mughals could beat them. Now that's an achievement. Only issue is, they were silent guardians and never really made them prolific.

They faced only two loses. Against myanmar and british.

Judging by your information, that's probably they were able to rule for 600 years. Being silent guardians pay off in the long run.

 

[hussain123]

India is actually an artificial entity which was woven together over the centuries by invaders and a continent size entity both in size and population came to existence as a single unit.once the frontier kingdoms like punjwb or rajasthan, the two martial races fell to invaders, rest of kingdoms were there for the taking.the thing that they never got to extreme south was they never felt threatened by them or just weren't good enough to fight or may they wanted toconsolidate over the conquered lands.

 

[CricketCartoons]

It is in the national DNA. Meek and soft. If not for warfare technology and nukes, India would still be like a sitting duck to brave invading armies.

 

[hussain123]

It is in the national DNA. Meek and soft. If not for warfare technology and nukes, India would still be like a sitting duck to brave invading armies.

Their is nothing like soft and meek.you are only capable or you are not capable of defending yourselves . Their is a reason why indians don't priduce many world class athletes, even those athletes are mostly from punjab or haryana.you are right modern warfare has changed the rules of the game.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Their is nothing like soft and meek.you are only capable or you are not capable of defending yourselves . Their is a reason why indians don't priduce many world class athletes, even those athletes are mostly from punjab or haryana.you are right modern warfare has changed the rules of the game.

But I think indians are soft..when you meet them in real world. only online you will find the bravehearts, but then they dont have to look into the eyes while typing.

even the rajputs, the so called martial race of india, got beaten for fun by invading armies and they started giving their daughters to the kings for marriage.

 

[hussain123]

But I think indians are soft..when you meet them in real world. only online you will find the bravehearts, but then they dont have to look into the eyes while typing.

even the rajputs, the so called martial race of india, got beaten for fun by invading armies and they started giving their daughters to the kings for marriage.

Rajputs were the ones which saved india(if a thing like that ever existed before)from foreign invasions umpteen times.theu were bound to fail at some.it is the ease with which invaders ruled over india without any resistance from other Kingdoms which is interesting. Did they believe in a concept of anything called India or invasion of "foreign" forces enforcing their own culture on natives.or they simply saw it as another relative Kingdom being downed by other kingdoms which they better don't mess with.

 

[Adil_94]

Maybe coz Abrahamic faiths allow followers more unity and creates more of a feeling of community and belonging. Hinduism as an ism was constructed and pidgeonholed by british. Lots of different schools in Hinduism. Cultural ethnic differences amongst Indian peoples. So Indians and So called Hindus werent united. They only identified more with caste groups and local ethnic groups so they had no qualms in allying with foreign invaders against other natives. In Islam.Christianity all are equal in faith in theory. Hinduism has caste system so that creates more divisions..only with late 19th Century romanticism and nationalism. Concept of one national identity created. India is a nation of many nations.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Abhilash93]

There was never no Indian nation nor any unified India except for 3 short and rare times in history, ancient India is comparable to Europe as a subcontinent not nation-state or empire like Greece or Persia.

You say India retained your culture, but what culture? Assamese,Ladakhi,Tamil or Marathi culture?I don't see a common thread, just an artificial confederation of many nations.

Megasthenes & Hieun Tsang considered it to be one entity. So, it is quite probable their respective states had the same perception.

 

[Abhilash93]

People did not necessarily see them as theocratic empires. Mughals had a lot of Hindus fighting for them while the Maratha Army had a lot of Muslims.

 

[Slog]

People did not necessarily see them as theocratic empires. Mughals had a lot of Hindus fighting for them while the Maratha Army had a lot of Muslims.

That's later on but when they first invaded India it was exclusively MUslim central Asians. In fact it was built as a war against idol worshipping infidels

 

[enkidu_]

Rajputs were the ones which saved india(if a thing like that ever existed before)from foreign invasions umpteen times.theu were bound to fail at some.it is the ease with which invaders ruled over india without any resistance from other Kingdoms which is interesting. Did they believe in a concept of anything called India or invasion of "foreign" forces enforcing their own culture on natives.or they simply saw it as another relative Kingdom being downed by other kingdoms which they better don't mess with.

Exactly, and we get back to the crux of the discussion : there was no Indian identity. In modern Pak many tribes have "accommodated" what we'd call today "invaders" - but for them, they weren't more "foreign" than someone from modern day Bihar or Tamil Nadu, especially after the conversion to Islam. Thus, they "collaborated" with the new regional powers and assumed authority on a more local level (Gakkhars/Kayanis, Janjuas, Awans, ...), even if low intensity insurgency remained alive for centuries. Aitzaz Ahsan talks of Babur complaining a lot about rustic Jats and Gujjars in his memoirs, belligerent despite the fact that he conquered Sialkot area (with much difficulties), and the local Pashtuns were such a pain that he married a Yousufzai lady, Bibi Mubaraka, just to consolidate their trust - but when he passed though the Indus populations after three failed attempts, Dehli was a piece of cake. Aitzaz Ahsan also shows how the same happened centuries later, when Mughal emperor Muhammad "Rangeela" didn't try to stop Nadir Shah's invasion as he knew that there was no need to lose men, considering that if Nadir Shah was in Dehli it meant that he subdued Indus populations. Another famous ruler, Muhammad Ghori, was killed by Gakkhars while Muhammad bin Tughluq, despite owning Delhi, struggled his tons of years in Sindh, where he ultimately died (and which gave oxygen to southern India, as this ruler was about to concretize the geographically largest empire in India since the Mauryas).

In fact I'd advise everyone here to read Aitzaz Ahsan's "The Indus Saga". It answers OP [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION], and way, way more.

Megasthenes & Hieun Tsang considered it to be one entity. So, it is quite probable their respective states had the same perception.

Don't Indians consider "Whites" or "Europe" to be "one entity" (what does that even mean) ?

There's another point of view : medieval bifurcation between "al Sind" and "al Hind"

Sind, in point of fact, while vaguely defined territorially, overlaps rather well with what is currently Pakistan. It definitely did extend beyond the present province of Sindh and Makran ; the whole of Balochistan was included, a part of the Panjab, and the North-Western Frontier Province.

André Wink, Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World, Volume 1, p. 145

 

[adit_sh]

As I recollect, the only time you can see united India was during Mauryan empire but even then the south Indian kingdom was separate Or possibly in mythology describes as Bharat in ancient texts.

Really surprising that despite so many differences, India is still united for last 68 years.

 

[street cricketer]

Kumars don't like fighting, servitude is easier

I hope you do realise that you are actually making fun of your own history while simultaneously showcasing your ignorance too. Or are you too one of the long lost relatives of Babur?

 

[street cricketer]

The invading armies were barbaric, at least too barbaric for India. Ancient society was progressive back then, and their economy was amazing despite of their internal differences. They didn't have concept of the nation back then meaning every provinces didn't fight under the same banner, therefore they were caught off-guard at their worst possible time. Hence easy victory for barbaric invading army.

For the same reason progressive ancient Bagdad couldn't handle barbaric Genghis Khan and his army either.

+1

 

[Sidilicious]

Kingdom in my place ruled for 600 years from 1228 to 1826. Not even mughals could beat them. Now that's an achievement. Only issue is, they were silent guardians and never really made them prolific.

They faced only two loses. Against myanmar and british.

Ahom?

 

[tempus123]

That is why Hindus need to unite against the foreign forces.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Within 50 years Hindus will be extinct, and will be replaced by fake hindus who will say, i am a proud hindu but I eat beef.

 

[adit_sh]

Within 50 years Hindus will be extinct, and will be replaced by fake hindus who will say, i am a proud hindu but I eat beef.

that is the case for last 1000 years. u can call it flexibility !! but the beef related stuffs are just purely political which u can see very well.

It all depends on value systems.

 

[CricketCartoons]

that is the case for last 1000 years. u can call it flexibility !! but the beef related stuffs are just purely political which u can see very well.

It all depends on value systems.

Mughals or British were never enemies of Hinduism. The snakes that pretend to be Hindus are the real enemies. Good luck defeating them.

 

[rahulrulezz]

Probably one of the best thread on PP. I have read so much about this though various books on Babur, Akbar, Aurnangzeb.

I personally believe it came down to the religion. Hindus in general believe that you get a human life after going through millions of births as animals/insects and you can only attain Moksha (final destination- Heaven) through human life. So human life is highly valued in Hinduism whereas Muslims believe that if you die in a battle against Kaffir you attain the final destination. It's was very easy to motivate Muslim soldiers in a battle as soldiers had a big reason to fight and kill or even die. However, Hindus soldiers who fought only for money in their small kingdom didn't have much incentive to come and fight or die for. You can read so much about how Invders kings used Islam and religious speeches to motivate their soldiers.
Also, India was never United and there was no one nation. There were thousands of kingdoms ruled by thousands of kings. So less resources to fight against barbaric invaders. Also, in Hinduism it is said that a King should look after their people at any cost (Raaj Dharma) and In order to save the people from brutality of the invaders, they would convert to Islam. Since Hindus soldiers believe whatever the Kings believed, they would convert too. Then those same soldiers would join Mughals and Muslims and fight against Idol worshippers even at the cost of death. Also, converting back to Hinduism was not allowed so they wouldn't practice Hindiism or try to convert back. It was easy to complain about someone who tried to convert back. The punishment was death.

However things have changed now. Now the notion of Nation comes first for Hindus. Which means that a Hindu can still attain moksha if fighting for his nation. This notion and identity of one nation has helped Hindus becoming more stronger. Only Rajputs somehow believed in this theory in the past and that's why they rebelled. However once one thier Kings converted to Islam for RaajDharma, Rajput soldiers converted too

Waqar Younis, Naved Rana, Rameez Raza are few Raput Muslims.

 

[street cricketer]

Time and again they got plundered by foreign invaders so many times that its not even funny.

When Mughals came, by and large, they had to fight against existing non native Muslim empires to take control than have to fight against local indigenous empires.

I was recently shocked to find out that even in South India there were Muslim empires to the point that there were both Shia and Sunni empires fighting each other for influence.

Once these empires had been present for long enough time to be called locals they too were attacked and fought against as the Europeans gained increasing influence and eventually formally colonized the country.

The question is that were the local Hindu majority that disorganized or disunited that apart from some stands they gave little resistance and let others run over them?

India was never really united and it was largely a collection of a number of princely states. It was only really unified thrice - by Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka and the Mughals, and even then much of South India remained largely isolated except for a few years. There was much infighting among the princely states and there was never really an alliance to ward off the muslim invaders. It was also due to this reason, the East India company was able to get a stranglehold of much of the Indian subcontinent with their much famed "divide and rule" policy.

What does however, make the Muslim invasions different is that unlike the preceding invaders who assimilated into the prevalent social system, the Muslim conquerors retained their Islamic identity and created new legal and administrative systems that challenged and usually superseded the existing systems of social conduct and ethics. They also introduced new cultural mores that in some ways were very different from the existing cultural codes. While this was often a source of friction and conflict, it should also be noted that there were also Muslim rulers, like Akbar, who in much of their secular practice absorbed or accommodated local traditions.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The invading armies were barbaric, at least too barbaric for India. Ancient society was progressive back then, and their economy was amazing despite of their internal differences. They didn't have concept of the nation back then meaning every provinces didn't fight under the same banner, therefore they were caught off-guard at their worst possible time. Hence easy victory for barbaric invading army.

For the same reason progressive ancient Bagdad couldn't handle barbaric Genghis Khan and his army either.

This is true. I was reading an excerpt of a book about the Portuguese empire, and the behaviour of the invading armies was astonishingly brutal, not just in India either. If they took Muslim prisoners they would defecate in their mouths. In India one of the Portuguese generals described how they opened fire on large crowds and would laugh at the people who were crying over their dead. Indian culture was probably unprepared for such wholesale violence.

 

[Slog]

Probably one of the best thread on PP. I have read so much about this though various books on Babur, Akbar, Aurnangzeb.

I personally believe it came down to the religion. Hindus in general believe that you get a human life after going through millions of births as animals/insects and you can only attain Moksha (final destination- Heaven) through human life. So human life is highly valued in Hinduism whereas Muslims believe that if you die in a battle against Kaffir you attain the final destination. It's was very easy to motivate Muslim soldiers in a battle as soldiers had a big reason to fight and kill or even die. However, Hindus soldiers who fought only for money in their small kingdom didn't have much incentive to come and fight or die for. You can read so much about how Invders kings used Islam and religious speeches to motivate their soldiers.
Also, India was never United and there was no one nation. There were thousands of kingdoms ruled by thousands of kings. So less resources to fight against barbaric invaders. Also, in Hinduism it is said that a King should look after their people at any cost (Raaj Dharma) and In order to save the people from brutality of the invaders, they would convert to Islam. Since Hindus soldiers believe whatever the Kings believed, they would convert too. Then those same soldiers would join Mughals and Muslims and fight against Idol worshippers even at the cost of death. Also, converting back to Hinduism was not allowed so they wouldn't practice Hindiism or try to convert back. It was easy to complain about someone who tried to convert back. The punishment was death.

However things have changed now. Now the notion of Nation comes first for Hindus. Which means that a Hindu can still attain moksha if fighting for his nation. This notion and identity of one nation has helped Hindus becoming more stronger. Only Rajputs somehow believed in this theory in the past and that's why they rebelled. However once one thier Kings converted to Islam for RaajDharma, Rajput soldiers converted too

Waqar Younis, Naved Rana, Rameez Raza are few Raput Muslims.

good post.

I think Hinduism fails to stress on unity of people following the faith. (regardless of merits of said unity.)

Islam and Abrahamic religion stress it. Its a different story that it may not be followed or maybe one way traffic or whatever but atleast in a superficial sense there is this concept.

Also I just dont mean the Mughal invasion. The messed up thing is that there were different Muslim empires (Muslim, not always Islamic) squabbling with each other with none of them having a significantly great record of trating the Hindu subjects fairly. But you see no massive response where the 'natives' rebelled.

Even the 1857 War of Independence against the British was mostly driven by Muslims (though to be fair by that point they had been in India long enough to be considered natives.). But the average native Hindu didnt coalesce themselves into a single identity. Maybe caste and ethnicities are given greater precedence even in scripture?

 

[ihsri aha]

Ever heard of Raja Raja chola ?

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Its the way Indian religions evolved that caused them ultimately the trouble of Abrahamic faiths.

The religions coming out of Hindustan like Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism are all sissy religions. They talk about non violence. The sects in these 3 religions that came out of India were mostly started by ascetics and sadhus who do not fight much. Sikhism is the first religion which showed some spine and formed an army to protect Hindustan.

Compare this to the super aggressive Abrahmic faiths of Islam and Christianity. The highly motivated Muslim armies and Crusaders would wipe the floor with Hindu/Jain and Buddhist soldiers.

The motivation of Jannat is missing from Indian religions where as in Islam, the reward for dying for Islamic cause is paradise. I am sure the Muslim warlords from Arabia and Persia and Central Asia used the Jannat and Jihad concept to motivate their army and destroy the Indian armies easily.

India was a land of plenty with millions of acres of fertile land. Consider where the Muslim armies come from. They are all from harsh conditions. They were hardened up individuals while we were pampered people.

Bottom line is, we were no match to the highly motivated barbaric armies.

 

[rahulrulezz]

good post.

I think hinduism fails to stress on unity of people following the faith. (regardless of merits of said unity.)

islam and abrahamic religion stress it. Its a different story that it may not be followed or maybe one way traffic or whatever but atleast in a superficial sense there is this concept.

Also i just dont mean the mughal invasion. The messed up thing is that there were different muslim empires (muslim, not always islamic) squabbling with each other with none of them having a significantly great record of trating the hindu subjects fairly. But you see no massive response where the 'natives' rebelled.

Even the 1857 war of independence against the british was mostly driven by muslims (though to be fair by that point they had been in india long enough to be considered natives.). But the average native hindu didnt coalesce themselves into a single identity. Maybe caste and ethnicities are given greater precedence even in scripture?

its the way indian religions evolved that caused them ultimately the trouble of abrahamic faiths.

The religions coming out of hindustan like hinduism/buddhism/jainism are all sissy religions. They talk about non violence. The sects in these 3 religions that came out of india were mostly started by ascetics and sadhus who do not fight much. Sikhism is the first religion which showed some spine and formed an army to protect hindustan.

Compare this to the super aggressive abrahmic faiths of islam and christianity. The highly motivated muslim armies and crusaders would wipe the floor with hindu/jain and buddhist soldiers.

The motivation of jannat is missing from indian religions where as in islam, the reward for dying for islamic cause is paradise. I am sure the muslim warlords from arabia and persia and central asia used the jannat and jihad concept to motivate their army and destroy the indian armies easily.

India was a land of plenty with millions of acres of fertile land. Consider where the muslim armies come from. They are all from harsh conditions. They were hardened up individuals while we were pampered people.

Bottom line is, we were no match to the highly motivated barbaric armies.

spot on!

 

[Bilal7]

No disrespect intended but I am glad the pagan empires were weak and the light of Islam entered the subcontinent, Alhamdulillah.

Having said that, the wife of Akbar belonged to a very powerful non-Muslim group, didn't she?

 

[Bilal7]

Its the way Indian religions evolved that caused them ultimately the trouble of Abrahamic faiths.

The religions coming out of Hindustan like Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism are all sissy religions. They talk about non violence. The sects in these 3 religions that came out of India were mostly started by ascetics and sadhus who do not fight much. Sikhism is the first religion which showed some spine and formed an army to protect Hindustan.

Compare this to the super aggressive Abrahmic faiths of Islam and Christianity. The highly motivated Muslim armies and Crusaders would wipe the floor with Hindu/Jain and Buddhist soldiers.

The motivation of Jannat is missing from Indian religions where as in Islam, the reward for dying for Islamic cause is paradise. I am sure the Muslim warlords from Arabia and Persia and Central Asia used the Jannat and Jihad concept to motivate their army and destroy the Indian armies easily.

India was a land of plenty with millions of acres of fertile land. Consider where the Muslim armies come from. They are all from harsh conditions. They were hardened up individuals while we were pampered people.

Bottom line is, we were no match to the highly motivated barbaric armies.

The Muslim armies were very powerful in combat and did not hesitate to put down anyone who opposed them but they were much more civilized than the people they conquered.

 

[JaDed]

No disrespect intended but I am glad the pagan empires were weak and the light of Islam entered the subcontinent, Alhamdulillah.

Having said that, the wife of Akbar belonged to a very powerful non-Muslim group, didn't she?

Light of Islam through the murder of thousands?Imagine such a way of spreading religion in this century and what would had been your thoughts.

 

[Bilal7]

Light of Islam through the murder of thousands?Imagine such a way of spreading religion in this century and what would had been your thoughts.

Murder? It was war. Should have paid the Jizya or converted peacefully. There were no major, targeted killings of civilians and in many cases, the oppressed population welcomed their Islamic liberators with open arms. Same thing happened in the west-ward expansion of Islam.

Today, there is no need for war because there is no threat to people preaching Islam peacefully, and it is the fastest growing religion in the world, as a result.

 

[JaDed]

Murder? It was war. Should have paid the Jizya or converted peacefully. There were no major, targeted killings of civilians and in many cases, the oppressed population welcomed their Islamic liberators with open arms. Same thing happened in the west-ward expansion of Islam.

Today, there is no need for war because there is no threat to people preaching Islam peacefully, and it is the fastest growing religion in the world, as a result.

Say what?Are you telling SC invited Babur and Ghazni to invade itself?

 

[Lurker_Ind]

The Muslim armies were very powerful in combat and did not hesitate to put down anyone who opposed them but they were much more civilized than the people they conquered.

I hope you are trolling.

Muslim armies may be more powerful and better organized and motivated. But calling them civilized is ludicrous.

There is nothing civilized about marauding blood thirsty armies. They are the most pathetic humans ever born. If they were civilized, they would have spread their religion and ideology peacefully like Buddhists did.

Muslim armies did not do any charity work in subcontinent. They were no missionaries of charity. They were built for war and they were ready to use deadly force to send their message.

Imagine if America or some other super power occupies your country and forces their ideology on you and massacres people who oppose their beliefs. Would you be okay with that?

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Say what?Are you telling SC invited Babur and Ghazni to invade itself?

He is trolling.

 

[Deosai]

I hope you do realise that you are actually making fun of your own history while simultaneously showcasing your ignorance too. Or are you too one of the long lost relatives of Babur?

lol "my history", i didn't know the billion + South Asians all had the same ancestors

 

[Bilal7]

I hope you are trolling.

Muslim armies may be more powerful and better organized and motivated. But calling them civilized is ludicrous.

There is nothing civilized about marauding blood thirsty armies. They are the most pathetic humans ever born. If they were civilized, they would have spread their religion and ideology peacefully like Buddhists did.

Muslim armies did not do any charity work in subcontinent. They were no missionaries of charity. They were built for war and they were ready to use deadly force to send their message.

Imagine if America or some other super power occupies your country and forces their ideology on you and massacres people who oppose their beliefs. Would you be okay with that?

They liberated the subcontinent from the darkness of paganism, saving us from stuff like the caste system and the practice of sati. I do hope I don't offend you and anyone else by saying this.

"marauding, blood-thirsty armies", where did you get this from? Islam could not have been spread peacefully in a place like the Indian sub-continent where even today, Muslims have to be concerned about their lives. Anyone converting to Islam would be burnt alive if the Mughal Empire, for example, was not established.

I wouldn't be okay with forcefully converting to an ideology that I didn't like but that is not what happened in India. Were there no Hindus living under Muslim rule? Did they not have a choice between paying the Jizya and converting?

You are unhappy over the Pundits and other Hindu rulers being stripped of their power bu what about the people that were being treated like animals in those times? I'm sure they were quite happy to have been liberated and which is why there are millions of Muslims in the subcontinent today.

If any of your comments about "blood-thirsty" Muslim armies was true, there wouldn't be a trace of Hinduism left in India at this point. However, that is not how we rolled.

 

[Bilal7]

Say what?Are you telling SC invited Babur and Ghazni to invade itself?

The oppressive kings were no doubt unhappy over their defeat but once the common folk realized what Islam actually is, they converted in great numbers.

 

[JaDed]

The oppressive kings were no doubt unhappy over their defeat but once the common folk realized what Islam actually is, they converted in great numbers.

Lovely excuse

 

[tempus123]

"Maar maar ke musalmaan " was a folklore in those times.. countless stories have been built on it. Not sure people commenting or trolling here simply about greatness of Islam.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

They liberated the subcontinent from the darkness of paganism, saving us from stuff like the caste system and the practice of sati. I do hope I don't offend you and anyone else by saying this.

"marauding, blood-thirsty armies", where did you get this from? Islam could not have been spread peacefully in a place like the Indian sub-continent where even today, Muslims have to be concerned about their lives. Anyone converting to Islam would be burnt alive if the Mughal Empire, for example, was not established.

I wouldn't be okay with forcefully converting to an ideology that I didn't like but that is not what happened in India. Were there no Hindus living under Muslim rule? Did they not have a choice between paying the Jizya and converting?

You are unhappy over the Pundits and other Hindu rulers being stripped of their power bu what about the people that were being treated like animals in those times? I'm sure they were quite happy to have been liberated and which is why there are millions of Muslims in the subcontinent today.

If any of your comments about "blood-thirsty" Muslim armies was true, there wouldn't be a trace of Hinduism left in India at this point. However, that is not how we rolled.

I objected to your uncivilized comment.

The light of Islam to subcontinent? How do you know Islam is light and right?

Indians were not uncivilized. We were not some tree dwelling apes running without clothes.

Anyone who tries to spread their word by using their armies is as uncivilized as it gets. No justification to the loss of lives on both sides.

Muslim armies did not convert everyone because Muslim rulers needed Hindu population support to successfully rule them. They could not kill or convert everyone as it would lead to large scale rebellion. So they targeted the Kings with war (hundreds and thousands killed). When the king agrees to convert to save his throne, the locals were targeted slowly through force or preaching most probably depending on the situation.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

The oppressive kings were no doubt unhappy over their defeat but once the common folk realized what Islam actually is, they converted in great numbers.

Muslim emperors are so kind and benevolent )

 

[Bilal7]

I objected to your uncivilized comment.

The light of Islam to subcontinent? How do you know Islam is light and right?

Indians were not uncivilized. We were not some tree dwelling apes running without clothes.

Anyone who tries to spread their word by using their armies is as uncivilized as it gets. No justification to the loss of lives on both sides.

Muslim armies did not convert everyone because Muslim rulers needed Hindu population support to successfully rule them. They could not kill or convert everyone as it would lead to large scale rebellion. So they targeted the Kings with war (hundreds and thousands killed). When the king agrees to convert to save his throne, the locals were targeted slowly through force or preaching most probably depending on the situation.

Hold on, you got offending by my "uncivilized" comment but you're okay with calling other people "uncivilized"?

No, you definitely were wearing clothes but the culture was very oppressive for people in the lower castes and there is no way people would have been able to freely convert to Islam, without the ruling power stepping in. Force was necessary but the decision to fight or 'save lives' rested with the Hindu Kings. They could have surrendered and paid the Jizya before the fighting started but they did not.

The large-scale rebellions did not happen because the people were far more happier living under Islamic rule than they were under the rule of their former Hindu masters. You just helped prove my point.

The locals accepted Islam because they saw it as the better way of life. As simple as that. They were not killed if they converted.

 

[Bilal7]

Muslim emperors are so kind and benevolent )

Some were terrible, no doubt, but in general, the Muslims rulers were better than rulers from other religions.

 

[JaDed]

Some were terrible, no doubt, but in general, the Muslims rulers were better than rulers from other religions.

Dude lol are you serious or trolling i'm not understanding.

 

[Raw deal]

Probably one of the best thread on PP. I have read so much about this though various books on Babur, Akbar, Aurnangzeb.



I personally believe it came down to the religion. Hindus in general believe that you get a human life after going through millions of births as animals/insects and you can only attain Moksha (final destination- Heaven) through human life. So human life is highly valued in Hinduism whereas Muslims believe that if you die in a battle against Kaffir you attain the final destination. It's was very easy to motivate Muslim soldiers in a battle as soldiers had a big reason to fight and kill or even die. However, Hindus soldiers who fought only for money in their small kingdom didn't have much incentive to come and fight or die for. You can read so much about how Invders kings used Islam and religious speeches to motivate their soldiers.

Also, India was never United and there was no one nation. There were thousands of kingdoms ruled by thousands of kings. So less resources to fight against barbaric invaders. Also, in Hinduism it is said that a King should look after their people at any cost (Raaj Dharma) and In order to save the people from brutality of the invaders, they would convert to Islam. Since Hindus soldiers believe whatever the Kings believed, they would convert too. Then those same soldiers would join Mughals and Muslims and fight against Idol worshippers even at the cost of death. Also, converting back to Hinduism was not allowed so they wouldn't practice Hindiism or try to convert back. It was easy to complain about someone who tried to convert back. The punishment was death.



However things have changed now. Now the notion of Nation comes first for Hindus. Which means that a Hindu can still attain moksha if fighting for his nation. This notion and identity of one nation has helped Hindus becoming more stronger. Only Rajputs somehow believed in this theory in the past and that's why they rebelled. However once one thier Kings converted to Islam for RaajDharma, Rajput soldiers converted too



Waqar Younis, Naved Rana, Rameez Raza are few Raput Muslims.

excellent post. Now, India comes first for everyone. Now, they have an identity, proud banner to die for. I for one won't hesitate to fight for the country if the situation demands.

 

[enkidu_]

Say what?Are you telling SC invited Babur and Ghazni to invade itself?

Babur and Ghaznavi went to Gangetic India for the same reasons Indians today go to the Gulf or the US : namely for economic reasons, not to spread Hinduism.

Like other western conquerors, they met stiff resistance from the locals of Pakistan. You can't equate the story of Islam in the region with that of Central Asian invaders, as for instance when Ghaznavi was there those fighting him already converted, such was even more the case with Babur later on.

If conversions to Islam were linked with foreign oppressors, you wouldn't had Islam majority in Punjab, Sindh or Kashmir region but in modern day Uttar Pradesh and somehow Madya Pradesh states of India. Even in Punjab and Sindh that so called "majority" was around 60%-70% (before Partition).

 

[street cricketer]

lol "my history", i didn't know the billion + South Asians all had the same ancestors

Wait. I'm confused. Almost every Pakistani I meet in online forum says that he is a descendant of Mughals or any other invading tribe and tends to take a huge pride in the likes of Ghazni and Ghori and disregard the history of the land which is now modern day Pakistan pre Islamic invasion. But where are the descendants of the natives who lived in Pakistan? Don't tell me they "all" died/went to India.

 

[Deosai]

Wait. I'm confused. Almost every Pakistani I meet in online forum says that he is a descendant of Mughals or any other invading tribe and tends to take a huge pride in the likes of Ghazni and Ghori and disregard the history of the land which is now modern day Pakistan pre Islamic invasion. But where are the descendants of the natives who lived in Pakistan? Don't tell me they "all" died/went to India.

Load of BS, most Pakistanis don't claim to be Mughal or whatever, most Pakistanis take pride in being native of this region, a region very far from your area (Tamil Nadu), and yes there were some foreign settlements and they have been absorbed in our population, those people who do have invader blood do exist among us like you have some Brahmins in India - both are a minority.

You can't say Pakistan has one monolithic history cause we're a big diverse country with so many ethnic groups, both native and migrants, you have to look at South Asian history through an individualistic lens cause there was never an "us".

 

[Raw deal]

They liberated the subcontinent from the darkness of paganism, saving us from stuff like the caste system and the practice of sati. I do hope I don't offend you and anyone else by saying this.



"marauding, blood-thirsty armies", where did you get this from? Islam could not have been spread peacefully in a place like the Indian sub-continent where even today, Muslims have to be concerned about their lives. Anyone converting to Islam would be burnt alive if the Mughal Empire, for example, was not established.



I wouldn't be okay with forcefully converting to an ideology that I didn't like but that is not what happened in India. Were there no Hindus living under Muslim rule? Did they not have a choice between paying the Jizya and converting?



You are unhappy over the Pundits and other Hindu rulers being stripped of their power bu what about the people that were being treated like animals in those times? I'm sure they were quite happy to have been liberated and which is why there are millions of Muslims in the subcontinent today.



If any of your comments about "blood-thirsty" Muslim armies was true, there wouldn't be a trace of Hinduism left in India at this point. However, that is not how we rolled.

wrong. Iran and Iraq converted to Islam in twenty years. Same thing with Egypt. But in Indian subcontinent, people fought against Islamic forces. Millions lost their lives, but they choose death before converting to Islam. Im not trying to offend anyone here. But, the truth is people who were scared of mughals chose to convert. At one point of time, the murders were so brutal that Hindu population was 80 million in India.
Marathas gave a deadly blow to the murderous Islamic rule, it was ended in a nice way. What about Sikhs? Their fighting skills are unmatched that they didn't convert. Their guru was killed by mughals, but they refused to budge. Jats, rajput maharana pratap Singh. ?
People here chose to fight and its the same reason why India is still 80% dharmic religion.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Wait. I'm confused. Almost every Pakistani I meet in online forum says that he is a descendant of Mughals or any other invading tribe and tends to take a huge pride in the likes of Ghazni and Ghori and disregard the history of the land which is now modern day Pakistan pre Islamic invasion. But where are the descendants of the natives who lived in Pakistan? Don't tell me they "all" died/went to India.

Its cool to be on the victors side.

 

[enkidu_]

Wait. I'm confused. Almost every Pakistani I meet in online forum says that he is a descendant of Mughals or any other invading tribe and tends to take a huge pride in the likes of Ghazni and Ghori and disregard the history of the land which is now modern day Pakistan pre Islamic invasion. But where are the descendants of the natives who lived in Pakistan? Don't tell me they "all" died/went to India.

Indians take pride in the Vedas, etc which have been brought by Aryan invaders (you being from Dravida Nadu know about them). Not only Pakistanis, apart from Adivassis, other Indians are also foreign invaders, just a bit older.

Pakistani Pashtuns+Sindhis+Baloch (more than half of the population) have nothing to do with Gangetic India, and so is the case with few isolated groups like those in Gilgit Baltistan, and in Punjab, only the central areas/majhi speaking ones (not Potohar/Saraiki) have a link with Punjab of India, 3% of the population.

You can't talk of India and Pakistan in the same breadth when it comes to ethnicity, culture, religion, ... like you can't do that with India-Bangladesh and India-Sri Lanka. These countries belong to different races and you can give one stand for all.

The most martial population of Potohar accepted Islam in droves (you will find minimal - if at all - Hindu/Sikh Gakkhars, Janjua Rajputs, Awans, ...). Do you think they saw Islam as something of "foreign invaders invading India" ? No, because there was no Indian/Hindu identity, no Islam/invaders correlation, etc types of equation(s) as opposed to what happened in Gangetic India.

 

[Slog]

Wait. I'm confused. Almost every Pakistani I meet in online forum says that he is a descendant of Mughals or any other invading tribe and tends to take a huge pride in the likes of Ghazni and Ghori and disregard the history of the land which is now modern day Pakistan pre Islamic invasion. But where are the descendants of the natives who lived in Pakistan? Don't tell me they "all" died/went to India.

this line keeps getting repeated by some Indian posters but i never find any evidence to support it.

What they might have said is that we are different than Indians. From an ethnic standpoint that might be true. Only ethnicity Pakistan and India share wholesale is Punjabi ethnic group. And Punjabis form about 3% of Indian population.

 

[Bilal7]

wrong. Iran and Iraq converted to Islam in twenty years. Same thing with Egypt. But in Indian subcontinent, people fought against Islamic forces. Millions lost their lives, but they choose death before converting to Islam. Im not trying to offend anyone here. But, the truth is people who were scared of mughals chose to convert. At one point of time, the murders were so brutal that Hindu population was 80 million in India.
Marathas gave a deadly blow to the murderous Islamic rule, it was ended in a nice way. What about Sikhs? Their fighting skills are unmatched that they didn't convert. Their guru was killed by mughals, but they refused to budge. Jats, rajput maharana pratap Singh. ?
People here chose to fight and its the same reason why India is still 80% dharmic religion.

The resistance was actually more severe in Syria, Iran and in that area, in general. The Hindu kings put up a fight but they were defeated. The end result was that Islam was firmly established in India.

You guys are making contradictory arguments, either they were too "civilized" to fight and lost. Or they did fight and thus were not really "civilized" according to a tree-huggers definition of the word.

Dude lol are you serious or trolling i'm not understanding.

Of course you don't understand any of this.

 

[street cricketer]

I know Pakistan is an extremely diverse country with Punjabis, Sindhis, Kashmiris, Pashtuns, Balochis, Hazaras, etc. I also know that Pakistan in no way is connected to Tamil Nadu or Kerala or whatever. I was merely pointing out the irony in you ridiculing the natives when the natives in yesteryear Pakistan offered probably the highest resistance to the invading armies. Ghazni was faced resistance with Jayapala and Anandapala and other such rulers who were based in Peshawar, Multan and other areas in modern day Pakistan, and such rulers had no connection to Tamil nadu or South India.

 

[street cricketer]

The above comment was meant as a reply to Deosai.

 

[enkidu_]

I know Pakistan is an extremely diverse country with Punjabis, Sindhis, Kashmiris, Pashtuns, Balochis, Hazaras, etc. I also know that Pakistan in no way is connected to Tamil Nadu or Kerala or whatever. I was merely pointing out the irony in you ridiculing the natives when the natives in yesteryear Pakistan offered probably the highest resistance to the invading armies. Ghazni was faced resistance with Jayapala and Anandapala and other such rulers who were based in Peshawar, Multan and other areas in modern day Pakistan, and such rulers had no connection to Tamil nadu or South India.

Yes, and former COAS Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is a Gakkhar, and the Ghori missiles are named after Muhammad Ghori, who was actually killed by Gakkhars. But that happens everywhere. You have Dravidians take pride in Aryan imports, you have African Americans take pride in US history, you have Levantines/Egyptians take pride in Arab conquests, etc and so on.

Never seen an actual Pakistani says he descend from Babur, but Pakistanis may be sensitive for two reasons, as they see imprints of Hindutvadi cultural imperialism :

1) Such discussions deny their singularity/differences of Pakistanis as compared to Indians
2) Some implicit Islam bashing.

 

[Raw deal]

The resistance was actually more severe in Syria, Iran and in that area, in general. The Hindu kings put up a fight but they were defeated. The end result was that Islam was firmly established in India.

You guys are making contradictory arguments, either they were too "civilized" to fight and lost. Or they did fight and thus were not really "civilized" according to a tree-huggers definition of the word.



Of course you don't understand any of this.

if the resistance was severe in these countries, they wouldn't have become 100% Islamic in 15 years. Here, people just didn't convert and chose to die. Kings here in India lost to invading Islamic army because they had certain principles like they wouldn't fight after evening, they wouldn't touch women or public, they would pardon easily like how prithviraj pardoned Mohammed ghori for 17 times. But Islamic armies were barbaric, killed the civilians, looted gold. Such things didn't exist in India.
Even shivaji who defeated mughals many times didn't touch public. Once his army misbehaved with a Muslim queen in surat, and shivaji punished the army general and apologized to her and said to her that if her mom was as beautiful as her, he would have been more good looking.
Rajputs are ultimate in this kind of fighting. Barbarism were exclusive for the invading Islamic forces.

 

[akki]

They liberated the subcontinent from the darkness of paganism, saving us from stuff like the caste system and the practice of sati. I do hope I don't offend you and anyone else by saying this.

"marauding, blood-thirsty armies", where did you get this from? Islam could not have been spread peacefully in a place like the Indian sub-continent where even today, Muslims have to be concerned about their lives. Anyone converting to Islam would be burnt alive if the Mughal Empire, for example, was not established.

I wouldn't be okay with forcefully converting to an ideology that I didn't like but that is not what happened in India. Were there no Hindus living under Muslim rule? Did they not have a choice between paying the Jizya and converting?

You are unhappy over the Pundits and other Hindu rulers being stripped of their power bu what about the people that were being treated like animals in those times? I'm sure they were quite happy to have been liberated and which is why there are millions of Muslims in the subcontinent today.

If any of your comments about "blood-thirsty" Muslim armies was true, there wouldn't be a trace of Hinduism left in India at this point. However, that is not how we rolled.

They wouldnt have been burnt alive if they had tried to preach their religion peacefully...if that was the case then budhism ,sikhism,jaininsm would not have born from hindustan...and there is not any law that converting from hindus results to only death unlike invaders religion and we are glad to we resist to invaders forced religion and thankfull to our generation that we didnt enter darkness like what you said in starting....

 

[hussain123]

Exactly, and we get back to the crux of the discussion : there was no Indian identity. In modern Pak many tribes have "accommodated" what we'd call today "invaders" - but for them, they weren't more "foreign" than someone from modern day Bihar or Tamil Nadu, especially after the conversion to Islam. Thus, they "collaborated" with the new regional powers and assumed authority on a more local level (Gakkhars/Kayanis, Janjuas, Awans, ...), even if low intensity insurgency remained alive for centuries. Aitzaz Ahsan talks of Babur complaining a lot about rustic Jats and Gujjars in his memoirs, belligerent despite the fact that he conquered Sialkot area (with much difficulties), and the local Pashtuns were such a pain that he married a Yousufzai lady, Bibi Mubaraka, just to consolidate their trust - but when he passed though the Indus populations after three failed attempts, Dehli was a piece of cake. Aitzaz Ahsan also shows how the same happened centuries later, when Mughal emperor Muhammad "Rangeela" didn't try to stop Nadir Shah's invasion as he knew that there was no need to lose men, considering that if Nadir Shah was in Dehli it meant that he subdued Indus populations. Another famous ruler, Muhammad Ghori, was killed by Gakkhars while Muhammad bin Tughluq, despite owning Delhi, struggled his tons of years in Sindh, where he ultimately died (and which gave oxygen to southern India, as this ruler was about to concretize the geographically largest empire in India since the Mauryas).

In fact I'd advise everyone here to read Aitzaz Ahsan's "The Indus Saga". It answers OP [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION], and way, way more.



Don't Indians consider "Whites" or "Europe" to be "one entity" (what does that even mean) ?

There's another point of view : medieval bifurcation between "al Sind" and "al Hind"



André Wink, Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World, Volume 1, p. 145

I personally believe had india never fell to britush empire, it may never have have been concieved in its contemporary form.with weakening of mughal rule, marathas had acquired centrality in the deciding the future for indian subcontinent.with emerging sikh rule, rejuvenation of rajputs and ever rising marathas, situation would have made them consolidate on their acquired landa which would furthur have lead to formation of different small provinces ruled by an autonmous rulers within those rulers.india today may have been an amalagam of tens of nation states.

 

[hussain123]

I personally believe had india never fell to britush empire, it may never have have been concieved in its contemporary form.with weakening of mughal rule, marathas had acquired centrality in the deciding the future for indian subcontinent.with emerging sikh rule, rejuvenation of rajputs and ever rising marathas, situation would have made them consolidate on their acquired landa which would furthur have lead to formation of different small provinces ruled by an autonmous rulers within those rulers.india today may have been an amalagam of tens of nation states.

**within respective kingdoms

 

[street cricketer]

Indians take pride in the Vedas, etc which have been brought by Aryan invaders (you being from Dravida Nadu know about them). Not only Pakistanis, apart from Adivassis, other Indians are also foreign invaders, just a bit older.

Pakistani Pashtuns+Sindhis+Baloch (more than half of the population) have nothing to do with Gangetic India, and so is the case with few isolated groups like those in Gilgit Baltistan, and in Punjab, only the central areas/majhi speaking ones (not Potohar/Saraiki) have a link with Punjab of India, 3% of the population.

You can't talk of India and Pakistan in the same breadth when it comes to ethnicity, culture, religion, ... like you can't do that with India-Bangladesh and India-Sri Lanka. These countries belong to different races and you can give one stand for all.

The most martial population of Potohar accepted Islam in droves (you will find minimal - if at all - Hindu/Sikh Gakkhars, Janjua Rajputs, Awans, ...). Do you think they saw Islam as something of "foreign invaders invading India" ? No, because there was no Indian/Hindu identity, no Islam/invaders correlation, etc types of equation(s) as opposed to what happened in Gangetic India.

Yes, but the same Tamilians take a huge pride in Sangam literature (actually, much more pride), which was probably composed during the same period as the Vedic literature. In the case of a few Pakistanis (not all), it is almost a case of us vs them. I know religion plays a huge factor too, but they tend to take swipes like partitioning ancient India and such, when rulers such as Mauryas and Ashoka's empire extended into Pakistan as much as it extended into modern day India, and Pakistan has its own rich history pre Islamic era (iirc, the decimal system that most Indians like to take pride of, was actually put forth by Aryabhatta who was born in Pakistan). You can see such comments in this very own thread. I was only pointing out that.

 

[street cricketer]

Another common line that is often trotted out in the internet is that India is a peaceful country and that throughout its history, it has never invaded any country, which is absolute hogwash. From time immemorial, there was trading between the Eastern and Southern kingdoms of India with Southeast Asia; and there were many Hindu and Buddhist influences in countries such as Cambodia and Indonesia. In fact, the first real kingdom in Cambodia's history was the Funan kingdom which was a Hindu kingdom. And the Khmer dynasty which built the much famed Angkor wat was also a Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Vishnu built by Suryavarman III.

The Chola dynasty of South India had probably the best navy in Indian history and Rajendra Chola I raided the present day Indonesia, taking a huge treasury with them to their homeland. At their peak, the Chola dynasty's influence exteded far into Southeast Asia and they were regular traders with the Chinese and other kingdoms of Asia minor. It is mentioned that they even had knowledge of Australia during then.

 

[Bilal7]

if the resistance was severe in these countries, they wouldn't have become 100% Islamic in 15 years. Here, people just didn't convert and chose to die. Kings here in India lost to invading Islamic army because they had certain principles like they wouldn't fight after evening, they wouldn't touch women or public, they would pardon easily like how prithviraj pardoned Mohammed ghori for 17 times. But Islamic armies were barbaric, killed the civilians, looted gold. Such things didn't exist in India.
Even shivaji who defeated mughals many times didn't touch public. Once his army misbehaved with a Muslim queen in surat, and shivaji punished the army general and apologized to her and said to her that if her mom was as beautiful as her, he would have been more good looking.
Rajputs are ultimate in this kind of fighting. Barbarism were exclusive for the invading Islamic forces.

Choosing to become Muslims doesn't depend on whether they fought wars or not. The Hindus were defeated by 17 year old, Mohammad Bin Qasim, whereas the Syrians, Iraqis, etc had to deal with the greatest general who ever lived, Khalid Bin Walid (RA). The Persian and Romans were obviously a lot stronger than the Hindus so it is foolish to say that the latter gave more resistance.

The Mughals ruled over India for how many years? For all this supposed, 'death over conversion' talk, the Hindus were all too happy to be under Islamic rule for hundreds of years.

You are living in a delusional world if you think that the Hindu kings did not touch civilians but the Muslims did. In Islam it is forbidden to even burn trees and kill animals, unless absolutely necessary so forget about harming innocent women, children, elderly or religious leaders. The Muslims were the liberators, where exactly were all these women and "public" that the Hindu kings spared? This was all happening in India, not Saudi Arabia.

Some of the Hindu kings were good rules definitely, just like some of the Muslim ones were terrible but in general, the Muslim rulers were far better. You're just twisting history here.

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=538]bilal[/MENTION] 7 atm a lot of middle east is backwards economically socially compared to the West. So would Western invasion of Middle East to bring the enlightenment of Western Secular culture from some of the oppressive theocratic regimes in Middle East be justified.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Adil_94]

Some of the comments from Bilal 7 have been disturbing to me. As we see in the Middle East today. Western interventions have angered many Muslims. And Muslims are always crying about how the evil west butchers Muslims. How in the hell can you justify Actions of some barbaric hordes invading India saying they were enlightening them witht rhe message of Islam. What enlightening message needs Swords and armies to spread surely if its so enlightening people will convert themselves without a knife to their throat.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Adil_94]

Dude lol are you serious or trolling i'm not understanding.

Guy is serious. Theres a reason for all the Amla and Moeen love.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[speed]

[MENTION=538]bilal[/MENTION] 7 atm a lot of middle east is backwards economically socially compared to the West. So would Western invasion of Middle East to bring the enlightenment of Western Secular culture from some of the oppressive theocratic regimes in Middle East be justified.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

The west already invaded and drew up todays middle east, lebanon,jordan,syria,iraq, isreal are all european constructs.

wherever muslim invaders went they built nation states and married with the locals, the european never married the locals, they came, looted and went back, with the exception of north america, where the indigenous were almost exterminated.

 

[Bilal7]

[MENTION=538]bilal[/MENTION] 7 atm a lot of middle east is backwards economically socially compared to the West. So would Western invasion of Middle East to bring the enlightenment of Western Secular culture from some of the oppressive theocratic regimes in Middle East be justified.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Well, it was certainly justified when Assad was killing millions of Syrians or how a democratically elected government in Egypt was removed from power or in the case of Israel's continued oppression of the Palestinian people.

 

[Bilal7]

Some of the comments from Bilal 7 have been disturbing to me. As we see in the Middle East today. Western interventions have angered many Muslims. And Muslims are always crying about how the evil west butchers Muslims. How in the hell can you justify Actions of some barbaric hordes invading India saying they were enlightening them witht rhe message of Islam. What enlightening message needs Swords and armies to spread surely if its so enlightening people will convert themselves without a knife to their throat.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

You need to read a book. There was no knife to the throat, your ignorance is appalling.