Quote: (10-06-2018 08:23 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:
Quote: (10-05-2018 04:58 PM)iop890 Wrote:
Another one of these fucking India threads? Why is it always India that starts the racial arguments these days?
Quote:Quote:
What is the chronological order of foreign invasion of India?
(1500 BC) Aryan invasion of a Sanskrit-speaking people who laid the foundations of Vedic culture in North India. (The historical validity of this hypothesis is disputed. So, take this with a pinch of salt.)
(518 BC) Achaemenid (Persian/Iranian) invasion of the Indus Valley under King Darius I.
(326 BC) Greek invasion led by Alexander of Macedonia.
(200 BC to 300 AD) Incursions of Indo-Greeks, Scythians, Parthians, Kushanas from Central Asia and establishment of their kingdoms in North and Northwestern India after the fall of the Mauryan Empire. Many of them, however, integrated into the Indian society, so although the initial invasions can be called ‘foreign,’ they gradually became Indian.
(Late 5th and early 6th century AD) - Huna Invasion during the later phases of the Guptas. They were also a nomadic tribe from the Central Asian steppe.
Arab conquest of Sindh (712 AD) under Mohammad Bin Qasim. However, there was no Arab incursion into the mainland of India.
(Circa 1000 AD) Ghaznavid raids under Mahmud of Ghazni - main motive was plunder.
(1194 AD) Ghurid invasion led by Mu'izz ad-Din Muhammad Ghori and the subsequent establishment of the Delhi Sultanate - main motive was not plunder, but empire building. This period saw a confluence of cultures and the emergence of an Indo-Islamic culture that would later become the crown-jewel of Indian pluralism and multiculturalism under the Mughals.
(1398) Invasion of Tamerlane (Timur) that broke the back of the Tughluq rule.
(1526) Mughal invasion led by Babur - a Timurid prince, against the Delhi Sultanate under Ibrahim Lodi. The Mughals too adopted Indian culture and added their own contribution to it, taking Indo-Islamic culture to its climax. Babur may have been from Central Asia, but his descendants were born and bred in India. In fact, the Later Mughals undisputedly considered themselves as Indian. So, the use of the term ‘foreign’ with Mughals other than Babur or maybe Humayun, is factually wrong.
(16th century) Portugese conflicts with Bijapuri Sultans etc over select coastal regions of Peninsular India e.g the capture of Goa in 1510 by Alfonso de Albuquerque. Other European powers like the French, the Dutch and the Danes followed after this, but their primary motive was trade and monopoly rather than an all-India conquest.
1739 Invasions of Nadir Shah of Persia and subsequent invasions from 1748 to 1767 by Ahmed Shah Abdali.
(1757–1857) British conquest of India. This wasn’t an overnight invasion but a protracted contest for power between the British East India Company and Indian rulers like the Bengal Sultans, the Mysore State under Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan, the Marathas, the Sikhs, the Awadh Nawabs and the Later Mughals as well as with European rivals in India such as the French, the Danes, the Dutch etc.
India is a young country, barely 50 years old, as an independent nation. All new countries are fiercely nationalistic, which often seems to go a little overboard to outsiders with a longer, more secure national identity.
The historical fact of India is one of being ruled over by outsiders, just about all outsiders: Indo-Europeans, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Persians, Mongols. Everyone had a go at India. They make France look like an impenetrable fortress.
Then there's the fact that Hindi is a language based on Sanskrit which is a European language. Mind blown once you figure out that the Arab numerals, were really Sanskrit numerals, were phonetically similar to Old Norse. I guess, this is the same as speaking spanish in Latin America, except the Indians were colonized by Europeans already 3500 years ago. Then were colonized by a slew of who's who in the ancient world.
Ok, so you have these Hindi nationalists, who for years tried to argue that Sanskrit spread westwards, but no one believes this anymore, DNA disproves it.
You have these proud, newly independent Indians, who then as their first move as independent people... flee their nation, to their former colonizers.
You can see how that does a number on your mind. You did everything you could to become independent of your colonizers and now you flee to the exact people you kicked out.
At least black South Africans and other independent nations, don't clamor to migrate to the UK, they are proud of their new independence, townships and violence and all.
Why would they want to immigrate to the West when they still have wealthy white people to rob at home? It's just extra work. Let's see if they're so eager to stay at home when their is no one left to rob.