A moral dilemma

[Arrian]

I don't see any effects of that invasion on my life AT ALL

Oh please.

What if that invasion had not happened? You don't know how history would have played out. Perhaps the golden age would've continued. Perhaps the decline would've been gentle, and perhaps there would've been an internal restructing/renewal. Your life (assuming you would exist at all) might look very different indeed. That's just the sort of thing you go on and on about vis-a-vis the Muslims or Brits.

The Hunas do not appear to have ruled for long, that much is true. I don't think anyone would argue their impact was as important or more important than that of the Muslims or Brits. But "no long term impact" is pretty silly. They took down the empire you claim presided over India's "diamond" age. I wouldn't say that the Visigoths had "no long term impact" on Europe, even if they weren't the sole reason for the destruction of the Western Roman Empire.

Do you know what it is like to live in a land of abject poverty, both economic and cultural, and most of all, civilisational?

No, I do not. I've been pretty clear about my lack of knowledge of Indian history as well. If you think my first-world birth & upbringing and my failure to study Indian history makes me unworthy to discuss these things, why ask me questions?

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Do you know what it is like to live in a land of abject poverty, both economic and cultural, and most of all, civilisational?

Well what's the difference between living in India and living in the US? Why wouldn't we know what it is like?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by aneeshm
And I would say that thinking of India as a unified entity is justified, because the cultural ideals and civilisational values of all the disparate political entities into which India was divided were uniform.

That's akin to saying it is justified to think of Western Europe as a unified entity because the cultural ideals and civilizational values of all the disparate political states into which Western Europe was divided were uniform (ie, in the period of 1000 AD to the Reformation... though even in large parts today).

[Arrian]

Asoka is to India as Napolean is to Europe. Discuss.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

The Sikh scripture has hundreds (and I mean this - literally hundreds, if not thousands) of positive references to the Hindu Avatar Lord Rama.

Yet they are strictly monotheist. They explicitly state that they keep neither the Muslim or the Hindu holy days.

They may show respect to Hindus, but they are a very different religion. One of the reasons they love Canada is because they are unable to buy land in India for their families. So the oldest son gets the property and the younger ones go abroad.

The Tamils, by the way, are the ones who kept old traditions alive when the north had caved.

Yet the fact that there is a 'south' and 'north' and that there are identifiable characterstics that distinguish between the two prove my point.

Let me ask you this - how much do you know of Hinduism? Or of India? And what are your sources of knowledge?

Enough to know that this is a snow job. India has always had great diversity in religions and in culture. As you said in their peak period they must have been a magnet for pretty much everyone else. Therefore, it is not surprising to see them retain their cosmopolitan characteristics.

As for poverty, it's always a relative measure. It is a very good question why did India given her natural resources end up driving British industrialisation rather then her own, given the point like China that they were more advanced. To me it seems that the inability to unify India is a large sticking point. I would be interested to continue discussing the point, since it is a good question. Europe in 1300 was a backwater behind China and India, and yet it is Europe that becomes dominant. Why?

I'll let Wiki do the talking.

Bengal Famine of 1770
Bengal Famine of 1943

And when was Victoria crowned Empress of India. There is a big hole here that conveniently overlaps with the period of British control.

I'm not trying to justify either, just trying to ask the question, why, if the British were bad, do we not see another Famine in 1800 similar to the two prior?

I find it hard to believe that we have accurate records on famines in India from times prior, but I would be very interested in seeing any sources you may have.

I've often thought about that, and speculated about what would have been the course of history of the Muslims and British had never come, or rather, if the Muslims had never gained a foothold in India.

The question is a good one. The British gave India their system and as a result India is far more prosperous then many of her neighbours. You see poverty, I see a nation on the cusps of an unprecedented improvement in wealth.

You ask me what I know, one of my best friends is an Indian Catholic. Interesting conversations. Married a Scots-French girl who was also a good friend of mine.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by aneeshm

Right now - impoverished, broken nation, its culture dissipated and dying, its people having no sense of nation at all, its polity corrupted, its territorial integrity threatened, its enemies on the rise......

During their rise post-WW1, the european fascists used a rethorics that was based on:

- fears over territorial integrity
- a sense of emergency about the rise of said enemies
- ... and the pace at which the nation is decaying
- poverty of the nation is due to enemies, from within and from without
- ...especially in comparison to some ancient golden age
- for things to be right, real patriots must unite under the banner of the nation, and go back to the fundamentals that made the nation great in the first place.

I hope you realize how this rhetoric is close to what you're saying. You should seriously look for your argument, in order not to fall into a trap the fascists are always too happy to lay:

- your golden age. Like at any other period of human history, and on any other place on Earth, there were plenty of problems. Sure, it was probably better than the time which followed, but it was very far from a lalaland.
And if a Golden Age India lost to conquests, that's certainly because there were strong reasons for it to do so. Just like the fall of the Roman Empire is almost entirely due to long-term economics and demographics.

- the pace at which your enemies are growing. Which enemies? The Pakistanis? How is it different now than 60 years ago, save for the presence of MAD (they didn't outpace you in the race to the bomb)? If anything, they're the ones with a stagnating economy.
The Muslims? These most probable members of a fifth-column?
The Chinese? The westerners? Which enemy exactly is getting stronger faster than you?

- The culture dissipated and dying.
Just WTF are you on about? If anything, there's being a revival of the ancient Indian culture, notably because of international interest bringing $$$, so that people can work about making them better known. As an example, today a large Paris museum has just received ancient Indian statues for a temporary exhibition (the statues will go back to India afterwards), for the Paris' audience to admire your culture.
Many in the west look out to India for a new form of spirituality. You guys are an inspiration for many people abroad. Heck, one of my best friends, born from French and German parents, has a Sanskrit name.
And finally, your modern culture seems to be really kicking off with the economic development. Sure, Bollywood is pop entertainment just as much as Hollywood; however, there's a definite Indian touch to it, which has a growing audience worldwide.

[Fake Boris]

Moghuls = Indian golden age