Blackpill The plight of the currycel

[Deleted member 16023]

Yes those countries now speak mostly Russian and used to be part of USSR.



I never said that didn't happen, but those were not a regular occurrence, genocide happened during the initial conquest but they did not keep killing people for years after years.

Btw, Hindus like to point fingers to muslim invaders when this issue of Nalanda university comes up. But most of them completely ignore Pushyamitra's genocide of buddhists. Who single handedly destroyed 84,000 monasteries (killed all the monks) all over the curryland. He completely obliterated buddhism from the large part of the curryland within 5 years.

Pushyamitra Shunga - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not justifying the act of by muslims by quoting Pushyamitra's genocide. Just quoting the fact so that hinducels can get the whole picture. As you have mentioned the burning of libraries and universities, I think you know about this too:

Siege of Baghdad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All military campaigns in the iron-age/medieval period were like that.

Btw, I don't completely agree with the "destruction of culture" thing, both culture took from each other and they did some good things too.

Barmakids - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The buddhist mathematics and philosophy from Barmakids went to middle-east during the time of "Islamic Golden Age", which eventually went to Europe that influenced the foundation of European renaissance.

Pushyamitra's genocide is heavily exaggerated and is most probably a myth written by Buddhist scholars he didn't patron.

The whole fact about there was a genocide only during the conquest has a problem that there were numerous genocides of peaceful civilians of the regions who's lords revolted and that there were numerous invasion.

But the fact still remains that universities were completely destroyed resulting in halt of intellectual progress of India.

hindu dindu shitskin cope, "India" THRIVED under Mughal rule.

Yes , it did better than Rajput rule and Delhi sultanate. India had already had economically declined under the Rajput era after the huns invaded India it crashed the economy and it took till the mughal empire to recover it. In Delhi sultanate there was a destruction of universities and intellectual traditions resulting in loss of a strong academic tradition but at the same time economic development also happened. Mughal rule copied the rule of their ancestor Timur who had a secularish(depends on the ruler yet there were more freedom to infidels if we compare it to Christian rule in Europe) rule which followed a Mongol rule of administration . it resulted in a more prosperous rule then before resulting in economic development . But people often think that the rapid economic growth that happened due to the European spice trade was what India was like throughout that whole era is not true. That period was short lived and ended soon.

Interesting article.
So India got fucked for 800 years prior to British rule, followed by another a few hundred years of parasitical colonization.

But given that they had 1947 till now to develop, why is it that 50% of the populace are still shitting out in the open?
I mean, Japan got razed to the ground at the end of WWII, but look at where they are today.

We went socialist and sucked Soviet dick until it's collapse after which we had to liberalise our economy leading into economic development.

Nazis are 1000 times better than britfags.


Islam made India great. But dindus will still suck off wypipo while bathing in cow shit

Are you implying that the islamic rule was the zenith of Indian civilization which is not true as that was under the Gupta era which is widely considered the golden age of India.

 

[littlemanhikicel]

That's a kid painting that man's balls.

that's sick.

 

[RREEEEEEEEE]

TBH this thread looks like an elaborate race baiting JBW fuck fest.

>thediplomat
"India" under Mughal rule had 25% of the world GDP.

Yes , it did better than Rajput rule and Delhi sultanate. India had already had economically declined under the Rajput era after the huns invaded India it crashed the economy and it took till the mughal empire to recover it. In Delhi sultanate there was a destruction of universities and intellectual traditions resulting in loss of a strong academic tradition but at the same time economic development also happened. Mughal rule copied the rule of their ancestor Timur who had a secularish(depends on the ruler yet there were more freedom to infidels if we compare it to Christian rule in Europe) rule which followed a Mongol rule of administration . it resulted in a more prosperous rule then before resulting in economic development . But people often think that the rapid economic growth that happened due to the European spice trade was what India was like throughout that whole era is not true. That period was short lived and ended soon.

In terms of economy, yes, they did better than the Delhi Sultanate. But in terms of warfare, the Delhi Sultanate easily takes the cake. They were the only force to have cucked the Mongols multiple times; whereas practically no one else were able to defeat them even once, aside from Seljuks (not the Turkish ones).

Got any evidence to back that up?

Google it.

India never thrived. Lmfao wtf. Yea, may be 3000 years ago, way before when Islam didn't even existed.

Keep crying for Islam, but don't let your hatred for it distort reality.

 

[Deleted member 1060]

Pushyamitra's genocide is heavily exaggerated and is most probably a myth written by Buddhist scholars he didn't patron.

Pushyamitra's genocide == exaggerated (Why? Just because he was a Hindu? Lmfao)
Muslim invader genocide == 100% accurate (Why? Just because he was a Muslim?)

You are exactly talking like a Bajrangicoper. You need to be objective. The real history is very difficult to reconstruct.

The whole fact about there was a genocide only during the conquest has a problem that there were numerous genocides of peaceful civilians of the regions who's lords revolted and that there were numerous invasion.

India was not invaded by Arabs only, curryland was always considered by kings all over the world as a "major target" throughout the human history. I don't understand why Bajrangis always "carefully" leave out invasions of Aryans, Huns, Greeks, and so on.

Hinduism itself is a result of Aryan invasion. Btw, Aryans (and proto-hinduism) came from the middle-east.

Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you are a Hindu, you are basically a cuck to middle-easterners. Hinduism is not something intrinsically native philosophy of curryland, it's basic tenets were imported from the middle-east, but later developed in the curryland independently.

But the fact still remains that universities were completely destroyed resulting in halt of intellectual progress of India.

Nalanda was already in decline when Khalji attacked. The major contribution made by the Nalanda scholars were from 6th to 5th century BC. Islam did not even exist then. When Khalji attacked it was a Buddhist monastery in decline. What all those monks did whole day was rote memorization of buddhist sutras. The culture of intellectual pursuit was already gone, long time ago.

You are completely brainwashed by the Bajrangi narrative. Also no, Arab and Persian scholars didn't think Indians as "savage" population. Curries/Hindus were highly respected in the Islamic empire, specially in the Islamic scholar circles.

I would strongly suggest to read this shit before any further comment --

Alberuni's India

Specially read these two chapters:

Columbia University Libraries: Alberuni's India (v. 1)

Columbia University Libraries: Alberuni's India (v. 1)

Keep crying for Islam, but don't let your hatred for it distort reality.

I just speak the truth. I don't hate anything. LowIQ and cucked-by-assumption post.