Did decline of major indian empires played major factor in Islamic invasion and why?

[Joe Shearer]

empires are empires whether based on alliances or by ruthless might, the british ruled india through those alliances as well, even during the british regime, india had more than forty princely states. British as a matter of fact almost lost their authority in india during war of independence when few princes turned against them.

regards

Actually, 562, not 40.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You are correct. The Gurjara Pratihara empire, Rashtrakutas and Pala empires kept Arabs at bay and kept them limited to Sindh but the downfall of these empire and the rise of smaller kingdoms led to success of waves of Turkic invaders which came later. What wad the reason for the decline of these empires ? Well I don't know the specific reasons but I do know that every empire declines after a while. I will leave the specific reasons for decline on more knowledgeable members on Indian history to discuss. @Joe Shearer

Some data:

1. The longest rule was that of the Ahoms; they outlasted others by a factor of 3, their rule was 3 times longer than the typical. The average Indian Empire lasted about 200 years.
2. In most observations about Indian history, there is colossal ignorance about political entities outside north India, that is, India from the Peshawar region to Bihar. Anything outside this gets marginalised in standard older histories.
3. Muslims are seen by most bhakts as the only invaders in centuries, after Alexander III. This is really misleading. Northern - north-western India, actually, has been invaded from the Aryan-speaking migrants of 1500 BC onwards; the Persians followed, then the Greeks, then the Sakas/Scythians and their Pallava allies, then the Kushana, then the Ephthalites. All these were before the 8th century AD onwards, when the Sindh was conquered by an external invader, followed 300 years later by a wave of Turkish invaders again in the north-west.
4. This conventional picture totally ignores other regions and other developments, largely because Indian history has been the narrative of the history of north India. A review of the history of eastern India and southern India reveals rather different perspectives. It is recommended for those who are interested, and not recommended for bhakts, saffron or green.
5. The main stock in trade of saffron revisionists (leaving aside for a moment the equally boring green revisionists) is the glorious past of India (= the glorious past of Hindu kingdoms) and the grinding unhappiness of the succeeding period (= the grinding unhappiness of all of India under alien Muslim kingdoms). This raises several points, which will be addressed, superficially, in a forthcoming edit of this answer itself.

 

[Srinivas]

It is Gengis khan which made it possible for Islamic and British rulers to easily conquer Indian regions.

You can check the civilizations all around the globe the civilizations from Roman, Greek, Persian, Egyptian are all wiped out but India struggled and survived.

Some data:

1. Muslims are seen by most bhakts as the only invaders in centuries, after Alexander III. This is really misleading. Northern - north-western India, actually, has been invaded from the Aryan-speaking migrants of 1500 BC onwards; the Persians followed, then the Greeks, then the Sakas/Scythians and their Pallava allies, then the Kushana, then the Ephthalites. All these were before the 8th century AD onwards, when the Sindh was conquered by an external invader, followed 300 years later by a wave of Turkish invaders again in the north-west.

Whether invasions or migrations of these small regions of Bharat, before Christianity and Islam, they assimilated and Indianized themselves when the regrouping and back pressure came. Bharat might have lost some regions during the invasions but has regained every region except during partition.

Aryan invasion is a myth propagated by British.

 

[W.11]

Some data:

1. The longest rule was that of the Ahoms; they outlasted others by a factor of 3, their rule was 3 times longer than the typical. The average Indian Empire lasted about 200 years.
2. In most observations about Indian history, there is colossal ignorance about political entities outside north India, that is, India from the Peshawar region to Bihar. Anything outside this gets marginalised in standard older histories.
3. Muslims are seen by most bhakts as the only invaders in centuries, after Alexander III. This is really misleading. Northern - north-western India, actually, has been invaded from the Aryan-speaking migrants of 1500 BC onwards; the Persians followed, then the Greeks, then the Sakas/Scythians and their Pallava allies, then the Kushana, then the Ephthalites. All these were before the 8th century AD onwards, when the Sindh was conquered by an external invader, followed 300 years later by a wave of Turkish invaders again in the north-west.
4. This conventional picture totally ignores other regions and other developments, largely because Indian history has been the narrative of the history of north India. A review of the history of eastern India and southern India reveals rather different perspectives. It is recommended for those who are interested, and not recommended for bhakts, saffron or green.
5. The main stock in trade of saffron revisionists (leaving aside for a moment the equally boring green revisionists) is the glorious past of India (= the glorious past of Hindu kingdoms) and the grinding unhappiness of the succeeding period (= the grinding unhappiness of all of India under alien Muslim kingdoms). This raises several points, which will be addressed, superficially, in a forthcoming edit of this answer itself.

you cannot solely blame ''bhakts'' who are themselves under the influence of british fed education. As you stated about aryan invasion etc, the muslims were made evil by the british colonists and entire indo islamic culture was declared as ''alien'' or west asian, mughal paintings bcame persian imports. Some where i have posted how pointed arch which originated in india became a alien import, this narrative still dominates indian education despite many indian scholars and archaeologists have tried to debunk these notions of ''alien rule''.

regards

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is Gengis khan which made it possible for Islamic and British rulers to easily conquer India regions.

You can check the civilizations all around the globe the civilizations from Roman, Greek, Persian, Egyptian are all wiped out but India struggled and survived.



Whether invasions or migrations of these small regions of Bharat, before Christianity and Islam, they assimilated and Indianized themselves when the regrouping and back pressure came. Bharat might have lost some regions during the invasions but has regained every region except during partition.

Aryan invasion is a myth propagated by British.

That silliness has been exploded by genetic studies:

1. The Indus Valley Civilisation was established and populated by people with a genetic make-up of some from the Iranian plateau who migrated to the Indus Valley BEFORE agriculture started in Iran, and the pre-Ancestral South Indian people. It was nothing to do with the migrants, whose presence is established by other studies, so that is one plank of the Out Of India hypothesis gone.
2. There is further genetic evidence that the former dwellers of this Civilisation drifted to the south-east, into the Deccan, and merged with existing inhabitants to form the form ASI profile.
3. There is strong evidence, almost irrefutable evidence, that the spread of Indo-Aryan as a language is strongly associated with genetic profiles of migrants from the steppes of central Asia. What Euro-centric academicians, influenced by their own knowledge of the Greek Iron Age migrations and the invasions of the German-speaking people into the Roman Empire, called the Aryan Invasion is now correctly seen as a migration of Indo-Aryan speakers into south Asia.
4. The genetic markers of these migrants have persisted into upper-caste Hindus, most particularly into the Brahmin community.

Perhaps it is time to ask these revisionists and divisive elements in Indian society to go back to where they came from.

 

[Srinivas]

you cannot solely blame ''bhakts'' who are themselves under the influence of british fed education. As you stated about aryan invasion etc, the muslims were made evil by the british colonists and entire indo islamic culture was declared as ''alien'' or west asian, mughal paintings bcame persian imports. Some where i have posted how pointed arch which originated in india became a alien import, this narrative still dominates indian education despite many indian scholars and archaeologists have tried to debunk these notions of ''alien rule''.

regards

British cultivated an eco system of self haters and tried to degrade the India culture and greatness.

 

[Joe Shearer]

you cannot solely blame ''bhakts'' who are themselves under the influence of british fed education. As you stated about aryan invasion etc, the muslims were made evil by the british colonists and entire indo islamic culture was declared as ''alien'' or west asian, mughal paintings bcame persian imports. Some where i have posted how pointed arch which originated in india became a alien import, this narrative still dominates indian education despite many indian scholars and archaeologists have tried to debunk these notions of ''alien rule''.

regards

An excellent point. It cannot be further emphasised, more emphatically emphasised, that the founding fathers of the bhakts were influenced by contemporary racist theories prevalent in Europe. It is ironic that this inward-looking, xenophobic outlook was borrowed from outside.

You must also be aware, if your insightful statements about these matters are any guide, that the British had an ambivalent attitude towards both Muslim and Hindu.

They worked diligently to shore up the relatively feeble Muslim separatist sentiment until the coming on the scene of Jinnah, who put flesh and blood to these early, somewhat incoherent expressions; right through the tenures of Willingdon and Irwin, and Wavell as well, this weak movement in the making was shored up and equated to the mainstream movement for independence. This continued into the decoration of the mutineer Alexander Brown with an OBE, in parallel with the rather more generous Pakistani response.

On the other hand, they projected the Mughals, and, before them, the rulers of the five dynasties of the Sultanate, as alien invaders, and, in the writings of Tod, for instance, they romanticised the efforts of previous inhabitants to resist the incoming fortune-hunters. Very often, these conflicts are seen as parochial conflicts, rather than the reality that they were the adventures of those who wanted to lay their hands on the acknowledged enormous wealth of south Asia. It is worth noting, however, as a bitter contrast, that these appropriations ended up within the region; by the time of Mughal rule, Indian share of world GDP was at a peak, around 25%. In sharp contrast, from this high peak, India's share of world GDP had fallen to around 2%. We have the evidence of authors as early as R. C. Dutt, in his Economic History of India, hinting at this massive felony, though not coming out bluntly as Shashi Tharoor has been doing of late.

I leave it to you to leap to the defence of the Hindus, and point out both how the British (Macaulay's dismissal of the whole of Indian culture and civilisation comes to mind) deprecated everything in Hindu culture, and how they created fearful monsters in their taxonomical exercises in the sociology of Indian society.

 

[Srinivas]

That silliness has been exploded by genetic studies:

1. The Indus Valley Civilisation was established and populated by people with a genetic make-up of some from the Iranian plateau who migrated to the Indus Valley BEFORE agriculture started in Iran, and the pre-Ancestral South Indian people. It was nothing to do with the migrants, whose presence is established by other studies, so that is one plank of the Out Of India hypothesis gone.
2. There is further genetic evidence that the former dwellers of this Civilisation drifted to the south-east, into the Deccan, and merged with existing inhabitants to form the form ASI profile.
3. There is strong evidence, almost irrefutable evidence, that the spread of Indo-Aryan as a language is strongly associated with genetic profiles of migrants from the steppes of central Asia. What Euro-centric academicians, influenced by their own knowledge of the Greek Iron Age migrations and the invasions of the German-speaking people into the Roman Empire, called the Aryan Invasion is now correctly seen as a migration of Indo-Aryan speakers into south Asia.
4. The genetic markers of these migrants have persisted into upper-caste Hindus, most particularly into the Brahmin community.

Perhaps it is time to ask these revisionists and divisive elements in Indian society to go back to where they came from.

1) Indus valley genetic make up studies are not yet complete, the excavations prove that the genetic makeup is similar to Indian people. - Regarding your claim source pls.

2) There are migrations through out the history from war zones, India's north west (located at a hot bed and a junction between Persian, Chinese, Turkic and Indic civilizations) is an unstable region and people migrated to more peaceful and prosperous South. History shows no evidence of your claim, there is no large scale migration that happened from India's north west.

3) Where is the birth place of Indo-Aryan Language? I know there is no answer.
- The language group "indo-aryan" is a creation if british to legitimize their colonization. Just like how they create a slaves out of black people showing a verse and twisting it to make them masters. The similarities might be because of Out of Indian influence when we study the languages. What ever evidence AIT provides is refutable.when compared to that 'Out of India' theory holds good.

4) Regarding the genetic make up, Check persians - they wear sarees and follow Indian traditions.
India has its way of assimilating migrant groups like every other civilizations. Brahmins are mentioned in Vedas which date back to atleast 5000 years. Brahmins do not eat non veg, follow certain rituals which are native to India, use devnagari script which is native to India, Holy scripts written by them only mention the places and rivers only in India. This proves there may be migrations but the culture never came from outside. How come Rig veda is alien to India if none of the places mentioned in it are in Persia or Central Asia.

British took us for a ride and people fell for their dubious tricks.

 

[W.11]

every indian history discussion turns to genetic make up of IVC and aryan migration and several political agendas, go figure

regards

 

[Srinivas]

every indian history discussion turns to genetic make up of IVC and aryan migration and several political agendas, go figure

regards

Because this is the ploy of British who carefully created an alternate set of historic proposals, (talking about prime time and print media) when ever India tries to assert itself the eco system comes equiped with the dubious history of Macaulay and other british historians.

Every nation goes through invasions, cultural evolution which India also had. In India's case we stood firm and regrouped every time a tsunami came from outside.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Before the rise of humanity in the world, there were some massive anomaly, flood, natural disasters, earth quake and large asteroids impacted the earth. Due to these events, prehistoric monsterous animals perished from earth; which could hinder human progress. So some divine intervention created the field for human progress and caused the decline of prehistoric monsters. It wont be wonder if pre Pakistan inhabitants were the real Aryans those subjugated the Indians earlier. Created the class system, beastly culture etc. Due to divine intervention they became something else and them with others became the essential powerhouse to destroy the beast they created earlier.

 

[Joe Shearer]

1) Indus valley genetic make up studies are not yet complete, the excavations prove that the genetic makeup is similar to Indian people. - Regarding your claim source pls.

Do your own homework, please; these have been widely reported in the popular press, and there are two separate academic papers relating to the studies in question. Of course the genetic make-up is similar to 'Indian' people; to present-day Indian people, who, in the ASI profile, are formed of migrants from this culture. So what is the discrepancy? Just to fill out the picture, elements from that Civilisation are also found in ANI profiles, and it is obvious that the survivors have moved out of their cities and merged with the surrounding population.

It is a bit late in the day to bat one's eyelids and profess innocence.

2) There are migrations through out the history from war zones, India's north west (located at a hot bed and a junction between Persian, Chinese, Turkic and Indic civilizations) is an unstable region and people migrated to more peaceful and prosperous South. History shows no evidence of your claim, there is no large scale migration that happened from India's north west.

Would you care to reconcile your first sentence above with your own second sentence above? Did they or didn't they?

At the risk of hurting your feelings, I must point out that you are beginning to sound like Donald Trump.

3) Where is the birth place of Indo-Aryan Language? I know there is no answer.

LOL.

Where is the birthplace of Tamil? Or Telugu? Or Kannada?
This is not the Ram Mandir, to be set up at one spot known instinctively to the true believer through the cosmic insight that his faith gives him.

- The language group "indo-aryan" is a creation if british to legitimize their colonization.

Actually, no. This found expression far earlier in the linguistic research conducted in different regions of the world, with notable concentration on the Celtic languages, on German languages, and on Greek languages.

The British contribution, as far as India goes, was to spot the similarity between Sanskrit and those languages, forming the idea of a world-wide 'family' of languages that the linguists call Indo-European.

As far as 'Indo-Aryan' is concerned, it is used to distinguish the language of the Vedas, before its systematic regularisation by Panini, a regularisation that came to be known as 'Sanskrit', or the polished tongue (in contrast to the Prakrit languages, the natural tongues).

It seems to be a particularly bad day for you.

Just like how they create a slaves out of black people showing a verse and twisting it to make them masters.

Self-pity is not a good foundation for beginning a scientific enquiry.

The similarities might be because of Out of Indian influence when we study the languages. What ever evidence AIT provides is refutable.when compared to that 'Out of India' theory holds good.

Considering that the similarities occur thousands of miles apart, and considering that the champions of the OOI hypothesis have no information about the parallel developments around the world, and have concentrated only on forming a ghetto for themselves and isolating themselves from the laughter of the world, there is not much substance in your supposition.

4) Regarding the genetic make up, Check persians - they wear sarees and follow Indian traditions.

Did you mean 'Parsis'? Persians do not wear saris, and do not follow Indian traditions. Parsis do; they have been domiciled in Gujarat for some four centuries now.

You must explain to us on some future occasion how wearing saris has a bearing on genetics.

India has its way of assimilating migrant groups like every other civilizations.

Your point being?

Brahmins are mentioned in Vedas which date back to atleast 5000 years.

The point is still not clear. It is precisely these Brahmins who are known to have been identifiable at an early date who have the strongest element of migrant DNA.

Brahmins do not eat non veg,

Wrong.

..follow certain rituals which are native to India,

Meaning only that their original rituals, including the Soma ritual, have died out.

use devnagari script which is native to India,

It is not. Devnagari, or Nagari, is derived from Brahmi, and that, in turn, has easily traced antecedents (look them up for yourself).

Holy scripts written by them only mention the places and rivers only in India. This proves there may be migrations but the culture never came from outside.

Naturally. That fits in with a late date for these, following their migration. If they had been composed before, they would have mentioned other places and other rivers. And how do you connect migration, culture and language? The point that was made was that language accompanied migration, and culture had nothing to do with it after the first few centuries.

How come Rig veda is alien to India if none of the places mentioned in it are in Persia or Central Asia.

How come indeed? Nobody said the Rig Veda is alien to India; all that people have tried to explain to the uncomprehending is that the Rig Vedic language came with migrants. You do get the difference?

British took us for a ride and people fell for their dubious tricks.

How terribly sad!

 

[Menace2Society]

Even though, I'm not religious.

I am kind of glad a competition was brought in the region otherwise the spiritual bottleneck could have been worse than it is today.

Don't be a bad muslim, be an amazing human.

Taxila had multiple religions preaching and studying spirituality in pursuit of knowledge. No ego and arrogance just thirst for knowledge. That is our immediate past and that is what we must return to be the best version of ourselves.

 

[Joe Shearer]

every indian history discussion turns to genetic make up of IVC and aryan migration and several political agendas, go figure

regards

For fairly obvious reasons, I am sad to say.

What you see in contemporary India is the revolt of the Brahmins and their less cerebral upper caste followers from the equality and the rule of law imposed by those treacherous vermin, our British colonial rulers. What they want to see reinstated is the revival of a hieratic society and rule by majority opinion (in both instances, they are the beneficiaries, naturally, being the top layer in a hieratic society, and being opinion formers for the opinion to be held by the majority).

In order to achieve this revival (which is pretty successful already), they need to discard any shred of evidence that they themselves are migrants from several millennia ago, that their beloved language came in just as Persian and English did, and that the Indus Valley Civilisation is after all their own, appropriated culturally by the present inhabitants of those region.

Since they cannot lead any other religion, they have elimination of other religions as an urgent priority; the existence of a 'foreign' religion is a threat to their social leadership.

Incidentally, you will not find a single historian in their ranks. All their experts have parachuted in. The essential qualification is either a knowledge of Sanskrit, or a loyalty to those with a knowledge of Sanskrit. The vast bulk of these are engineers and the new element in society called call centre employees, with some strong elements of the medical and surgical professions bonded to them. There are one or two priests, but they are a tiny minority; it is the Brahmins who have taken to engineering and to medicine who are their fighting elite.

So now you know.

Don't be a bad muslim, be an amazing human.

Taxila had multiple religions preaching and studying spirituality in pursuit of knowledge. No ego and arrogance just thirst for knowledge. That is our immediate past and that is what we must return to be the best version of ourselves.

It will be interesting to see how many will agree with your unorthodox position. It comes as a breath of fresh air, but it is to be seen if it gains support.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

It is Gengis khan which made it possible for Islamic and British rulers to easily conquer Indian regions.

Genghis Khan ? The Mongol ? How ?