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

[Gandhi G in da house]

Fake Turks funny how a Indian gets to decide who is fake.

Indians don't get to decide. It's history.

If hindus are so dirty its basically their mentality but they will blame Muslims for it.

Somalia is one of the poorest countries in the world they dont go around defecating everywhere like Indians do.

Btw, your Somalia has a higher rate of open defecation than India. Even your Pakistan is in double digits.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.ODFC.ZS

 

[Nein]

India actually tops as the country with the most Open defecation.

You are actually in damage control mode.

 

[The_Showstopper]

I wasn't sure that is why I used the word "probably". The use of the word probably makes my statement a guess, not a claim.

Now.. you are flogging the dead horse.

You made the following claim

There are probably as many Islamic open defecators in India as Hindus if not more

based on the following assumption

considering their economic condition due to lack of education.

Whether you use the word "probably" or some other similar term, it is still a claim.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Its racist caste system when brahmin and dalit in same village speaking same language for thousands of years are still genetically not same. We don't see this in any other IE speaking people.

Obviously it is a waste of time arguing on rational grounds with you. Nothing new with hyper-patriots, on either side of the Radcliffe Line.

I didn't look up janapadas, sound like hindu myth. Oldest Indo-aryan skeletons found in Swat were from 1000BC. The entry point of IA in to mainland north India up/bihar was likely 500BC-700BC. And in punjab perhaps 800BC. Give few centuries here and there but surely they didn't pop out everywhere in India as soon as IA tribes moved in from central asia.

'Janapadas' are part of standard histories; I admit that reading history is not the strong point of a hyperpatriot.

As for your dates, the evidence from Swat proves nothing other than that the oldest skeletal remains in Swat can be dated approximately 1000 BC. We do not have to embrace it as definitive; there is also considerable archaeological evidence about the spread of the post-Harappan settlements into its surroundings from 1500 BC.

The dating of the entry of Indo-Aryan speaking individuals and groups into 'mainland' north India, UP and Bihar can easily be placed as earlier than 600 BC if you look at the evidence of the dates of the Buddha and of the founding of the Jain religion. It is difficult to say, on the one hand, that the earliest entry into the Ganges Valley was between 500 and 700 BC, and reconcile that with the introduction of these two very influential religions from 600 BC. It is easy to understand the reluctance to accept either the Janapadas, or Buddhism, or Jainism, as this evidence is so awkward for the dates suggested in your analysis.

The contradiction in your analysis is with your accepting a few random skeletons from Swat as the date of immigration of Indo-Aryan into south Asia; that distorts the chronology immediately, by more than 500 years, probably by around 700 to a 1,000 years. If we apply an earlier date than used by you, if it is 1700 BC, everything fits in comfortably. It is not a coincidence that the generally accepted date of the entry of the immigrants is considered to be between 2500 BC and 1500 BC by the historical mainstream.

Trying to prove the Aryan invasion mythology using British dubious theories and asking me to do home work

Check this video, the genetical evidence is debunked and a paper (best paper produced in this year reviewed by europeans - this bracket is for european white worshipers)is produced after the genertic study of Indus - saraswati civilization.

They compared the genetics with Iranians, Central Asians, Caucases etc... they found matches with current Indians.

When they compared the similar sites dating back 4000 years in Iran and Turkmenistan(site name Gonur Tepe), the samples found that 20% people came from outside and those DNAs are matching with Rakigarhi DNA in India. Which supports "Out of India theory". They also found R1 gene which migrated to Europe.

After debunking with Vedic literature where all the places mentioned are in India, geology study which support the ancient Indian scriptures, satellite data which proves there existed a mighty river saraswati in India. These days the AIT proponents are after debunking their arguments are holding to the genetics now that this is also debunked with recent genetic studies. We can remove this from out test books and put this episode as a lesson to our future generations about how a civilization can be taken for a ride with dubious facts.

Last but not the least the Jaipur lit fest people announced 1 Crore for any one if they prove this theory of Aryan invasion from outside.

LOL.

So, this jalsa at Jaipur determines historical mainstream for thought? Now that you have established your credentials as a noted post-graduate from the Social Media University, obviously all historical research is at a discount.

The most delicious part was the bit about the 1 crore prize offered. Obviously, that trumps research and publication in peer-reviewed academic journals.

@Joe Shearer

Please weight in

I have been listening to two gems, Srinivas and Kabira, of whom one is dug in and determined to fight the next one hundred years denying that there could be something as awful as an injection of anything remotely cultural from outside south Asia; he clings obdurately to distorted history promoted by the revisionists. The other disdains distorted history; he makes up his own history. He discards canonical history, and in its place, puts in his own fabrications. So one twists history, the other makes history disappear.

Do you seriously want to condemn me to listening to these experts?

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Obviously it is a waste of time arguing on rational grounds with you. Nothing new with hyper-patriots, on either side of the Radcliffe Line.



'Janapadas' are part of standard histories; I admit that reading history is not the strong point of a hyperpatriot.

As for your dates, the evidence from Swat proves nothing other than that the oldest skeletal remains in Swat can be dated approximately 1000 BC. We do not have to embrace it as definitive; there is also considerable archaeological evidence about the spread of the post-Harappan settlements into its surroundings from 1500 BC.

The dating of the entry of Indo-Aryan speaking individuals and groups into 'mainland' north India, UP and Bihar can easily be placed as earlier than 600 BC if you look at the evidence of the dates of the Buddha and of the founding of the Jain religion. It is difficult to say, on the one hand, that the earliest entry into the Ganges Valley was between 500 and 700 BC, and reconcile that with the introduction of these two very influential religions from 600 BC. It is easy to understand the reluctance to accept either the Janapadas, or Buddhism, or Jainism, as this evidence is so awkward for the dates suggested in your analysis.

The contradiction in your analysis is with your accepting a few random skeletons from Swat as the date of immigration of Indo-Aryan into south Asia; that distorts the chronology immediately, by more than 500 years, probably by around 700 to a 1,000 years. If we apply an earlier date than used by you, if it is 1700 BC, everything fits in comfortably. It is not a coincidence that the generally accepted date of the entry of the immigrants is considered to be between 2500 BC and 1500 BC by the historical mainstream.



LOL.

So, this jalsa at Jaipur determines historical mainstream for thought? Now that you have established your credentials as a noted post-graduate from the Social Media University, obviously all historical research is at a discount.

The most delicious part was the bit about the 1 crore prize offered. Obviously, that trumps research and publication in peer-reviewed academic journals.



I have been listening to two gems, Srinivas and Kabira, of whom one is dug in and determined to fight the next one hundred years denying that there could be something as awful as an injection of anything remotely cultural from outside south Asia; he clings obdurately to distorted history promoted by the revisionists. The other disdains distorted history; he makes up his own history. He discards canonical history, and in its place, puts in his own fabrications. So one twists history, the other makes history disappear.

Do you seriously want to condemn me to listening to these experts?

I was actually hoping to get your insight on the thread topic that is the situation in India during the Turkic invasions especially after decline of the gurjara pratihara empire etc. Which led to success of these invasions.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I was actually hoping to get your insight on the thread topic that is the situation in India during the Turkic invasions especially after decline of the gurjara pratihara empire etc. Which led to success of these invasions.

That's different. Tomorrow, perhaps? It's already 4'o'clock now.

 

[Nilgiri]

Obviously it is a waste of time arguing on rational grounds with you. Nothing new with hyper-patriots, on either side of the Radcliffe Line.



'Janapadas' are part of standard histories; I admit that reading history is not the strong point of a hyperpatriot.

As for your dates, the evidence from Swat proves nothing other than that the oldest skeletal remains in Swat can be dated approximately 1000 BC. We do not have to embrace it as definitive; there is also considerable archaeological evidence about the spread of the post-Harappan settlements into its surroundings from 1500 BC.

The dating of the entry of Indo-Aryan speaking individuals and groups into 'mainland' north India, UP and Bihar can easily be placed as earlier than 600 BC if you look at the evidence of the dates of the Buddha and of the founding of the Jain religion. It is difficult to say, on the one hand, that the earliest entry into the Ganges Valley was between 500 and 700 BC, and reconcile that with the introduction of these two very influential religions from 600 BC. It is easy to understand the reluctance to accept either the Janapadas, or Buddhism, or Jainism, as this evidence is so awkward for the dates suggested in your analysis.

The contradiction in your analysis is with your accepting a few random skeletons from Swat as the date of immigration of Indo-Aryan into south Asia; that distorts the chronology immediately, by more than 500 years, probably by around 700 to a 1,000 years. If we apply an earlier date than used by you, if it is 1700 BC, everything fits in comfortably. It is not a coincidence that the generally accepted date of the entry of the immigrants is considered to be between 2500 BC and 1500 BC by the historical mainstream.



LOL.

So, this jalsa at Jaipur determines historical mainstream for thought? Now that you have established your credentials as a noted post-graduate from the Social Media University, obviously all historical research is at a discount.

The most delicious part was the bit about the 1 crore prize offered. Obviously, that trumps research and publication in peer-reviewed academic journals.



I have been listening to two gems, Srinivas and Kabira, of whom one is dug in and determined to fight the next one hundred years denying that there could be something as awful as an injection of anything remotely cultural from outside south Asia; he clings obdurately to distorted history promoted by the revisionists. The other disdains distorted history; he makes up his own history. He discards canonical history, and in its place, puts in his own fabrications. So one twists history, the other makes history disappear.

Do you seriously want to condemn me to listening to these experts?

LOL....at least its entertaining read (somewhat in a mole coming up to another mole and being blind they claw at each other vigorously till one has had enough)

 

[Kabira]

Obviously it is a waste of time arguing on rational grounds with you. Nothing new with hyper-patriots, on either side of the Radcliffe Line

Janapadas' are part of standard histories; I admit that reading history is not the strong point of a hyperpatriot.

As for your dates, the evidence from Swat proves nothing other than that the oldest skeletal remains in Swat can be dated approximately 1000 BC. We do not have to embrace it as definitive; there is also considerable archaeological evidence about the spread of the post-Harappan settlements into its surroundings from 1500 BC.

The dating of the entry of Indo-Aryan speaking individuals and groups into 'mainland' north India, UP and Bihar can easily be placed as earlier than 600 BC if you look at the evidence of the dates of the Buddha and of the founding of the Jain religion. It is difficult to say, on the one hand, that the earliest entry into the Ganges Valley was between 500 and 700 BC, and reconcile that with the introduction of these two very influential religions from 600 BC. It is easy to understand the reluctance to accept either the Janapadas, or Buddhism, or Jainism, as this evidence is so awkward for the dates suggested in your analysis.

The contradiction in your analysis is with your accepting a few random skeletons from Swat as the date of immigration of Indo-Aryan into south Asia; that distorts the chronology immediately, by more than 500 years, probably by around 700 to a 1,000 years. If we apply an earlier date than used by you, if it is 1700 BC, everything fits in comfortably. It is not a coincidence that the generally accepted date of the entry of the immigrants is considered to be between 2500 BC and 1500 BC by the historical mainstream.

You accept aryan invasion but is denial about racial caste system despite scientific proof, where is logic in that.

I already said there can be difference of few centuries here and there in my estimates but there is no proof of 1500BC indo-aryans being in gangetic plains. By the time IA moved to gangetic plains huge population is one reason large section of population didn't integrate with IA.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You accept aryan invasion but is denial about racial caste system despite scientific proof, where is logic in that.

I already said there can be difference of few centuries here and there in my estimates but there is no proof of 1500BC indo-aryans being in gangetic plains. By the time IA moved to gangetic plains huge population is one reason large section of population didn't integrate with IA.

I grant that for that period, that is the subject matter not of history but of proto-history, there are many possibilities. For that precise reason, it is easy to formulate one's own set of rules for social growth or collapse, and for intra-societal development, and put it beyond argument by saying that these are the rules (the "assumptions") and without taking those into account, further discussion is illegitimate.

This is bad enough. The situation deteriorates rapidly if a chain of events is considered, each, apparently, with its own nimbus of rules and conditions. What is left is a chain that is completely undecipherable without knowledge of the special rules that have been set up, and very often not made plain.

The difference between this kind of conjecture and a work of historical fiction is so thin as to be almost non-existent.

One reason why I get impatient and restless at having to deal with various 'my impression' or 'my estimate' situations; at 69, I really have no time for this.

I was actually hoping to get your insight on the thread topic that is the situation in India during the Turkic invasions especially after decline of the gurjara pratihara empire etc. Which led to success of these invasions.

Before going further, could you summarise, without colouring the account, the discussion so far? I would like to use such a summary to address specific queries and implicit positions that may or may not be apparent on simply reading through the thread.

You accept aryan invasion but is denial about racial caste system despite scientific proof, where is logic in that.

Let us summarise the situation as far as genetic analysis goes: please feel free to correct my account with citations of published data, except two tainted sources, that will be identified elsewhere.

Genetic analysis indicates that

1. The Brahmin community taken as a distinct category (there are arguments against doing so) carries clear indications of steppe ancestry, and of a chain of descent from those early immigrants.
2. The genetic profile of this community also displays great resemblance to the genetic profiles of the population at large; there is simply nothing to justify a 'racial' distinction.
   
3. There are therefore those who are clearly descended from the immigrants, and those who are not. Both sets of people are almost identical, except for this one thread of descent from the immigrants.
4. Genetic analysis also reveals that the hardening of caste boundaries in north India (nothing similar has been researched about south India, and that region is a different case, due to the completely different social development that it may have followed, in terms of the latest research, archaeological as well as genetic) may have started as late as 600 to 800 AD. Please note the very late date, and the social conditions in north India, under the Gupta Empire, that may have encouraged this.

These findings unfortunately do not support a racist foundation for caste. They support a model of some of the original immigrants (themselves multi-ethnic) having managed to maintain a continuity through some 2,000 to 2,500 years, without in any way abstaining from intermarriage with those who were not of immigrant stock.

Similar continuity can be found in other genetic profiles. The Brahmins display this to a larger extent, and that is all. Other castes are also postulated, by some references, that are usually disregarded because of their prescriptive rather than descriptive character, and their origins as sacerdotal texts, to have been created by explicit intermarriage between named groups. We may or may not accept such definitions; for myself, I do not accept the prescriptions, but I do take them as a hint as to the underlying reality, not going so far as to accept them as descriptive.

My difficulty in entering into discussions on these issues is due to the common origin of interlocutors in one of two major categories: Hindu revisionists trying to make everything fit into some bizarre model of world-domination by themselves or their ancestors, and Hindu-hating elements that grub around and proudly display widely disconnected contextually divorced information that prove some deprecatory mind-set or the other.

It is difficult for us to engage with either group without considerable mental and intellectual erosion. In this thread, @Srinivas represents the first category, and @Kabira the second. It is alright for both or either set of fanatics to indulge in this relatively harmless self-indulgence (other more earthy metaphors exist); personally, I see no fruitful gain in exchanging views with the mentally and intellectually committed.

I already said there can be difference of few centuries here and there in my estimates but there is no proof of 1500BC indo-aryans being in gangetic plains. By the time IA moved to gangetic plains huge population is one reason large section of population didn't integrate with IA.[/QUOTE]

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Before going further, could you summarise, without colouring the account, the discussion so far? I would like to use such a summary to address specific queries and implicit positions that may or may not be apparent on simply reading through the thread.

The consensus seems to be that post the GP rempire, Rashtrakutas and Pala empire, the successor states were small and weak for some reason which could not withstand Turkic invasions. There hasn't been a very in depth insight offered until now. That is why I had requested you for your input. I just wish, as I believe the OP does, 1. to get a picture of India after the decline of these major empires which led to success of Turkic invasions, 2. the reason why these empires declined and 3. why the successor states were small and weak. I would also perhaps want to understand why for centuries Turkic invaders were so successful in defeating successive Indian kingdoms during the medieval era.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

The defeat of the Hindu Shahis is what led to the Islamic conquest of North India...I need to flesh this out to 2,000 words