The Strategy which is still effectively working even after two hundred years

[American_Millenium]

I have read my ancient books, there is the mention of the word Arya and Dravida in them many times but nowhere they are mentioned as a race. The so called Aryan invasion theory comes with many fake stuffs and I can point them out but your intellect is not of that level to comprehend it. Now, we even have genetic studies which proves the so called Aryan and Dravidian have a common ancestry and we also know what existed between Indus Valley civilization and Vedic culture .

I will point this out again. The great majority of historians, archaeologists, geneticists, anthropologists, and linguists agree with me.

Virtually no one other than self-proclaimed Hindu nationalists agrees with you.

Kindly move away from the ad hominem excuses that you use to avoid presenting evidence. The "you're too dumb for me to entertain supporting the notion that I'm putting forth" argument has been repeated so often on the internet that I'm beginning to think that you're no better than a troll when it comes to serious discussion.

I'd also suggest you start reading about 'your' history before embarrassing yourself with your scientifically illiterate delusions:

Kurgan hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indo-Aryan migration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indo-Iranians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indo-Aryan peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indo-Aryan languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[INDIC]

I will point this out again. The great majority of historians, archaeologists, geneticists, anthropologists, and linguists agree with me.

Virtually no one other than self-proclaimed Hindu nationalists agrees with you.

Kindly move away from the ad hominem excuses that you use to avoid presenting evidence. The "you're too dumb for me to entertain supporting the notion that I'm putting forth" argument has been repeated so often on the internet that I'm beginning to think that you're no better than a troll when it comes to serious discussion.

I'd also suggest you start reading about 'your' history before embarrassing yourself with your scientifically illiterate delusions:

Kurgan hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indo-Aryan migration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indo-Iranians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indo-Aryan peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indo-Aryan languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its called twisting the original words, they drew the word Aryan from ancient Indian books only, they just modified Arya into Aryan Even in Physics we have conventional current, although there is nothing called conventional current in real.

What geneticist are you referring to, the geneticist use the term ANI and ASI for the ancestral races of Indian people instead of Aryan or Dravidian.

 

[Arya Desa]

Its called twisting the original words, they drew the word Aryan from ancient Indian books only, they just modified Arya into Aryan Even in Physics we have conventional current, although there is nothing called conventional current in real.

What geneticist are you referring to, the geneticist use the term ANI and ASI for the ancestral races of Indian people instead of Aryan or Dravidian.

Do not argue with a fool, they will bring you to their level and beat you with experience, as stated so finely by George Carlin. That dehati aurat believes Lord Buddha was white, hahaha what a joke.

 

[American_Millenium]

Its called twisting the original words, they drew the word Aryan from ancient Indian books only, they just modified Arya into Aryan Even in Physics we have conventional current, although there is nothing called conventional current in real.

What geneticist are you referring to, the geneticist use the term ANI and ASI for the ancestral races of Indian people instead of Aryan or Dravidian.

The word Aryan is not used in scientific circles. It's only used in the word "Indo-Aryan". I'm not sure why you are centering your argument on the use of the term "Aryan", but it's wholly irrelevant to the topic.

ANI has a lot of Caucasoid influence (originating from the Eastern European PIE people and their descendants, the original Indo-Aryans) while ASI has significantly less so (and indeed more indigenous Dravidian influence). If you read the pages I gave you might understand why. The statements that I made in the original comment are all derived from scientific consensus. If you choose to refute the entirety of scientific literature, then be my guest.

Do not argue with a fool, they will bring you to their level and beat you with experience, as stated so finely by George Carlin. That dehati aurat believes Lord Buddha was white, hahaha what a joke.

I don't see that many blue-eyed Indians; I do see many blue-eyed Europeans.

You don't see many Dravidians in the north of India at the time of the birth of Buddha. You do see many Indo-Aryans.

If it fits......

 

[IND151]

they were still official kings till 1857

The Alamshaha was puppet ruler and was backed by Marthas.

Sikhs and marathas were only dominant forces apart from British in subcontinent.

 

[Commander T]

The Alamshaha was puppet ruler and was backed by Marthas.

Sikhs and marathas were only dominant forces apart from British in subcontinent.

indeed, they were puppets.. but not supported by marathas but ANGREZI BEAT TE....britan fiest used marathas to limit mughal rule and then used Muslims or say mughals to their side and finished marathas..... but marathas were traitors to foriegners first and britian did same to marathas as they did to mir sadiq and mir jafar

 

[IND151]

indeed, they were puppets.. but not supported by marathas but ANGREZI BEAT TE....britan fiest used marathas to limit mughal rule and then used Muslims or say mughals to their side and finished marathas..... but marathas were traitors to foriegners first and britian did same to marathas as they did to mir sadiq and mir jafar

You have no knowledge of history.

Marathas became weak after 3rd battle of Panipat; Brits used this opprunity to incarese their influnce in north India.

Slowly they defeated all other powers and in 1818 defeated Peshwai, ending maratha rule.

 

[faithfulguy]

Who knows if it was an invasion on migration since archaeologist couldn't find any proof of war of so called Aryan invasion and so called subjugation of Dravidians. some European historian found a grave mount in Harappa and faked it as a dravidian killed by Aryan invaders but later proved that was a graveyard with bodies belonging to different point of history.

Lack of massive grave does not mean that there is no Aryan invasion. There is no mass grave to show European colonialization of North America or Australia, but we know it did happen. The evidence of Aryan invasion is from linguistic study.

 

[INDIC]

Lack of massive grave does not mean that there is no Aryan invasion. There is no mass grave to show European colonialization of North America or Australia, but we know it did happen. The evidence of Aryan invasion is from linguistic study.

Linguistic study as proof of invasion.

 

[Albatross]

By the way thanks for introducing me to C. JoyBell C.

You are welcome . Btw I am still waiting your reply regarding following as you claimed to be here only to enlighten masses.

Why dont you enlighten us about the great role brits played in developing subcontinent while shedding light on subjects like the way they 1) Spread equality among all inhabitants.
2) Tried their best to not cause any bloodshed.
3) Educated all without any preferences.
4)Spent all the money they earned from subcontinent only on the well being of its inhabitants.
5) were never involved in any conspiracy to over throw the rulers at that time.
6)never violated the rules they accepted while attempting to obtain a license for a small trading company.

 

[Solomon2]

You are welcome . Btw I am still waiting your reply regarding following as you claimed to be here only to enlighten masses.

Don't misrepresent me. Where did I claim that the "only" reason I'm here is "to enlighten masses"?

Why dont you enlighten us about the great role brits played -

Because you haven't mastered the basics first: an open and honest mind.

 

[AUz]

Exactly. Thank you.

Without the Brits India would have still been in the pre-historic era.

total bullshit.

Without Brits, india would have been in a wayyyyyyyyy better position than it is today...but then again, that was a 'spec' on a dot. In grand scheme of things...india was..and will always will be more important and relevant than brit..

Same as in grand scheme of things..East was, and always will be, more powerful, more relevant than 'west'--which itself drew its civilization from ancient Middle-East and then later Islamic World.

west is ahead of east for merely 300 years (18th century onwards) and insecure westerners seem to think of themselves as somehow "important" to world

meanwhile, even in demise, india and china are more relevant to global politics, economy, and culture than almost 90% of european nations

 

[American_Millenium]

total bullshit.

Without Brits, india would have been in a wayyyyyyyyy better position than it is today...but then again, that was a 'spec' on a dot. In grand scheme of things...india was..and will always will be more important and relevant than brit..

Same as in grand scheme of things..East was, and always will be, more powerful, more relevant than 'west'--which itself drew its civilization from ancient Middle-East and then later Islamic World.

west is ahead of east for merely 300 years (18th century onwards) and insecure westerners seem to think of themselves as somehow "important" to world

meanwhile, even in demise, india and china are more relevant to global politics, economy, and culture than almost 90% of european nations

India could not have been better because India was in a horrible position already before British colonization. Or else how would 20,000 troops from a tiny island nation colonize a subcontinent with a population 1,000x it's size?

1. The "East" was never more powerful than the West because they never exerted power over us in the way we do them. The West is so powerful that we are routinely conspiracized as controlling the entire world through military and political force, even when there is no evidence for this.

2. There is no coherent "Eastern" entity like there is a Western entity. Japanese Shintos hate Chinese atheists hate Indian Hindus hate Pakistani Muslims etc. etc. You get the point. The constant wars fought in the 3rd world and the constant factions created based upon common religions, traditions, histories, and ethnicities are common enough to make it easy to understand that there is no "East".

3. The West rarely ever drew any ideas from Islamic civilizations. The opposite can be clearly attested through your use of the English language, your use of the personal computer, and your use of almost everything else Western. You're even living in a Western country as you harbor your delusions of superiority... how amusing.

4. The West, before the 1700's, led the colonization of the New World and dominated the spheres of political and economic influence through much of the Middle East. The Roman Empire for example existed thousands of years before the dawn of the Western superiority you attest to. The Vandals, Franks, Goths, etc. after them.

5. India is less relevant economically than Canada (with a smaller GDP) and politically and militarily is probably less relevant than a Ukraine or a Syria. India holds more people than any other nation sans China, and yet doesn't even have a seat on the Security Council. Despite the repeated proclamations of every SEC Council member in support, India still has yet to find the diplomatic power needed to actually secure a seat! China is an easy one; being militarily and politically dominated by the West for a good 200 years, I doubt I need to impress upon you the significant role Western culture has played in building up modern-day China. Oh, and GDP counts for shiite (not that you even have much of it anyway), because India had a larger GDP than the Brits (by a factor of two or three) when you were getting your asses handed to you by a force of 20,000 company men.

 

[AUz]

India could not have been better because India was in a horrible position already before British colonization. Or else how would 20,000 troops from a tiny island nation colonize a subcontinent with a population 1,000x it's size?

lol..

Take empirical evidence...

Countries who were not colonized are way better off today than those who were. Take an example of Turkey in Middle-East..while all surrounding nations are suffering...Turks are doing relatively better.

indians could've "learned" from European advance and could have built infrastructure, railway lines and what not? But European colonization destroyed india's chance to get industrialized during 19th, 20th century.

Colonization = destruction.

Just like barbarians destroyed rome...Brits destroyed india..

Please don't argue against the obvious.

1. The "East" was never more powerful than the West because they never exerted power over us in the way we do them. The West is so powerful that we are routinely conspiracized as controlling the entire world through military and political force, even when there is no evidence for this.

lol..Rome never "exerted" its power over tribes in sub saharan africa or in jungles of indonesia...does it mean it wasn't really powerful?

Every civilization is judged in relevance to its own era...that is basic common sense.

Rome was superpower of its time...Ottoman Empire was a superpower of its time..Abbasid-Ummayad Empire was the superpower of its era..and so on.

If you look at history..there were far more superpowers arising from "East" than "west" ....thats a fact, unless offcourse you don't want to believe the obvious.

2. There is no coherent "Eastern" entity like there is a Western entity.

Very true.

Same is true for so-called "west" too. Western powers were fighting, butchering, and murdering each other throughout history...Its only after they killed 60 million of their own that europe become a "union" because it had no choice left

3. The West rarely ever drew any ideas from Islamic civilizations.

"Rarely"?

Well, leaving aside all the cultural, political, and scientific influence that Islamic World had on Europe for centuries...lets play a little game.

Go to Google and type "The founding father of modern European secular thought" ...and guess who comes up? An Islamic Scholar from Muslim-Spain.

Tib Bid: He was banned by Catholic Church and Catholic Churches used to "curse" him during their religious services.

Just one Islamic Scholar has had more influence on Europe's behavior, worldview, and history than entire European civilization has had on Islamosphere.

Remember, influence is judged by behavioral transformation....not by superficial things.

Using English doesn't necessarily mean influence..it just means convenience...Koreans learn English..so do many in Islamic World....but whats the difference?

Korea is completely "westernized"...its behavior as a people..as a culture..is to completely adapt "west" and lose its own identity...while Islamic World as a whole is an entity of its own..it did not adapt west in its behavior..it did not change its religion to the one that west wants it to have...it did not change its worldview...this is true specially for the masses of majority parts of Islamic World...Heck, the problem is, that people from Islamic World don't even get 'westernized' while living IN west...thats why Europeans have a problem with many Muslims..

Listening to music, watching films, eating western food, wearing jeans etc etc doesn't account to anything. Human civilizations are judged by their "behavior" and ideological take on the world..not by petty things like above. I listen to Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi music too...I eat Korean food too...does that make me "Israelized" and "Koreanized" lol...No, it doesn't.

4. The West, before the 1700's, led the colonization of the New World and dominated the spheres of political and economic influence through much of the Middle East. The Roman Empire for example existed thousands of years before the dawn of the Western superiority you attest to. The Vandals, Franks, Goths, etc. after them.

What? West domination spheres of political and economic influences throughout middle-east before 18th century? Are you serious?

By mid-17th century, the dominating power in Europe itself was Ottoman Empire...lol

And yes, Rome in one power from West...so were Greeks..

Now look from historical superpowers from East: Egypt, India, China, Persia, Turks, Islamic World etc etc...

All of above entities remained dominant political and economic powers in different time eras...while Rome and Greece are from West.

Clearly, way more superpowers arose from East than West.

5. India is less relevant economically than Canada (with a smaller GDP) and politically and militarily is probably less relevant than a Ukraine or a Syria.

Dream on...

india is a market of 1 billion+...

india is in "developing" stage...it hasn't "arrived" yet with her true potential...

Oh, and GDP counts for shiite (not that you even have much of it anyway), because India had a larger GDP than the Brits (by a factor of two or three) when you were getting your asses handed to you by a force of 20,000 company men.

Learn something...brits didn't colonize india though military invasion. They colonized india by exploiting the space that was created due to infighting and civil strive in india...

Lastly: GDP of india alone was larger than entire western europe combined for most of the history.

west was nothing for the most part. it only became dominant after industrialization in 18th century...

 

[American_Millenium]

lol..

Take empirical evidence...

Countries who were not colonized are way better off today than those who were. Take an example of Turkey in Middle-East..while all surrounding nations are suffering...Turks are doing relatively better.

This is not empirical evidence. This is amateur drivel. Turkey itself held a huge empire for 600 years. I could just as easily excuse their wealth for colonial gain as you could European colonialism for their wealth gain. Besides, Turkey isn't all that rich. Almost all of the Arab Gulf states are wealthier, and Turkey itself is poorer than literally every single Western European nation.

indians could've "learned" from European advance and could have built infrastructure, railway lines and what not? But European colonization destroyed india's chance to get industrialized during 19th, 20th century.

Yes because Ethiopia is a shining example of wealth and prosperity.... Stop being lazy by blaming all of your woes on people who were simply better at war than your people. Virtually all non-Western countries are poor, regardless as to whether they were or were not colonized. With the exception of a few East Asian populations, the only prosperous non-Western nations derive their wealth from natural resources (and even then it took Western engineering to give them the benefit of the use of said natural resources; without the West, Middle-Eastern oil would be worthless).

If you look at history..there were far more superpowers arising from "East" than "west" ....thats a fact, unless offcourse you don't want to believe the obvious.

Let me give you a hint: Ending all of your statements with this repetitive accusation only makes you look desperate, unassertive, and overly self-conscious. It does nothing to me or my character.

Most of these so-called superpowers rarely entered Europe, and when they did they were summarily kicked out. It is indeed funny though, to notice how these "superpowers" pictured themselves (in the past) and how they clearly look when displayed through REAL pictures today. Have you seen pictures of the Ottoman Royal Family?

File:Ayşe-Gülnev-Osmanoğlu-Issue.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same is true for so-called "west" too. Western powers were fighting, butchering, and murdering each other throughout history...Its only after they killed 60 million of their own that europe become a "union" because it had no choice left

The West always existed in the minds of Western peoples. Sharing a common ancestry, history, religion, and a common language group will do that to you. Fighting among ourselves lends no credence to your argument, as brothers commonly fight against brothers all the time. Since the time of Herodotus and Anaximander in Ancient Greece, there was ALWAYS a clear delineation between Europa and the foreigners (located southeast of Greece, east of the Ural Mountains, and south of the Caucasus).

Well, leaving aside all the cultural, political, and scientific influence that Islamic World had on Europe for centuries..

Like I said, insignificant compared to what we have given to you. I could mention everything that surrounds you right now but I won't as the list will take too long. The fact that you are speaking English to communicate with me, and doing so from the comfort of a European-designed home in the United States, is proof enough that you're just expressing desperation and insecurity right now. You wouldn't be living here if you didn't think we are so much greater than your people.

An Islamic Scholar from Muslim-Spain.

Which one of the many geniuses was he?

Using English doesn't necessarily mean influence..it just means convenience

The convenience COMES from the influence. Why would English be so convenient as an international and world language, if not for it's dominance and influence in world culture?

Heck, the problem is, that people from Islamic World don't even get 'westernized' while living IN west...thats why Europeans have a problem with many Muslims

It's true that you stick with your religion through thick and thin, but the fact that you are migrating en masse to our countries is proof enough that you're willing to engage in the self-destruct of a massive portion of your culture and history just to live the way we live. Religion is the one exception for Muslims; everything else that does not directly contradict the Quran is fair play.

Now look from historical superpowers from East: Egypt, India, China, Persia, Turks, Islamic World etc etc...

None of these were superpowers in the modern sense, and none of them exerted influence over Western Europe. FACT. The Ottomans may have been culturally and religiously Islamic, but they were certainly genetically something else for the majority of their Golden Era (just look at the photos above). Also, it's good to note that East Asians, South Asians, and Middle-Eastern populations are completely different; I doubt the Chinese here would be happy in being counted in one big foreign horde with Indians and other populations, who feel united together for the sole purpose of feeding off of each others self-esteem.

Same with the Arabs, which tend to look down on Indians, AND with the Turks, which tend to look down on Arabs, etc. etc. I find it funny that you have to unite into one big disparate group (of multiple races, religions, and cultures, ALL of which hold almost nothing in common) to fend off the achievements of a tiny and insignificant population (Whites are less than 15% of the world population). Seriously, there is no coherent entity called the East to speak of; and even if there were, none of these groups exerted influence on Western Europe, and those that DID exert influence on (what-were-at-the-time) irrelevant parts of Eastern and Southern Europe were overwhelmingly European in appearance.... I just find that quite interesting!

The East Asian Mongols and Turks were the only groups to repeatedly enter into Eastern Europe. Other than them, as well as the predominantly European-looking Ottoman and Umayyad royalty, there was next to no influence exerted by foreign populations. AND, in addition to all that, the Mongols, Turks, Umayyads and Ottomans, were all kicked out of Europe anyway.

india is a market of 1 billion+... india is in "developing" stage...it hasn't "arrived" yet with her true potential...

India will remain in "developing" stage, as she has for all of her history. That market of a billion is as impressive as the market of a billion sub-Saharan Africans. Wow, you can pop out a lot of kids.... impressive.

Lastly: GDP of india alone was larger than entire western europe combined for most of the history.

I agree, and yet this meant nothing, just like India's tiny and insignificant GDP would mean nothing if it was suddenly tripled tomorrow. European's who numbered in the thousands conquered a people numbering in the hundreds of millions. No matter what excuse you can create out of thin air to justify this ***-kicking, it will always look as stunning as the simple comparison of numbers I gave in the preceding sentence above.