5 ms·

Above comment is accurate. All Indian indigenous systems were destroyed (education, governance, taxation etc) during the 1000 years of foreign occupation. India

Above comment is accurate. All Indian indigenous systems were destroyed (education, governance, taxation etc) during the 1000 years of foreign occupation. India still operates under the oppressive system imposed by the colonizers to subjugate the population. The shock and ripple effects of the plunder, destruction and subsequent partition has crippled the subcontinent. It might take several centuries to rebuild and recover.

sa501428 2mo ago
Mughal India was roughly 20–25% of global output. It was British colonial rule that exploited and stole insane amounts of wealth and led to India’s economic decline. Comparing centuries of complex Indo-Hindu-Muslim history with British colonial occupation and extraction makes no sense. Some Muslim dynasties began through conquest, as many dynasties throughout Indian history did. But over centuries, Muslims integrated, intermarried, adopted local languages and customs, and became part of Indian society. Muslim-ruled states relied heavily on Hindu generals, officials, and allies, and their wars were largely fought over territory and power, not as some continuous occupation or religious war against Hindus. Indian Islam is not a foreign invasion that destroyed. Indian Muslims are indigenous to India, and their ancestors converted for many reasons, including Sufi influence, social mobility, and escape from caste discrimination.
- eldaisfish 2mo ago
  this economic output comparison is brought up often, without proper context. During the time that the British were looting India, the industrial revolution happened. That also helped India's economic decline, as does the fact that today, around half India's population are in agriculture, while contributing around 14% to the GDP. The industrial revolution separated economic output from population size.
throw4847285 2mo ago
I don't remember Dr. Tobias Funke being into Hindutva, but it's a funny image.

sa501428 2mo ago

Mughal India was roughly 20–25% of global output. It was British colonial rule that exploited and stole insane amounts of wealth and led to India’s economic decline. Comparing centuries of complex Indo-Hindu-Muslim history with British colonial occupation and extraction makes no sense. Some Muslim dynasties began through conquest, as many dynasties throughout Indian history did. But over centuries, Muslims integrated, intermarried, adopted local languages and customs, and became part of Indian society. Muslim-ruled states relied heavily on Hindu generals, officials, and allies, and their wars were largely fought over territory and power, not as some continuous occupation or religious war against Hindus. Indian Islam is not a foreign invasion that destroyed. Indian Muslims are indigenous to India, and their ancestors converted for many reasons, including Sufi influence, social mobility, and escape from caste discrimination.

eldaisfish 2mo ago
this economic output comparison is brought up often, without proper context. During the time that the British were looting India, the industrial revolution happened. That also helped India's economic decline, as does the fact that today, around half India's population are in agriculture, while contributing around 14% to the GDP. The industrial revolution separated economic output from population size.

throw4847285 2mo ago

I don't remember Dr. Tobias Funke being into Hindutva, but it's a funny image.