What would India be like if the Mughals never fell?

What would India be like if the Mughals never fell?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus
themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Better tbqh.

Hinduism's caste system is screwing the country over. Also, they'd probably be a lot more united linguistically and stuff.

objectively better. pretty much anything that isn't shit from India is from them
>Taj mahal
>Chicken korma
... thats literally all I can think of but then again there isn't much that isn't shit about India

If India was left alone for the Hindus to rule for thousands of years, would they have been more advanced?
I want a genuine answer honestly, please no POO memes.

Not at all.

why not
>Emirati Arab
hmmm i wonder if you're biased

Nah.

t. genuine replier

On one hand, Hindus developed the number system and had pretty advanced classical universities in the classic age. Also, Muslim invaders pretty much constantly pillaged and burnt shit for a long time. On the other hand- IslamoPersian technology and culture was pretty far ahead of native Hindus by the late middle Ages. Its a big "What-if" reallly

depends if they still maintained their retarded ruling system

Thanks for the reply. Would India have been balcanized at all if the mughals didn't invade? i heard the caste system shit is independent of hinduism since muslims and christians live with caste in the subcontinent too, as do sikhs

The entire thing would be Pakistan.

Pakistan is literally just the parts of India the Muslim Sultan converted. If you have them another 300 years, 90% of India would be Muslim.

And Pakistan is just slightly worse India.

What's the source of that image?

Everyone is biased one way or another. The only non-biased statement is math. Everything else is tainted with personal belief to one degree or another. So I won't say I am unbiased, but I do have valid reasons as to why I say that Hinduism would've killed India's development:
1) Hinduism enforces a caste system which permanently keeps people from working outside their "dharma", regardless of skill
2) Unlike Hindus, the ruling Muslims, such as Akbar the Great, allowed for social mobility, which meant that the society had at least a hint of meritocracy.
3) Muslims developed a lot of good architecture. Even India's most famous structure, the Taj Mahal, was built by the Mughals. (I'm not saying that Hindu architecture doesn't exist, I'm just saying that it wouldn't be as prominent)

There's a bunch of other stuff that I could go over, too, but those are just the main 3.

> Would India have been balcanized at all if the mughals didn't invade?
Yes, but Mughals didn't change that . They maintained pretty much a feudal system with many vassal princes and subject rulers. It was British rule that lead to the creation of a united India
>i heard the caste system shit is independent of hinduism
Although it is followed by some non-Hindus as a result of culture it is by far a proponent of Hinduism that is generally looked down on by orthodox adherents of other faiths

Der Medicus/ The Physician. A german Film.

Its on American Netflix @the moment

That's not true.
India had hundreds of millions of Muslims over the course of nearly a thousand years.
Pakistan is an artificial country that was formed in the 20th century after the Brits picked up their stuff and left.
During the formation of Pakistan, the millions of Indian Muslims migrated north while the millions of Paki/Bengali Hindus migrated south. "UNHCR estimates 14 million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims were displaced during the partition; it was the largest mass migration in human history.[8][9][10]"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

Thanks

Another Pakistan

Omg Ian is this you?

Muslim shithole

Nah, the Mughals never imposed Shariah or disrespected Hinduism. They were very well integrated into the society.
Except Aurangzeb - but he was an asshole who killed his own father.

I remember so much death and chaos during that time. I think they guy who manged India was like "here's a line, Hindus on one side Muslims on the either. You guys sort it out because I'm on tea break."

Only because anything or rather most things of note from Islamic middle east civilisation was from non-Arabs or Arabized non Arabs. I'm serious I was shocked to find this out too.

[citation needed]
You're talking about the Arab Caliphates, right?

There were plenty of Arabs and plenty of non-Arabs that got shit done. Stop turning everything into a race war you autistic fuck.

Lol

Just so you guys know - the "Islamic Golden Age" is essentially just Muslims copy-pasting Indian mathematics and astronomy while adding no contributions of their own.

The much-touted Al-Khwarizmi they love pointing out only marginally improved upon the Arabic translations of Brahmagupta.

Really the only reason Muslims gained a foothold into India is their sheer savagery, that would behead, rape, kill anyone and everything. Indian thought was just too sophisticated and moralistic to adapt to such barbarity. Thank god for the Marathas who steamrolled the Mughals and saved India.

Of course you won't get real responses on this board, because anglo shart-in-marts are mentally challenged, and the rest of the responses will come from mudslimes.

Monarchic Pakistan.

Are you retarded?

Just look at Bangladesh and Pakistan and you have your answer.

t. Parvez Alam
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus
themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/

Based Dravidia would be the only defender of the white race against Islam

>better
>emirati arab
...

How much worser is Pakistan than India? It doesn't seem like much:

this tbqh

India is just as artificial, really. There was no India before Brits made it.

>worser
...

Don't make fun of me cunt just because I brung a few ozzie slurs in

Literally autism

that holds for any group of people. providence, pressure from 'others' always drive people to form new groups.

it'd be a pakistanstan

>Muslim shithole
as opposed to being a hindu shithole as it now is?

Who's talking about Arabs here?
Arabs /= Muslim?

The difference between a poo in loo shithole and kebab shithole is a poo in loo shithole is not a threat to the world.
Just look at Pakistan it's the top exporter of terrorism in the world.
I don't care what poo in loos do to their own people in their countries but atleast they are not much of a problem for the western world.

>they
did you forget about flags Pajit?

tbqh though designated shitting streets are better than designated beheading streets.

Better.

t. literally Mughal

Isn't it clearly evident by my post that I'm not a poo in loo or a sand nigger you fucking leaf.

mughals were turco-mongols
so yes