For some Indians who claim that they will be a future World, I say you were three Times owned by Turks. The Turks were the People who brought Civilisation to Indian Subcontinent and liberatet many People from Caste System by widespreading Islam. Together with Persians Turks fought to liberate Indian People from praying to Animails and drinking their Urine !

The Ghaznavids:




Timurids:



Mughals:










----------------------------------------



Bir Millet, iki Devlet

Barbarians have conquered over civilized people many times in history...Huns and Germans over Romans, Turks over Hindus, Mongols over Arabs and Chinese, etc. The notion of "bringing civilization" though is hilarious. All it did was throw everything into chaos until the conqueror came to terms with what he had gained and became pacified/civilized himself.

Showing Sex in Hindu Temple Art ...




drinking Cow Piss ....




Praying to Cows and Rats ...





that is your Civilisation !


Turkic Civilisation:



/





A piece of our Civilisation with element of Central Asian Turkic - Persian architecture you can find in India !



I forgot ...

In 1947 our conquering effort led to the birth of the Muslim State Pakistan !




----------------------------------------



Bir Millet, iki Devlet

owned three times by turkic empires

and four times by afghan/pashtun empires

that is your history indian


Durrani empire


Suri Empire


Sher Shah Suri (1486 - May 22, 1545) (Pashto: - r h Sr), birth name Farid Khan, also known as Sher Khan (The Lion King), famously remembered for killing a fully-grown tiger with his bare hands.Was a skillful Afghan (Pashtun) who conquered the Delhi Sultanate in northern India. Most commonly amongst the Pashtuns (Pathans) warrior tribes of the Indian Subcontinent, he is regarded as one of the most fierce and great emperors of Asia. He served as a private before rising to become a commander in the Mughal army under Babur and then as the governor of Bihar. In 1537, when the new Mughal leader Humayun was elsewhere on an expedition, Sher Shah Suri overran Bengal and became the new emperor after establishing the Sur Empire.

Lodhi Empire


Ibrahim Lodi (Pashto: , Hindi: ) (b.? - April 21, 1526) was one of the ruler of the Lodi dynasty who became the last Sultan of the Delhi Sultanate in India. He was an Afghan (specifically of the Ghilzai tribe of Pashtuns) who ruled over much of India from 1517 to 1526, when he was defeated by Babur and his Kabul army.[1]

Afghan Khilji Dynasty in India

The Khilji (or Khalji; Persian: - Sulanat-e Khalj; Hindi: ) was a dynasty of Turko-Afghan[1] Khalaj origin[2] who ruled large parts of South Asia from 1290 - 1320.[3] They were the second Muslim dynasty to rule the Delhi Sultanate of India. Led by their powerful ruler, Alauddin Ghiljai, they are noted in history for repeatedly defeating the warring Mongols[4] and thereby saving India from plundering raids and attacks.

One Thousand years of Turko-Pathan supremacy in Hindustan

The spread of Islam in the tribal belt dates back to the rise of the Turkish dynasty in Ghazni from about 960 AD. Mahmud of Ghazni conquered and incorporated areas of the subcontinent up to Lahore. Ghorid Sultan Muizzuddin Muhammad, with his headquarters in Ghor, subdued the north part of the subcontinent and was the founder of Muslim supremacy in Delhi in 1206. The fall of the Ghorids was followed by successive incursions of various forces from Central Asia. The most notable of these were those of conquerors Genghis Khan in 1221 and of Timur in 1398.

The tribesmen formed the spearhead of the Muslim penetration and conquest of India, first as soldiers of fortune and later as powerful kings, even as sultans and emperors.[citation needed] The Turks were a small band of chosen favourites; the soldiers, and later the rulers, were Ghaljis or Pathans.[citation needed] Apart from the Turks, i.e. Ghaznavids (1001-1186), Ghorids (1186-1290), and Tughlaqs (1321-1451), three Pathan dynasties, i.e., Khaljis (1290-1321), Lodis (1451-1526) and Suris (1539-55), had sat on the throne of Delhi. But their authority did not extend over the tribal belt. Babur, the conqueror of India and founder of the Mughal dynasty, wrote of the empire of Lodis that its writ did not run effectively west of the Indus, and it had no control over the Afghan or Pathan homelands from which its rulers had originally come.[citation needed]

The Pathan dynasties who ruled in India attracted many frontiersmen to their banners."[citation needed] The firman (royal edict) of Bahlol Lodhi (1451-1489), the ruler of Delhi, encouraging frontier tribes of the northwest to take service in Delhi stated:

Hindustan can best be held by somebody who rules over a nation with tribes. Let every Afghan tribesman bring his relatives leading a life of indigence, let them come and take up estates in Hind, relieving themselves from straitened circumstances, and supporting the State against powerful enemies.[citation needed]

The declining flow of Pathan warriors from the tribal belt may be one of the important causes of their downfall.[citation needed] The lack of support became obvious after the death of Sher Shah Suri in 1555.

The muslims of the subcontinent are ALL the products of the harems of turks, mughals and persians. EACH AND EVERY MUSLIM IN SOUTH ASIA HAS A RAPED GRANDMA AS HIS/HER ANCESTOR!

OK, so another turk thinks he is a mongol and timur is his ancestor, LOL!!!!

"For some Indians who claim that they will be a future World, I say you were three Times owned by Turks."

Before i start ripping you apart i will ask you two questions, have u ever seen yourself in a mirror and do you know your own history?





colours of Kaz####ga

Owning the blackest and most genetically inferior race in Asia is not a big deal. LOL

-------------------------------------------------

correct indians are no game..

---

Pakistan Airforce: The largest distributor of Indian airforce parts in Asia



Pathankot Strike
8 F-86Fs of No 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander M G Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAFs Soviet-supplied Mig-21s till then received, none of which were seen again during the War.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFHlzP69n9c

---

for panda @



********************************************

they got also 11 times owned by Iranian empires



1. Migration of Iranian peoples into Indian subcontinent (c. 1000 BC)
Most of North-Western India (Indus Valley) was inhabitated by Indo-Aryan tribes (from c. 1600 BC), but after massive migrations of Iranian peoples between 1200 and 1000 BC, Iranians pushed their ethnic brothers further to East.

2. Cyrus the Great' invasion of India (c. 540 BC)
According ancient historian Arrian, Cyrus captured parts of NW India in mid 6th century BC but a little is known about his rule. India probably revolted after death of Cyrus' son Cambyses, but it was later reconquered.

3. Darius the Great' invasion of India (c. 515 BC)
The Behistun rock inscription (ancient Bagastana "place of Gods" which would be Sanskrit Bhagasthana) dating back to 519 BCE includes Indian region of Gandhara in the list of his subject countries. Here Darius also refers to his language as Aryan (ariya). The epigraph of Nakhsh-i-Rustam shows India as the 24th province of his empire. It was believed to be the richest in Darius's empire. Herodotus tells us of the wealth and density of the Indus population and of the tribute paid to Darius:
The population of the Indians is by far the greatest of all the people that we know; and they paid tribute proportionately larger than all the rest 360 talents of gold dust.

4. Scythian invasion of India (c. 150 BC)
The invasion of India by Iranian Scythian tribes from Central Asia, often referred to as the Indo-Scythian invasion, played a significant part in the history of India as well as nearby countries. In fact, the Indo-Scythian war is just one chapter in the events triggered by the nomadic flight of Central Asians from conflict with Chinese tribes which had lasting effects on Bactria, Kabol, Parthia and India as well as far off Rome in the west. The Scythian groups that invaded India and set up various kingdoms, included besides the Sakas other allied tribes, such as the Medii, Xanthii, Massagetae, Getae, Parama Kambojas, Avars, Bahlikas, Rishikas and Paradas.

5. Parthian invasion of India (c. 10 BC)
There are some claims based on historical, anthropological, and linguistic evidence indicating that the Southern Indian kingdom of the Pallavas was originally founded by the Parthians, either from Iran or from the territories of the Indo-Parthians in northwestern India, also called Pahlavas in Indian literature. These Pahlavas of Indo-Iranian descent would have migrated Southward and first settled in Krishna river valley of present day coastal Andhra Pradesh. This region is called Palnadu or Pallavanadu even today. Pallavas later extended their sway up to Northern Tamil region and established a flourishing empire.

6. Kushan invasion of India (100 AD)
Kanishka extended his Kushan Empire from southern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, north of the Amu Darya (Oxus) in the north west to Northern India, as far as Mathura in the south east (the Rabatak inscription even claims he held Pataliputra and Sri Champa), and his territory also included Kashmir, where there was a town Kanishkapur, named after him not far from the Baramula Pass and which still contains the base of a large stupa.

7. Shapur I invasion of India (250)
The Sassanids, shortly after victory over the Parthians, extended their dominion into Bactria during the reign of Ardashir I around 230 CE, then further to the eastern parts of their empire (modern Pakistan and India) during the reign of his son Shapur I (240-270). Thus the Kushans lost their western territory (including Bactria and Gandhara) to the rule of Sassanid nobles named Kushanshahs or "Kings of the Kushans".

8. Khosrau I invasion of India (565)
Khosrau I united with Göktürks to destroy the Hephthalite Empire of White Huns who partly lived in NW India. In 567 he conquered Bactria, while he left the country north of the Oxus to the Turks.

9. Muhammad Ghori invasion of India (1200)
First Islamic Iranian conquest of India. Muhammad of Ghor, ruler of the Ghorid dynasty, expanded his empire over a vast area that included the whole of modern Afghanistan, the eastern parts of Iran and the north-easterb section of the Indian subcontinent.

10. Sher Shah Suri's invasion of India (1540)
Sher Khan became ruler of Bihar after defeating a Bengal army. He then defeated Mughal Emperor Humayun in the June 26, 1539 Battle of Chausa and again in the May 17, 1540 Battle of Bilgram. The Sur dynasty held control of all the Mughal territory, from the Kabul region in Afghanistan to Bangladesh in the east. It included most of what is now Pakistan and northern India. During the almost 17 year rule of the Sur dynasty, the region of the Indian subcontinent witnessed much economic development and administrative reforms. A systematized relationship was created between the people and the ruler, minimizing corruption and oppressing of the public.

11. Nader Shah's invasion of India (1739)
Probably the most famous Iranian invasion. Nader Shah has gathered 50,000 soldiers and attacked Indian Mughal Empire which had population of over 250 million. After this victory, Nader captured Mohammad Shah and entered with him into Delhi, so Mohammad Shah was forced to hand over the keys of his royal treasury and surrender the Peacock Throne to the Persian emperor. The Peacock Throne thereafter served as a symbol of Persian imperial might. Among a trove of other fabulous jewels, Nader also gained the Koh-i-Noor and Darya-ye Noor diamonds (Koh-i-Noor means "Mountain of Light" in Persian, Darya-ye Noor means "Sea of Light"). Persian troops left Delhi at the beginning of May 1739. Nader's soldiers also took with them thousands of elephants, horses and camels, loaded with the booty they had collected. The plunder seized from India was so rich that Nader stopped taxation in Iran for a period of three years following his return.

Turd, let's be real, that architecture is purely Persian from pre-Islamic eras. Turds/Mongolians conquered Iran first and got so fascinated by that culture that they converted into it and then spread it into India. Had they conquered India first and then conquered Iran, you'd have Indian architecture in Iran...in other words stop piggyback riding on Iranians LOL

\\For some Indians who claim that they will be a future World, I say you were three Times owned by Turks.\\


What is this Greek convert "Turk" dude smoking ?


Gaznavids and Timurids are central Asian Mongols. The "Turks" (as in the citizens of modern Turkey) are Greek converts who happen to speak "Turkish" because the real Turks from Central Asia occupied Anatolia and bastardized them .

So since the 'Turks' have nothing else to claim, they are piggybacking on Mongol barbarity now ? LOL

Even those Gaznavids and Timurids were able to take only the border lands of India, mostly in present day Pakistan.There is reason why the Pakistani people like the Present day 'Turks' are bastardized people.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\\and four times by afghan/pashtun empires \\


There is nothing called 'Afghan or Pushtoon' nation. Afghanistan is an Indian Province right from the days of Mauryan Empire.The only time it was "independent" of India was under Ahmed Shah Durrani and after his death , the Pushtoons again became vassals of Punjabis.Earlier they were vassals of Punjabi Sikhs.Now they are vassals of Punjabi Muslims.Thats the only difference ! LOL



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\\they got also 11 times owned by Iranian empires\\


Really ? Did you get that number from your local madrassah ? Who taught you that Gibberish, Einstein ?

"Aryans" is a English word derived from Sanskrit Arya.It means noble.The migrations of Humans was from India to Iran, not the other way round.

The Kushans migrated from Central Asia to India and adopted Hinduism.They can hardly be called "Iranian Empire".

The only "Iranian" to raid Delhi (not India as a whole) was Nadir Shah who was of Turkic origin.








===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

I don't understand why there is such a term called "Ancient India" or "Indian civilisation". India pretty much a non-existence entity in ancient time since the land was rule by so many people from outside the sub-continent. Geopolitics of the land changes like flowing river. For instance Tamil Nadu was a foreign kingdom from the the Mughal empire. Yet Tamil Nadu is now consider part of "ancient India" together with the rest of Northern India whose ancestors were raped by the various invaders.

I don't understand why there is such a term called "Ancient India" or "Indian civilisation". India pretty much a non-existence entity in ancient time since the land was rule by so many people from outside the sub-continent. Geopolitics of the land changes like flowing river. For instance Tamil Nadu was a foreign kingdom from the the Mughal empire. Yet Tamil Nadu is now consider part of "ancient India" together with the rest of Northern India whose ancestors were raped by the various invaders"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

we cant forget malaysia now our former slave colony, much of malaysians today are bastards of indians who raped them when malaysia was ruled by indians.lol.

"we cant forget malaysia now our former slave colony"

Excuse my ignorance but when were Malaysians ever your slave and India's colony?

\\I don't understand why there is such a term called "Ancient India" or "Indian civilisation". India pretty much a non-existence entity in ancient time since the land was rule by so many people from outside the sub-continent. Geopolitics of the land changes like flowing river\\


You know zilch about anceint history.Using that logic, there should be no Egyptian civilization, no Greek civilization, no Chinese civilization or any other ancient civilization. In Anceint World, Geo politics was fluid.There was lot of intermixing of population, many foreign dynasties ruled countries, they adopted the ways of and were absorbed by the superior civilizations which they conquered and eventually settled down there.

Why stop at Anceint India ? We can even go even further to Pre Historic India where modern humans migrated from India to other parts of the world like Europe or East Asia. So are we going to say, there is no such thing as Pre historic Europe or China since those lands were populated by people from Africa and India ?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



\\Excuse my ignorance but when were Malaysians ever your slave and India's colony?\\


I dont want to use words like "Slave" or anything , but what is now called as South East Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore) were vassals of South Indian Cholan Empire. One of the reasons you find lot of Tamils in South East Asia is because of the Cholan Colonization of that region in anceint Times.

http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/Sultanate_of_Kedah::sub::Invasion_Of_Chola

In the early 11th century, inscriptions indicate that ties of friendship still existed between Chola and Kadaram of Srivijaya, however the commercial monopoly claimed by the Srivijayan Maharajas led to their friendship ended. The first Chola attack began in the year 1025, Rajendra's army sack Kadaram and the Srivijaya capital and took the Srivijaya king Sangrama Vijayottungavarman captive. The kingdom was restored to him only after he acknowledged Chola's sovereignty. The aim of the Cholas was probably just to force the empire to open its shipping lanes as Srivijaya was some 1,500 miles remote and difficult to control. Recovered Tamil inscriptions from the region show that there was Chola military presence till at least year 1088 in the Malay archipelago.






===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

so you deny the following empires ever exitsed

Ghorid empire

ghanavi empire

Suri dynasty

Lodhi dynasty

khilji Dynasty

Durrani Empire

Mughal empire



Pashtun rulers of INDIA IN FULL, DONT DENY HISTORY MONKEY EMBRACE IT

Notable Pashtun Rulers of Hind

Sultan Ghuizzuddin Ghuri, son of Bahauddin Suri, was one of the Ghurid rulers in the late 1100s


Sultan Ala-ud-din Khilji (Ghilzai), ruler of Khilji dynasty who ruled India from 1296 to 1316


Sultan Ibrahim Lodhi, the last ruler of the Lodhi dynasty who ruler India from 1517 to 1526


Sher Shah Suri (Sher Khan), founder of the Suri Empire in India during the 1500s


Mirwais Khan Hotak (Mirwais Neeka), defeated the Persian Empire in 1709


Mir Mahmud Hotak, invaded Persia and further defeated the Persian Empire (Safavids) until he became Emperor of Persia in 1722


Ahmad Shah Durrani (Ahmad Shah Baba), founder of the Durrani Empire (Afghan Empire) at Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1747

The Ghorids, Ghaznavids are short lived kingdoms.They can hardly be called as "Empires". As is the case with the Suri and Lodi Dynasty.The Suri dynasty did not even lasted more than 18 years.The Lodi dynasty lasted not more than 70 years.Also note that all these people could did not control much of India. They were pretty much confined to North India.Even in North India, they are pretty much confined to urban centers.They never were able to penetrate most of the rural areas.

The Durrani kingdom is also a very short lived kingdom which did not last more than 80 years.And it is mostly confined to what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan with some areas of North India added to it.But as soon as Ahmed Shah Durrani died, his kingdom also got collapsed and the Durranis became the Vassals of Sikh Kingdom.

The Mughal Empire is the only empire which stated for much longer and covered much larger area.That is because it was not a "Muslim" Empire in any strict sense.The Mughal army and its leadership was mostly Hindu Rajputs.As long as the Mughals Empire was a Joint 'Muslim-Hindu' Empire, it survived. As soon as it became a purely 'muslim' empire under Aurangazeb, it collapsed in no time.


===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

unlike most civilisation, India don't have a continuous civilisation. Looking at the history of the subcontinent, the only constant was integration and disintegration of kingdoms. Does India have any direct linkage with Chola Empire in terms of geopolitics history? Obviously No.

The current India is basically a British creation in 1947.

\\unlike most civilisation, India don't have a continuous civilisation. Looking at the history of the subcontinent, the only constant was integration and disintegration of kingdoms. Does India have any direct linkage with Chola Empire in terms of geopolitics history? Obviously No. \\


What BS !


India is one of the few countries which exhibits civilizational continuity.Even when India was under British Colonialism, it never lost its civilizational continuity.


http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/india/history.htm

"Historically India is an ancient land with a continuous civilization of 5000 years. The Indus valley civilisation (3000 BC to 1500 BC) was followed by the Sanskrit-speaking Vedic period (1500 BC to 500 BC). The first of the Indian empires, the Mauryan empire began shortly after Chandragupta Maurya (274-237 BC). The post-Asoka empires were followed by empires of the Gupta, Pratihara, Pala, Chalukya, Chola, Pandya dynasties. Subsequently, around the 9th century, the Muslim period was established followed by the arrival of the Europeans, mostly British in the 17th century."



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


\\The current India is basically a British creation in 1947\\


The British did not create anything.They simply inherited India from previous Indian dynasties like Marathas and Mughals when those dynasties were at their weakest point and then gave a British layer to it. To simply see the latest artificial upper layer of the last 150 years and ignoring the remaining 4000 + years of other layers beneath it is pure ignorance.Its like saying that China is not a continous Han civilization because the last 300 years until 1912 it was ruled by Manchus.



===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

Cant be Gayndia is a powerful it always has been


OWNAGE Continues!

isnt it funny how the wormy indian is trying to wriggle out of this one

thank god for Historians!!!



"There is a strange fascination in living among the Pashtuns.
Many attempts have been made to catch and convey that
feeling, but the spell is elusive. One secret of the hold of
the North- West Frontier is to be sought in the tremendous scenic
canvas against which the Pathan plays out his life., a canvas brought
into vivid relief by sharp, cruel changes of climate.... But the land was made for the men in it, not men for the land.
For the stranger who had eyes to see and ears to hear, always as he
drove through the Margalla pass just north of Rawalpindi and
went on to cross the great bridge at Attock, there was a lifting of
the heart and a knowledge that, however hard the task and beset
with danger, here was a people who looked him in the face and
made him feel he had come home. "

"The Pathans/Pashtuns" a book by Sir Olaf Caroe

"Historically India is an ancient land with a continuous civilization of 5000 years. The Indus valley civilisation (3000 BC to 1500 BC) was followed by the Sanskrit-speaking Vedic period (1500 BC to 500 BC). The first of the Indian empires, the Mauryan empire began shortly after Chandragupta Maurya (274-237 BC). The post-Asoka empires were followed by empires of the Gupta, Pratihara, Pala, Chalukya, Chola, Pandya dynasties. Subsequently, around the 9th century, the Muslim period was established followed by the arrival of the Europeans, mostly British in the 17th century." >>>>>


most parts of the geopolitics history of the subcontinent consists of hundreds of independent Kingdoms. I wouldn't know which one is the "ancient India" you are talking about. And come on, don't just conveniently classify Muslim ruled of subcontinent as "Indian Dynasty".


Indus Valley civilisation belongs to Pakistan. Next please...

\\thank god for Historians!!! \\


Yes Shuja ! Thank God for Historians.Otherwise every half educated dimwit will make ridiculous claims and we have no way to prove them wrong !



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



\\most parts of the geopolitics history of the subcontinent consists of hundreds of independent Kingdoms. I wouldn't know which one is the "ancient India" you are talking about.\\


This "hundreds of independent Kingdoms" is a pure myth concorted by the British to justify their colonialism.This is partly true after the collapse of Maratha Empire and the beginning of British colonialim, but this is not true for much of the history of Indian Subcontinent.Right from the days of Mauryan Empire, the subcontinent is mostly united.Even when the Empires were disintegrated, they formed two or three strong Kingdoms which were again united by another dynasty after few decades.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



\\And come on, don't just conveniently classify Muslim ruled of subcontinent as "Indian Dynasty".\\


If you are talking about Mughals, do remember that only the founder of Mughal Empire - Babar is a complete foreigner who came from Central Asia. After that, every Mughal Emperor had Indian blood in them.The greatest of Mughal Emperors - Akbar even practised a mixed Hindu-Muslim religion which he called 'Din-I-Lahi". The Mughals were a Indian Muslim Dynasty.

You should remember that although India is a Hindu majority country, it also has the world's second largest muslim population in the world.We have 4 Muslim presidents till now and our current vice president is also a muslim.We are as much proud of our Muslim dynasties as we are proud of our Hindu dynasties.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\\Indus Valley civilisation belongs to Pakistan.\\


No, It does not. Indus valley civilization as the name suggests is a civilization, not a country or a geograhical place.That civilization consists of hundreds of sites, some of them in present day pakistan and some of them in present day India.And more importantly, the people of Indus valley civilization were Dravidians, the ancestors of present day Tamils and other South Indians.They have nothing to do with Pakistan.




===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

Last one thousand years history of india, dominated by Turkish and Afghan dynasties...

The spread of Islam in the tribal belt dates back to the rise of the Turkish dynasty in Ghazni from about 960 AD. Mahmud of Ghazni conquered and incorporated areas of the subcontinent up to Lahore. Ghorid Sultan Muizzuddin Muhammad, with his headquarters in Ghor, subdued the north part of the subcontinent and was the founder of Muslim supremacy in Delhi in 1206. The fall of the Ghorids was followed by successive incursions of various forces from Central Asia. The most notable of these were those of conquerors Genghis Khan in 1221 and of Timur in 1398.

The tribesmen formed the spearhead of the Muslim penetration and conquest of India, first as soldiers of fortune and later as powerful kings, even as sultans and emperors.[citation needed] The Turks were a small band of chosen favourites; the soldiers, and later the rulers, were Ghaljis or Pathans.[citation needed] Apart from the Turks, i.e. Ghaznavids (1001-1186), Ghorids (1186-1290), and Tughlaqs (1321-1451), three Pathan dynasties, i.e., Khaljis (1290-1321), Lodis (1451-1526) and Suris (1539-55), had sat on the throne of Delhi. But their authority did not extend over the tribal belt. Babur, the conqueror of India and founder of the Mughal dynasty, wrote of the empire of Lodis that its writ did not run effectively west of the Indus, and it had no control over the Afghan or Pathan homelands from which its rulers had originally come.[citation needed]

The Pathan dynasties who ruled in India attracted many frontiersmen to their banners."[citation needed] The firman (royal edict) of Bahlol Lodhi (1451-1489), the ruler of Delhi, encouraging frontier tribes of the northwest to take service in Delhi stated:

Hindustan can best be held by somebody who rules over a nation with tribes. Let every Afghan tribesman bring his relatives leading a life of indigence, let them come and take up estates in Hind, relieving themselves from straitened circumstances, and supporting the State against powerful enemies.[citation needed]

The declining flow of Pathan warriors from the tribal belt may be one of the important causes of their downfall.[citation needed] The lack of support became obvious after the death of Sher Shah Suri in 1555.

\\most parts of the geopolitics history of the subcontinent consists of hundreds of independent Kingdoms. I wouldn't know which one is the "ancient India" you are talking about.\\


This "hundreds of independent Kingdoms" is a pure myth concorted by the British to justify their colonialism.This is partly true after the collapse of Maratha Empire and the beginning of British colonialim, but this is not true for much of the history of Indian Subcontinent.Right from the days of Mauryan Empire, the subcontinent is mostly united.Even when the Empires were disintegrated, they formed two or three strong Kingdoms which were again united by another dynasty after few decades.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Stop the ********. Just look at Chola, it mostly in the southern tip while. What happen to the northern part? Very much the same for other dynasties. U just conveniently pick the largest empire and claim that Ancient India. Since when "Ancient India" can run from the North to the south?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



\\And come on, don't just conveniently classify Muslim ruled of subcontinent as "Indian Dynasty".\\


If you are talking about Mughals, do remember that only the founder of Mughal Empire - Babar is a complete foreigner who came from Central Asia. After that, every Mughal Emperor had Indian blood in them.The greatest of Mughal Emperors - Akbar even practised a mixed Hindu-Muslim religion which he called 'Din-I-Lahi". The Mughals were a Indian Muslim Dynasty.

You should remember that although India is a Hindu majority country, it also has the world's second largest muslim population in the world.We have 4 Muslim presidents till now and our current vice president is also a muslim.We are as much proud of our Muslim dynasties as we are proud of our Hindu dynasties.

If "Indian" is a historical meaningless term, then there isn;t such a term called "Indian Muslim Dynasty"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\\Indus Valley civilisation belongs to Pakistan.\\


No, It does not. Indus valley civilization as the name suggests is a civilization, not a country or a geograhical place.That civilization consists of hundreds of sites, some of them in present day pakistan and some of them in present day India.And more importantly, the people of Indus valley civilization were Dravidians, the ancestors of present day Tamils and other South Indians.They have nothing to do with Pakistan.>>>>>

Again the Tamil weren't even part of your so call 'Ancient India". Even the Mugal never extend the rule to this region. They were only "unified" under the British. SO now you hindian can ride on their coattail and claim that Indus Valley is part of your heritage?

For a rat whose country was created by British you sure squeak a lot malaya monkey

"most parts of the geopolitics history of the subcontinent consists of hundreds of independent Kingdoms. I wouldn't know which one is the "ancient India" you are talking about. And come on, don't just conveniently classify Muslim ruled of subcontinent as "Indian Dynasty"."

random crap

"Indus Valley civilisation belongs to Pakistan. Next please..."

phuckistan was created in 1947, Indus valley civilisation existed wayyyyyyyy long before that, ask your maulvi to sodomise u harder.





colours of Kaz####ga

\\Stop the ********. Just look at Chola, it mostly in the southern tip while. What happen to the northern part? Very much the same for other dynasties. U just conveniently pick the largest empire and claim that Ancient India. Since when "Ancient India" can run from the North to the south?\\


Chola was not the largest Empire of India.But they are one of the most imperialistic dynasties of India who established Indian colonies throughout South East Asia. But India was unified long time back under Nanda and Mauryan Dynasties.







----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



\\If "Indian" is a historical meaningless term, then there isn;t such a term called "Indian Muslim Dynasty" \\


"Indian" is as much a historical meaningless term as "Chinese" is. In the Mughal context, they were non-Hindu, but Indian Dynasty just like the Yuans and Qing were non-Han but Chinese dynasties.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



\\Again the Tamil weren't even part of your so call 'Ancient India". Even the Mugal never extend the rule to this region. They were only "unified" under the British. SO now you hindian can ride on their coattail and claim that Indus Valley is part of your heritage?\\


Only an ignorant who know zilch about India would say that Tamils were not part of Ancient India.Indus Valley Civilization from which Indian Civilization got derived is essentially South Indian.South Indian means not only Tamils but also Andhras, Kannadas, and Keralites .To say that South Indians has nothing to do with Ancient India is like saying Father has nothing to do with a Son's features.





===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

With respect to the Mauryan Empire, the Mauryans were the Hyperpower of their time. When they were are their zenith, there was no other dynasty or empire anywhere in the world which rivalled them either in area they ruled, population they ruled, Milatary strength , Cultural supremacy, etc. The Persian Archemenid Empire collapsed long time back so did Alexander's Macedonian Empire.The Roman Empire was in its intitial states and Han China was still in its beginning.





===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

@arya

stop talking out of your hairy indian a$$

mughals were indian and embraced hinduism, lol

babur, aurangzeb etc..used to butcher indians, yes they employed some in their government but THE RULERS WERE TURKIC.


The mughals were timurids

and timurids are.. The Timurids (Persian: ), self-designated Gurkn [1][2][3](Persian: ), were a Persianate[4][5] Central Asian Sunni Muslim dynasty of originally Turko-Mongol[

and babur was...Timuris so were all the MUGHALS .. turco-mongol

In the 16th century, Timurid prince Babur, the ruler of Ferghana, invaded India and founded the Mughal Empire, which ruled most of the Indian subcontinent until its decline after Aurangzeb in the early 18th century, and was formally dissolved by the British Raj after the Indian rebellion of 1857.


SO STOP EMBARASSING YOURSELF AND JUST ADMIT TURKS RULED AND ABUSED YOU FOR 300 YEARS CONTINUOUS

\\mughals were indian and embraced hinduism, lol \\


When did i said Mughals embraced Hinduism ? LOL


I said Mughal Dynasty's greatest Emperor Akbar combined elements from Hinduism and Islam and founded a new religious doctrine called "Din-I-Ilahi".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din-i-Ilahi


"The Dîn-i Ilâhî was a syncretic religious doctrine propounded by the Mughal emperor Jalâlu d-Dîn Muammad Akbar ("Akbar the Great"), who ruled the Indian subcontinent from 1556 to 1605, intending to merge the best elements of the religions of his empire, and thereby reconcile the differences that divided his subjects.[2] The elements were primarily drawn from Islam and Hinduism, but some others were also taken from Christianity, Jainism and Zoroastrianism."



The Success of Mughal Empire is because of their accomodation of Hindu Rajputs into Mughal Hierarchy.Mughal Empire reached its zenith under Akbar when Akbar consolidated Mughal rule by marrying into Hindu Rajput Princes. The Empire collapsed under Aurangazeb as soon as he made Rajputs, Sikhs and other Hindu princes his enemies and tried to mould Mughal Empire into a 'Islamist Empire'.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\\babur, aurangzeb etc..used to butcher indians, yes they employed some in their government but THE RULERS WERE TURKIC\\.


Most Mughal Emperors were only Half-Turkic.Only Babur and Humayun were Turkic in full sense.Jahangir was born to a Hindu Princess.Even Shah Jahan, the Emperor who built Taj Mahal was born to a Hindu Rajput Princess. As i said before, the reason why Mughals were able to stay in India is because they co opted Hindus by marrying into Hindu Rajput families , there by making sure that the Majority Hindus do not revolt against them.Aurangazeb, the last Mughal Emperor was foolish enough to provoke Hindus and as soon as he did, the Empire collapsed in no time.







===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

you contradict yourself more times than your pagan beleifs

first you said babur was turkic

now its babur, hamayoun and aurangzeb! thats more than half the kings

The rest just ****** indian women to spread the love

\\you contradict yourself more times than your pagan beleifs \\


I dont think so.Its just that like any other Muslim, you do not have the brain to comprehend what a Pagan said.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



\\now its babur, hamayoun and aurangzeb! thats more than half the kings \\


Its only Babur and Humayun, not even Aurangazeb. Both Aurangazeb's father and Grandfather have 50% Indian genes as both of them have Hindu Rajput mothers.That means Aurangazeb has more Indian genes than he had Central Asian genes.And that is the irony.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\\The rest just ****** indian women to spread the love\\


Sure they did ! But that also means that their decendents have half Central Asian and Half Indian genes.





===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

shuja khan is too dense to understand anything.

its astonishing that he can count his uncles goats, thats as far as his education goes.

thats the reason afghans have never seen freedom. specially the area which gave birth to shuja khan the nitwit.

the pathans there have suffered far to much slavery to talk any sense nowadays.

1.....slaves to indo-aryans.

2.....slaves to greeks.

3....again slave to indo-aryan-mauryans.

4.....slave to guptas.

5....slaves to mongols.

6....slaves to turks.

7....slave to mughals.

8.....slave to sikhs.

9....slave to british.

10....slave to pakis.

11...slave to americans.

slavery continues.

p.s i might have missed some rulers.peew but hope thats enough to give shuja khan hysterical fits.

 

oops i forget arabs.there you go shuaja.

is there any people left in the world who hadnt fvcked your legendry pashtun arse.

 

sikho... i lknow your hairy chimpy a$$$ is not known for its brain... so let me make it simple for you... differencce between afghans and indians..while your ancestors were sucking on british cock for 200 years, Afghanistan was free


now fuc off and shave your hairy a$$, you might get laid bunyon head

your daddies again in full sikh...

Notable Pashtun Kings of India

Sultan Ghuizzuddin Ghuri, son of Bahauddin Suri, was one of the Ghurid rulers in the late 1100s


Sultan Ala-ud-din Khilji (Ghilzai), ruler of Khilji dynasty who ruled India from 1296 to 1316


Sultan Ibrahim Lodhi, the last ruler of the Lodhi dynasty who ruler India from 1517 to 1526


Sher Shah Suri (Sher Khan), founder of the Suri Empire in India during the 1500s


Mirwais Khan Hotak (Mirwais Neeka), defeated the Persian Empire in 1709


Mir Mahmud Hotak, invaded Persia and further defeated the Persian Empire (Safavids) until he became Emperor of Persia in 1722


Ahmad Shah Durrani (Ahmad Shah Baba), founder of the Durrani Empire (Afghan Empire) at Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1747

^ lol the goatfcker is posting same crap again and again . what happened suja some unlaid cousins got fried in recent hell fire or what

********************************************

hey dog ****** cow worshipper

ive posted you pics of your daddies and dates they ****** you

Indian race is door mat for muslims... DO YOU DENY THE FACT THAT THE LAST 1000 YEARS MUSLIMS WETHER TURKIC, PERSIAN OR AFGHANS HAVE BEEN YOUR DADDIES???

EMBRACE THE FACT, YOU CANT CHANGE HISTORY

History of India - Islamic Rulers
The Deli Sultanate refers to the many Muslim dynasties that ruled in India from 1206 to 1526. Several Turkish and Afghan dynasties ruled from Delhi: the Slave dynasty (1206-90), the Khilji dynasty (1290-1320), the Tughlaq dynasty (1320-1413), the Sayyid dynasty (1414-51), and the Lodi dynasty (1451-1526).

During the last quarter of the twelfth century, Muhammad of Ghor invaded the Indo-Gangetic plain, conquering in succession Ghazni, Multan, Sindh, Lahore, and Delhi. Qutb-ud-din Aybak, one of his generals proclaimed himself Sultan of Delhi. In the 13th century, Shams ud din Iltumish (1211 - 1236), a former slave-warrior, established a Turkic kingdom in Delhi, which enabled future sultans to push in every direction; within the next 100 years, the Delhi Sultanate extended its way east to Bengal and south to the Deccan, while the sultanate itself experienced repeated threats from the northwest and internal revolts from displeased, independent-minded nobles. The sultanate was in constant flux as five dynasties rose and fell. The Khilji dynasty, under Ala ud din (1296 - 1316), succeeded in bringing most of South India under its control for a time, although conquered areas broke away quickly. Power in Delhi was often gained by violence (nineteen of the thirty-five sultans were assassinated) and was legitimized by reward for tribal loyalty. Factional rivalries and court intrigues were as numerous as they were treacherous; territories controlled by the sultan expanded and shrank depending on his personality and fortunes.

Both the Qur'an and sharia (Islamic law) provided the basis for enforcing Islamic administration over the independent Hindu rulers, but the sultanate made only fitful progress in the beginning, when many campaigns were undertaken for plunder and temporary reduction of fortresses. The effective rule of a sultan depended largely on his ability to control the strategic places that dominated the military highways and trade routes, extract the annual land tax, and maintain personal authority over military and provincial governors. Sultan Ala-ud-Din made an attempt to reassess, systematize, and unify land revenues and urban taxes and to institute a highly centralized system of administration over his realm, but his efforts were abortive. Although agriculture in North India improved as a result of new canal construction and irrigation methods, including what came to be known as the Persian wheel, prolonged political instability and parasitic methods of tax collection brutalized the peasantry. Experts in metalwork, stonework, and textile manufacture responded to the new patronage with enthusiasm. In this period Persian language and many Persian cultural aspects became dominant in the centers of power in India.

In 1526 the Delhi Sultanate was absorbed by the emerging Mughal Empire. Mughal is the Persian word for Mongol and was generally used to refer to Central Asian nomads who claimed descent from the Mongol warriors of Genghis Khan. The foundation for empire was established around 1504 by the Timurid prince Babur, when he took control of Kabul and eastern regions of Khorasan controlling the fertile Sind region and the lower valley of the Indus River. In 1526, he defeated the last of the Delhi Sultans, Ibrahim Shah Lodi, at the First Battle of Panipat. These early military successes of the Mughals in India, carried out by an army much smaller in size than its opponents, have been attributed to their cohesion, mobility, and horse-mounted archers.

The Mughal Empire lasted from the early sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century. At its peak (around 1700) it covered most of the Indian subcontinent and parts of what is now Afghanistan. Its population at that time has been estimated as between 100 and 150 million, over a territory of over 3 million square km. After 1720, it declined rapidly. The decline has been variously described as due to wars of succession, agrarian crises fueling local revolts, and the growth of a religious extremism by the Hindu and Sikh population. The last Emperor, whose rule was restricted to the city of Delhi, was imprisoned and exiled by the British after the War of Independence Rebellion of 1857.

The classic period of the Empire starts with the accession of Akber in 1556 and ends with the death of Aurangzeb in 1707. During this period, the Empire was marked by a strongly centralized administration connecting the different regions of India. All the significant monuments of the Mughals, their most visible legacy, date to this period.

The decline of the Mughal Empire has been studied under several different theories. Some historians such as Irfan Habib have described the decline of the Mughal Empire in terms of class struggle. Habib proposed that excessive taxation and repression of peasants created a discontented class that either rebelled itself or supported rebellions by other classes and states. On the other hand, Athar Ali proposed a theory of a "jagirdari crisis." According to this theory, the influx of a large number of new Deccan nobles into the Mughal nobility during the reign of Aurangzeb created a shortage of agricultural crown land meant to be allotted, and destroyed the crown lands altogether. The classical theory of Aurangzeb's Islamicism and Mughal decline continues to find a new life in the research of S. R. Sharma. Other theories put weight on the devious role played by the Saeed brothers in destabilizing the Mughal throne and auctioning the agricultural crown lands for revenue extraction.

The Mughal period would see a more fruitful blending of Indian, Iranian and Central Asian artistic, intellectual and literary traditions than any other in Indian history. The Mughals had taste for the fine things in life - for beautifully designed artifacts and the enjoyment and appreciation of cultural activities. The Mughals borrowed as much as they gave - both the Hindu and Muslim traditions of India were huge influences on their interpretation of culture and court style. Nevertheless, they introduced many notable changes to Indian society and culture, including centralized government which brought together many smaller kingdoms, Persian art and culture amalgamated with native Indian art and culture, started new trade routes to Arab and Turk lands, Mughali cuisine, Urdu and spoken Hindi languages were formed for common Muslims and Hindus respectively, a new style of architecture, and Landscape gardening.

\Stop the ********. Just look at Chola, it mostly in the southern tip while. What happen to the northern part? Very much the same for other dynasties. U just conveniently pick the largest empire and claim that Ancient India. Since when "Ancient India" can run from the North to the south?\\


Chola was not the largest Empire of India.But they are one of the most imperialistic dynasties of India who established Indian colonies throughout South East Asia. But India was unified long time back under Nanda and Mauryan Dynasties.


[linked image]

Going by your Indian warp logic, most people of SE Asia are Indian.

Fact is chola is just an independent Empire and nothing to do with India which was essentially a british creation in 1947.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



\\If "Indian" is a historical meaningless term, then there isn;t such a term called "Indian Muslim Dynasty" \\


"Indian" is as much a historical meaningless term as "Chinese" is. In the Mughal context, they were non-Hindu, but Indian Dynasty just like the Yuans and Qing were non-Han but Chinese dynasties.

It not so much in the name, we all know China exist as a geopolitical entity for thousands of years. I couldn't say the same of India which does not even exist, at best it just a geographical marker similar to Equator or Antarctica

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



\\Again the Tamil weren't even part of your so call 'Ancient India". Even the Mugal never extend the rule to this region. They were only "unified" under the British. SO now you hindian can ride on their coattail and claim that Indus Valley is part of your heritage?\\


Only an ignorant who know zilch about India would say that Tamils were not part of Ancient India.Indus Valley Civilization from which Indian Civilization got derived is essentially South Indian.South Indian means not only Tamils but also Andhras, Kannadas, and Keralites .To say that South Indians has nothing to do with Ancient India is like saying Father has nothing to do with a Son's features..>>>>>>>>>>>>


Indus Valley essentially is in Pakistan. You can't deny Tamil kingdom have never been part of any Hindian empires which was bastardize by the Mongols, Turks, Persian etc. . Even the Muslim Muhgal never extent their rule to this part of the continent.

\\Indian race is door mat for muslims... DO YOU DENY THE FACT THAT THE LAST 1000 YEARS MUSLIMS WETHER TURKIC, PERSIAN OR AFGHANS HAVE BEEN YOUR DADDIES??? \\


Why do you trolls keep repeating the same lies even after they are disproved wrong ?

This is what i wrote before. Which of this are you denying ?


The Ghorids, Ghaznavids are short lived kingdoms.They can hardly be called as "Empires". As is the case with the Suri and Lodi Dynasty.The Suri dynasty did not even lasted more than 18 years.The Lodi dynasty lasted not more than 70 years.Also note that all these people could did not control much of India. They were pretty much confined to North India.Even in North India, they are pretty much confined to urban centers.They never were able to penetrate most of the rural areas.

The Durrani kingdom is also a very short lived kingdom which did not last more than 80 years.And it is mostly confined to what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan with some areas of North India added to it.But as soon as Ahmed Shah Durrani died, his kingdom also got collapsed and the Durranis became the Vassals of Sikh Kingdom.

The Mughal Empire is the only empire which stated for much longer and covered much larger area.That is because it was not a "Muslim" Empire in any strict sense.The Mughal army and its leadership was mostly Hindu Rajputs.As long as the Mughals Empire was a Joint 'Muslim-Hindu' Empire, it survived. As soon as it became a purely 'muslim' empire under Aurangazeb, it collapsed in no time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



\\Going by your Indian warp logic, most people of SE Asia are Indian. \\


If you are talking about genetics, Most people of South East Asia ARE of Indian decent. Who is denying that ?.

Even the former Prime minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohammed is also of Indian descent from his father's side.

But if you are talking about politics, then the South East Asian States were vassals and colonial outposts for Indian Empires like Chola in anceint times. Even Islam came to South East Asia from India.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\\Fact is chola is just an independent Empire and nothing to do with India which was essentially a british creation in 1947.\\


Facts ? You are hardly speaking any facts.Southern Cholan Dynasty has as much to do with India as the Southern Song dyansty has to do with China.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\\Indus Valley essentially is in Pakistan. You can't deny Tamil kingdom have never been part of any Hindian empires which was bastardize by the Mongols, Turks, Persian etc. . Even the Muslim Muhgal never extent their rule to this part of the continent.\\


You are not making any sense. Indus Valley civilization has nothing to do with Pakistan.Indus valley people are Dravidian racially and Proto-Hindus culturally.Pakistan represents neither of them.The Place itself does not mean much.Its like saying the Mayan Civilization of anceint times is Spanish because today the Spanish people are populated there.

With respect to Mongols, Turks , Persian etc, it was THEY who became bastardized after coming to India.There is ZERO impact of Turk or Mongol or Persian impact genetically on Indians.




===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

This Christmas weekend and all these stories of Christ's birth on the media....one thing struck a chord with above discussion. In the Bible (used as a historical document by scholars) it is recorded that one of the wise men came from INDIA. What is NOT written is that the wise man came from the kingdom of the Rashtrakutas or Cholas or Pallavas or Kushanas, it is only mentioned he is from the land of India.

The lack of governance-unity of the Indian subcontinent is immaterial when we are talking about the larger cultural/civilizational unity of it and its people. Neither the minor kingdoms like Rashtrakutas, Pallavas, Kushanas etc nor the major ones that managed to bring large parts of the subcontinent under its control like Mughals, Khiljis, Palas, Guptas, Mauryas, etc, ever defined the Indians as a people. These were simply royal families, just that...not ethnic/national definitions. Nobody referred to himself as a Guptan or Mauryan or Mughalian or Rajputian LOL except the members of those royal families themselves. The PEOPLE were always part of the bigger continuum which was Indians.

So many more similar example (like the Bible) can be made. When Columbus came to Hispaniola and mistook the natives as Indians due to similar features like dark skin, acquiline features, long straight black hair, etc, he gave the misnomer Indios/Indians to the natives. Why did he not call them Tughlaqis since the major part of the subcontinent at the time was under rule of the Tughlaq dynasty? LMAO give me a break dude, people have always refered to us as Indians/Indios/Indicos/Hindus etc....oh and not to mention we have also called ourselves Bharatvaasis (so its not purely external imposed).

The overwhelming grassroots majority of Pakistan actually does have the same blood of the ancestors who made the Indus Valley civilization as do the rest of the subcontinent. Let us not forget that due to Out of Africa human migrations, the peopling of the subcontinent always happens from the northwest as these are the only openings from the west/north. So some of the descendants of the original IVC remained in their northwestern part of the subcontinent which now makes up Pakistan and western India, others moved further south and east. The ruling elites of the Pakistan area got bastardized by later migrations of Iranid groups like Persians/Afghans and Semites like Arabs, but the grassroots average person on street of Pakistan has ancestors in IVC just like modern south Indians may claim a more direct cultural lineage to it.

@Bharat Riksaw

"So many more similar example (like the Bible) can be made. When Columbus came to Hispaniola and mistook the natives as Indians due to similar features like dark skin, acquiline features, long straight black hair, etc, he gave the misnomer Indios/Indians to the natives. Why did he not call them Tughlaqis since the major part of the subcontinent at the time was under rule of the Tughlaq dynasty? LMAO give me a break dude, people have always refered to us as Indians/Indios/Indicos/Hindus etc....oh and not to mention we have also called ourselves Bharatvaasis (so its not purely external imposed)."

The native Americans, also called Indians don't belong to Hindu Race from India. Native Americans walked during the Ice Time over the Bearing Street thought American Continent, they were Turkic People.



----------------------------------------



Bir Millet, iki Devlet

^

He never said native americans were from india you illiterate turk, even a 5 year old can understand what he is trying to say

If you are talking about genetics, Most people of South East Asia ARE of Indian decent. Who is denying that ?.

Even the former Prime minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohammed is also of Indian descent from his father's side.

But if you are talking about politics, then the South East Asian States were vassals and colonial outposts for Indian Empires like Chola in anceint times. Even Islam came to South East Asia from India.>>.

There is no such thing call Indian descent since Indian is neither a race or ethnic group. Technically it merely means citizen of India. And we know India was a British creation.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Facts ? You are hardly speaking any facts.Southern Cholan Dynasty has as much to do with India as the Southern Song dyansty has to do with China.>>>>

You can really prove your case to me. People of the south had always been independent. They were only conquered by the british and brought under "British India" which was merely a 200 years history.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are not making any sense. Indus Valley civilization has nothing to do with Pakistan.Indus valley people are Dravidian racially and Proto-Hindus culturally.Pakistan represents neither of them.The Place itself does not mean much.Its like saying the Mayan Civilization of anceint times is Spanish because today the Spanish people are populated there.

With respect to Mongols, Turks , Persian etc, it was THEY who became bastardized after coming to India.There is ZERO impact of Turk or Mongol or Persian impact genetically on Indians.>>>>

Since when does india represent Dravidian whom historically doesn't have anything to do with the hindian? it like the China claiming they represent the entire mongoloid race. how can that be? The various ethnic groups in Indian genetically defective. It can e seen by the pathetic number Olympic medals.

\\There is no such thing call Indian descent since Indian is neither a race or ethnic group. Technically it merely means citizen of India.And we know India was a British creation\\


There is something called Indian descent just like there is something called American or Chinese descent.Indian descent basically means a person whose ancestors came from India.Mahathir ancestors came from India.And India is anything BUT a British creation.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\\You can really prove your case to me. People of the south had always been independent. They were only conquered by the british and brought under "British India" which was merely a 200 years history.\\


People of the South were part and parcel of Indian political life since anceint times. I dont understand where you got this idea of they being brought under British India. Indian dynasties came from both North and South.India was united under both the Northern dynasty like Mauryans as well as the Southern dynasty like Rashtrakutas.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\\Since when does india represent Dravidian whom historically doesn't have anything to do with the hindian? it like the China claiming they represent the entire mongoloid race. how can that be? The various ethnic groups in Indian genetically defective. It can e seen by the pathetic number Olympic medals\\


What kind of gibberish is that ? Saying Dravidian does not represent India is like saying Malays dont represent Malaysia.


===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

Since indian is not a race or ethnic group, the term indian descent is nothing more than a misnomer. of course indian also claim anyone of South Asian descent a indian descent clearly a notion rejected by the nepalese.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18497802856

And if you look into "india history" that isn't much continuation of the various kingdoms. India in ancient context is nothing more than a geographical marker and not a kingdom.

\\Since indian is not a race or ethnic group, the term indian descent is nothing more than a misnomer. of course indian also claim anyone of South Asian descent a indian descent clearly a notion rejected by the nepalese. \\


LOL ! American is not a race neither is Chinese. So there are no people of American or Chinese descent. Even Malaysia is not a race or ethenic group. So you are not of Malaysian descent ? Anyoen of South Asian descent IS automatically of Indian descent. There is a reason why South Asia is called as Indian Subcontinent.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



\\And if you look into "india history" that isn't much continuation of the various kingdoms. India in ancient context is nothing more than a geographical marker and not a kingdom. \\


Indian civilization is one of the first civilizations to have political unity. Dont confuse Malaysia with India.





===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

Another nutcase.

"Descent" is usually a term base on ethnic rather than citizenship. Hence there is really no such term called Malaysian descent or Singaporean descent.

Ask any Nepalese, Pakistani or Sri Lankan if they agree with the notion that they are Indian descent, for sure most will say no. Do not confuse Indian subcontinent with India.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indian civilization is one of the first civilizations to have political unity. Dont confuse Malaysia with India. >>>

Those political entities have long extinct and doesn't have any lineage linkage with the current geopolitical entity called "india" which was very much a British creation. So much for your make-believe history.

Turks are not real Turks. They are mixed race or Anatolian. "Turks clearly suffer from an identity crisis. Claiming be to Turkish is like a Ameridian claiming to be Spanish. Real Turks conquered your ancestors, raped your great great great great grandmothers and enslaved your great great great great grandfathers, raped them and forced them to be Muslim.

Such a proud history.

Every race on the planet except Blacks conquered India, nothing really to brag about. And those Turks in India have no relation to the people in the Republic of "Turkey"

.

Quote:Every race on the planet except Blacks conquered India, nothing really to brag about. And those Turks in India have no relation to the people in the Republic of "Turkey"


this is not true, india had African rulers in past
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/ancient-african-kings-of-india-by-dr-clyde-winters/

only monkeys have yet not ruled india, because they lack skill to handle weapons. but in near future when Monkeys will step a level higher in evolution,they will rule indians to.

I was wrong. I forgot the Ethiopians briefly controlled some small costal areas in westernIndia at the time when Ethiopia conquered Yemen. Don't know how long they held onto those Indian areas.

.

Its funny how this thread goes from "there was no such thing as India before 1947" to all of a sudden how "Indians" got owned by every race from BC times.

\\Ask any Nepalese, Pakistani or Sri Lankan if they agree with the notion that they are Indian descent, for sure most will say no. Do not confuse Indian subcontinent with India.\\


Moron, Only Pakistanis deny their Indian roots but they dont say it because of their inferiority complex. Mohatir Mohammed is also of Indian descent . But how many in Malaysians say it openly ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\\Those political entities have long extinct and doesn't have any lineage linkage with the current geopolitical entity called "india" which was very much a British creation. So much for your make-believe history. \\


All anceint dynasties gets extinct . Do you have Qing dynasty today ? No. So that means it does not have any linkage with modern China ?



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\\Every race on the planet except Blacks conquered India, nothing really to brag about\\


Most nations in this planet were conquered by someone else in the past. That is something which is common in history of most counries. Only morons who have no sense of history will claim otherwise.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\\only monkeys have yet not ruled india, because they lack skill to handle weapons. but in near future when Monkeys will step a level higher in evolution,they will rule indians to. \\


This coming from a Paki who want to deny their Indian roots and want to become a B-grade Arabs/Turks/Persians ? LOL





===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

Indians have also been ruled by animals and that's why they still pay homage to cows, donkeys, monkeys, rats, etc....

-------------------------------------------------

The greatest Monument in India the Taj Mahal built by the Mughal Ruler Shah Jahan, which have Turkic Roots from Central Asia !

Turks owned India !



----------------------------------------



Bir Millet, iki Devlet

\\The greatest Monument in India the Taj Mahal built by the Mughal Ruler Shah Jahan, which have Turkic Roots from Central Asia \\


Shah Jahan is only One fourth Turkic. His father is half Turkic so was his Grand father. The Only real Turkic Mughals were the founder of the Mughal Empire Babur. By 'Turkic', i meant the real Turks from Central Asia NOT the turkified greek/slavic slave converts who shamelessly call themselves as "turks" and call their country "Turkey".

===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

Moron, Only Pakistanis deny their Indian roots but they dont say it because of their inferiority complex. Mohatir Mohammed is also of Indian descent . But how many in Malaysians say it openly ?>>>>>

I think the reverse is true since the term "India" was derive from "Indus river" located in Pakistan. Dr Mathathir has always regard himself as a Malay fighting for the Malay cause. He wouldn't give a **** to Indian.

\\I think the reverse is true since the term "India" was derive from "Indus river" located in Pakistan. Dr Mathathir has always regard himself as a Malay fighting for the Malay cause. He wouldn't give a **** to Indian. \\


India is derived from the word 'Indo" which means the areas BEYOND the Indus river (not THE Indus river) which is the Gangetic Valley.The People of Indus river and beyond at that time were Hindus NOT what you call "Pakistanis" today. Mathathir was president of Malaysia.So he has to regard himself as a Malay if he wants to stay in politics.But that does not deny the fact that he is of partial Indian descent from his father's side.


===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

[In 1947 our conquering effort led to the birth of the Muslim State Pakistan !]

-I wouldn't exactly be proud of that. That's the geopolitical equivalent of plopping a turd in the middle of the floor, and standing over it with pride..

India is comes from the word Sindhu which means indus. it basically a british invention. being a hindu doesn't mean Indian since "Indian" or "India" are historically meaningless term.

Dr Mathathir regard himself as Malay. Spiritually he is a Malay nationalist and speak no Indian.

\\India is comes from the word Sindhu which means indus. it basically a british invention. being a hindu doesn't mean Indian since "Indian" or "India" are historically meaningless term. \\


No. India comes from the word 'Indo' or 'Indoi' which in turn is derived from the word 'Indu', the Greel pronunciation of the word 'Sindhu' The word 'Hindu' comes from the word 'Sindhu'. Both of them refer to the culture of the people who settled on the banks of Sindhu river, which is Hinduism. Sindhu itself is a Sanskrit word taken from Hindu Vedas. Malaysia is truly an artifical entity, but not India.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------



\\Dr Mathathir regard himself as Malay. Spiritually he is a Malay nationalist and speak no Indian.\\



Mahathir may regard anything he wants, but that still does not erase his Indian origins.





===========================================
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

thank god world history is not dependent on some malayan baffon, and thank god we had recorded history from not only indians but greeks as well as italians plus persians  and of course many chinese students who used to come to india to study 1000s of years ago.

otherwise nutcases like him would be more then happy to erase 7000 year history of a country .

 

 

 

 

this is a hillarious thread , a must read.

turkeys are getting horny for all sort of animals. no animal is safe for its dignity in turkey today.

i bet normal turks in central asia will vomit in disgust as turkeys use turk name and commit these horrible gang rapes on donkeys and chickens and dogs and cats etc etc etc and blame it on turks.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/248068/thread/1295984397/last-1296043566/Perverted+turds-+donkey+raped+by+hundreds+of+turds+in+1+month

 

coclusion:

everyone even africans have ruled india without any resistace

the british ruled 1 billion ppl of india without a whimper of resistance

japan rulers in ww2 promised that if they took over india they would chop every male over the age of 10 heads off because it was a disrace that such a large popuation couldnt fight for freedom


indians = passive weak race

Indians are owned by pretty much everybody...they are the weakesk race on earth....Below is proof...


2008 Olympics Medal Count


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics_medal_table

Rank Nation Gold Silver Bronze Total
1 China (CHN) 51 21 28 100
2 United States (USA) 36 38 36 110
3 Russia (RUS) 23 21 29 73
4 Great Britain (GBR) 19 13 15 47
5 Germany (GER) 16 10 15 41
6 Australia (AUS) 14 15 17 46
7 South Korea (KOR) 13 10 8 31
8 Japan (JPN) 9 6 11 26
9 Italy (ITA) 8 9 10 27
10 France (FRA) 7 16 18 41
.
.
.
.
50 India (IND) 1 0 2 3


-------------------------------------------------

sick indian fcuks!

^ thanks for ur contribution . now fck off

********************************************

2008 Olympics Medal Count


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics_medal_table

Rank Nation Gold Silver Bronze Total
1 China (CHN) 51 21 28 100
2 United States (USA) 36 38 36 110
3 Russia (RUS) 23 21 29 73
4 Great Britain (GBR) 19 13 15 47
5 Germany (GER) 16 10 15 41
6 Australia (AUS) 14 15 17 46
7 South Korea (KOR) 13 10 8 31
8 Japan (JPN) 9 6 11 26
9 Italy (ITA) 8 9 10 27
10 France (FRA) 7 16 18 41
.
.
.
.
50 India (IND) 1 0 2 3



-------------------------------------------------

everyone even africans have ruled india without any resistace

the british ruled 1 billion ppl of india without a whimper of resistance

japan rulers in ww2 promised that if they took over india they would chop every male over the age of 10 heads off because it was a disrace that such a large popuation couldnt fight for freedom


indians = passive weak race
____________________________________________________________

at the time of british rule pupulation of british india(indo pakistan banngladesh) was around 30 million..todays pakistan population is 200 million. stick weilding beggar looking taliban gypsies owning your country

*************************************************************************

\\Indians are owned by pretty much everybody...they are the weakesk race on earth...\\



This coming from the Chinese is pretty lame. They were ruled by Mongols to Manchus to Japanese. Vietnamese also ruled parts of South China .



What i find funny is that people who are flaming India like the Chinese, that paki pushtoon guy, that malay dude, turks etc are themselves been ruled by multiple countries and groups throughout their history and here they are flaming Indians on the same topic ! LOL


Ignorance at his best !



===========================================


Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam
(Make this World Noble)

- Rigveda


-------------------------------------------

lol despsite your blah, blahs, indians being physically weak is a well known facts and we have proof....

lol

2008 Olympics Medal Count


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics_medal_table

Rank Nation Gold Silver Bronze Total
1 China (CHN) 51 21 28 100
2 United States (USA) 36 38 36 110
3 Russia (RUS) 23 21 29 73
4 Great Britain (GBR) 19 13 15 47
5 Germany (GER) 16 10 15 41
6 Australia (AUS) 14 15 17 46
7 South Korea (KOR) 13 10 8 31
8 Japan (JPN) 9 6 11 26
9 Italy (ITA) 8 9 10 27
10 France (FRA) 7 16 18 41
.
.
.
.
50 India (IND) 1 0 2 3


-------------------------------------------------