Muslim conquest of India

>>2469837
Because it didn't effect Europe

Doesn't affect Europe, no one cares about Indian history, and no 400 million did not die

>>2469869
How many died?

File: _85319913_poop_protest.jpg (43KB, 624x351px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 624x351px

Can you imagine the problems if 400million more of them existed...

>>2469837

>Is it true that 400 million people died because of it?

That statistic traces back to a statement by Swami Vivekananda, who was a Hindu guru and philosopher, who introduced Hinduism to the Western world. He's not to be considered an authority on demographic changes between 1000 AD and 1500 AD in India. His statement goes as follows:

"When the Mohammedans first came we were said – I think on the authority of Ferishta, the oldest Mohammedan historian – to have been six hundred millions of Hindus. Now we are about two hundred millions."

Considering that it took well into the 1700s for the world population to reach over 600 million, and considering that by that time, the Mughal empire, the last Islamic empire of note in India, was on the way out, there is no possible way for the claims in this quote to be true. Let alone that it is very hard to draw up estimates of how many people died due to the various incursions and conquests of Islamic empires and potentates into India, because of the almost non-existent reliability of primary sources when it comes to something as death tolls. If you look at the estimates for the death toll of the Thirty Years' war, you'll find that it ranges from 3 million casualties to well over 11 million casualties.

File: Bzt3X2zCEAANrt9.jpg (34KB, 595x374px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 595x374px

>they don't remember the 400 million
>Islam dindu nuffin

>>2469837

>Is it true that 400 million people died because of it?

Given the population of the world at the time was about 300 million, what the fuck do you think

File: 1473192958371.gif (2MB, 408x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 408x225px

>Mughals conquered India in the name of Islam and not because Babur and his descendants wanted land for themselves after Timurids disintegrated

Why is every conquest done by a Muslim person is "Islamic conquest" and conquest done by Christians is "just" imperialism?

>>2470463
Because wealth and money motivated one side while the other overwhelmingly religion played into their conquest.

>>2470485
Babur talks clearly about his motivations of conquest in his journals.

Hint: it isn't Islam

>>2470492
Source

>>2470524
Baburnama

>>2469886
Can you imagine the problems when 1.8 billion do?

>>2470463
Imperialism didn't have the main goal of ethnic displacement.

>>2470492
It'd be awfully strange for Babur to want to conquer Northern India for Islam to begin with since it was pretty Muslim already (though grandaddy Timur built some skull pyramids out of idolaters in Delhi).

>>2470728
India was still considered fair game by opportunist Muslims who wanted to loot it while having the excuse of waging jihad.

I'm probably one of the few people on /his/ that's researched Indian history (not even South Asian btw) because it's criminally overlooked. Islam's forays into the subcontinent was VERY brutal. Not only to just Hindus, but to Buddhists as well. In fact, Muslims torched a lot of Buddhist learning centers in India; something which Dalai Lama-supporting Hollywood liberals don't know or care to know.

I appreciate Islamic civilization for its scientific and artistic contributions as well as how it linked up Africa, Europe, and Asia into this wide-spanning commercial network where ideas, goods, and peoples were exchanged. But I cannot stand Islam nor can I fully trust any of its adherents.

When Indians were dealing with Muslim Arabs and Persians, their armies could forestall them from penetrating beyond the Indus. But when Turkic tribes converted, you had assholes like Mahmud of Ghazni that did untold damage and destruction in northern India.

The only time that Islam was somewhat beneficial to India as a whole was the Mughals, and only under competent rulers like Akbar or Shah Jahan. Aurangzeb completely pissed away the decades of good will that his predecessors painstakingly did to win over their non-Muslim subjects and no shit the empire rotted away.

>>2469859
>>2469869

What if I told you, Europe is overrated?

>>2470779
South India was relatively uncucked by Islam though. The Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu are mostly intact, unlike in North India where literally everything was destroyed by Muslim invaders and rulers.

But yeah, as a whole Islam has brought nothing but ruin and destruction to the Indian subcontinent.

>>2470463
Christians did some conquering and called it "crusades", you know.

Imperialism wasn't done in the name of Christ, it was done in various names, democracy, human rights, civilising natives being the most noteworthy.

>>2470953
That's because South India was a tough nut to crack. Even the Mughals at their height couldn't subdue the southern tip.

The only positive contribution to Islam in India was the foundation of Sikhism in response to it. Sikhs are god-tier bros. I'd take them and Jains out of all the Indian groups as citizens.

>>2469886
The british destroyed the old infrastructure in India. This lead to mass poverty and a dead industry.

>>2471009
Muslims actually did subdue it. It wasn't the mughals however. I believe it was a few minor muslim warlords.

The real safe haven was Sri Lanka.

>>2469837
>MUH DEATH STATISTICS

Since when is this a thing? Since the Holocaust?

It's really stupid desu.

>my conquests didn't kill as many millions as yours therefore I am more humane

Because Indian history, especially when it comes to all the religions in the area, is a can of worms no one wants to even go near.
If you as much as say that Hindi and Urdu are phonetically the same language, you will have tons of people lining up to lynch you even though it is an objective fact.

>>2469837
Mughals were pretty cool. Also the Ghorids. They had a huge army of slaves. They also used those sick armors that looked from Parthian cataphracts.

>400 million died

Why is India still an overpopulated shithole?

>>2470295

The world population wasn't even 500 million at that time. Kike larping at its finest.

>>2471981
India more than tripled their population in the 20th century due to modern medicine.

>>2470644
China did NOTHING wrong. Is the birthrate in India declining?

>>2471859
>british destroyed the old infrastructure in India

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>2472005

India was still fairly big before that though. Something between 1/5 to 1/7 of the world population lived in South Asia during the middle-ages.

>>2472048
the first census done in late 1800's was just shy of 300mil
i'm not denying that south asia had a bigger piece of the demographic pie back in the day, i'm just pointing out that indian population explosion is less than a century old.

File: Eminent_Historians.jpg (7KB, 131x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 131x200px

>Why isn't this event talked more about?

Because Muslims in India, as in every other country in the world, vote for left-wing parties, and Marxist intellectuals fear that drawing attentions to the crimes of Islam would alienate this important vote-bank.

It's really ironic how the Indian left operates in this regards. While in the Western world, apologists for imperialism come from the right, in India the left apologizes for Muslim empires and criticizes identity politics as "communitarianism", while the right is nationalist and uses victim politics for its own advantage.

>>2470779

based anon

>>2470295
>took well into the 1700s for the world population to reach over 600 million

I'm inclined to doubt this, only because it seems to me like records from back then would be woefully incomplete.

>>2469837
Someone remember that video where they show a mosque that was destroyed because some hindu (probably hindutva I don't remeber) said a miracle happened there? That mosque was a hindu temple after all, but like hundreds of years ago. Someone has a link?

It was really sad to see that.

>>2471871
>9.7% muslim

>>2469837
What I want to know is how India was able to hold on to Hinduism even when under the Islamic thumb for hundreds of years.

>>2469837
it's a figure pushed by delusional hindu """""""""""""""""""""""historians""""""""""""""""""""""""" trying to play the victim card

>>2472398
>din-i-illahi or some shit like that, muh syncretism
>actually tolerant despite some rulers went full allah akbar
>didn't conquer all of India

There you have it.

>>2472438
it was islamists zerg rushing an entire fucking subcontinents for centuries of jihad, with massacres and mass conversions after another. It is an in-bounds estimate.

>>2469869
>and no 400 million did not die
I wouldn't be surprised if that was accurate because Muslims have constantly raided/conquered India from the 8th century to the fall of the Moghul Empire. They may include violence caused by Muslims during the partition and the East Pakistan war.

>>2472438
It's not but hindutva treats it as it was planned and killing everyone was the conquerors' goal.

>>2472460
holocaust complex?

>>2470953
>>2471009
Islam in South India is older than North Indian Islam, and existed in the form of merchant colonies and city-states.

It's too politicized, and most people outside have no stake in either Indian political antipode. It's like studying Balkan history, only instead of pissing off a small population of Slavs at a time you gain the ire of some millions of people who have surprisingly diaspora populations all over the world.

>>2472466
Probably. Now everything is like that
>The spanish conquistadores wanted to literally kill every indian
>the europeans wanted to kill all africans
>Stalin wanted to kill all ukranians on purpose

>>2472120

True. I imagine that it's more projecting between eras with sufficient documentation.

But you have to remember that infant mortality was far higher than in modern days.

And the Mongols literally wiped out a significant portion of global population.

File: 1481138097298.jpg (24KB, 394x458px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 394x458px

>be turk
>invade iran
>invade ukraine
>invade anatolia
>invade arabia
>invade india
>wtf muslims are waging jihad on us

>>2472398

When Muslims conquer you, you are conquered and have to pay a tax.

When Christians conquered you, you and your people are cucked beyond belief. and obliterated.

>>2472398
"Islamic thumb" is a meme pushed by deluded Pakistani Muslims who like to pretend that the entirety of India was once theirs.

The actual truth is that an Islamic empire was never completely established over the subcontinent, unlike the British.

>The period between the last decade of the 12th century and the first quarter of the 18th - the period which is supposed to be the period of Muslim empire in India - is nothing more than a period of long-drawn-out war between Hindu freedom fighters and the Muslim invaders. The Hindus lost many battles, and retreated again and again. But they recovered every time, and resumed the struggle so that eventually the enemy was worn out, defeated, and dispersed in the final round which started with the rise of Shivaji.

>It is, therefore, a travesty of truth to say that Islam enjoyed an empire in India for six centuries. What happened really was that Islam struggled for six centuries to conquer India for good, but failed in the final round in the face of stiff and continued Hindu resistance.