{"id":47195977,"user":"card_zero","time":1772290130,"time_ago":"14 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

Because it's only existed since 1947?","comments":[{"id":47196845,"user":"whatsupdog","time":1772294315,"time_ago":"13 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

Indian culture is over 5000 years old. It was a British colony for only about a century.","comments":[{"id":47197023,"user":"card_zero","time":1772295216,"time_ago":"13 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

You said country/culture. If you're counting the Mughal empire, the Mughals were warlike.","comments":[{"id":47197075,"user":"whatsupdog","time":1772295472,"time_ago":"13 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

Mughals were not Indian. They were invaders from central Asia. Do some reading.","comments":[{"id":47197261,"user":"card_zero","time":1772296294,"time_ago":"13 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

I dunno, I've been reading for hours, I might play some games.

So the Mughals defeated and assimilated the Sultanate of Delhi ruled by the Afghan Lodi dynasty. Then they defeated and assimilated the Rajput Kingdom of Mewar ... who were Hindu ... ah, I've got it, you must mean Hindus. So excluding Shah Jahan and the Taj Mahal from being Indian I guess. I'll figure this out eventually.

Right then: Rana Sanga (the Rajput Maharana of Mewar) invaded and captured lots of territory belonging to the Malwa Sultanate, the Gujurat Sultanate, and the Lodi dynasty (again). So there you go. You can't say that those places were India at the time, and you can't say he was from the wrong culture, checkmate.","comments":[{"id":47197672,"user":"whatsupdog","time":1772298431,"time_ago":"12 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

Rana sangha took back his territory. And the other conflicts you mention were against fellow "Indians". I put it in quotes, because as you mention there was no India back then. But there was a shared culture and off course religion. I never said Indians were never violent. My original comment was that India (as a whole) has never been the aggressor against it's neighbors. And you still haven't disproved that. I don't know what you are checkmating.","comments":[{"id":47197798,"user":"card_zero","time":1772299095,"time_ago":"12 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

But we agree there was no India to ascribe this non-invasive nature to, before unification. With the result that India-as-a-whole is the product of aggression against neighbors, where all those neighbors became India, but only quite recently, meaning that there hasn't been much time for India as a whole to be aggressive against further neighbors.

It's like saying that the English never invaded anywhere before 927. Of course they didn't, because the first English king was crowned in 927, and before that the English were the West Saxons, South Saxons, East Angles, Middle Angles, South Angles, Men of Kent, two flavors of Northumbrians and a few stray Welsh, and they were all busy invading one another.","comments":[],"comments_count":0,"level":5,"url":"item?id=47197798"}],"comments_count":1,"level":4,"url":"item?id=47197672"}],"comments_count":2,"level":3,"url":"item?id=47197261"}],"comments_count":3,"level":2,"url":"item?id=47197075"}],"comments_count":4,"level":1,"url":"item?id=47197023"}],"comments_count":5,"level":0,"url":"item?id=47196845"}],"comments_count":6,"url":"item?id=47195977"}

Comment by card_zero