>>212901619>India didn't fall due to warfare or occupationBULLSHIT! India experienced centuries of military conquest and foreign rule, which had deep and lasting effects on its social, political, and economic structures.
The Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire both reshaped large parts of northern and central India, and the British Raj imposed systemic changes across the entire subcontinent. These weren’t just passing occupations.
>The Mughals had virtually no state capacity. India was basically an anarchyBULLSHIT! Mugals ran a sophisticated taxation apparatus (the Mansabdari system), maintained records, funded massive infrastructure and patronized the arts and sciences. At its peak under Akbar and Aurangzeb, the Mughal state controlled a vast, complex, and highly governed territory. Claiming it was <anarchy> is historical revisionism bordering on ignorance.
ㅡ ㅡ ㅡ ㅡ ㅡ ㅡ ㅡ ㅡ ㅡ ㅡ ㅡ
I mean, Modern Hinduism bears little resemblance to the open, artistic, and spiritually liberal culture that once defined ancient India. What was once a civilization that celebrated sexuality through temple art and saw eroticism as part of sacred ritual has, over centuries of Islamic domination, morphed into a far more repressive, conservative version of itself. The long period of Mughal rule didn’t just reshape India’s political landscape.
it left deep scars on its cultural identity, introducing puritanical attitudes toward sex, gender, and morality that were foreign to Vedic or classical Hindu traditions.
The result is a kind of <Neo-Hinduism> one that carries the external symbols of the past but has internalized many of the restrictive values brought in from outside. In many ways, modern Hinduism is a hybrid, shaped as much by centuries of Islamic influence as by its own native roots and the vibrant, sensuous ethos of ancient India has largely been forgotten. Sad!
