Probably not one thing but the sequence of Islamic colonialism, followed by European colonialism, followed the splitting of India, the introduction of consumerist lifestyles (plastic crap), globalism, etc.

I imagine any society where the existing stable system is violently destroyed will have issues with people not having their original culture and way of life, but also they probably had to just survive, and didn’t have time for environmental concerns.

▲

ycombinete 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

What I've learnt in this thread is the European colonialism was the only one that didn't spread through good vibes.

▲

pm90 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Islamic period in India was one of the most prosperous periods in India’s history, ever. India was responsible for 25% of the worlds GDP during Mughal Emperor Jahangirs reign. The decline of Indian economy is directly a consequence of British Policies.

▲

drTobiasFunke 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not true. It was rich, yes. The emperors took it all. The common people got nothing. Hence the big tombs etc. Indigenous institutions were destroyed, libraries and universities burnt. Religious structires destroyed and natives under constant threat and conflict. This is directly reflected by the complete lack of pioneering work in science, technology, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy and literature during this period. All of that was pre islamic invasion.

▲

SilverElfin an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes prosperous. Minus the brutal and barbaric genocide, oppressions, etc. Obviously such colonialism destroys culture and wealth even if a few powerful outsiders extract wealth for themselves. You’re whitewashing Islamic colonialism for some weird reason.

	▲	pm90 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Who are the outsiders? India has been a melting pot for “outsiders” forever; from the Greeks, Huns, Turks and Persians to Africans (Habshis in the Deccan). Once the dynasty started they considered themselves “Hindustani” and took title reflective of that. Persian was the language of bureaucracy not just in the Mughal but also the hindu Maratha courts. Painting a period that saw the largest number of hindu temples being built, the largest ever expansion in wealth of the country as some kind of despotic enslavement is historical revisionism. Yes certain islamic rulers were more orthodox than others and attempted to suppress other religions; such is the nature of the Monarchic rule. But in the net, the early modern period in India was undoubtedly a golden age for the region.

▲

sa501428 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Calling Islam in India "Islamic colonialism" is not accurate. Colonial rule generally involves a foreign power governing a territory for the benefit of an external homeland, maintaining separation from the local population, and transferring wealth.

The Delhi Sultanates and Mughal Empire were based in India. Their rulers spent and reinvested revenue there, adopted Indian customs, intermarried with local elites, and depended heavily on Hindu generals, officials, bankers, and allies. Indigenous banking networks were integral to the Mughal state, which is very different from an overseas colonial administration stealing wealth for a distant metropole.

Criticizing bad rulers is fine. Rebellions were brutally crushed and heavy taxes imposed. But that is just like every pre-modern empire. Hindu and Muslim rulers alike conquered territory, exploited peasants, and fought rivals.

British rule was completely different. India was subordinated and resources were stolen and redirected toward Britain. India went from being one of the wealthiest nations under the Mughals to a carved out husk after the British were done.

▲

drTobiasFunke 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

And no, hindu and muslim conquests were NOT alike. Krishnadevaraya defeated kalinga. Instead of destroying konark sun temple, he came back and built a similar stone chariot in hampi.

The same hampi was plundered and burnt down a century later by islamic foreign invaders.

The marathas defeated mughal empire, but you dont see delhi, fatehpur sikri etc in ruins.

Hindu conquests were like regime or government change for ordinary people. At best some changes in taxation. Islamic conquest meant their cities burnt down, institutions destroyed and life destroyed.

These are not my hallucinations, the turkic invaders proudly wrote about this themselves.

▲

uwagar 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

they deffo colonise the soundscape with call for prayer blaring 5 times a day everyday and i cant turn my ears off!

▲

SilverElfin an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You wrote all that to make a nearly worthless semantic argument about how an act of invasion, genocide, and theocratic authoritarianism is different from what you’re calling colonialism? Okay.

Indians and Hindus were obviously subordinated under Islamic rulers who arrived from elsewhere. A simple five second search would show you they imposed different taxes if you were not a Muslim. What are you even arguing about here?

	▲	pm90 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The Mughal empire cannot possibly be characterized as theocratic in any meaningful way for most of its history (of course there are exceptions). They weren’t even devout muslims themselves. They married hindu Rajputs and adopted Indian customs, translated the classical hindu texts into Persian etc.