Invaders have been mingling with invaded since long in South Asia. Evidence of this mixing is everywhere, for example many shades of skin people have, even when living side by side.
Even Aryans, who are forefathers of current Hindus, were invaders at one time. And yet their language, Sanskrit, now forms the core of most languages in South Asia.
This. Almost everyone is an "invader" of some kind. The difference is whether they settled here or looted (the British). And I think we could have industrialized without the British. They build railroads and a bureaucracy not for our well being, but to make the extraction of resources more efficient. The idea of a unified subcontinent existed far earlier than the Mughals, look at the Mauryan Empire.
As to what they've given us: the Aryans brought Sanskrit and Hinduism, the Arabs brought Islam. The British brought English, industrialization, bureaucracy, and their school system.
^ it wouldnt be at that time, remember the Bamyan Budhas?
Bamyan Budhas were pre-Invasion period. If that were present there at the time of invasions, this raises a BIG question? Why our But shikan Mehmood Ghaznavi started his holy journey of destroying idols from his home?
One should not conflate invaders with migrants. Also, Aryan "invasion" theory is highly debatable and controversial. Many argue that euro-centric indologists propounded the theory to "prove" their superiority viz-a-viz the natives.
One should not conflate civilization with territory. Let me elaborate. At the time of Gandhara civilization, there were no "Afghan" nor "Afghanistan". Indeed, it may be considered a subset of Indic civilization.
One should not conflate invaders with migrants. Also, Aryan "invasion" theory is highly debatable and controversial. Many argue that euro-centric indologists propounded the theory to "prove" their superiority viz-a-viz the natives.
One should not conflate civilization with territory. Let me elaborate. At the time of Gandhara civilization, there were no "Afghan" nor "Afghanistan". Indeed, it may be considered a subset of Indic civilization.
so acharya, do you think there was anything postive due to these invasions?
Jatts were locals
