[anaganisk]

Normally, I would agree with you, but in this context, I would say it's abad faith argument. 1. Hindus never claimed they were better than any race. They say they had an advanced understanding of science back in the days. which, in many cases, have archeological recorded evidence. 2. Northern India was plundered by invasions, which got looted of its wealth and knowledge, many temples were shut down. In those days temples played multiple roles. They played the role of banks, seed storage, schools, medical centers etc, and there were massive drives of indoctrination and destruction during that time. Which also has recorded evidence. Why do you think southern India has more Hindu cultural heritage than Northern India? There are multiple nations that have some kind of relation, ties or roots with Southern India. 3. There were several recorded attributions of scientific contributions made by Indian region scholars. 4. I read your other comment saying, we whitewashed Nalandas History, let me ask you this, why does a place of learning have drawbacks. Its a place of learning designed with a certain curriculum. You are always free not to join it if the curriculum doesnt suit you. Its like saying Havard has drawbacks because it doesnt offer Tamil Litterature degree. 5. There are several recorded interactions by scholars from foriegn regions for Nalanda. Calling Nalanda university an attempt of propganda is self hate and self depreciation. I call out propoganda always, see my comment history against govt moves, but this aint it.