[SilverElfin]

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.

[pm90]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[drTobiasFunke]

The temples built were by hindu empires like the vijayanagara empire or the marathas later who ruled significant parts of India coinciding with the turkic invasion and occupation that you are conveniently not taught in schools. The trukuc invasion left behind a trail of destroyed temples and coties. From sun temple of multan to martand temple in kashmir to ayodhya to mathura to kashi to hampi to belur and halebidu.. its literally a trail of ruins left behind. I dont even know why you are trying to argue that turkic occupation of India was somehow good for natives. The lack of pioneering art, science, technology, philosophy, astronomy, mathematics and literature during this period shows that ordinary people were just trying to survive and could not produce any of these works. Almost all of those great works were before 1000 ad.