[gman99]

>>our country has NEVER gone and attacked anyone in the past 3000 years.

Well, our country didn't exist pre-1947, but we're arguing semantics now. Still, it's kindof bonkers to define the border of a fairly young "nation" over a period of 3000years. If you do that, then you need to consider the Mughal campaigns in Central Asia as they attacked Samarkhamd (Persia) as well as Kandahar (also persian held at the time). Or do you not consider them Indian?

OK then, consider that the Chola empire conquered sections of South East Asia. But perhaps you dismiss these conquests as exaggerations? (note that there is overwhelming evidence that atleast ports were raided even if there was no lasting presence -- it's still an "attack")

But if we are going to be pedantic, even post-Independence India declared war on Portugal and is considered the aggressor state when it "invaded" Goa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Goa

[monsterix]

Mmm, you're right w.r.t Goa and extricating out Bangladesh off Pakistan's. But there is much more prior to these controlled aggressions - for example "suspension of civil liberties" for those who lived under Portugese administration (see wikipedia). Let's also not forget that Goa was a colony of Portugal but originally it was a part of our land. Similarly sandwiching between Pakistan on left and Pakistan II on right wasn't a great experience either.

To get pedantic on this subject, even the Mughals aren't originally from India. Mughal campaigns in Central Asia was also about plundering and ruling India, it's not the other way round. In fact original Indians are not even Aryans (I am an Aryan) of European descendence for that matter. So my estimate of 3000 years stands corrected, it goes way further back than that.

Sentinals, for example in my prior comment, are aboriginal of the Indian peninsula. The other term used to represent aboriginal Hindus is the Dravidians. This land has chosen entropy over order, I can assure you.