It's again complex, yes to some extent Mughals were colonisers but they eventually simply wanted to rule. It's not discussed because most history before 11th-13th century was systematically wiped out over centuries.
Pakistan and Afghanistan have little to minorities or even the memory of past left, but that's mostly what happens with cultural imperialism. There were Hindus / Bhuddist or Zorastrian in those areas, now there are none. Infact India have more Zorastrians than modern day Iran, many fled to India around 16th Century escaping similar cultural imperialism.
That's nuanced, they were always challenged every few decades, from Marathas to Ahoms in North East. Fighting with all Hindu princely state instead of making them ally would've surely might have been counter productive. While it was their intention to Islamise, and many did, but it was impossible without an extremely cultural backlash that they also feared.
Again even within their "safe" core territories we don't see an organized ongoing program of mass coerced conversion. So the point is - they weren't trying to totally Islamicize India and whether you believe that's because they didn't care to or they were afraid to due to political calculation doesn't really make a difference.
Remember, most Indians who converted did so due to the influence of wandering Sufi mystics who were regarded with suspicion by the court-aligned clerics.
Your assumption is that mass pogroms were possible, such attempts would've lead to massive revolt and unification of all hindu ally's and perhaps Mughals losing power. Having said that in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, Iran ( which was Zorastrian ), state discrimination and oppression of Zorastrians were used.
Again that doesn't mean all Indians converted through sword, but discrimination was a tool, jizya, and even extreme oppression. India has more Zorastrian than modern day Iran, more Sikhs, Jains and even countless Tribal religions. All other neighbouring countries which had Islamic rules have either a dwindling population, or nothing left.
Mughal empire was collection of many wealthy provinces, which were wealthy even before Mughals. After assuming power most Mughal ruler did nothing but wasted wealth on countless vanity projects, unlike Europeans where rulers still funded exploration and innovation.
There are a lot of architectural marvels in India from Sun temple to Ajanta and Ellora caves and Kailasa Temple. I personally never understood why more was not written about them, very few know about them.
Mughals never ruled India for more than 200-300 years, and were challenged by many regional players including Maratha's.
India has far more to offer beyond Taj, and I would say if not more equally interesting architectural marvels like Kailasa temple.
Because ancient India was extremely bad at record keeping and maintaining written works (and the destruction of Nalanda university didn't help), and relied mostly on oral traditions to record history.
Compare that to the innumerable number of Chinese texts on nearly every topic from politics and history and governance to science and engineering (fun fact, the current Indian civil service was a product of the English civil service, which in turn was inspired by the Chinese one).
Compare that to the English, where you might even be able to find the exact amount of tax owed by some Yorkshire peasant in the 16th century.
Even the Indian and South East Asian monastic orders stuck to the oral tradition, in spite of writing material being significantly more abundant over the past millennia.
If you read the Baburnama, you'll even find him lamenting about India's poor record at tax keeping records and historical records relying on oral traditions, where the narrators are prone to exaggerations and embellishments.
Thankfully India's ancient temples are much more resilient than its books, which is why rock carvings themselves are also a rich source of Indian history. The Ashoka pillar in Mehrauli being a fine example (and in effect being a historical record in itself, which is how we know a lot about the Mauryas than some later kingdoms).
But if you present your badly written requirements to a person who has the culture to ask questions, you at least have that safeguard. After all, it's a collaboration.
And when you work with an offshore team, quite often as contractors, you have the issue that you don't get top quality.
The in-between company will do its very best to hire low to maximize profit.
The good quality developers work either on local grown software, or leave the country for better opportunity.
And you are now working with a group of developers whose livelihood depends on saying 'yes' or not saying 'no.
And because of this you will not know whether there is an issue in the requirements until x time later and the plane goes down.
Racist much? I work out of Europe and manage teams both in India and Europe. My experience have pleasantly gotten better with Indian teams. If the quality is sub-par then perhaps you're not a good manager? perhaps failing upwards?
There are cultural factors you need to overcome, and it's with every international team. I am not going to simplify this, because it's a multi-faceted thing, but focusing on a single thing, for instance, propagation of bad news, India is an intensely competitive market and I need to make it abundantly clear I want to hear the bad news as soon as possible, and that I don't care about blame, as long as we learn from mistakes. From the US, I often get bad news sandwiched between good ones, so I need to redouble attention.
I am from Europe and I have worked with many Europeans, Americans and Asians. Quality of sub-contractor colleagues from India was, same as from anywhere else, directly proportional to what the company paid for them. Good pay = skilled and hard-working. Cheap labour = barely any skills and hardly working.
Nah. Its probably a case of 'you get what you pay for'. They pay for cheap teams, and those teams give them what they pay for. Good talent is expensive in all countries - even if it is relatively cheaper in India compared to SF. The MBAs don't even want to pay that much. They want dirt cheap.
I don't think China is doing as well as many Chinese might believe but this doom of China is predicted every other year. Chinese companies are making strides in battery tech ( CATL ) and robotics ( DJI, Siasun )
I don't think space fanboyism hurt anyone, if at all someone feels proud let them be as long as it's in good spirits. Comparison of SpaceX to ISRO or even other organisation seems a bit unfair, SpaceX have access to ecosystem of sensors, components that are restricted by US. Develop something as simple as reaction wheel takes decades. While I don't appreciate fanboyism in general, I also believe there is a world beyond writing a few lines of codes...
Can't say about interesting but extremely black-white approach to the world, third world countries like India taking sides would mean million dying indirectly from poverty. Russia's war is terrible but to there's no point to put a country where 30 kids die out 1000 birth to put under scrutiny for being vulnerable to energy prices.
I think I might be on the same boat. I have personally looked into all frameworks and planning to hire a team, quasar seems is one of the options.
The application isn't for any mission-critical application, revolves around curd. Quasar is a good option albeit with a lot of baggage, Flutter is clean but for Desktop use case it's still evolving.
How was your experience with Quasar? Would you recommend Flutter over Quasar?
Pakistan and Afghanistan have little to minorities or even the memory of past left, but that's mostly what happens with cultural imperialism. There were Hindus / Bhuddist or Zorastrian in those areas, now there are none. Infact India have more Zorastrians than modern day Iran, many fled to India around 16th Century escaping similar cultural imperialism.
reply