u/Infamous-Jon3

So i got a disney plus subscription from my brother in canada and a vpn subscription as well as a gift and the most exciting thing i found in the catalogue was the star wars which i havent watch since its not really my generations thing. So what should I expect and in what order do i watch??

I found it ironic

So I came across this YouTube video where wildlife videographers from the BBC captured what was apparently a newly observed behaviour among female cats. I read the caption and realized it was filmed in Nepal. As you can see, the content is blocked in Nepal.

From Nepal ofc non horn dogs preferably

So I want to go and watch movies alone but ive never had the guts to ive been to anxious and scared. I have seen people on twitter saying its normal out in the west but is it normal here?

Background: This question arose while reading about Muhammad bin Qasim's conquest of Sindh (711–712 CE) and comparing it with the much earlier decline of the Indus Valley Civilization (c. 1900 BCE). I'm interested in the historiographical question of how medieval conquest narratives understood the long period between those events.

I have a historiographical question that I hope can be answered from a historical rather than a modern political perspective.

When reading about the Arab conquest of Sindh under Muhammad bin Qasim, I sometimes encounter descriptions of the conquest as bringing civilization, enlightenment, or liberation from ignorance.

What I struggle to understand is how such narratives fit into the much longer history of the Indian subcontinent.

If the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization is generally dated to around 1900 BCE, and the conquest of Sindh occurred in the early 8th century CE, that leaves roughly 2,500 years of history in between. During that period we see the rise and fall of numerous kingdoms, philosophical traditions, religious movements, literary cultures, scientific developments, and major empires.

So my question is: when medieval Islamic chroniclers described the arrival of Islam as ending an age of ignorance, how were they conceptualizing those preceding centuries? Did they view that entire period as a form of religious ignorance despite recognizing its political and cultural achievements, or am I misunderstanding how these sources were using such language?

More broadly, how do historians interpret these kinds of conquest narratives when they appear to compress thousands of years of prior history into a single pre-conquest category?

Background: This question arose while reading about Muhammad bin Qasim's conquest of Sindh (711–712 CE) and comparing it with the much earlier decline of the Indus Valley Civilization (c. 1900 BCE). I'm interested in the historiographical question of how medieval conquest narratives understood the long period between those events.

I have a historiographical question that I hope can be answered from a historical rather than a modern political perspective.

When reading about the Arab conquest of Sindh under Muhammad bin Qasim, I sometimes encounter descriptions of the conquest as bringing civilization, enlightenment, or liberation from ignorance.

What I struggle to understand is how such narratives fit into the much longer history of the Indian subcontinent.

If the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization is generally dated to around 1900 BCE, and the conquest of Sindh occurred in the early 8th century CE, that leaves roughly 2,500 years of history in between. During that period we see the rise and fall of numerous kingdoms, philosophical traditions, religious movements, literary cultures, scientific developments, and major empires.

So my question is: when medieval Islamic chroniclers described the arrival of Islam as ending an age of ignorance, how were they conceptualizing those preceding centuries? Did they view that entire period as a form of religious ignorance despite recognizing its political and cultural achievements, or am I misunderstanding how these sources were using such language?

More broadly, how do historians interpret these kinds of conquest narratives when they appear to compress thousands of years of prior history into a single pre-conquest category?

Why does the idea that Nepal belongs to a wider Indian civilizational sphere generate such a strong reaction from some nationalist groups?

As someone from Kathmandu who enjoys studying history, I've always found it difficult to see Nepal as completely separate from the broader historical developments of South Asia. When I use the term "Indian civilizational sphere," I'm not saying Nepal is politically part of India, nor am I suggesting that there is only one unified Indian civilization. What I mean is the long history of cultural, linguistic, religious, economic, and human connections that linked different parts of the subcontinent over centuries.

Looking at Nepal's past, those connections seem hard to ignore. The Khas language, from which modern Nepali developed, belongs to the Indo-Aryan language family. Linguists have often connected it to wider northwestern Indo-Aryan traditions, and some have noted similarities with older speech communities associated with areas that are now Rajasthan and Gujarat. Whether every theory is correct or not, the development of Nepali appears tied to broader linguistic movements across South Asia rather than taking place in complete isolation.

The same pattern appears in history. The western Himalayan kingdoms had close relationships with neighboring regions such as Kumaon and Garhwal. Meanwhile, the Kathmandu Valley became an important crossroads linking Tibet with the plains to the south. Merchants, pilgrims, craftsmen, and scholars regularly moved through these networks, carrying ideas, goods, and cultural influences with them.

Nepal's population also emerged through centuries of migration and interaction. Groups such as the Khas, Newars, Kiratis, and various Tibeto-Burman communities did not develop in isolation from the surrounding world. Modern genetic research generally points to a mixture of Himalayan, Tibeto-Burman, and South Asian ancestries across many Nepali populations rather than completely separate origins.

Even traditional accounts connected to the Sahs place their ancestry among medieval Rajput lineages. Whether these origin stories are viewed as historical fact, political mythology, or something in between, they show that many of the figures involved in building the Nepali state saw themselves as part of a wider subcontinental historical landscape.

Religion and culture offer similar examples. Nepal has long participated in traditions that extend across much of South Asia, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sanskrit learning, pilgrimage networks, and various intellectual and social traditions. None of this diminishes Nepal's distinct identity. Nepal has its own history, cultures, and political experience. But it also seems difficult to describe the country as a civilization that developed entirely apart from its neighbors.

Given these linguistic, historical, cultural, and demographic links, why does describing Nepal as part of a broader Indian civilizational sphere remain controversial for some people today? Is the disagreement mainly about history itself, or does it have more to do with modern nationalism, concerns about sovereignty, and the desire to maintain a separate and distinct Nepali identity?

TL;DR:

Nepal has historically been connected to the wider South Asian (or Indian) civilizational world through language, religion, trade, migration, culture, and state formation. This does not mean Nepal is politically part of India or lacks its own unique identity. Given these deep historical connections, why do some nationalist groups strongly reject the idea that Nepal belongs to a broader Indian civilizational sphere? Is the opposition mainly based on historical disagreements, or is it driven more by modern concerns about national identity and sovereignty?