ignored India

Hyderabad was a different case because he preferred pakistan next to independance & he had his own army which let loose a rein of terror on the Hindu population which started protesting when Nizam decided to prefer Pak & his army also started raiding the adjoining surrounding indian territory. These territories were swarmed by  hindu refugees fleeing the repression of the Nizam whose army would in turn raid India under the pretext of attacking these fleeing refugees. Indian government than realised that Hyderabad being surrounded by India from all sides would become a major security burden, if it were to go to Pakistan & the number of refugees pouring in the neighbouring would be too much for them to handle. 

The military was involved in Goa though, did you not check the link?

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13563

Vivek Sharma if you are reading, about the 1000 years without invasions, you are forgetting the invasion of Central Asia (1645-1647?) by the Mughal empire under Shah Jahan, against the khan of Samarkand and the Sha Abbas II of Persia, wich conquered Kandahar.

Edited by Ikki - 13-Nov-2006 at 16:13

I think thats very accurate pinguin 

The problem is not with India or Indian history, but the attitude of non-Indians (including the pre-1947 ones) with India.

Originally posted by pinguin ...

Althought i agree greatly with you about eurocentrism, wiht your main argument wich is that the importance is defined according the relation with the west, i must say that he question here isn't the influence of India in the West. In fact, India was until 1960 one of the more importants non europeans actor in western historiography. Why had lost positions with east asian countries, specially Japan and China? This only can be explained according with her geopolitical position.