How many times has India invaded a foreign nation ---if at all ?

[civfanatic]

Does operation cactus count as invasion?

An intervention is not the same as invasion, IMO.

Operation Vijay (invasion of Goa) and Operation Polo (invasion of Hyderabad) are considered "invasions" by Westerners, but I do not view them as such.

 

[ashdoc]

how about our first invasion viz Ayodhya's invasion of Lanka. Many people here would dismiss it as "Mythology". I personally see Ramayana as "spiced up" history and I do not believe in "Devas" and "Rakshashas", certainly not the meaning most people attribute to them. Comments welcome

their is no historical record for existence of ram........or any other characters of ramayana........historians haven't found a shred of evidence that such people existed.........mahabharat ,on the other hand is based upon the dim memory of events past.........of course massively spiced up ,with people credited with extraordinary ,almost magical weapons and powers ,and of course ,painting the eventual winners as heroes ........though many historians believe that the kauravas were the victims rather than villains ........their only mistake being ........they were killed , and history being written by victors , nobody among them was alive to take their side when the mahabharat was written......

 

[tarunraju]

east pakistan is not truely foreign territory...........it was created out of our own nation ,remember....

No, it was a truly foreign territory as of 1971. India had no sovereign right on East Pakistan whatsoever. That is adequate to make it count as an invasion of a foreign nation.

India wasn't a nation before 15-8-1947. It was a colony, before which it was a bunch of kingdoms.

 

[Rahul92]

We are never aggressive by nature

 

[luckyy]

sorry , can not understand how does the post/image has any relevence to the thread..?

 

[Vinod2070]

Well, if we consider Afghanistan as a foreign nation, it was part of several Indian empires including the Moryans and then Harshwardhana. I think the Gupta empire also included that region.

Somewhere along the way, we lost our vitality and became overly pacifists. That is when the invasions started happening in the reverse direction.

 

[The Messiah]

Well, if we consider Afghanistan as a foreign nation, it was part of several Indian empires including the Moryans and then Harshwardhana. I think the Gupta empire also included that region.

Somewhere along the way, we lost our vitality and became overly pacifists. That is when the invasions started happening in the reverse direction.

Perhaps more significance was given to religon and caste ?

 

[luckyy]

lets not be in any wrong impression that " if at all , india/indian/we/@@@@ ever invaded a foreign nation .

those rajes-maharajes always keep fighting with each other to speards their kingdom...

 

[sandeepdg]

Invading a country just to show your strength is nothing more than false bravado and foolish pride, is what I think !! We are better off not being invaders.

 

[Shaitan]

I think modern Indians are MUCH more aggressive then ancient one's. We can learn from British, like they learned from the Romans. Its usually the nations with the lesser amount of resources and small GDP that invades other nations. I think Indians pretty much had every resource needed back in those times in they're home turf. Cholas only invaded S.E. Asia because the S.E. Asian kingdoms disrupted the trade between China and India. So they went their and grabbed all of it.

 

[pmaitra]

yes.......after alexander's death ,punjab was conquered by chandragupta maurya under the able guidance of chanakya vishnugupta..........his general selucos nicator invaded punjab to reconquer it............but he found himself surrounded by a much larger mauryan force numbered in the lakhs........he was forced to cede baluchistan and afghanistan along with punjab ,and marry his daughter helena to chandragupta.

You are right. If I may add, Chandragupta also captured Gandhara Province (present day region of Kandahar).

 

[pmaitra]

their is no historical record for existence of ram........or any other characters of ramayana........historians haven't found a shred of evidence that such people existed.........mahabharat ,on the other hand is based upon the dim memory of events past.........of course massively spiced up ,with people credited with extraordinary ,almost magical weapons and powers ,and of course ,painting the eventual winners as heroes ........though many historians believe that the kauravas were the victims rather than villains ........their only mistake being ........they were killed , and history being written by victors , nobody among them was alive to take their side when the mahabharat was written......

Mahabharata is not a memory of the past but a prediction of the future. It was a prediction of the future as Jyotishastri (Astrologer) Ved Vyas saw and recited to Ganesha, who in turn wrote it down. Hence, Ved Vyas already knew what was going to happen in the future. That is Mahabharata!