First of all The nation of Pakistan was created not because of their seperate history or ethnicity but as a sperate land for the Muslims of the entire Indian subcontinent. and whatever might have happened in past but atleast by the beginnning of the 20th century Indian subcntinent was considered as the Single entity.
This is what the Allama Iqbal (the one who gave the idea of Pakistan) wrote in 1904, althaugh it is another thing that he changed his tune after few years.
ए अब रौद गंगा वो दिन है याद तुझको उतर तेरे किनारे जब कारवाँ हमारा ॥४॥
मज़हब नहीं सिखाता आपस मे बैर रखना हिन्दी है हम वतन है हिन्दोस्तान हमारा ॥५॥
युनान-ओ-मिस्र-ओ-रोमा सब मिट गये जहाँ से अब तक मगर है बाकी नाम-ओ-निशान हमारा ॥६॥
O the flowing waters of the Ganges, do you remember that day When our caravan first disembarked on your waterfront?
Religion does not teach us to bear ill-will among ourselves We are of Hind, our homeland is Hindustan.
In a world in which ancient Greece, Egypt, and Rome have all vanished without trace Our own attributes (name and sign) live on today.
However even for the sack of the argument we accept that the Pakistan has seperate history then the biggest villain is not India but Pakistan itself. They themselves named their missiles - Ghori, Ghazni, Abdali etc. which if we look in the context of history actually are actually Afghans rulers who raided and plundered the territories of the presant day Pakistan and as such they should be considered the villains of Pakistani History. However they are admired only because they attcked the India!!! They should first change the name of the missiles before blaming the Indians.
Land of pakistan today has a seperate history from indians, especially western Pakistan, I mean what do Baloch, Pashtuns, Kalash, Hunza people have to with Indians or India?
Also while Punjabis and Sindhis are mostly indic, they themselves have been heavily influenced by populations living west of them, since they always were border populations. I think Punjab/Sindh are really the dividing point of what you call south asia and central asia/middle eastern region.
Also about your last point, there are 25% pashtuns in pakistan army, they may have named those missiles, who knows, because those people were the ancestors of pashtuns and afghans
Land of pakistan today has a seperate history from indians, especially western Pakistan, I mean what do Baloch, Pashtuns, Kalash, Hunza people have to with Indians or India?
Also while Punjabis and Sindhis are mostly indic, they themselves have been heavily influenced by populations living west of them, since they always were border populations. I think Punjab/Sindh are really the dividing point of what you call south asia and central asia/middle eastern region.
Also about your last point, there are 25% pashtuns in pakistan army, they may have named those missiles, who knows, because those people were the ancestors of pashtuns and afghans
Wwhatever happened after 1947 is the seperate history of Pakistan. However same can't be said for the timeperiod before the 1947. The land of Pakistan (including the western Pakistan) shares the common history of atleast 2000 years with India, which isn't a small time period.
Also about your last point, there are 25% pashtuns in pakistan army, they may have named those missiles, who knows, because those people were the ancestors of pashtuns and afghans
Then by looking from the Pakistani persepctive presented by the OP, those people aren't loyal to Pakistan, as they admire the people who plundered the Pakistan (althaugh there wasn't any such nation before 1947)!!!! Also 75% people still have non Afghan ancestory. They didn't raise any objection either. And most importantly the naming of millitary vehicles and weapons is serious issue. The fact is that Pakistan named all those missiles just because they conquered the India and in doing so they themselves rejected their claim on their own history.
Also Pakistan can say that IVC is part of their history, which basically should be part of their history. However that doesn't mean that it isn't the part of Indian history. Asia minor is part of Greek history even thaugh it isn't under the greek occupation.
This is what the Allama Iqbal (the one who gave the idea of Pakistan) wrote in 1904, althaugh it is another thing that he changed his tune after few years.
In a world in which ancient Greece, Egypt, and Rome have all vanished without trace Our own attributes (name and sign) live on today.
Was he for real?
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Land of pakistan today has a seperate history from indians, especially western Pakistan, I mean what do Baloch, Pashtuns, Kalash, Hunza people have to with Indians or India?
Also while Punjabis and Sindhis are mostly indic, they themselves have been heavily influenced by populations living west of them, since they always were border populations. I think Punjab/Sindh are really the dividing point of what you call south asia and central asia/middle eastern region.
Also about your last point, there are 25% pashtuns in pakistan army, they may have named those missiles, who knows, because those people were the ancestors of pashtuns and afghans
Wwhatever happened after 1947 is the seperate history of Pakistan. However same can't be said for the timeperiod before the 1947. The land of Pakistan (including the western Pakistan) shares the common history of atleast 2000 years with India, which isn't a small time period.
Also about your last point, there are 25% pashtuns in pakistan army, they may have named those missiles, who knows, because those people were the ancestors of pashtuns and afghans
Then by looking from the Pakistani persepctive presented by the OP, those people aren't loyal to Pakistan, as they admire the people who plundered the Pakistan (althaugh there wasn't any such nation before 1947)!!!! Also 75% people still have non Afghan ancestory. They didn't raise any objection either. And most importantly the naming of millitary vehicles and weapons is serious issue. The fact is that Pakistan named all those missiles just because they conquered the India and in doing so they themselves rejected their claim on their own history.
Also Pakistan can say that IVC is part of their history, which basically should be part of their history. However that doesn't mean that it isn't the part of Indian history. Asia minor is part of Greek history even thaugh it isn't under the greek occupation.
oh please, your acting as if present day indians ruled what is pakistan today, this is pure BS. If you look at actual history Pakistani land was part of persian, arab, central asian, even greeks for very very long times during history, yet present India was almost never under them. Also western pakistan has nothing to do with India, even well before 1947 they were a totally different people from Indians
as for IVC, it also belongs to Pakistan, what do bengalis, central indians, south indians have to do with IVC?, only northwest indians like Punjabis, Rajahistanis mayhave links with it
First of all The nation of Pakistan was created not because of their seperate history or ethnicity but as a sperate land for the Muslims of the entire Indian subcontinent. and whatever might have happened in past but atleast by the beginnning of the 20th century Indian subcntinent was considered as the Single entity.
This is what the Allama Iqbal (the one who gave the idea of Pakistan) wrote in 1904, althaugh it is another thing that he changed his tune after few years.
ए अब रौद गंगा वो दिन है याद तुझको उतर तेरे किनारे जब कारवाँ हमारा ॥४॥
मज़हब नहीं सिखाता आपस मे बैर रखना हिन्दी है हम वतन है हिन्दोस्तान हमारा ॥५॥
युनान-ओ-मिस्र-ओ-रोमा सब मिट गये जहाँ से अब तक मगर है बाकी नाम-ओ-निशान हमारा ॥६॥
O the flowing waters of the Ganges, do you remember that day When our caravan first disembarked on your waterfront?
Religion does not teach us to bear ill-will among ourselves We are of Hind, our homeland is Hindustan.
In a world in which ancient Greece, Egypt, and Rome have all vanished without trace Our own attributes (name and sign) live on today.
However even for the sack of the argument we accept that the Pakistan has seperate history then the biggest villain is not India but Pakistan itself. They themselves named their missiles - Ghori, Ghazni, Abdali etc. which if we look in the context of history actually are actually Afghans rulers who raided and plundered the territories of the presant day Pakistan and as such they should be considered the villains of Pakistani History. However they are admired only because they attcked the India!!! They should first change the name of the missiles before blaming the Indians.
oh please, your acting as if present day indians ruled what is pakistan today, this is pure BS. If you look at actual history Pakistani land was part of persian, arab, central asian, even greeks for very very long times during history, yet present India was almost never under them. Also western pakistan has nothing to do with India, even well before 1947 they were a totally different people from Indians
as for IVC, it also belongs to Pakistan, what do bengalis, central indians, south indians have to do with IVC?, only northwest indians like Punjabis, Rajahistanis mayhave links with it
Well first of all there wasn't any country called Pakistan before 1947. So theoritically one can't say that the Indians ruled Pakistan before 1947. However the people residing in that part were identified as Indians or the part of Indian civilization. Pakistan itself was created as a seperate homeland for the Muslims of entire Indian subcontinent and not because of seperate identity.
If you look at actual history Pakistani land was part of persian, arab, central asian, even greeks for very very long times during history, yet present India was almost never under them. Also western pakistan has nothing to do with India, even well before 1947 they were a totally different people from Indians
See thats what I was telling. India hasn't stolen any history of Pakistan. The Pakistan itself hid its own history. The land that came under the boundry of Pakistan was the part of mainstream Indian civilization during the Vedic age and even during the period of Mahajanpadas. Gandhara and Kamboj were two of the the 16 Mahajanpadas or the city states. Even After that it was frequently under the Indian rule during the reign of Mauryas, Guptas, Harsha, Palas, Sikhs and Marathas (including parts of western pakistan in case of Mauryas, Palas and Sikhs). They should all be part of history of Pakistan. Even the Greeks who ruled that area are called the Indo greeks and not perso greeks or Afghan greeks or anything else for a reason. Same can be said to some extent for the scythians and parthians who are called Indo scythians and indo parthians. Also many parts of the mainland India itself were under the foreign rule for atleast 600 to 700 years (Afghans, Turks, Mongols, Europeans ) thats doesn't mean that it isn't the part of India anymore!!! Althaugh I agree that the western Pakistan has more to do with Afghanistan and Persia in 1947 but same isn't true for the past history.
Just because a boundry was drawn in 1947 doesn't mean that History of India should be divided too. However the problem is the Pakistan doesn't want any shared identity with Indian at all (atleast thats the trend untill now). They rather like to glorify the Ghazni, Ghori, Abdali who were foreigners and plundered the land of their ancestors rather than admiring their own heroes. However the fact remains that culturally Pakistan is still closer to the India than to the Persia or to the Arabs.
as for IVC, it also belongs to Pakistan, what do bengalis, central indians, south indians have to do with IVC?, only northwest indians like Punjabis, Rajahistanis mayhave links with it
Perhaps not as a bengali or as south Indians but as an Indian they can surely say that IVC is part of Indian history.
It is the part of the famous Urdu poem - सारे जहाँ से अच्छा हिन्दोस्तान हमारा ie - ie Bettter than entire world is our Hindustan written by the Famous Urdu poet - Allama iqbal. I have already posted the translation of those particular stanzas below the devanagri script.
oh come on. He was just a poet and not a historian.
Althaugh in his defance he was trying to make one particular point, however lets not discuss it as It will start the whole east vs west arguments which I always hate.
I have been following this forum for the past couple of weeks, firstly i would like to appreciate pakistani's here as they show extreme reverence towards their pre-islamic history. generally as an indian i always tought that pakistanis being muslims were ashamed of their pre-vedic history. It really amazed me when i came across this post. there is no denying that vedic period has its roots in east afghanistan and most of the present day pakistan. in fact our vedas tell the same. and you also can't deny the fact that present day central indians, south indians and east indians were not vedic people. however they were lot of migrations from vedic land (east afghanistan, present pakistan and north india) down towards south and central india. south indian brahmins(though most of them are mixed stock now, including my self :P) consider that their ancestors were once vedic aryans who migrated down south to spread vedic teachings. We also believe that our ancestors were the great vedic saints. my point is that while most of the modern day indians can't claim vedic heritage there were quite a few number in the early past who were vedic people.
coming to IVC(man, i dunno what but i always wanted to visit these sites, too bad i can't :O) no one isn't sure who IVC people were, while dravidians claiming that its them, but their own legend about their origins contridicts it. they have a legend that they actually arrived in india when an mystical island (kumarikandam) was sunken. If AIT is true, well current day pakistanis, north west indians can't claim it either. so, as some one already mentioned in this post, only punjabis and sindhis can claim IVC as their heritage.
BTW, are pashtuns an aryan tribe ?, in rig veda there is mention of some of pashtun tibes like present day afridis. But i have also heard that pashtuns and some of the kashmiris are semitic people who migrated from isreal. If i offend some pashtun here i apologize in advance.I have read it on the internet(it could well to false :)).
This is not entirely true. Indians and Pakistanis are for the most part ethnically the same, (tho not including tribes like pashtuns in pak or gurkhas in india). The average person from Karachi and a person from Delhi look exactly alike. In 1947 there were mass migrations taking place. My grandfather and all of my ancestors up to him had called what is now pakistan their home. Because he was a Sikh, he and millions of others migrated to the Indian punjab, and vice versa millions of muslims went to pakistan who had previously called india home for generations. Before 1947 people never identified themselves as pakistani, they were muslim indians. States like Punjab were literally split in half. The countries that we now know as India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal had always been known as India until 47. The people of the Indus Civ are shrouded in mystery, no one knows what they looked like and their language is non decipherable. Pakistanis AND Indians are not related to the original inhabitants at all, just like Italians are not Romans and modern Egyptians are not descended from Pharaohs.
This is not entirely true. Indians and Pakistanis are for the most part ethnically the same, (tho not including tribes like pashtuns in pak or gurkhas in india).
WRONG. Only Punjabis are the same people in both countries. Punjabis are less then 3% of the Indian population and over 40% of the population in Pakistan. if pakistanis and indians looked the same then why are indians seen as different looking from pakistanis? we pakistanis can recognise a indian from kilometres away.
Originally posted by Scyth
The average person from Karachi and a person from Delhi look exactly alike. In 1947 there were mass migrations taking place.
that's only because muhajirs (aka Indian Muslim immigrants to Pakistan) make up a big number of the population in Karachi. less than 8% of pakistanis (Muhajirs) have roots in India. the rest of pakistanis are NATIVE to pakitan. if they looked the same then why muhajirs have a reputation for being "indian looking" in pakistan?
Originally posted by Scyth
Before 1947 people never identified themselves as pakistani, they were muslim indians.
they were called "Indians" by foreign people. The regular person did not identify as "indian" but rather with their tribe or ethnicity. the regular person in the middle east does not identify their ethnicity as "middle eastern" or people in the far east to not say theyre ethnically "far eastern".
I am pakistani myself, and I can say most eastern Pakistan are pretty similar to their north indian neighbors. Not sure why some pakistanis act as if Pakistan is a totally different country from India, even genetics are proving them wrong. Av average Lahore person is pretty similar to a person in Delhi. Of course religions make it a bit different, but overall it's pretty similar
The only different Pakistanis are western Baloch/Pashtuns and northern Dardic people. Their culture, looks, genetics are different from south asians. They are more closer to central and west asia
Majority of Pakistani people are genetically different from the people of Republic of India. Here is a chart which shows the genetic difference of genetic admix between Pakistani people and those from Republic of India.
Ticker, can you provide the name of the study you got the chart from and/or link to it? It is important all sources used in the forum to be referenced properly, so other members can find and read the whole study. Genetic studies in particular are dependent on the representation of group of people used for genetic research; and one cannot judge how well a specific group represents a whole country if info about the group, /which is always given in the research paper/ is not available.
Okay. I know this is subject to a lot of flaming, and I ask everyone to please keep this discussion mature. I am willing to answer ANY questions.
Here is the Article: Found this at http://www.pakhub.info/art001.php
Lets for the sake of argument say that Germany changes its name to Europe.
Does this give (the new) Europe the right to
claim its history as 'ancient European', and include the Roman, British and
Portuguese empire as its own?
This is exactly what has happened in South Asia.
Please read and discover the events.
'India'
prior to 1947 was never a country. It was a name given to the entire
subcontinent. When the British invaded the subcontinent, they grouped the
entire region as a Country, and called it British India.
This has lead to the misunderstanding that India before 1947 was one entity.
In 1947, two countries were born in South Asia.
One of the countries took up the former name of the subcontinent, giving the
impression that it was the 'parent country'. Therefore it is important to note
that Ancient Indian history is only the history of Modern India. Not South Asia.
<u>IndusValley
and Harappan Civilisation.</u>
Indus valley is an interesting topic. Indians
from all over the world seem to claim Indus valley civilisation as Indian
history, because they are under the impression that modern India is the parent country, which was once the
entire subcontinent of South Asia. Apart from
the name, IVC has almost nothing to do with Modern India. IndusValley
settlements are located all over Southern Asia.
These include, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan,
northwest India, and of
course Pakistan.
However, the Main IVC cities, aswell as the majority are in Pakistan. The
main ones being, Harappa and Mohenjodaro.
Many people argue that Pakistan
was born in 1947. It doesn't have an ancient history. Well the history belongs
to the Pakistani people. They do have an ancient history. India has
nothing to do with the Pakistani people, and it is absurd to let them claim the
History of the Pakistani people.
The people of Pakistan
have <u>always</u> lived there. Indus Valley Civilisation history
belongs to the people of Pakistan
regardless what they call themselves. Boundaries changed, however the people
didn't.
There is no denying Pakistan was a part of British India, or the 'Indian
subcontinent' (aka South Asia), but referring to Pakistan's ancient history as
Ancient Indian history, is Very misleading, as the subcontinent is no longer
called India. India
today is a modern country born in 1947, which has its own Ancient history
limited to within the boundaries of Modern India.
IVC can be referred to as Ancient South Asian history, if the approximate
region of the civilisation needs to be given.
For the sake of correctness and knowledge of Ancient civilisations, I hope this
misunderstanding can be corrected. Even the Ancient Indian history should be
broken down into more detailed sub categories. India is the home to a lot of
different people.
Grouping the history of all these people to give the impression that India has
always contained one group of people and Ancient Indian history belongs to this
one group, is misleading.
This is the reason why it is incorrect to even label IVC as Ancient South Asian
history. South Asia is home to 1.6 billion people, which is way too broad to
describe the people of Indus valley, which is now Pakistan.
Sure this is no harm in mentioning the settlements outside
of Pakistan (India, Iran,
Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Kashmir), however one has to
remember that Pakistan
is the home of it.
Alright let me try my level best to be good and nice in my words.
To start with I completely agree that Germany Changing its name as "Europe" will not let it claim the glory of Roman Empire, British Empire and more (perfectly true)
How about thinking other way around?
Just because Europe was given a new name "will not hold its rights to claim the European glorious days. ______________________________________________________________________________
India is India through out history: Before speaking of names (of nations or any other stuffs) one must understand that names are pronounced and written not based in "English" (in terms of History, English itself is fairly new) and so back in ancient times there was rarely a common language and words were written or pronounced completely differently in different languages.
The word India comes from Indus River, in fact the word H' indus" itself comes from Indus River. People of Indus later became Indians.
Ancient Greeks know Indians as "Indoi" (Ινδοί) which means "the People of Indus", even back in Alexander's time India's economic and Resource richness was well known in Greece (and later in Rome).
Thinking that British gave the name India is completely stupidity, as British Lands were hardly Civilized back then, even the Romans or Classic Greek Times are yet to come by the time Indians was known as " Indoi".
The notion is completely different, the English word "India" (i.e Written in English Script) came from Greek word "Ἰνδία" this is rather misinterpreted as the term "India" was given by British. ______________________________________________________________________________
And now moving back to claiming Indus Glory, India rightfully gets most glory because by Religion, People and more it deserves the lion share of the credit. The Indus Vally Civilization and its people always moved towards India (so says History).
But I am not saying Pakistan doesn't deserve its share of credits, almost all the Pakistanis today are Hindus back in History (ancestry) and some can surely trace back their ancestry back to Indus Valley Civilization.
Pakistan was fairly new, even though it existed back in history but only as a part of India. Nations might be called by different names, but their history is traced back by Culture, Religion, language and more (but certainly not location).
I am not a Business Acumen expert, I just share what little I know.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum