Pakistans Stolen History

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>Indus Valley 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. Indus Valley 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.

Edited by SpartaN117 - 15-Dec-2006 at 07:46

Well, then people on Wikipedia should really read it and understand it aswell.

If you go to the India article on Wiki, India is described as "Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation", which is kinda funny. (And this is the Republic of India Article)

Oh come on teldeindus we have seen this information many many times before. Its getting pretty old. But regardless, is there any way to open a dispute with the wikipedia editors to get that misinformation removed?

And another thing that bothers me is the great grammarian panini, he was clearly an ancient pakistani and the debate should be whether he was pre-afghan/pashtun or pre-panjabi or pre-kashmiri in his ethnicity but people keep referring to him as an "indian".

And I also suspect that most of the hindu epics were written and took place in afghanistan and pakistan and very little of them in the area that is the current republic of India. That needs to be squared away too its 5000 years of history that has also been stolen under the guise of "religion".

A lot of history is being stolen of Pakistan. But just to let you know there are people out there who are doing something about it.

http://www.pakhub.info/
This Site/Forum opened up just last week. Their main objective is to reclaim Pakistani heritage. I think the admin is going to get a new domain for the site next week before they really kick off the site.

If anyone wants to come along to help or discuss the issues then please feel welcome.

Spartan


Edited by SpartaN117 - 14-Dec-2006 at 16:52

Originally posted by SpartaN117 A lot of history is being stolen of Pakistan. But just to let you know there are people out there who are doing something about it. http://www.pakhub.zoomcities.com/ This Site/Forum opened up just last week. Their main objective is to reclaim Pakistani heritage. I think the admin is going to get a new domain for the site next week before they really kick off the site. If anyone wants to come along to help or discuss the issues then please feel welcome. Spartan

Originally posted by Anujkhamar This is a serious question, if my country did not call itself India in 1947 would we still be having this discussion? I believe it was Telde who first posted that the lands the Greeks called India was actually Pakistan. It's the folly of having a country called India in the Indian Subcontinent.

This argument wouldn't exits if India had decided to call them something else in 1947. That way they wouldn't be able to claim the history of the sub continent and shun the Pakistani people out.

The history belongs to the Pakistani people. Be calling it Ancient Indian, you are saying it belongs to Indians, and there is no kidding anyone who Indians are.

There is no need to have a country called Europe in Europe. If their was, they could also claim all Ancient European history as their own.
In this case there will be 2 definitions for "Ancient Europe", and misuse of the term becomes so much easier.

Whenever I see some article for "Ancient India", there is usually a Republic of India flag to go with that. Now How does this make sense?
The Pakistani people have never been under the Republic of India flag.
Because of the 2 meaning of the term. the history is Pakistan has to be called Ancient Pakistani history.


Edited by SpartaN117 - 12-Dec-2006 at 07:09

This post is absurd. Pakistan has no history. More correct statement would be Pakistan without a history. Pakistan a country born of british imperliast, now its a threat to the sourrounding nations. Rather then to work together and build a unity with other nations, its constantly causing havoc.

I think the reason pakistan can't claim the indus valley civilization as a pakistani one is because the inhabitants of the indus valley civilization were supposedly dravidian while the majority of pakistanis claim to be aryan, arab, persian, central asian turk etc.  It would be like turks claiming to be romans because they conquered Constantinople.

Edited by Guss - 12-Dec-2006 at 18:42

How do we know they were "wiped out" as opposed to just merging with the different groups that arrived in their lands? In any case I doubt they packed their bags and headed for Bharat. 

I have never heard of Aryans razing Mohenjodaro or Harappa to the ground though. Where can one read about this?