Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Pakistans Stolen History
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 11>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
CHAUDRY View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-May-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote CHAUDRY Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Pakistans Stolen History
    Posted: 14-Dec-2006 at 05:08
Originally posted by maqsad

Is there even any evidence of a big battle or a flood in Harrapa or Mohenjodaro? What about the buried bodies there, any signs of fractures? And how do they compare to past bodies in terms of bone structure. People should not swing wild theories around without proper evidence to support them. 
 
The IVC is thought to be almost demised allready,  before the aryan invasion (1500bc) took place. The reason for the IVC "collapse" is thought to be some natural disaster, probably shifting of the river flow, and the resulting water-shortage in the cities.
But there also have been discovered some traces of violent killings from one of the two cities (i don't remember whether it was mohenjodaro or harappa), the number though is very low. From this it is concluded the aryan invasion isn't the main cause of IVC's collapse.
no comment
Back to Top
SpartaN117 View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 120 		  Quote SpartaN117 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2006 at 05:50
Well, so much for the history of Indus Valley.

At least all of us agree (except one or two) that Indus Valley should be known as Pakistani and not Indian.
Calling it ancient Indian doesnt even make sense, since India was never united as a country prior to the 1800s.

I hope I can takes this forward to Historians who are willing to understand. I for one really want to know, how anyone can call IV Indian? Nothing I can think of relates IV to India.
Back to Top
M. Nachiappan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

suspended

Joined: 09-Jun-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 315 		  Quote M. Nachiappan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 02:37
As I have already pointed out, Jinnah, EVR and Ambedkar met to chalk out to create a party against Congress.
 
At that time, they also discussed about the "commanality" of their respective groups, as they were all against Hindus, Sanskrit, Hindi, Brahmins etc., and all could come under the category of "Dravidians", as they wanted to act against "Aryans" including the British.
 
Here, we do not know whether they believed in "race theory or hypothesis".
 
Ambedkar has been however, specific in his writings pointing out that racially, there were no "Aryans" or "Dravidians".
 
Therefore, Pakistanis to claim any exclusive nature of demand would have to face historical realities.
 
From India, Pakistan as come, mainly because of religion. Were they not Indians before?
 
From Pakistan, Bangladesh has come, mainly because of culture. Were they not Pakistan before? Though, they were Muslims, they got liberated for the reasons. Can Bangladeshis claim IVC, just because they are Muslims or were Pakistanis also earlier?
 
I do not think changing religion, nation, language etc., peopple would change or will be changing.
 
We have to realize that all humanbeings are one irrespective of our exhibited differences.
 
IVS has been the world heritage monument. Not only, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, Nepalese, every world citizen can feel proud about it.
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 02:59
Originally posted by M.Niachappan

As I have already pointed out, Jinnah, EVR and Ambedkar met to chalk out to create a party against Congress. At that time, they also discussed about the "commanality" of their respective groups, as they were all against Hindus, Sanskrit, Hindi, Brahmins etc., and all could come under the category of "Dravidians", as they wanted to act against "Aryans" including the British.
 
This is a load of crap. Dravidian is an ethnic group with quite distinctive features. Jinnah could perhaps fall in many different ethnic groups, but he could not ever be classed as Dravidian. Jinnah just wanted freedom from Hinduism, that was the basis of two nation theory, that Muslims needed to have their own state. It had nothing to do with Aryan/Dravidian. In fact some Dravidian people came to Pakistan at Partition.
 
Here, we do not know whether they believed in "race theory or hypothesis".
 
Dont know what you're on about here.
 
Ambedkar has been however, specific in his writings pointing out that racially, there were no "Aryans" or "Dravidians".
 
Alright so? 
 
Therefore, Pakistanis to claim any exclusive nature of demand would have to face historical realities.
 
From India, Pakistan as come, mainly because of religion. Were they not Indians before?
 
More crap. Which region was called India first? I'll give you a clue, it was the country containing the INDus River. India just copied the name over after Partition. Before Partitition Pakistanis were a part of British India for a couple of hundred years, other than that, there's never really been any unification for a period of the about 5000 years except under the Mauryas.
 
From Pakistan, Bangladesh has come, mainly because of culture. Were they not Pakistan before? Though, they were Muslims, they got liberated for the reasons. Can Bangladeshis claim IVC, just because they are Muslims or were Pakistanis also earlier?
 
You make absolutely no sense. Bangladesh cannot claim the IVC..Bangladesh is located 1000 miles or so East of the Indus Valley. The Indus Valley civilization never existed in Bangladesh and finally Bangladeshis were known as Pakistanis for only a very short period in their history..this does not make them Pakistani or mean they have a Pakistani heritage. Bangladesh's heritage is what the history of the land of Bangladesh has been..whoever lived there, and nobody of the current day Pakistanis lived there, so their heritage isnt the same.
 
I do not think changing religion, nation, language etc., peopple would change or will be changing.
 
We have to realize that all humanbeings are one irrespective of our exhibited differences.
 
IVS has been the world heritage monument. Not only, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, Nepalese, every world citizen can feel proud about it.
Indians can only claim to be a part of the Indus Valley Civilization in South Gujerat, Afghanis can claim to be a part of the Indus Valley Civilization, but only Pakistan can claim to be the Indus Civilization.

Edited by TeldeInduz - 15-Dec-2006 at 03:01
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
M. Nachiappan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

suspended

Joined: 09-Jun-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 315 		  Quote M. Nachiappan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 03:49

You have been highly emotional in dealith the issue.

Actually, I do not know the meaning of the word "crap" and then I found that it has the following meanings:
  1. Excrement.
  2. An act of defecating.
  3. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
  4. Cheap or shoddy material.
  5. Miscellaneous or disorganized items; clutter.
  6. Insolent talk or behavior.
I do not think that this is proper without understanding the contemporary facts.
 
I know very well there were crores of Hindus there in Lahore, Ravalpindi and other places and their grand-daughters and sons are now in India.

Because of partition, they came here, as otherwise, they would have been there only, as there have been crores o Muslims even now in India.

In fact, for many of them, their "native place" has been in "Pakistan".

I talk about the three involved as mentioned pointing out the difference of Ambedkar.

When Ambedkar concluded so, you ave to find out whether Jinnah was a Dravidian or Aryan?

If Pakistanis have been so attached to IVC, then, they should say as to whether they are Aryans or Dravidians.

When I mentioned - India, Pakista, Bangladesh, missing the point, you are sidetracking the issue saying that Bangladeshis cannot clim IVC, as they are ar away. Before their independence, what and how they were claiming?

In good spirit, I mention that al humanbeings are one irrespective of the external difference exhibited adding that it is a world heritage monument. But, still you want to have an exclusivist claim.

But, see "Indian history" cannot go without IVC.

I mentioned about the finding of the Tamilnadu, because, "politically", the "Tamilians" claim that they are "Dravidians" and their place of origin was IVC. So they claim that IVC belong to them. Note, one "International Symposium on Indus Civilization and Tamil language" is to be held here in Chennai in Feb.2007.

 

I do not know any archaeologist from Pakistan is coming here. If anybody comes, how he is going to deal with the subject matter?

When A. H. Dani reported "yagna gundas" in the sites of IVC, did Pakistanis claim that they belong to them? What about the Pasupati seals, Lingas discovered? All will be claimed by Pakistanis as their heritage?

Do not be emotional by using such slang which conveys very unparliament connotation. 
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 04:15
MNiachappan,
I'll decipher what you wrote and reply later if I can understand it
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
SpartaN117 View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 120 		  Quote SpartaN117 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 06:22
Originally posted by M. Nachiappan

As I have already pointed out, Jinnah, EVR and Ambedkar met to chalk out to create a party against Congress.
 
At that time, they also discussed about the "commanality" of their respective groups, as they were all against Hindus, Sanskrit, Hindi, Brahmins etc., and all could come under the category of "Dravidians", as they wanted to act against "Aryans" including the British.
 
Here, we do not know whether they believed in "race theory or hypothesis".
 
Ambedkar has been however, specific in his writings pointing out that racially, there were no "Aryans" or "Dravidians".
 
Therefore, Pakistanis to claim any exclusive nature of demand would have to face historical realities.
 
From India, Pakistan as come, mainly because of religion. Were they not Indians before?
 
From Pakistan, Bangladesh has come, mainly because of culture. Were they not Pakistan before? Though, they were Muslims, they got liberated for the reasons. Can Bangladeshi's claim IVC, just because they are Muslims or were Pakistanis also earlier?
 
I do not think changing religion, nation, language etc., people would change or will be changing.
 
We have to realize that all humanbeings are one irrespective of our exhibited differences.
 
IVS has been the world heritage monument. Not only, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi's, Sri Lankans, Nepalese, every world citizen can feel proud about it.


Okay. You are misunderstanding something here.
The people of south asia have only been known as "Indians" for 150 years. Thats for how long the Brits had South Asia as one entity. This is the entity the Indians think has existed for 1000s of years.

Before 1800, a Punjabi would have been known as a Punjabi and a Sindhi would have been known as a Sindhi. India didnt exist.

Pakistanis were called Indians for a very short period of time (147 years), and because of that their 5000 years of history is being taken away from them.

The Greeks were never good at Geography and they didnt bother with ethnicities. They would call the entire region of South Asia by one name, and that wasnt "India", they would have had another name for it in greek, but this didnt include South India. They were observant enough to see that the people were different.

I mean, Indian is referring to such a wide range of ethnicities. They might aswell class everyone as Human and get it over with.


Edited by SpartaN117 - 15-Dec-2006 at 17:08

PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us
Back to Top
SpartaN117 View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 120 		  Quote SpartaN117 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 06:36
Originally posted by M. Nachiappan

You have been highly emotional in dealith the issue.

Actually, I do not know the meaning of the word "crap" and then I found that it has the following meanings:
  1. Excrement.
  2. An act of defecating.
  3. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
  4. Cheap or shoddy material.
  5. Miscellaneous or disorganized items; clutter.
  6. Insolent talk or behavior.
I do not think that this is proper without understanding the contemporary facts.
 
I know very well there were crores of Hindus there in Lahore, Ravalpindi and other places and their grand-daughters and sons are now in India.

Because of partition, they came here, as otherwise, they would have been there only, as there have been crores o Muslims even now in India.

In fact, for many of them, their "native place" has been in "Pakistan".

I talk about the three involved as mentioned pointing out the difference of Ambedkar.

When Ambedkar concluded so, you ave to find out whether Jinnah was a Dravidian or Aryan?

If Pakistanis have been so attached to IVC, then, they should say as to whether they are Aryans or Dravidians.

When I mentioned - India, Pakista, Bangladesh, missing the point, you are sidetracking the issue saying that Bangladeshis cannot clim IVC, as they are ar away. Before their independence, what and how they were claiming?

In good spirit, I mention that al humanbeings are one irrespective of the external difference exhibited adding that it is a world heritage monument. But, still you want to have an exclusivist claim.

But, see "Indian history" cannot go without IVC.

I mentioned about the finding of the Tamilnadu, because, "politically", the "Tamilians" claim that they are "Dravidians" and their place of origin was IVC. So they claim that IVC belong to them. Note, one "International Symposium on Indus Civilization and Tamil language" is to be held here in Chennai in Feb.2007.

 

I do not know any archaeologist from Pakistan is coming here. If anybody comes, how he is going to deal with the subject matter?

When A. H. Dani reported "yagna gundas" in the sites of IVC, did Pakistanis claim that they belong to them? What about the Pasupati seals, Lingas discovered? All will be claimed by Pakistanis as their heritage?

Do not be emotional by using such slang which conveys very unparliament connotation. 



Ok first of all, there still are Hindus in Pakistan, and they can proudly call themselves Pakistanis.
Second, the number of people moving from and to Pakistan were a few million. Thats less than 0.5% of the Indian population, and that doesnt give anyone the right to steal history.
Those people who moved out of Pakistan can call themselves Pakistanis, but I doubt they want to.

The Tamil people are welcome to decipherer the Indus valley text. Nobody has been able to so far. Russians put it into vigorous computer tests to link in to Dravidians, but no luck.

Currently the Indians are claiming its linked to Hinduism. When contradictory evidence was discovered, they claimed Hinduism has "evolved" over the years, and might have been very different at the time.

Now exactly, how many people are we suppose to believe on this one?

IV is a World heritage site, nobody is taking that away, but Indians are currently calling India "the home of indus valley".
We want to correct that.

They are clearly taking history which has not been a part of their country, ever. If you want to call British India a country and not a forced reunion of states, then why exactly are Indians claiming they are the parent country of British India. Pakistan could equally have been the parent state.

The thing is, the name was chosen for India with these things in mind. It was supposed to give Indians the impression that British India was their country and they lost all that land to Pakistan. This would morally strengthen them to feel right in hating Pak.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 15:24
Cheap or shoddy material.

This would be the correct definition of crap in this case.

There are three uses of the word "india" excluding the ancient greek one.

1) The geographical subcontinent in asia
2) The Empire the British had on this area, or under the juresdiction of this area (Oman, Andabar islands etc)
3) The Republic of India.

The IVC is indian in the first and second sense, but is not in the third sense.
Back to Top
SpartaN117 View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 120 		  Quote SpartaN117 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 15:50
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Cheap or shoddy material.

This would be the correct definition of crap in this case.

There are three uses of the word "india" excluding the ancient greek one.

1) The geographical subcontinent in asia
2) The Empire the British had on this area, or under the juresdiction of this area (Oman, Andabar islands etc)
3) The Republic of India.

The IVC is indian in the first and second sense, but is not in the third sense.


EXACTLY

India has too many meanings, and the people of your 3rd option misuse this to promote their country. The people of Pakistan wont stand for it any longer.

I dont see the Roman Empire being called The European Empire, even though it was located in Europe.
The term has become politically incorrect because of all the meanings. I mean, how specific is it to call IVC, Ancient Indian, when the Indian subcontinent has around 1.6 billion people?

Ivc is Ancient Pakistani first, then its Ancient Indian (subcontinent) , then its Ancient Asian, and then you can call it whatever you want.


Edited by SpartaN117 - 15-Dec-2006 at 15:52

PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us
Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252 		  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 16:28
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Cheap or shoddy material.

This would be the correct definition of crap in this case.

There are three uses of the word "india" excluding the ancient greek one.

1) The geographical subcontinent in asia
2) The Empire the British had on this area, or under the juresdiction of this area (Oman, Andabar islands etc)
3) The Republic of India.

The IVC is indian in the first and second sense, but is not in the third sense.
 
Agreed.
Back to Top
SpartaN117 View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 120 		  Quote SpartaN117 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 17:06
Originally posted by malizai_

Agreed.


If you agree with him, then I am sure you can point out the flaws in my reply.
With you current Ideology, we might aswell call every Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Sri Lankan out there, Indian, because they are all from the Indian Subcontinent.


Edited by SpartaN117 - 15-Dec-2006 at 17:12

PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 21:28
^I think they're agreeing with you, though I think you have to know the history of the subcontinent to know that India actually refers to Pakistan and not the Ganges area - not many people outside of India do know this (as I dont think another country has ever stolen the name of another so far), so I don't really think any should be used as definitions.
 
Basically, the Indus Valley civilization occupied all the land region of current Pakistan, and was centred on Pakistan.
 
India and Afghanistan etc. can claim to be a part of this ancient Pakistani civilization.  


Edited by TeldeInduz - 15-Dec-2006 at 21:31
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
CHAUDRY View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-May-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote CHAUDRY Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Dec-2006 at 01:20
Originally posted by TeldeInduz
 
India and Afghanistan etc. can claim to be a part of this ancient Pakistani civilization.  
[/QUOTE

 
well said.
 
100% correctClap
no comment
Back to Top
M. Nachiappan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

suspended

Joined: 09-Jun-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 315 		  Quote M. Nachiappan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 00:08

Kindly tell me how "Pakistanis" called themselves before 1947, before the advent of the British or Europeans, the Greeks with poor knowledge of geography etc? Give evidences.

It is news for me to know that there has been 0.5% Hindus are still there in Pakistan! What was the population in 1947? How theyt are treated there as we do not get any information in India.
 
This is how the sites in Pakistan are described:

Archaeological Ruins at Moenjodaro (1980)

The ruins of the huge city of Moenjodaro - built entirely of unbaked brick in the 3rd millennium B.C. - lie in the Indus valley. The acropolis, set on high embankments, the ramparts, and the lower town, which is laid out according to strict rules, provide evidence of an early system of town planning.

Historic Monuments of Thatta (1981)

The capital of three successive dynasties and later ruled by the Mughal emperors of Delhi, Thatta was constantly embellished from the 14th to the 18th century. The remains of the city and its necropolis provide a unique view of civilization in Sind.

Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (1981)

These are two masterpieces from the time of the brilliant Mughal civilization, which reached its height during the reign of the Emperor Shah Jahan. The fort contains marble palaces and mosques decorated with mosaics and gilt. The elegance of these splendid gardens, built near the city of Lahore on three terraces with lodges, waterfalls and large ornamental ponds, is unequalled.

 
If Pakistanis do noit want such status, they can fight with UN to get liberated from the code / status of "World Heritage Monument".
 
In the context of "west", nothing is specific. The "westerners" have to go toto different places for claiming various aspects - philosophy to Greek, state to Roman, sculpture to Greece and Italy, religion to Rome, and other factors to other countries. Then came the "European". Therefore, "European" cannot claim anything in common, as they are divided by many factors - language, culture, tradition, heritage etc.
 
History of Pakistan cannot be studied without India. In fact, the countries that have antiquity cannot be studied in isolation.
Roma 
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 00:33
 
Kindly tell me how "Pakistanis" called themselves before 1947, before the advent of the British or Europeans, the Greeks with poor knowledge of geography etc? Give evidences
 
The "Pakistanis" called themselves the people of "Saptha Sindhu" before the Greeks, which is the point of the thread starter. From Sindhu comes Indus and India, and the evidence is in the Rig Veda and name itself. "Indians" did not use the name until a much later date.


Edited by TeldeInduz - 18-Dec-2006 at 00:35
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
M. Nachiappan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

suspended

Joined: 09-Jun-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 315 		  Quote M. Nachiappan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 00:39
I am asking the name - "the people of Saptha Sindhu" is not name. 
Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252 		  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 08:24
I think 'zero' would also be regionally located to Pakistan. Western Pakistan according to a panel of historians on a recent BBC4 program.
Back to Top
SpartaN117 View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 120 		  Quote SpartaN117 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 11:00
Originally posted by M. Nachiappan

I am asking the name - "the people of Saptha Sindhu" is not name. 


Do you mind telling everyone what the Indians called themselves before 1800?
It wasnt "Indian", because India didnt exist as a country.

People called themselves according to the province they came from. i.e Punjabi, Sindhi, Gujarati.

The Greeks never were good at Geography. You cant use their logic in any way. And they didn't call you Indian. They had another Greek term, but you are right in saying that they grouped everyone in the subcontinent together.

Do you know what Greeks called Africa?
Libya is the answer, and according to your logic, the People of Libya can claim the entire African continent belonged to them?

You have to understand that the History doesn't belong to the name. It belongs to the people. As soon as Pakistanis stopped being "Indians", their history went with them.

PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 12:55
Originally posted by malizai_

I think 'zero' would also be regionally located to Pakistan. Western Pakistan according to a panel of historians on a recent BBC4 program.
 
That's something I'd like to know more about. Do you have anything else on the origins of zero. 
 
Out of interest, so far I've managed to work out the great "Indian" philosophers Panini and Brahmagupta (link in French) were Pakistani. It might have been Brahmagupta's zero, I'm not sure, but these two made quite a contribution to math today.  


Edited by TeldeInduz - 18-Dec-2006 at 12:59
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.090 seconds.