This will be the first of my series of posts at an attempt to focus more on South and SE Asian History on this forum. I figured I may as well start at the beginning, I hope you enjoy these.

(I typed it up once but then the pc crashed meaning this is my second take at this)

Background

The Indus Valley Civilisation, also known as the Harappan and possibly Meluhha, existed between 2300-1300 BCE (BC). It’s golden age is said to be between 2600-1900 BCE after which time it fell into decline.

The geographical boundaries of this ancient civilisation are from Baluchistan in the west, into Gujarat in the south and to the west surrounded by the Thar Desert.

 

http://pubweb.cc.u-tokai.ac.jp/indus/english/image2/map.gif">

 

This civilisation was first described in 1844 by Charles Masson and was later discovered in an excavation campaign by Sir John Marshall during the 1920s.

 

The civilisation can be said to have 3 distinct time periods, the Early Harappan period, the Mature Harappan Period and the late Harappan period.

 

The early Harappan period, which dates from 3300 BCE – 2800 BCE, has several distinctive features, such as the access to the finest lapis lazuli in the world in Afghanistan (a gem). The civilisation had domesticated crops, which included peas, dates and cotton. It also had a wide range of domesticated animals which included the water buffalo.

 

picture from  www.pbs.org

The Harappan script is also thought to have originated in this period, which is approximately the same time scripts have been found in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. This script is still not deciphered and therefore cannot be read.

 

Over 1052 cities have been found so far from the Mature Harappan period. These include the urban centres of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa. The layouts of the cities were of such high quality that it can be assumed that there was knowledge of urban planning with an emphasis placed on hygiene. The two mentioned cities were even laid out in perfect grid patterns. Here is a computer animation of how Mohenjo-Daro may have looked like:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Mohenjodaro_computergeneratedimage1.jpg">

 

The cities in the Indus Valley were also the first to have sewage and drainage systems which were more efficient than any others in the world at that time.

 

The economies of these cities were believed to have been totally built up on trade. The trade included the use of bullock driven carts and small boats. Archaeologists have found a large dregged canal and docking facility in Lothal. Here is an artists impression:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Lothal_conception.jpg">

picture from the Archaeological survey of India

 

The Indus Valley civilisation has been found to trade with certain areas of Afganistan, Persia and Mesopotamia, where the civilisation may have been known as Meluhha.

 

(note: more information may be added later)

 

So can the Indus Valley Civilisation be claimed as part of Indian history if the assumption is made that the parts in modern day India do not exist?

1.) How can Pakistan, a country created on a PURELY religious (Islamic Fundamentalism) foundation, lay claim to the Indus Valley Civilization (cradle of Vedic Civilization as we know it)?

 

2.)  How can Pakistan lay claim to the IVC when even the most remote concept of a Pakistan is less than a century old?!

 

3.) Pakistanis of today (save a small %) are a mix breed of various races whereas the IVC was mainly a Dravidian civilization with a Proto-Dravidian language base. 

 

PS.  All this makes better sense since the Brahui (a Dravidian people speaking a Dravidian language) are still found in Balochistan, unless the "pakis" are saying that their forefathers were Dravidian ofcourse.

 

 

 

 

IVC bred Indian civilization, and except for the fact that the word "India" is used to describe a country today, Indian civilization is as much "Indian" as it is "Pakistani," if i said that right.

For example I'm sure modern day Egyptians do not shun their history due to religion. The history is there's because their people live where 3000 years ago there was a great civilisation.

 

Yea but its not theirs, modern day egyptians are quite diverse, racially speaking.  And i'm sure if there was no money to be made from egyptology, the muslim egyptians would probably shun it.  By the way which egyptians are descendants of the ancient civilization? Arabs? Bedouins?  Africans?   Egyptian art depicts them as being dark skinned, so it can't be the lighter skinned ones.

 

Originally posted by AnujKhamar Likewise in Pakistan, it happened within it's current borders therefore it is it's history.

I would look at Pakistan's history from the point of origination of the state of Pakistan not anytime before this simply because the people of the IVC were not of the same racial stock as the present day Pakistanis.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar The question was, if it is the birthplace for vedic civilisation can India claim it as part of it's own history? (if it did not exist within modern India's borders). Are there any other examples of this?

 

 

 

Going

back to the original point of this thread vis a vis the Indus Valley Civilization,  while the civilization encompassed a vast area with trading colonies as far east as Gujurat(in modern day India) and west as Afghanistan, the main focus of the civilization, key urban centers and historical  geopolitical data stems from the fact that this was a river based culture/civilization centred on along the Indus River.  So while Sudan can lay partial claim to the Egyptian empire due to being the lower raparian of the Nile river, the historical fact of the matter is they have had a distinct history(nubian) and cannot lay accurate claim to that past.  They same can be stated with the Indus Valley Civilization.  The supposed dravidian origins of the IVC is also being thrown into doubt as the indus script does not match any of the proto-dravidian stylets/pictography and does not explain the fact that there are no other dravidian language groups in the entire northern subcontinental region adjacent to the region of the IVC.  While brahui was hypothosized over a 100 yrs ago of  apparently showing traces of dravidian language root in their vernecular by early British colonial archeologists, the theory is far from complete and it(Dravidian root)is estimated as being below 15% hardly making it matter of fact, the bulk of their language is derived from the Iranian branch of the Indo-European tree, one look at there phenotype(physical characteristics) and the theory looks way off for they show more in common with southern Iranian medes both in facial features and overall physique. Senior scholars are questioning the whole brahui-dravidian association in its entirety going as far a calling completely innacurrate, and the biggest impedement in the deciphering of the Indus Valley Script(Professor Dani).  Recent DNA phenotyping has also found some correlation b/w the gene pools of the inhabitants of Sindh/lower Panjab and the genetic traits of the fertile crescent(Mesopotamia-tigris/Euphrates) and with the locals of the Nile(Egypt) showing there is some genetic consaguinity(mixing and similarities).  A fact first noted by noted traveller Rudyard Kipling on his early travels.  It is a well known fact that the IVC traded with those empires from which we find out the word for cotton in ancient egypt was 'sindhus'.  But this new wave of genetic testing which will be most interesting and will go further to prove that these peoples actually underwent migration. For many years now, scientist where having difficulty in trying to solve the origins of the mesopotamian ppls as they did not match any of their surrounding ethnic groups.  The recurrent theme of the bull is further significant.  To further add to this mix, In the province of Sindh today, there are an indigenous people who live near the Indus, and along the Machhar lake who show strong egyptian like feature(specifically there eyes, shape of their skulls and boat designs) and who claim the IVC as their own.  In lieu of the history and definative uniqueness of Indian history on its own and its clearly established parameters, I dont see how the IVC can be claimed by India at all, this is something unique to Pakistan as it inherited the stem of the Indus river.   as an analogy, Pakistan does not claim heritage to ancient persepolis, gupta dynasty or to the abbasid caliphate today though there is some overlap. Hope I helped clear up some minds   

 

History is never under sole ownership. That is why india and Pakistan are both a part of British history and conversely, and allways will be.

 

It is also not inconcievable that some of those who inhabit the geographic boundaries of pakistan have some dravidian in them, maybe even you since you are an Indian and from an area that very much overlaps and is adjacent to the IVC area.

 

Sameways as Aloka said that indians can claim IVC as part of thier heritage also.

 

But, History as a subject usually deals with World History. Pakistani History is taught in a subject called "Pakistan Studies".

 

 

I dissagree, in our history curriculum we covered a vast array of topics from the Kushans, Mauryan, Aryan,Sikh, British Colonial rule which overlaps with the history of India.  We also covered the world wars/European and colonial history, Japanes/Chinese history, American, Central Asia/South American as well as Russian and toped it off with Islamic history so it was quite extensive.  Obviously the emphasis was placed on Pakistan specific history but we did have a fair amount of exposure to local and world history.  hope that helps clear it up a bit.  and BTW thanks for the welcome :)

 

The same question could have been posted in other ways also:

 

 

Can Pakistan claim IVC separate as part of its joint history with India? (Remember Mortimer Wheeler's "5000 yeasrs History of Pakistan" to please Pakistan)

 

 

 

 

Now thats an enlightened idea. River Indus is in Pakistan anway. Only a small part enter Bharat, and that does not belong to you as it is.

 

In Pakistan History is split between two subjects,

History: World History mostly, with some Pakistani History overlapped.

Pakistan Studies: Its History section deals with most of Sub Continental History.

 

The Cirriculum is slightly different amongst different boards,  but generally Pakistan Studies history section begins with the Persian Empire. All that came before it is dealt wih in "History".

 

This is all bullsh*t.

 

Brahui speak a Dravidan language, but they are descended from Turkic-Iranian tribes. They have 55% maternal Euro DNA, and about 20% Indian M haplo, they were probably part of the Elamite-Dravidan connection that spanned South Western Asia. This is a Brahui shepherd.

 

 

Pakistan might be a new name but the name "India" is also relatively new, it was given to you by your British masters, it is derived from the word "Hind" which was given to South-Asia by my Arab brothers in Islam, these names are derived from the name of the River Indus which is entirely in Pakistan.

 

Both India and Pakistan are relatively new states carved out of the British Empire so India is not the "original" or "big daddy", in the past lots of different empires ruled our area and enhanced and made South-Asia what it is today but India has no more right to them than Pakistan.. What you refer to as "Ancient India" and the "Indian Subcontinent" I refer to as "Ancient South-Asia" or "South-Asian Subcontinent".

 

We Pakistanis are proud Muslims now but that doesn't change our nationality, just as the Romans and Greeks were still Roman and Greek after embracing Christianity, we're still South-Asian. My own people are a amalgam of Rajput and Pashtun tribes but I don't belive in the discrimanatory caste system of Hinduism because I'm a Muslim not a Pagan Hindu anymore.

 

Presentday state of India can't claim much as it's heritage, an interesting thing you mentioned is Pakistanis not being a 100% Dravidian, well that's true we're an amalgam of different races which inhabited the Pakistan regions so we claim all the history of our land as our heritage including the Indus Valley Civilisation.

 

Another part of our heritage is the Aryan Vedic Civilisation which gave us our Sanskritic languages (Urdu/Hindi, Punjab etc.), Indians can't really claim any heritage from them either because even though you might speak their Aryan languages and follow an adultered form of their religion the vast majority of you Indians don't have an ounce of Vedic Aryan blood in you, you are 100% Dravidian (including you Rajasthani Rajputs) and just adopted their ways (rpoved by recent genetic studies), whilst we Pakistanis (and a small minority of Indians from bordering northwestern India) are descended from the Vedic Aryans. So we Pakis can claim our country's heritage from all those who inhabited our region as we're descended from them all.

 

 

 

IVC was known to us, before it was excavated by Banerjee or Marshal and at that none bothered about it. Illegal excavations have been going on since then, and none bothers or even the friends who carry out "IVC for Pakistan only" type propaganda keep quite. When material evidences are disappearing, what we are going to claim?

 

For example, the assertions like "Indus Valley lies in Pakistan, and the people of Pakistan have always lived there", etc., have been only to rouse passion. If we take each word, one cannot come to any conclusion - take for example the "Indus" itself. The river waters are shared by India and Pakistan. Like waters, can we fight for eastern IVC and western IVC just like eastern waters and western waters?

 

Culture, tradition, heritage, civilization etc., have been common to all, and facts are facts.

 

How many are not reading this site is another story and therefore, by conducting any poll in this regard would be a farce, as selected people / friends could be brougfht here and vote. But this type of propaganda cannot have any place in historical research or those who work for the benefit of humanity.

 

Incidentally, I request that the participants in these columns should provide minimum details about them - say nationality, real name so that the dialogue would be meaningful, as otherwise, one might feel that, we are dealing with same persons coming under different names in various columns of AE, dealing with the same subject matter one or the other harping on the same point.