Print Page | Close Window

Pakistans Stolen History

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16468
Printed Date: 04-Jun-2024 at 09:09
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Pakistans Stolen History
Posted By: SpartaN117
Subject: Pakistans Stolen History
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2006 at 07:55
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.




-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us



Replies:
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2006 at 11:25
Everyone already knows this here, this isn't news.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2006 at 11:49
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)


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2006 at 12:48
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.
 
Very good example!
 
Good article sparta! I hadn't read it before..needless to say I agree !


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2006 at 13:13
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".


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2006 at 13:29
Originally posted by maqsad

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 if it's old, so what? A lot of people on here have difficulty getting this sort of information into their heads..I don't see why you're so upset about this anyway, as the link you've been ranting about on English apartheid system was posted months ago too..
 

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  ppre-afghan/pashtun or pre-panjabi or pre-kashmiri in his ethnicity but people keep referring to him as an "indian".
 
I agree with the last part..I'm sure in today's world he would not want to be known as 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".
 
Who knows where the Indian epics took place. I'm not sure it was even on this planet. But most of the Vedic stories were written by ancestors of Pakistanis..Most of the later epics like Mahabharata were written by the ancestors of modern Indians I would think.


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2006 at 16:35
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


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2006 at 16:47
Someone definately needs to stop the looting and turn the tide. Its good to know that realism, sanity and nationalism is increasing amongst pakistanis. A few years ago whenever you went to a paki's personal web page all you would see is "allah ho akbar" graphics all over the place and this and that about islam.


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2006 at 17:03
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
 
good to know..i'll pop along once or twice for sure..Pakistan has a long & distinguished history, all coming under the banner of "Indian", which is just simple looting as you say. 
 
 


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 05:03
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.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 07:08
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.


Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 10:25
To be hounest it takes a large amount of analysis (it's quite interesting aswell). I do comletly agree with your last paragraph. It's stupid to have the ROI's flag above any kingdom that was totally in Pakistan.


Posted By: DocStaph
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 12:37
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.

-------------
Pregnancy is a Death Sentence to an Afghan Woman!


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 17:26
^^

This is the kind of reply full of discussion and facts, which tells me that I am right and you have absolutely no argument.

India was born in 1947. Prior to 1800s (British Invasion), South Asia was NEVER A SINGLE ENTITY. It was scattered with dynasties. Currently India is claiming dynasties which never belonged to them.


Posted By: Guss
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 18:41

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.



Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 19:52
Originally posted by Guss

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.



That theory has been discarded.
The Indus valley people were mostly wiped out, but they never left the region.


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 20:19
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. LOL


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 20:43

Maqsad you should go to the cities themselves, the archeologists there would tell you a lot. Yes there was a lot of inter-mixing but it was pretty post-facto after the Aryans had killed enough.

 
And yes the IVC is a Pakistani civilization not an Indian one. In the sam,e way as a Kingdom in Tamil Nadu was an Indian one not a Pakistani one.
 


-------------


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 20:56
I have never heard of Aryans razing Mohenjodaro or Harappa to the ground though. Where can one read about this?


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 22:01
Originally posted by Guss

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.

 
The id of the Indus Valley people isnt known..It is thought by some "scholars" they spoke something resembling a Dravidian language, but the Indus Valley script seems to be something all of its own. The Brahui of Pakistan are Aryan people that speak a Dravidian language so the language "proof" there is weak.
 
The Elamite theory has been proposed, but there's no real good evidence the Indus Valley script was Dravidian, just a weak theory (see http://www.ancientindia.co.uk/writing/explore/theory01.html - here for the theories.) The people might well have assimilated into some ancestors of modern Pakistanis, or they might have been killed to a large extent - most likely as this UCLA article suggests.
 
The twin cities of Harappa and Mohenjadaro, which are the two most famous of the Indian Valley civilization sites, are now in Pakistan; both seem to have been built fully planned, and have identical layouts. Neither changed till near the end of the period. Though there was a long period of gradual decay towards 1750 B.C., the actual end was sudden, and remains unexplained though the evidence suggests that the Indus may have changed its course and floods might have followed. Some cataclysmic event, in any case, appears to have struck Harappa, and the cities and town were emptied of their inhabitants. At Mohenjadaro, the city was burnt and the inhabitants killed, and people who were far less advanced than the inhabitants of the Indus Valley seem to have taken possession of the towns. Thus it is possible to argue that the way was paved for the Aryans by the victory of barbarism over an older and more advanced urban culture.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Ancient/Indus.html - http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Ancient/Indus.html  
 
The things that are known for sure, is the Indus Valley civilization was a civilization that existed on the land of what is today known as Pakistan..It's definitely a heritage of the land, and one would have to call it a Pakistani civilization before an Indian one.


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 22:32
Well to be fair werent some of the indus valley settlements in Gujrat and Rajistan? And some in Irani Balochistan areas?

Also I find it very strange that the script has not been deciphered. Seems like they don't WANT to decipher it. Too bad our own archeologists are too jahil and lazy and incompetent to do the job and relied on Westerners to write our history for us for so long, and even now obviously. Ouch


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 22:57
Originally posted by maqsad

Well to be fair werent some of the indus valley settlements in Gujrat and Rajistan? And some in Irani Balochistan areas?
 
To quote you, what's new about this? Some settlements were in India, some were in Afghanistan, but 70 or 80% of the Indus Valley was in Pakistan. The Indians, and the Afghanis can claim to have been a part of the Indus Valley civilization if they want to, but the civilization was without a doubt Pakistani. It's the equivalent of Pakistan claiming the Persian or Greek Empire was its own, because part of them were located in the area of Pakistan. Pakistan can only claim to have been a part of the Greek Empire.

Also I find it very strange that the script has not been deciphered. Seems like they don't WANT to decipher it. Too bad our own archeologists are too jahil and lazy and incompetent to do the job and relied on Westerners to write our history for us for so long, and even now obviously. Ouch
 
Why dont you try deciphering it if it's so easy Confused 
 
Pakistani history is very well recorded actually in many volumes of texts.


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 03:30
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

 
To quote you, what's new about this? Some settlements were in India, some were in Afghanistan, but 70 or 80% of the Indus Valley was in Pakistan. The Indians, and the Afghanis can claim to have been a part of the Indus Valley civilization if they want to, but the civilization was without a doubt Pakistani. It's the equivalent of Pakistan claiming the Persian or Greek Empire was its own, because part of them were located in the area of Pakistan. Pakistan can only claim to have been a part of the Greek Empire.


But is it not part of Pakistani History that it was part of a Greek Empire? Likewise is it not part of Indian and Afgan history that there was a civilisation in it that we today refer to as the IVC?


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 03:56
Yes, sure, the IVC was based partly in India, partly in Afghanistan, partly in Iran, but mainly in Pakistan. That part is fine, and I don't think anyone can argue against it. But to say the IVC was an Indian civilization I think is misleading..the example given that Germany calls itself Europe and then claims some ancient French civilization as its own because a bit of it overlapped into the "new Europe's" borders in the past. You would have to say the civilization in this case was French and not German in this case?

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 04:10
Read the following report: Can we say, has Tamilnadu robbed the history of Pakistan?
 
Significance of Mayiladuthurai find

T.S. Subramanian

Links between Harappa and Neolithic Tamil Nadu



RARE FIND: The Neolithic polished stone celt (hand-held axe) with the Indus valley script found at Sembian-Kandiyur village, near Mayiladuthurai in Tamil Nadu. — Photo: Vino John

CHENNAI: The discovery of a Neolithic stone celt, a hand-held axe, with the Indus script on it at Sembian-Kandiyur in Tamil Nadu is, according to Iravatham Mahadevan, "a major discovery because for the first time a text in the Indus script has been found in the State on a datable artefact, which is a polished neolithic celt." He added: "This confirms that the Neolithic people of Tamil Nadu shared the same language family of the Harappan group, which can only be Dravidian. The discovery provides the first evidence that the Neolithic people of the Tamil country spoke a Dravidian language." Mr. Mahadevan, an eminent expert on the subject, estimated the date of the artefact with the Indus script between 2000 B.C. and 1500 B.C.

It was in February 2006, when V. Shanmuganathan, a school teacher living in Sembian-Kandiyur, near Mayiladuthurai in Nagapattinam district, dug a pit in the backyard of his house to plant banana and coconut saplings, that he encountered two stone celts. The teacher, who is interested in archaeology, rang up his friend G. Muthusamy, Curator of the Danish Fort Museum at Tranquebar, which belongs to the Tamil Nadu Department of Archaeology. Mr. Muthusamy, who also belongs to the same village, took charge of the two celts from his friend and handed them over to T.S. Sridhar, Special Commissioner, State Department of Archaeology.

When Mr. Sridhar examined one of the two stones, he found some engravings on it. So he asked the epigraphists of his Department to study the particular celt. To their absolute delight, they found fours signs on it - and all four of them corresponded with the characters in the Indus script. When the celt with the Indus script was shown to Mr. Mahadevan, he confirmed that they were in the Indus script. The celt with the script measures 6.5 cm by 2.5 cm by 3.6 cm by 4 cm. It weighs 125 grams. The other celt has no engravings on it.

Mr. Mahadevan, one of the world's foremost scholars on the Indus and the Tamil-Brahmi scripts, is the author of the seminal work, The Indus Script: Texts, Concordance and Tables. It was published by the Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi in 1977.

First Indus sign

The first Indus sign on the celt showed a skeletal body with ribs, seated on his haunches, body bent, lower limbs folded and knees drawn up. The second sign shows a jar with a handle. The first sign stood for "muruku" and the second for "an." Together, they read as "Murukan." They formed a very frequent combination on the Indus seals and sealings, especially from Harappa. The first "muruku" sign corresponded with the sign number 48, the second with the number 342, the third, which looks like a trident, corresponded with the sign number 367, and the fourth with 301.

These numbers are found in the sign list published by Mr. Mahadevan.

He said: "`Muruku' and 'an' are shown hundreds of times in the Indus script found at Harappa. This is the importance of the find at Sembiyan-Kandiyur. Not only do the Neolithic people of Tamil Nadu and the Harappans share the same script but the same language." In Tamil Nadu, the muruku symbol was first identified from a pottery graffiti at Sanur, near Tindivanam. B.B. Lal, former Director-General of ASI, correctly identified this symbol with sign 47 of the Indus script. In recent years, the muruku symbol turned up among the pottery graffiti found at Mangudi, near Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu, and at Muciri, Kerala. But this was the first time that a complete, classical Indus script had been found on a polished Neolithic stone celt, Mr. Mahadevan pointed out. He emphasised that the importance of the discovery was independent of the tentative decipherment of the two signs proposed by him.



Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 07:29
Wow. A stone!?

You do realise we are talking about CITIES.

Links like these are everywhere. Thats how they proved that the people of IVC traded with Mesopotamia, and probably traded with tamil people aswell.

They have found a lot of tools in Iraq. Does this mean IVC were Babylonians?


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 08:00
Originally posted by M. Nachiappan

Read the following report: Can we say, has Tamilnadu robbed the history of Pakistan?


Almost. Good save Spartan.


Posted By: CHAUDRY
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 11:19
anujkhamar: But is it not part of Pakistani History that it was part of a Greek Empire? Likewise is it not part of Indian and Afgan history that there was a civilisation in it that we today refer to as the IVC?
                                                                                                                            
Offcourse it is part of ur history too. No one is denying that.
Issue is, the fact that it is being denied to pakistan as it's history.
 
It is just a common misperception about south-asian history's inheritance. what i try to say is that it is globally known as "ancient indian" history rather than, pakistani.
 
We should try to correct this trend.


-------------
no comment


Posted By: Guss
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 11:21
The id of the Indus Valley people isnt known..It is thought by some "scholars" they spoke something resembling a Dravidian language, but the Indus Valley script seems to be something all of its own. The Brahui of Pakistan are Aryan people that speak a Dravidian language so the language "proof" there is weak.
 
The Elamite theory has been proposed, but there's no real good evidence the Indus Valley script was Dravidian, just a weak theory (see http://www.ancientindia.co.uk/writing/explore/theory01.html - here for the theories.) The people might well have assimilated into some ancestors of modern Pakistanis, or they might have been killed to a large extent - most likely as this UCLA article suggests.
 
The twin cities of Harappa and Mohenjadaro, which are the two most famous of the Indian Valley civilization sites, are now in Pakistan; both seem to have been built fully planned, and have identical layouts. Neither changed till near the end of the period. Though there was a long period of gradual decay towards 1750 B.C., the actual end was sudden, and remains unexplained though the evidence suggests that the Indus may have changed its course and floods might have followed. Some cataclysmic event, in any case, appears to have struck Harappa, and the cities and town were emptied of their inhabitants. At Mohenjadaro, the city was burnt and the inhabitants killed, and people who were far less advanced than the inhabitants of the Indus Valley seem to have taken possession of the towns. Thus it is possible to argue that the way was paved for the Aryans by the victory of barbarism over an older and more advanced urban culture.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Ancient/Indus.html - http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Ancient/Indus.html  
 
The things that are known for sure, is the Indus Valley civilization was a civilization that existed on the land of what is today known as Pakistan..It's definitely a heritage of the land, and one would have to call it a Pakistani civilization before an Indian one.
 
Aren't you agreeing with what I said, espescially when you quote this:
 
The twin cities of Harappa and Mohenjadaro, which are the two most famous of the Indian Valley civilization sites, are now in Pakistan; both seem to have been built fully planned, and have identical layouts. Neither changed till near the end of the period. Though there was a long period of gradual decay towards 1750 B.C., the actual end was sudden, and remains unexplained though the evidence suggests that the Indus may have changed its course and floods might have followed. Some cataclysmic event, in any case, appears to have struck Harappa, and the cities and town were emptied of their inhabitants. At Mohenjadaro, the city was burnt and the inhabitants killed, and people who were far less advanced than the inhabitants of the Indus Valley seem to have taken possession of the towns. Thus it is possible to argue that the way was paved for the Aryans by the victory of barbarism over an older and more advanced urban culture.
 
It is generally agreed that the ethnicity of the indus valley civilization was dravidian.  Again, pakistan claiming the indus valley civilization as a pakistani civilization is similar to turks claiming byzantine as a turkish civilization.
 
It is also generally agreed upon that aryans either invaded/immigrated to the area that is now pakistan a date around the collapse of the indus valley civilization, and therefore, as most pakistanis are aryan, arab, persian, turk etc., they cannot be related to the indus valley civilization.


Posted By: CHAUDRY
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 11:46
Originally posted by Guss

[quote]
 
It is generally agreed that the ethnicity of the indus valley civilization was dravidian.  Again, pakistan claiming the indus valley civilization as a pakistani civilization is similar to turks claiming byzantine as a turkish civilization.
 
It is also generally agreed upon that aryans either invaded/immigrated to the area that is now pakistan a date around the collapse of the indus valley civilization, and therefore, as most pakistanis are aryan, arab, persian, turk etc., they cannot be related to the indus valley civilization.
 
U'r making the assumption that the Dravidians (orignal inhabitants IVC) have no link at all with modern pakistan. This is not correct, a part of the original inhabitants are thought to have been assimilated with the aryan invaders, this trend follows through all the invasions pakistan's territory had.
Also the Brahui people, in pakistan, are thought to be from dravidian stock, or at least have some affiliations with them.
 
 


-------------
no comment


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 12:30
I dont know how anyone can claim they IV people were Dravadian. This entire hypothesis comes from people who think the IV people spoke the Dravadian language.
If you haven't been in the loop, you would know that, not a single word of that language has been deciphered yet.


Posted By: Guss
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 13:57
U'r making the assumption that the Dravidians (orignal inhabitants IVC) have no link at all with modern pakistan. This is not correct, a part of the original inhabitants are thought to have been assimilated with the aryan invaders, this trend follows through all the invasions pakistan's territory had.
Also the Brahui people, in pakistan, are thought to be from dravidian stock, or at least have some affiliations with them
 
The id of the Indus Valley people isnt known..It is thought by some "scholars" they spoke something resembling a Dravidian language, but the Indus Valley script seems to be something all of its own. The Brahui of Pakistan are Aryan people that speak a Dravidian language so the language "proof" there is weak.
 
Who is telling the truth?
 
I dont know how anyone can claim they IV people were Dravadian. This entire hypothesis comes from people who think the IV people spoke the Dravadian language.
If you haven't been in the loop, you would know that, not a single word of that language has been deciphered yet.
Even if the hypothesis is not true, it still is certain that aryans entered the subcontinent during the decline of the indus valley civilization, and whoever the inhabitants were, they were definetly not aryans.  So we can conclude that pakistanis, who are ethnically aryan, arab, persian or central asian turkish had no relation with the indus valley civilization.  Actually thats not entirely true because if the aryan invasion/immigration theory is true, then pakistani aryans were the ones who destroyed/displaced the indus civilization.
 
Like I have written several times, pakistanis claiming the indus valley civilization as being part of pakistani civilization would be as absurd as turks claiming to have built constantinople as they were not the original inhabitants of that area.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 14:17
Pakistanis are the ORIGINAL inhabitants of the area. Thats the whole point. Through the ages, Pakistanis were mixed with arabs, persians, turks and lots more, but they have always stayed in that region.

Pakistanis are not full blooded aryans. Where do you get that? They are part aryans.


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 15:39
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Why dont you try deciphering it if it's so easy Confused 


I did not say it was easy but not even 1/100,000th the effort goes into deciphering those texts by native pakistan than goes into reciting a certain very famous arabic book without even knowing how to speak arabic! What a shame. I am not saying pakistanis should revert to hinduism by any means but its shocking how little fascination there is in our own indigenous past and how little fanaticism is present to uncover its secrets and treasures.

Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Pakistani history is very well recorded actually in many volumes of texts.


I was referring to ancient pakistani history. Our first civilization was DISCOVERED only recently by WESTERNERS. They also cared more about it than even we did! How many pakistanis today care about decoding our ancient language? How many even care? There needs to be a change in values. Even the Iranis next door are sanctioning their scholars to rewrite their history as much as is possible, and working with outsiders to uncover more and more of it.


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 16:17
Originally posted by Guss

 
Aren't you agreeing with what I said, espescially when you quote this:
 
The twin cities of Harappa and Mohenjadaro, which are the two most famous of the Indian Valley civilization sites, are now in Pakistan; both seem to have been built fully planned, and have identical layouts. Neither changed till near the end of the period. Though there was a long period of gradual decay towards 1750 B.C., the actual end was sudden, and remains unexplained though the evidence suggests that the Indus may have changed its course and floods might have followed. Some cataclysmic event, in any case, appears to have struck Harappa, and the cities and town were emptied of their inhabitants. At Mohenjadaro, the city was burnt and the inhabitants killed, and people who were far less advanced than the inhabitants of the Indus Valley seem to have taken possession of the towns. Thus it is possible to argue that the way was paved for the Aryans by the victory of barbarism over an older and more advanced urban culture.
 
It is generally agreed that the ethnicity of the indus valley civilization was dravidian.  Again, pakistan claiming the indus valley civilization as a pakistani civilization is similar to turks claiming byzantine as a turkish civilization.
 
It is also generally agreed upon that aryans either invaded/immigrated to the area that is now pakistan a date around the collapse of the indus valley civilization, and therefore, as most pakistanis are aryan, arab, persian, turk etc., they cannot be related to the indus valley civilization.
 
Guss,
 
Do you have difficulty reading? I clearly have stated that I agree about Aryans invading and probably destroying much of the Indus Valley or that they were wiped out..This does not mean that Pakistani history automatically becomes Indian history, even if no Pakistani is descended from IV people. The heritage and history of Pakistan's land still has the Indus Valley civilization as its own. The only known fact about the IV civilization that is known for sure, is that it was located mostly on the land area of Pakistan, not India, not Afghanistan. This makes the IV civilization an ancient Pakistani civilization, built by people of ethnicity X.
 
On another point, there is absolutely ZERO proof that the ethnicity of the people of the IV was Dravidian. It's not even known what language they spoke for sure. All that is known, is that it was pre-Aryan.
 
What you and M.Niachappan are saying is bordering on the absurd with absolutely no proof but a stone to show for it Dead


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 16:21
 
Originally posted by Guss

Also the Brahui people, in pakistan, are thought to be from dravidian stock, or at least have some affiliations with them
 
The Brahui of Pakistan are Aryan people that speak a Dravidian language so the language "proof" there is weak
Who is telling the truth?
 
The Brahui people of Pakistan are genetically Aryan (and physically look it), but they speak a Dravidian related language. India is predominantly Dravidian, but 72% of it speaks Indo-Aryan. The point is that language and ethnicity does not always mean the same thing.
 


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 16:31
Originally posted by Guss

Even if the hypothesis is not true, it still is certain that aryans entered the subcontinent during the decline of the indus valley civilization, and whoever the inhabitants were, they were definetly not aryans.  So we can conclude that pakistanis, who are ethnically aryan, arab, persian or central asian turkish had no relation with the indus valley civilization.  Actually thats not entirely true because if the aryan invasion/immigration theory is true, then pakistani aryans were the ones who destroyed/displaced the indus civilization.
 
Like I have written several times, pakistanis claiming the indus valley civilization as being part of pakistani civilization would be as absurd as turks claiming to have built constantinople as they were not the original inhabitants of that area.
 
Again you don't seem to have much knowledge on ethnicities. Any non Aryan ethnicity might have been the Indus Valley Civilization (assuming it was the Aryans that wiped them out not some sort of flooding). Assuming it was the Aryans, the IV civilization could easily have been any non Aryan ethnic group in the world Sumerian, Mesopotamian, a now extinct group, etc or even a mixture of Aryans and non Aryans that were invaded by another clan of Aryans. There's absolutely no proof in a single thing to what you say, just wishful thinking by the sounds of it.


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Guss
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 19:07
Pakistanis are the ORIGINAL inhabitants of the area. Thats the whole point. Through the ages, Pakistanis were mixed with arabs, persians, turks and lots more, but they have always stayed in that region.

Pakistanis are not full blooded aryans. Where do you get that? They are part aryans.
 
Do you have difficulty reading? I clearly have stated that I agree about Aryans invading and probably destroying much of the Indus Valley or that they were wiped out..This does not mean that Pakistani history automatically becomes Indian history, even if no Pakistani is descended from IV people.
Who is telling the truth?


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 20:43
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. 


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 20:50
Originally posted by Nachiappan

The discovery of a Neolithic stone celt, a hand-held axe, with the Indus script on it at Sembian-Kandiyur in Tamil Nadu is, according to Iravatham Mahadevan, "a major discovery because for the first time a text in the Indus script has been found in the State on a datable artefact, which is a polished neolithic celt." He added: "This confirms that the Neolithic people of Tamil Nadu shared the same language family of the Harappan group, which can only be Dravidian. The discovery provides the first evidence that the Neolithic people of the Tamil country spoke a Dravidian language."

Yeah, and the discovery of Anglo Saxon coins with an Arabic inscription saying "there is no god but God and Muhammed is his messenger" proves that the Anglo-Saxons were arabic speaking muslims.Confused

If the IV civilisation was destroyed by a babarian invasion, how does this change anything? Baghdad was destroyed by the Mongols, does that make Iraq mongol? no. Punjab was ravaged by mongols and turks, yet punjab is neither mongol or turk. After the destruction the primaty ethnic group was still the people from before the destruction.

Even if the invaders did replace the locals, and even if the IV people were dravidian, this still doesn't mean anything. As claiming a civilisation based on genetics is wrong. Aryan does not equal pakistani and dravidian does not mean 'bharti'. 

-------------


Posted By: CHAUDRY
Date 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


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date 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.


Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date 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.


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date 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.


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date 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. 



Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date 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.................


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date 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.


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date 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.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date 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.


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: malizai_
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date 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.


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date 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.  


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: CHAUDRY
Date 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


Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date 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 


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date 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.


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 00:39
I am asking the name - "the people of Saptha Sindhu" is not name. 


Posted By: malizai_
Date 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.

-------------


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date 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.


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date 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 ( http://www.col-camus-soufflenheim.ac-strasbourg.fr/Page.php?IDP=496&IDD=0 - 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.  


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 13:02
Originally posted by SpartaN117


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?
 
Good example of Libya there I'd say.


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 14:19

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?

Good example of Libya there I'd say

Not really, in the Roman era "Africa" is modern Tunisa. The Africans are strictly speaking the tunisians in the same way the asians are the anatonlians. Later the name of a provence was extended to a whole continent.


-------------


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 15:18
^^ Sorry, I should have explained why.
  • The word "India" was given to the subcontinent by the Greeks. The word "Libya" was given to Africa by the Greeks.
  • The name "India" was taken by the Indians to refer to a country. The name "Libya" was taken by the Libyans to refer to a country.
Looking at it, the two situations are similar from this point of view. Using the logic that some websites and historians use then, Libya could then claim all of Somalia's history and achievements, simply because the Greeks (somehow they have the last word on country names) called the region Libya at one point in their history! 


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 18:02
just for clarification...

we don't actually know the ethnicity of the IVC people, do we? nor do we know their history, their language, where they went, where they came from, or anything. frankly, we don't really know anything about them.

i can agree to the claim, "pakistan is the home of the IVC today," because geographically, the IVC lands are in pakistan today. but that doesn't make the IVC people pakistani.

now, i'm not saying the IVC people are indian (in the modern sense of the word). but you can't say they are pakistani simply because 1000's of years ago, the IVC people occupied current day pakistani lands.

saying the IVC people were pakistani is like saying current day Iraqis are Sumerian.

are current day Americans related to Native Americans? are Australians really aborigines? are all Mexicans amerindians?


Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 19:58

I thank all of you for provoking me with all appreciation of “crap”, “cheap or shoddy material” and all of you agreeing with each other.

 

The story of “Pakistan” has been contemporaneous event with lot of material evidences available everywhere.

 

Rehmat Ali Chowdahry and his three Cambridge students coined the word “PAKISTAN” as follows:

 

P = Punjab

A = Afghanistan

Ki = Kashmir

S =  Sind

Tan = Baluchistan

 

But, you know what “Pakistan”, “Pakistanis” have. Based on the name, can Pakistanis claim Afghanistan? Let us not forget the happenings of early 1930s, which took place just 75 years back. I used to discuss with the matter with those came from Lahore. So everyone would have access to documents for authenticity.

 

The “Transfer of Power” and other “Pakistani” documents prove that “Pakistanis” demanded “PakistanIndia not from anything else.  The correspondence of Jinnah with Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Bose at one side and Periyar, Ambedkar and others at other side reveal more facts than what are generally discussed and debated.

 

Department of Archaeology and Museums, Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, Government of Pakistan, Karachi has been bringing out “Pakistan Archeology” regularly. Kindly go through to find out the facts.

 

If Indian history has to broken down into more detailed sub-categories, so also Pakistan’s history. The population figures give different picture (before partition):

 

NWF Provinces – Non-Muslims = 9.05

If Cantonment, Muncipality, Notified are wise figures are taken, in certain cases, Bannu (M) recorded 74.4%, Risalpur = 61.1% and so on.

Sind = 29.3%

Kindly go through the documents, as I do not want to repeat or tell known / recorded facts.

 

Similarly, the story of Indian and Pakistan flags are to be read separately to understand the colours and the logic / history etc., behind. The present flags are retained for the present entities (Anujkhamar could bring out more details, as he rebuked it as “stupid”).

 

I tried to avoid the “racial” interpretation, but all of you again and again delve upon “Aryans” and “Dravidians” (Sparta has gone to the extent of recording “Pakistanis are not full blooded Aryans. Where do you get that? They are part Aryans”. Then, he implies what? Pakistanis are partly “aryans” and partly “what”? TeleInduz asserts that there is absolutely ZERO proof that the ethnicity of the IV was Dravidian” adding that the Brahuis  are genetically Aryans. Asko Parpola would not leave).

 

If “Pakistanis” call themselves as “Aryans”, then, “Dravidians” would be pitted against. Asko Parpola, Iravatham Mahadevan and others try to decipher IVC script in “Dravidian” language -Tamil! Is there any Pakistani-European language group, Pakistanni-Aryan language etc., accordingly?Would you correct them by telling that IVC people were “Aryans” and we are also Aryans and you should decipher in “Aryans language”? (Tariq Rahman has done something).

 

As you have been so emotional, attached and agitated too to IVC, the Tamils here also assert like that. I have already mentioned about the “Aryan-Dravidian” implication. This only harm and hamper the deciphering IVC script. In spite of bi-lingual script inscriptions, one group want to read in Tamil/Dravidian language and another Sanskrit/Aryan and thus, they do not meet and the “undecipherment” continues and Stevefarmer like people dub “Harappans “illiterate”!

 

Dear friends, what is your stand here?



Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 20:48
Whats the Point calling IVC Indian, when India didnt exist before 1800?
And Republic of India was born in 1947.
Please for the love of God answer that before you go on a rant about Pakistan being born in 1947.

IVC is a part of Pakistani History, and Pakistanis are closest to the people of IVC, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN HAVE ALWAYS LIVED IN THE REGION. NOT INDIANS!!!

Your logic never ceases to amaze me. With your current logic you would call Allama Iqbal Indian aswell.
Oh...sorry. You do call Allama Iqbal Indian. A guy who spent most of his life fighting to create Pakistan, came from a region which is now Pakistan, is known as Indian. Way to go people.
He should be called "British Indian" if people really want to be that way.

As for IVC,
Not only would India be created 4800 years later, but
Indian people have NOTHING to do with IVC,
Most settlements are not IN India.

Yet you still justify calling it Indian history, and more so, you want to argue about it by discussing Pakistans birth and without mentioning India's whatsoever.


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 23:13

The entire discussion is on "Pakistan".

I note that you do not answer the specific querries, but go on sidetrack or deviate from the subject matter.

When facts are to be dealt with, we have to do so.

Otherwise, there is no meaning in such discussion or debate.



Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 00:02
Originally posted by AlokaParyetra

just for clarification...

we don't actually know the ethnicity of the IVC people, do we? nor do we know their history, their language, where they went, where they came from, or anything. frankly, we don't really know anything about them.


Well havent skeletons been found of these people...so their phenotypes could possibly be reconstructed. Maybe the heat does not preserve bodies as well as in colder climates, I dunno.

What we can assume reasonably is that they are now integrated in the people who live today in the Indus Valley regions and surrounding areas.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


i can agree to the claim, "pakistan is the home of the IVC today," because geographically, the IVC lands are in pakistan today. but that doesn't make the IVC people pakistani.


Does it make Bharatis IVCers then? Can someone from Kerala, Calcutta, Bengal or Bihar claim the IVC heritage as their own because pakistanis have not been calling themselves the Indus Valley Civilization consistently for the past few thousand years?

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


now, i'm not saying the IVC people are indian (in the modern sense of the word). but you can't say they are pakistani simply because 1000's of years ago, the IVC people occupied current day pakistani lands.


What are the IVC people today then? Japanese? Ukranian? Moroccan?

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


saying the IVC people were pakistani is like saying current day Iraqis are Sumerian.


No, its like saying current day Iraqis WERE Sumerian.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


are current day Americans related to Native Americans? are Australians really aborigines? are all Mexicans amerindians?


Is this question related to genetics, geography,  language or religion or what? Because I don't think Bharatis have "preserved" IVC culture, language and religion as well as Bharatis have preserved sanskrit language and the afghan and paki epics.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 06:08
People are assuming a lot of things here.

1. That modern Pakistanis have nothing to do with IVC, even though the people of Pakistan have lived in the Indus Valley for as long as history can be remembered.

2. That EVERY SINGLE PERSON of the Ivc moved out of Indus valley, if they even did move out. There is no evidence they moved out, unless they changed their lifestyle completely.

@ member_profile.asp?PF=3829&FID=35 - M. Nachiappan

I was just pointing out that the "Pakistan was born in 1947" card cannot be used in any situation prior to the 1800s. So please stop using it.
India as a single entity is a very new thing. When people were referring to it in the past, they were talking about the entire subcontinent, (like Europe).

Ancient Indian is just as logical as Ancient European. It makes so much more sense to break down the histories into countries, instead of having a grouped up history for 1.6 billion people.


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 10:11
Originally posted by maqsad

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra

just for clarification...

we don't actually know the ethnicity of the IVC people, do we? nor do we know their history, their language, where they went, where they came from, or anything. frankly, we don't really know anything about them.


Well havent skeletons been found of these people...so their phenotypes could possibly be reconstructed. Maybe the heat does not preserve bodies as well as in colder climates, I dunno.

What we can assume reasonably is that they are now integrated in the people who live today in the Indus Valley regions and surrounding areas.


So far, scientist think the IVC people were dravidian (which is loosely defined to begin with). they make this assertion based mostly on art. if indeed they are dravidian, that would place them farther away from modern pakistanis.

anyways, how do you know they are integrated in the people who live there today? If i'm not mistaken, this is just a guess, isn't it?


Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


i can agree to the claim, "pakistan is the home of the IVC today," because geographically, the IVC lands are in pakistan today. but that doesn't make the IVC people pakistani.


Does it make Bharatis IVCers then? Can someone from Kerala, Calcutta, Bengal or Bihar claim the IVC heritage as their own because pakistanis have not been calling themselves the Indus Valley Civilization consistently for the past few thousand years?


No, i don't think Bharatis (i like that term. helps avoid confusion) can say they were the IVC people. in fact, i don't think anyone can say they are the IVC people without knowing more about the IVC.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


now, i'm not saying the IVC people are indian (in the modern sense of the word). but you can't say they are pakistani simply because 1000's of years ago, the IVC people occupied current day pakistani lands.


What are the IVC people today then? Japanese? Ukranian? Moroccan?


that's my point. we don't know. we can't just assign any sort of ethnicity or culture  just from where they live. there were once greek people who lived in what is now pakistan. were they pakistani also?


Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


saying the IVC people were pakistani is like saying current day Iraqis are Sumerian.


No, its like saying current day Iraqis WERE Sumerian.


but they weren't. 75% of iraq today is composed of Arab (read: semetic) people, whereas the Sumerians were non-semetic people. Sumerian culture shares no resemblance to Iraqi culture. Iraqis today speak Arabic and Kurdish for the most part, both of which share little resemblance to Ancient Sumerian. the only tie Iraqis have with the Sumerians is the fact they both occupy/occupied the same land.


Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


are current day Americans related to Native Americans? are Australians really aborigines? are all Mexicans amerindians?


Is this question related to genetics, geography,  language or religion or what? Because I don't think Bharatis have "preserved" IVC culture, language and religion as well as Bharatis have preserved sanskrit language and the afghan and paki epics.

it is related to mostly genetics and language. how do you define an ethnicity or a people? Do we define them by genetics and linguistics, or by where they lived?

my point is this: until we know who the IVC people really are they are not really part of anyone's history. they are their own history, they are their own people.
[/QUOTE]


Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 10:25
Originally posted by SpartaN117

People are assuming a lot of things here.

1. That modern Pakistanis have nothing to do with IVC, even though the people of Pakistan have lived in the Indus Valley for as long as history can be remembered.


true, but there is a point in south asian history (after the fall of the IVC to the rise of maurya) that history really doesn't remember well. before you can connect the IVC to the people of pakistan, you first need to fill in all the gaps.


2. That EVERY SINGLE PERSON of the Ivc moved out of Indus valley, if they even did move out. There is no evidence they moved out, unless they changed their lifestyle completely.

well, if you believe either the AIT or AMT, the people in that region were displaced by Indo-Aryans. regardless of what you think caused the downfall of the IVC, we know that the cities were abandoned, which would suggest they migrated to a new location. where they went, no one knows.

and let's say that there were still IVC people that stayed in Pakistan. how many is enough? what if the majority of the people moved to Afganistan? wouldn't then modern day afganis be the remnants of the IVC people? what if most of them moved south? wouldn't modern day indians be the remnants? i'm sure there were still IVC people who stayed in Pakistan. but without knowing what happened to them, where the majority of them went, etc., you can't really say either way.



Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 11:02
Nobody knows what happened to the IVC people. But We only have their cities left. So Pakistan should be called the Home of IVC instead of India

I am saying that Republic of India is not linked to IVC, and it should stop stealing the history.

And using India to describe everyone in South Asia is wrong. It should be stopped. Its getting obvious that the Term India is just being used to cut Pakistanis out of their own history.

Ancient Pakistan is the correct term for any history within our own borders.


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 15:39
Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


So far, scientist think the IVC people were dravidian (which is loosely defined to begin with). they make this assertion based mostly on art. if indeed they are dravidian, that would place them farther away from modern pakistanis.

anyways, how do you know they are integrated in the people who live there today? If i'm not mistaken, this is just a guess, isn't it?



Its just a guess but it is based on the most likely occurence.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


No, i don't think Bharatis (i like that term. helps avoid confusion) can say they were the IVC people. in fact, i don't think anyone can say they are the IVC people without knowing more about the IVC.


I was not implying that even the Sindhis and South Punjabis are the IVC people. I was merely stating that these would be the populations into which most of their genes were assimilated.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


now, i'm not saying the IVC people are indian (in the modern sense of the word). but you can't say they are pakistani simply because 1000's of years ago, the IVC people occupied current day pakistani lands.


If IVC skeletons were compared then a more educated guess could be made don't you think?

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


that's my point. we don't know. we can't just assign any sort of ethnicity or culture  just from where they live. there were once greek people who lived in what is now pakistan. were they pakistani also?


No but some pathan tribes could have 10% macedonian admixture. Greece just had a forward colony or two in afghanistan/pakistan a few millennia ago, most of their population was still back  in greece. And for all we know they may have mostly formed the intelligencia, top soldiers and merchants while the rest of the masses were locals. IVC however was headquartered in the Indus river  metropolises. A much heavier impact on the current day populations would have been made.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


but they weren't. 75% of iraq today is composed of Arab (read: semetic) people, whereas the Sumerians were non-semetic people. Sumerian culture shares no resemblance to Iraqi culture. Iraqis today speak Arabic and Kurdish for the most part, both of which share little resemblance to Ancient Sumerian. the only tie Iraqis have with the Sumerians is the fact they both occupy/occupied the same land.


Sumerians did end up being absorbed genetically, linguistically and culturally. Iraq would have taken most of them. "Arab" and "semitic" is a pretty vague term. Do you mean beduins or Syrians converted to the arab language? It does make a difference. But I do see your point.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra


it is related to mostly genetics and language. how do you define an ethnicity or a people? Do we define them by genetics and linguistics, or by where they lived?

my point is this: until we know who the IVC people really are they are not really part of anyone's history. they are their own history, they are their own people.


Well we don't really know what language they spoke because their script has not been deciphered yet! Their language could be related to Mongolian, Russian, Arabic, Sanscrit even. For all we know they could be the original creators of Sanscrit and Avestan. Scripts, genes, language and culture can criss-cross at times.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 19:11
But really. If there is such an obvious mistake in current recorded history, which also happens to offend the people of an entire country, who do you go to?



-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 19:14
@ member_profile.asp?PF=1764&FID=35 - AlokaParyetra

This argument is not about, where the people of IVC went, or what their language was. Those questions are impossible to answer atm, even though some Indians already have answered them.

This argument is about Pakistan not having a shared history with Republic of India. They are 2 different people now, and they were only ever united during British Raj.


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 20:03
Originally posted by SpartaN117

But really. If there is such an obvious mistake in current recorded history, which also happens to offend the people of an entire country, who do you go to?



How about starting in wikipedia, gain some momentum and then take the challenge elsewhere. I already signed up for an account on wikipedia, since I had heard anyone can contribute, and changed a couple of details about panini and created a brand new[almost empty] entry on the town of Shalatula which is right on the Indus itself[not sure how much it is related to the Southern IVC though]. While I was filling in stuff about Shalatula I discovered that besides India robbing ancient Pakistani History, the Arabs, French and Italians did a good job too! Turns out Panini had a brother called  Pingala who was the first person responsible for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_numbers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_sequence - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_sequence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_triangle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_triangle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_sequence -
The Binary numbers and Fibonacci sequence has been corrected, but Pascal's triangle still needs to be corrected and the other two need to be refined and linked around better.  Maybe there is a way to pop in Pakistan here and there as a first step to making people understand exactly where this happened. Because changing "Ancient India" to "Ancient Pakistan" is going to have to come at a much later time after a lot more work. But wikipedia has to be the first place that it happens since it will be the easiest.

I did not touch the IVC wikipedia session yet since it is very detailed but I am sure a lot of work needs to be done there too, its just going to take a little more research and time.

The looting that is going on at this very moment is just ridiculous, everywhere you look some robber is running off with stolen pakistani history.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 21:03
I would love to have you as a VIP member on pakhub. The reason I created Pakhub was a home base for all the Pakistanis on the same mission.

I have already been on Wikipedia, and banned, (by an Indian mod for that matter). I will give it a few more shots.

I think its ridiculous that Allama Iqbal is known as an Indian. The claim they are referring to him as someone from the Indian subcontinent, hence Indian.
How lame does that actually sound?


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 23:01
I will be there as it builds up. I think we need a few people to work the wikipedia site and also work out a strategy how to change things over there little by little. Maybe you offended some Indian by doing something too suddenly I don't know. Also, that site it ontrolled at the very top by influential jews according to their own testimonials so one has to watch oneself and tread carefully so as not to arouse xenophobia in these people.


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 23:51
Who is Pingala?

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 01:41
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingala - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingala

From 2500 years ago.... Pingala is the little brother of the famous grammarian Panini. Panini is the guy who turned sanskrit/avestan into such a logically grammatized and organised language that nobody has been able to produce any changes to any language since then or ever that matched the logical consistencies of Sanskrit. He was born in a town on the bank of the river Indus near peshawar very close also to Taxila university[where he went later]. Today some techie people consider the sanskrit that panini produced to be a good enough model to design high level computer programming languages because all its rules were made 100% consistent and based on layers and layers of nested, predictable derivatives.

Anyway his little brother was Pingala...a genius mathematician who was the first to do work with binary numbers, the fibonacci numbers, Pascal's triangle...all that work was taken by the greeks[I am guessing] and then later "reappeared" as the original works of Arabs, Italians and French centuries later lol. Bharatis claim him as one of their own now of course.


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 01:56
I never heard of Pingala before. But if he's related to Panini he'd be for sure ancestrally Pakistani.

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 02:07
Originally posted by Aloka


but they weren't. 75% of iraq today is composed of Arab (read: semetic) people, whereas the Sumerians were non-semetic people. Sumerian culture shares no resemblance to Iraqi culture. Iraqis today speak Arabic and Kurdish for the most part, both of which share little resemblance to Ancient Sumerian. the only tie Iraqis have with the Sumerians is the fact they both occupy/occupied the same land.

While I agree with your point (and thank you for providing another reasonable voice) I'm going to pick on your example. Actually ancient sumerian culture (as far as we can tell) has quite alot to do with modern Iraqi and Arabic culture. The Arabic script is derived from sumerian I believe.
Originally posted by Sparta

Nobody knows what happened to the IVC people. But We only have their cities left. So Pakistan should be called the Home of IVC instead of India

Sparta I think you are far too preoccupied with the container and too little with the contents.

And using India to describe everyone in South Asia is wrong. It should be stopped. Its getting obvious that the Term India is just being used to cut Pakistanis out of their own history.

No, as I said above, the term India is used with a different meaning. There are multiple meanings to the same word, no serious historian (which is who we encourage here) associates IVC with modern india.
This argument is about Pakistan not having a shared history with Republic of India. They are 2 different people now, and they were only ever united during British Raj.

Not true. North India and Pakistan have always had a shared history, as do all neighbouring countries. And in the last 800 years the two regions have been united under the British, Mughals, and Delhi Sultanate - ie all the major North subcontinent Empires.

-------------


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 09:27
Yes. We probably have a shared history, but that doesnt mean we can join our histories.

If you go to Wikipedia, you will see that all "Ancient Indian" history has a ROI flag tagged to it.
Republic of India is called "the home of IVC".

These are the things I am concerned with right now.

Its just like the Brits, they have English people, Scottish, and Irish. And they take great care in giving them each their own history.

And yea, we need to define the container first before we can start defining its contents.


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 09:45
Somebody still hasn't changed that yet? I find it foolish to put a flag on anybodies history, let alone the IVC.


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 10:47
Somebody has already complained and won. If you go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India

You will see multiple flags as well as a "history of south asia" and a "history of india". So it looks like a lot of stuff has been already recovered from India. Now I just went to this other place called "history of pakistan":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pakistan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pakistan

And it says the page has been "locked" and that there are a lot of disputes going on. I had a feeling that some Afghans may have been involved with disputes over NWFP who knows. Its not just Bhartis that quarrel with pakistan over history and borders, Afghanistan has beef with pakistanis as well. But when I clicked on the "talk page" there its just Bhartis who are fighting the concept of "ancient pakistan" which some pakistani is trying to introduce there. And I was actually surprised to see an afghan was supporting pakis.

Well anyway this disputed page is where yet another clash similar to this thread seems to be going on with pakis trying to claim ancient history but being denied by bhartis. Angry


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 10:56
Ok I looked at the bio of that "afghan historian" and he is actually a paki, LoL. But he says he is part pashtun so he calls himself an afghan and he is part panjabi so he is pro paki. He also says he is an agnostic which I think is one thing the bhartis are terrified of. One of the main reasons I feel Bhartis have been able to steal so much ancient paki history is because so many pakis have been drunk and high on religion[islam] and just not bothered with the real world and indigenous paki history.

Fortunately for pakis, sane people are starting to wake up and reclaim what they can and at least start reversing the process. Thumbs Up

But if you go to the comments section you can see some Bhartis are mocking the concept of "ancient pakistan" and claiming the indus river belongs to bhartis as does the name india because of an "association with the indus culture" lol.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 16:14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AMbroodEY - and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bakasuprman - - man are the worst people you can argue with, if you can call it arguing. They refuse to even read the argument of Pakistani side because it is not from an "academic source", even though most of their sources are from Indian "academic sources"

This is simply the lamest argument I have heard.


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 18:13
This is the first thing one reads when you go to the talk page for that locked topic:


== i just want to ask all Pakistanis that don't do think twice before criticizing india,indian civilization and many more things, that u people were also some time were Hindus and part of this great vedic civilization .somebody came from west asia and forcefully converted all of u to muslims.now u r talking like those person.


How can a Bharti who cannot even seem to grasp basic English grammar be allowed to dictate who gets to affilliate with people like Panini, the greatest grammarian that ever lived? How to reason with people like this who have the ability to censor and control everything that goes in there as a correction?


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 18:59
Many of the moderators and so called historians on wikipedia are hindu extremists.

Just a few days after I posted my site address on Wikipedia, I noticed I had a considerable people coming to my site, using a link posted on the HinduUnity forums.
(an extremist hindu forum who spend their entire day poking fun of Islam, and post rubbish based on half quoted verses from Quran, and also happen to point out that they will ban you if you make any anti hindu post, or defend Islam)

Anyway. here is the screenshot
http://upload.pwnage.nu/files/upload2/pakhub-threat.JPG




-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 19:28
Well I think it should be very very easy to gain some ground on wikipedia if things are done right because truth is on the side of Pakistanis. It is only Pakistani people's own neglect and denial of our own history that has enabled them to gain illegitamate ground and only a handful of Pakistani wikipedians can take back what was stolen.

I doubt those spammers can do any harm, maybe you can log their IP addresses and complain to their ISPs.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 19:57
lol- One of them sent an "abusive" message to me, telling me to shut the site down. He even called Pakistan, "porkistan". Funny guy. Really hurt me...not.

-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2006 at 16:56
Originally posted by SpartaN117

Yes. We probably have a shared history, but that doesnt mean we can join our histories.
 
I look at it as though Punjab has one history (within its borders), Sindh another, Balochistan another, and NWFP another. All these are Pakistani history, and seperate from Indian history. But in terms of rulership, then yes there is some shared history with the surrounding countries.


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2006 at 23:30
Ok I cannot believe this. Pakistanis themselves are stealing our own history and tossing it to /dev/null. Go to wikipedia Pakistan and look at the sidebar where it gives governments and dynasties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan

- Abbasid Dynasty 711-962 
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaznavid_Empire - Ghaznavid Empire 962-1187 
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_of_Ghor - Ghorid Kingdom 1187-1206 
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Sultanate - Delhi Sultanate 1210-1526 
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire - Mughal Empire 1526-1707 
 - Declared http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_14 - August 14 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947 - 1947  
 - Republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_23 - March 23 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956 - 1956  


What the hell? Who wrote that? What about the Mauryan Empire? And wasnt the Gupta Empire ruling it too? And no IVC empire at all! Did the world start in 711? Lol 7-11 is when they start counting history too. Was probably created by some 711 employee educated in a madrassa. LOL

Ans this is what that nutjob has to say about paki history in the text:

Its territory was a part of pre-partition British India, and has a long history of settlement and civilisation including the Indus Valley Civilisation. Most of it was conquered in the 1st millennium BCE by Persians and Greeks. Later arrivals include the Arabs, Afghans, Turks, and Mongols. The territory was incorporated into the British Raj in the nineteenth century.


What the hell....what about the Punjabi/Sikh Empire that kept many pakis independent from the British? What about all the other local rulerships for the last few thousand years? What about when Sindh was taken over by Arabs? How the hell is the theft of pakistani history gunna be stopped when these madrassi deluded 50 IQ morons are burning up paki history themselves every chance their wahabi pigeon brains get? Angry


Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2006 at 04:13
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Originally posted by SpartaN117

Yes. We probably have a shared history, but that doesnt mean we can join our histories.
 
I look at it as though Punjab has one history (within its borders), Sindh another, Balochistan another, and NWFP another. All these are Pakistani history, and seperate from Indian history. But in terms of rulership, then yes there is some shared history with the surrounding countries.


and you can also say Gujarat has its own history. Then you could go onto say that Rajastan and Dehli have joint history. Then you could put Taml Nadu, parts of Andra Pradesh, Kerela and Karnataka together. Pretty soon you realise almost each state has it's own history.

That's all the ROI and Pakistan are, a union of these states and people need to stop treating it as anything else (not directed at you, just carrying on your point).


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2006 at 10:23

and you can also say Gujarat has its own history. Then you could go onto say that Rajastan and Dehli have joint history. Then you could put Taml Nadu, parts of Andra Pradesh, Kerela and Karnataka together. Pretty soon you realise almost each state has it's own history.

That's all the ROI and Pakistan are, a union of these states and people need to stop treating it as anything else (not directed at you, just carrying on your point).


You are wrong there.

Tamil Nadu does have a different history from North India, and just like combining Pakistans history with ROI, its wrong to combine Tamil Nadu's history with North India.

Before British rule, the Tamil people were rarely united with the rest of India. Exception being a few empires.
They are 2 different people, and currently, the Tamil people can say that they built the Taj Mahal.
With your current view on your own history, thats true. Tamils did build the Taj Mahal, because they are Indian.

Speaking of the Taj Mahal, I have never seen Indians include the Pakistanis in that one.

Looks like the heritage stealing only works one way.


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: Guss
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2006 at 20:04
I look at it as though Punjab has one history (within its borders), Sindh another, Balochistan another, and NWFP another. All these are Pakistani history, and seperate from Indian history. But in terms of rulership, then yes there is some shared history with the surrounding countries.
How is Punjabi history seperate from Indian history?  There are two Punjabs, one in India and the other in Pakistan.  By demarcating a border based on religous affiliation, and then saying that anyone on the pakistani side of the border is the direct descendent of the IVC people is beyond ridiculous.  Such an arbritary affiliation to past civilizations and individuals is preposterous.  The ethnicity of the IVC people is unknown, however, most scholars believe them to be dravidian.  It is generally agreed that the original inhabitants of the IVC were displaced by the Aryans, so therefore the modern day pakistanis have nothing to do with the IVC people.  Infact, whats hilarious is that the pakistanis on this board are pushing some of the same views as hinduatvas.
 
This is just another sorry tale in the chronicle of pakistan retelling of its history.  From trying to pass off as central asians, to writing about the causes of partition, to pakistan trying to distance itself from Indians, to the characters of muslim invaders - pakistanis can't seem to agree on these because of their own inherent biases and views they are trying to peddle.
 
I'd like one pakistani here to even try to argue that pakistanis wouldn't consider themselves Indian if during the 1900's, the majority of the people in the Indian subcontinent were agnostics/atheists.  The only reason pakistan exists is because of islam.  Hell, even during the 1900's, the Unionists in punjab did not support partition.  It was only after, when political affiliation was based around religous identity, was pakistan created.  Pakistanis are Indian muslims that wanted a seperate country from non-muslim Indians, not a seperate civilzation(although it can be argued now that pakistanis are part of the arab/persian/islamic civilization).  To argue that pakistanis are not Indian is a ridiculous claim, as the constituencies of the  All India Muslim Leauge would have most probably joined the republic of India had the congress agreed to establish a communal electoral system.  It is only later that pakistanis attempted to disassociate with Indians.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2006 at 22:49
Ok Guss

I am not even going to specifically reply to any of the arguments you posted there, because if you took 2 minutes of your time and actually decided to read this thread, you would realises all this has been answered.

But since you are better than the rest of us, and dont need to read the thread before you go on and start bashing Pakistanis let me explain...for the tenth time.

The ethnicity of the IVC people is not known. And yes India also has a Punjab.
But ALL the MAIN cities of IVC are inside Pakistan. Not only our Punjab, but Baluchistan and Sindh aswell. And this is a fact Indians are overlooking when calling India "the home of IVC".

Your argument simply states why Pakistan has nothing to do with IVC, but it doesnt even touch the subject of why Indians do have something to do with the IVC.
There is no evidence of the Dravidian theory. Most likely the people of IVC were wiped out in Pakistan, and some of them lived, and stayed in Pakistan, and they mixed with Arabs, Persians, through the ages and still do live in Pakistan.
The people of Pakistan have never left the place. Why do you refuse to understand that?

India has only been united less than 200 years. Before this, there was no such thing as Indian. So no, Pakistanis are not Indian. They are from the Indian subcontinent, but that doesnt make them Indian.

Before the British Raj, the Indian subcontinent consisted of hundreds of empires, and those empires have nothing to do with modern India. They werent Indian. They were of the Indian sub continent. Huge difference here. Hope you will see it.

-SpartaN


-------------

http://www.PakHub.Info - PakHub.Info
Reclaiming Pakistans Identity
Join Us


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2006 at 23:54
Originally posted by Guss

I'd like one pakistani here to even try to argue that pakistanis wouldn't consider themselves Indian if during the 1900's, the majority of the people in the Indian subcontinent were agnostics/atheists.  The only reason pakistan exists is because of islam.


The only reason Afghanistan exists is because of religion too, but that does not mean they do not have their own unique national character and personality and even genetics. A person from Kandahar is radically different in accent, appearance and personality from a person in Tabriz. Similarly a person from Lahore is going to have a different character and come from a different culture than someone from Madras or Chennai. The differences are even greater when you consider villages. Pakistanis also have a fiercely independent and martial character which is shared by their East Panjabi and Rajistan neighbors.

Originally posted by Guss

To argue that pakistanis are not Indian is a ridiculous claim, as the constituencies of the  All India Muslim Leauge would have most probably joined the republic of India had the congress agreed to establish a communal electoral system.  It is only later that pakistanis attempted to disassociate with Indians.


Pakistanis are Indians..pakis are the ORIGINAL indians in fact--the name was taken from them by Bharatis, causing a lot of confusion. Pakistanis are not Bharatis however. And except for some of the Gujratis, some parts of Rajistan and also Kashmir/East Punjab..."Indians" are not Indians but are Bharatis...with a culture and  to an extent even appearance different from  pakis and northwest indians.


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 25-Dec-2006 at 04:44
An article on IVC life:

http://members.aol.com/Donnclass/Indialife.html#INDUS - http://members.aol.com/Donnclass/Indialife.html#INDUS

We know very little about this civilization, but what we know is fascinating! Over 4,000 years ago, in the Indus Valley, people built huge, planned cities, with straight streets, and brick homes with private baths!  Kids played with toys and women wore lipstick!

How do we know this?   In 1922, archaeologists found something exciting! They found the remains of an ancient city called Harappa. They found another city, located 400 miles southwest of Harappa, called Mohenjo-Daro. Other ancient cities from the same period, arranged in the same way, have been found since. Collectively, this civilization is referred to as the Indus Valley Civilization (sometimes, the Harappan civilization). This civilization existed from about 3000-2,500 BCE to about 1500 BCE, which means it existed at about the same time as the Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations.

What was life like, over 4,000 years ago, in Harappa and in Mohenjo-Daro, two busy cities of about 35,000 people each?  Would you have wanted to live in one of these flourishing ancient cities? (I think they sound neat!) Let's see what you think!  

Homes: Houses were one or two stories high, made of baked brick, with flat roofs, and were just about identical. Each was built around a courtyard, with windows overlooking the courtyard. The outside walls had no windows. Each home had its own private drinking well and its own private bathroom. Clay pipes led from the bathrooms to sewers located under the streets. These sewers drained into nearly rivers and streams. This was a very advanced civilization!

Clothing:  Men and women dressed in colorful robes. Women wore jewelry of gold and precious stone, and even wore lipstick! Among the treasures found was a statue of a women wearing a bracelet. (Bracelets with similar designs are worn today in India.)

Entertainment: A beautiful small bronze statue of a dancer was found, which tells us that they enjoyed dance and had great skill working with metals. In the ancient city of Mohenjo-daro, scientists have found the remains of a large central pool, with steps leading down at both ends. This could have been a public swimming pool, or perhaps have been used for religious ceremonies. Around this large central pool were smaller rooms, that might have dressing rooms, and smaller pools that might have been private baths.

Food: Dinner might have been warm tasty wheat bread served with barley or rice. It would appear they were very good farmers. They grew barley, peas, melons, wheat, and dates. Farms raised cotton and kept herds of sheep, pigs, zebus (a kind of cow), and water buffalo. Fish were caught in the river with fish hooks!  Each town had a large central storage building for grain. Crops were grown, and the harvest stored centrally, for all in the town to enjoy.   

Toys:  Some of the toys found were small carts, whistles shaped like birds, and toy monkeys which could slide down a string!

Art:  This ancient civilization must have had marvelous craftsmen, skilled in pottery, weaving, and metal working. The pottery that has been found is of very high quality, with unusually beautiful designs. Several small figures of animals, such as monkeys, have been found. These small figures could be objects of art or toys. There are also small statues of what they think are female gods. So far, scientists have found no large statues. They have found bowls made of bronze and silver, and many beads and ornaments. The metals used to make these things are not found in the Indus Valley. So, either the people who lived in this ancient civilization had to import all of these items from some other place, or more probably, had to import the metals they used to make these beautiful things from somewhere else.

Transportation: The people used camels, oxen and elephants to travel over land. They had carts with wooden wheels. They had ships, with one mast, probably used to sail around the Arabian Sea. Seals with a pictographic script, which has not as yet been deciphered, were found at the Indus Valley sites. Similar seals were found in Mesopotamia, which seems to indicate possible trade between these two civilizations.

The Riddle of the Indus: What does it take to build a city with straight streets and well designed sewers? It takes smart engineers and a lot of planning! These well organized cities suggest a well organized government and probably a well-developed social life.

What is amazing is that it appears the Harappan cities did not develop slowly, which suggests that whoever built these cities learned to do so in another place. As the Indus flooded, cities were rebuilt on top of each other. Archaeologists have discovered several different cities, one built over the other, each built a little less skillfully. The most skillful was on bottom. It would appear that builders grew less able or less interested in perfection over time. Still, each city is a marvel, and each greatly advanced for its time.

So far, scientists have found no wall carvings or tomb paintings to tell us about their life. We do know they had a written language, but only a few sentences, on pottery and amulets, have been found. We don’t know what it says. Scholars have quite a few mysteries to solve about the ancient Indus civilization.  For one thing, the people who lived in these marvelous cities disappeared around 1500 BCE. Perhaps they ran out of wood to hold back flooding, or perhaps their soil gave out and no longer would grow crops. No one knows what happened these people, or where they went. Historians are very curious. It will be interesting to see what archaeologists "dig up" next!

UPDATE ON THE INDUS VALLEY! (Spring, 1998)     Thanks to modern technology and international rivalry, nearly 1,400 Indus sites (towns!) have now been discovered. That is a very big civilization, large enough to be called an empire, only there is no evidence that these people were governed by emperors who lived in palaces or large estates. Rather, the opposite has been discovered. Some homes are a bit larger than others, but that might be due to a larger family unit.  

What else have scientists discovered about this fascinating culture? LOTS! Their towns were laid out in grids everywhere (straight streets, well built homes!) These people were incredible builders! Scientists have found what they think are giant reservoirs for fresh water. They have also found that even the smallest house at the edge of each town was linked to that town's central drainage system. (Is it possible that they not only drained waste water out, but also had a system to pump fresh water into their homes, similar to modern plumbing? What a neat thought! Who were these people? Remember-these systems were built over 3,500 years ago!)

Although scientists can not yet read the language, they are beginning to believe these people had a common language! That's incredible! As well, scientists have found artifacts at different sites (towns) with the same or similar picture of a unicorn on them. India Today suggested humorously that perhaps it was a logo - like Pepsi and Coke, only this one was Unicorn!

What next? Scientists remain very curious about these people, who lived about the same time in history as the ancient Mesopotamians and the ancient Egyptians. Did these ancient civilizations know each other in ancient times? My personal opinion is - yes! As scientists continue to unravel the riddle of the Indus, we may find we will have to rewrite history! Was it the ancient Mesopotamians who first invented the sailboat and the wheel, or was it perhaps the people in the Indus Valley? Where did these people come from, and where did they go? It's a fascinating riddle.




Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2006 at 12:40
This is a silly discussion, and I have read many of the posts.

Pakistan and India need to learn to share the history of the region, because they both stand on it. In this page, somebody claimed the Ghaznavid and Ghorid sultanates as Pakistani, but so can Afghanistan because Ghaznavaid and Ghorid sultunates began in Afghanistan. The Durrani empire also took all of Pakistan and stemmed from Afghanistan.

Using the logic stemming from the name of the post of 'Stolen History' should we not call those empires stated above as 'Stolen" from Afghanistan?

Do you guys not see how ridiculous 'stealing' history is? History is meant to be shared.

-------------
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com