Pakistani Identity

I don't think being alone makes me wrong necessarily does it? If everyone beleived 2+2=7 and I didn't so what?

First off the use of "Paki nationalists" is a direct insult from Omar.The word is offensive and I don't care who said it.It is clearly a racial slur.

Its funny how you go into long explanations about this, and yet without any logic, agree that it should be called Indian.

I have said countless of times before, Pakistan is not being referred to as a Political entity, just like India isnt, when Ancient India is mentioned. I am pretty sure the people of IVC didnt call themselves Indian either.

Pakistan has much more to do with IVC than India, all these wishful theories stating that the people of IVC conveniently settled east of the border annoy me since they have no evidence to support them.

Pakistani history belongs to Pakistanis more than it belongs to Indians. According to your logic, even though my Great Grandparents always lived in the lands of Pakistan, and never called themselves Indian, I have to call them Indian and not Pakistani. While you may argue that calling them Pakistani would me "misleading" (as if calling them Indian wouldnt) but you are also saying that associating them with Pakistan would be totally wrong. So much logic and facts is being presented, yet people here use weird counter logic to disprove this, and then they dont even feel the need to justify labelling everything Indian.

Its already taking action. Pakistan is reclaiming words like Harappa and Indus Valley to be associated with Pakistan. What will Indians do? Fight the natives of the lands of Indus for their Identity and their history? Sorry to say this, but your reasoning is based on national pride. It causes more offence to Pakistanis than it makes sense.

@Omar, every Comment I have read from you has been somewhat anti Pakistan. While you may be a Pakistani, you certainly dont seem like it, so I personally found you using the "paki" expression as offensive.
I would be happy to debate this topic with you, but you have shown that no amount of logic and facts will change your opinion. You are intent on labelling everything Indian, whether it was Indian or was ever even referred to as Indian. I guess you are happy with the fact that Pakistanis were "created" in 1947, and have no distinctive history before this.

And I feel that Distel question was a valid one at that. It was a simple question, and you took offence. It would be equally appropriate for you to get a warning for the "paki" statement.



Edited by SpartaN117 - 27-May-2007 at 11:57

Thankyou i appluad your last post.

@Omar, every Comment I have read from you has been somewhat anti Pakistan. While you may be a Pakistani, you certainly dont seem like it, so I personally found you using the "paki" expression as offensive. I would be happy to debate this topic with you, but you have shown that no amount of logic and facts will change your opinion. You are intent on labelling everything Indian, whether it was Indian or was ever even referred to as Indian. I guess you are happy with the fact that Pakistanis were "created" in 1947, and have no distinctive history before this.

I have never claimed anything for anyone including and especially india. When you first came here I actually agreed with your argument. All I have tried to do is correct your history. Your not going to win any arguments on a history forum with bad history.
~And I don't even understand why paki is supposed to be offensive

@Leonidas

I didnt deny the shared history but here we go again, you are happy with it staying as "Indian". No compromise on your part.
You have to understand that these kingdoms didnt call themselves Indian either, and in most cases the ethnicities involved are isolated to Pakistan.

The migration is a very bad excuse to label anything Indian. They are minorities in India, and this still doesnt affect ancient history, but only history post 1947.

Since you keep coming with the old arguments, let me put it into other words.

Consider Ghandaran kingdom. It was a Pashtun Kingdom. They never called themselves "Indian", but Ghandrian, or Pashtuns.
Now consider this:
There are 28 million Pasthuns in Pakistan (not including Afghan immigrants)
There are 12 million in Afghanistan.
There are 13 000 in India.

Do you see a problem calling Ghandara, Indian? It is not located in India, the people didnt call themselves Indian, and the people still dont call themselves Indian in modren times.

And it doesnt even make sense to call it an "Indian" kingdom. The Kingdoms coexisted. How can Kingdoms Coexist??? Obviously they were not united, so grouping them all as "India" is wrong on so many levels, and is only used for Indian nationalist purposes.

I have yet to hear one argument from you for why it should be known as "Indian" history. You keep debunking Pakistani arguments but dont question Indian claims whatsoever.

The only Indian argument I have heard which even makes the slightest sense, is that by "Indian" history, they mean Indian subcontinental.

This is another nationalist excuse. If this was the case, they wouldnt associate Indian flag with the history, and even for kingdoms entirely within Pakistan, they refuse to go into detail of the location, but just insist on calling it Indian.
I mean, why not group the entire worlds history and simply call it Earthian history. Would be much easier.
The Indian subcontinent has been united for a minimal amount of time to group its history, and even if this was the case, a more Neutral name should be given, like South Asian.

I am all for calling the kingdoms by their Oringal names, like Ghandara, Sindh, Indus Valley, and Kushuns empire.
But all these empires and kingdoms form Pakistani history, not Indian. Hence its Pakistani identity.

The term India is relatively new, and comes from "Indus". Alexander referred the region of Pakistan as "Indus" , so technically it should be called Alexanders invasion of Indus, not India. India is what the Brits labelled "Hindoostan", and they randomly used the ancient greek word to derive it.
In 1947, India claimed the name. Surely we are not short sighted enough to give India the history of Pakistan, because of a misused name?.

To summarise, "Indian" history is defined by Hinduism, not the people who call themselves Indian.
This is the main problem.



Edited by SpartaN117 - 28-May-2007 at 11:41

Look, the word India has many separate meanings.

According to the British Raj, India was the name used for all lands encompassing what is now Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh. When they left, British mentality was still very prevalent. Therefore, the lands that represented 70% of British India retained the name, "India."

Furthermore, most indology was constructed during the time of the British Raj. Therefore, British terminology was still used.

When historians say "India," they understand its connotations, and the fact that it is a British mindset.

If you were keen, you would spend your time and energy into spreading awareness for the different connotations of the word "India," and help people understand the inherent differences in the names, Republic of India, and India. One is a modern construction. The other is a older British creation.

As for ancient kingdoms, i agree with Omar on this: they don't belong to anyone. The Sumerians are no more Iraqi than the IVC is ____ian.

Because it's convention.

If you really want change, you need to take things one step at a time.

First, push (not quite sure who,) to get people to understand the key differences between the post partition and pre partion usages of the word "India." You need to get people used to the idea of separate definitions.

Once people are able to understand the various definitions, you have try to get people to recognize ethnicities belonging to the pre partition definition. You could say things like, "pre-partition Indian states of _____." Or, when talking about ancient civilizations, be sure to include adjectives that distinguish clearly what definition you are using. ie, "the classical Indian kingdoms of the Mahabharata were centered around the north west regions of what is now the Republic of India."

After that, half the battle's done.

You can't just come in, swords drawn, and expect everyone to stop saying "Ancient Indian." It doesn't work like that. Especially not with history. It's my belief that Historians are some of the most stubborn people on the planet.

Take things slower. You'll win eventually. Like Ghandi :)

I believe we are winning.Many people are reffering to Pakistan even before it's pre-47 period just like my history teacher.

But where did these religious fanatics come from is the question? Islamic fundamentalism was not there till many Bharati immigrants came and enforced it on the Pakistani population.