Pakistani Identity

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim And I remind to you once again, that the word india is - at least - 2500 years old. And the entire subcontinent has been united - albeit briefly - several times before the English.

The word India is at least 2500 years old but let us not forget that during 2240 of those 2500 years it was associated with the Indus Valley not with the Gangetic plains, Eastern Ghats, Western Ghats of Bharat.

During partition of the Subcontinent in 1947 the Bharatis got control of the word "India" and gave their country two names. One was India and the other was Bharat. Bharat was a backup name, their real name based on the religion they continued to adopt. Bharatis knew they were bharatis--but they also knew they could use the name India globally and academically to their advantage so they held on to it.

Pakistan lost the name India/Hindustan because of  basically lack of pride in history caused by excessive islamic zeal. The name India has the urdu equivalent hindustan. Note HINDU-STAN. The word Hindu used to mean someone from the lands of the Indus valley as used by outsiders but the British turned it into a description of the polytheistic faiths of various Bharati groups.

Because of this excessive Islamic zeal and the fanatic desire of post 1947 pakistani religious fundementalists the nation-state of Pakistan lost its rightful historic claim to the word India because of its association with the word "hinduism".

Pakis need to educate themselves about how the names India, Hindustan and Bharat: what they mean and what the history is behind all these names and more importantly how they are being used in global academia and the global mass media by Bharatis to claim pakistani history as bharati history.

Originally posted by maqsad Originally posted by Omar al Hashim And I remind to you once again, that the word india is - at least - 2500 years old. And the entire subcontinent has been united - albeit briefly - several times before the English. The word India is at least 2500 years old but let us not forget that during 2240 of those 2500 years it was associated with the Indus Valley not with the Gangetic plains, Eastern Ghats, Western Ghats of Bharat. During partition of the Subcontinent in 1947 the Bharatis got control of the word "India" and gave their country two names. One was India and the other was Bharat. Bharat was a backup name, their real name based on the religion they continued to adopt. Bharatis knew they were bharatis--but they also knew they could use the name India globally and academically to their advantage so they held on to it. Pakistan lost the name India/Hindustan because of  basically lack of pride in history caused by excessive islamic zeal. The name India has the urdu equivalent hindustan. Note HINDU-STAN. The word Hindu used to mean someone from the lands of the Indus valley as used by outsiders but the British turned it into a description of the polytheistic faiths of various Bharati groups. Because of this excessive Islamic zeal and the fanatic desire of post 1947 pakistani religious fundementalists the nation-state of Pakistan lost its rightful historic claim to the word India because of its association with the word "hinduism". Pakis need to educate themselves about how the names India, Hindustan and Bharat: what they mean and what the history is behind all these names and more importantly how they are being used in global academia and the global mass media by Bharatis to claim pakistani history as bharati history.

Originally posted by Azat But we have to be honest in our approach that though Pakistan was at the heart of this nation which we may call sapthasindhva of Aryans or Scythia of Greeks or Sindhi of Arabs yet it was not bounded by current boundaries of present day pakistan in totality and had many areas of northwestern India like Punjab and Haryana that was hub of vedic civilization and Balkh of Afghanistan in addition to some parts of iran like makran that was a part of Indus valley civilization.

Right but Punjab and Haryana are such a tiny portion of modern day Bharat and most of the people there resemble pakis more than they do the other 1 billion Bharatis in language(punjabi), dress, physical appearance and diet. This needs to be pointed out to illustrate how ridiculous the historical claims of Modern Bharat are.

It also needs to be pointed out to show how ludicrous Bharti assertions are that Pakistan was some minor appendage of "mother india" which is nonsense. We know the exact opposite is true, the last 2500 years it is pakistan that has had a tremendous and disproportionate influence culturally over Bharat.

First of all that did not include the entire subcontinent.Second of all I am puzzled why you are using an Arabic name.

If you are Pakistani, why are you trying to force Indian revisionist history on us so bad? You should know better than anyone?

unless...

Again you made a blant claim without providing any sources so your claim remains invalid.

But it does not include modern day Pakistan which was the entity of Sindh.

Unless oyu can read modern-day maps, Pakistan is located North West of the Republic of India.The entity of Sindh included the land called today as "Pakistan"

Hind only applied to India. Indus Valley was known as Sindh.

Check out these Arab and Portuguese maps.

http://www.conncoll.edu/academics/departments/relstudies/290/theory/worldmaps/118.gif

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/mughal/portuguese1630/1630asiamax.jpg

The map you provided, Omer, is good enough to disprove your claims.