Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Pakistanis and Indians same? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234 5> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||||||||
bilal_ali_2000 
Baron 
Joined: 03-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 409 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Pakistanis and Indians same?Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 21:10 |
|||||||||
|
It just burns me up when foreigners like these open their mouths in matters of which they have little knowledge. The peopel of Indus Valley and Bengal same. Really? Please in fact if you didn't knew the people of the Indus Valley Civilization were the same people that are inhabitting that region now. The people of present day Punjab are the same people as that of ancient Harappa and the people of Sindh are the same people as that of Mohenjodaro. The people of Harappa were slightly different than the people of Mohenjodaro and both of them were in turn different from West Asia. This is the type of varaibilty which occured even among the population of ancient Pakistan and you are equating them to Bengalis hundreds of miles away????
Now there was this program on oyutube called "In the footsteps" of Alexander. When the host came ot Multan for Alexander's battle with the Mils he kept on calling the people of ancient Multan as Indians, it just really burned me up and angered me. If he couldn't call the people of ancient Multan Mutanis or Mils at l;eat call them Pakistanis but no true o0t most foreigners ignorance he kept on calling them Indians. Really what relevance does a Multani has to a Keralan. It is completely absurd and very offensive as if the present day Pakistanis have no ancient counterpart.
Really it has to be said that European understanding of the culture they study sivery very poor. I will discuss all this topic at length in the thread "Why i am wrong about the Aryan Invasion Theory"
|
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
Ikki
Chieftain 
Guanarteme Joined: 31-Dec-2004 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 1378 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 22:56 |
|||||||||
|
Sparten
Language: bengali and punjabi are close brothers because they splited only one thousand years ago, in comparation romance languages begin divergence near two thousands years ago and some afroasiatic languages like berber family and arab likely more than five thousands years ago. Culture: they share common features in cloth, food and certain social traditions like the caste system wich is present in Pakistan in variant form. If we talk about muslim bengalis, the differences close. Myths: i don't know Hero: i don't know History: in the last 2500 years Bengal and Punjab for example had shared more time under the same political entities and leaders than most countries in the world. Mauryan Empire: 137 years Gupta Empire: 230 years Dheli Sultanate: 320 years Mughal Empire: 331 years British India: 89 years Total: 1107 years of common history between two regions with thousands kilometres in the middle, and i have not included the time only 40 years ago when eastern Bengal was united with Pakistan. But, this time can be increased if we talk about other northern indian region, and in fact indian Punjab have 2450 years of common history with pakistan Punjab, are the indian punjabis pakistanis? Baniyas
Food: northern India food and Punjab for example are exactly the same, with little variations since 1950, bengali food is another cuisine style but very related with those of northern India.
Clothes: if we foreigners confuse the cloth from both extrem of the subcontinent is not a coincidence, both peoples shared several garments like Kameez and in fact is very difficult for a non trained eye to recognize regional variations (wich are a lot). All in all the punjabi and the cloth from regions of central India are closest between them than with Iran, China or Thailand cloth.
Looks: certainly the appearence are different.
Others: they share commons cultural expressions like the Basant festival of hindu base.
Certainly, the word "same" can be excessive, the diversity of subcontinent is huge, but the degree of this difference is special, not as close as regions in one european country like France, not as different in a intercontinental level, bantu-chinese for example. That is why the english called it the subcontinent and that is why since the roman times, the foreigners see a unity in the diversity.
And oh, i'm not sure if italians and english are so much differents, they are more differents than similars? sure? In fact, we feel so close in Europe that we will bring up, with time, an unified state that today is the first economic power of the world. Was sooo much stupid to fight between us...
Bilal_ayi_2000
Stop those xenophobic comments
Read up what i think about this question, and don't forget i talk about a foreign perception, a deepest analysis will show a reality more complex than pure equality or pure difference.
Of course the history of this piece of the Earth stopped more than three thousands years ago.
We have had several discussions in this forum about this question, the ancients called indians to the peoples of the Punjab, and not only they, now search me the reference where greeks and romans called punjabies "Pakistanis"
The problem is that you are triying to split peoples united in the past.
Some guy said before that the differences between pakistanis and indians were more important before and surelly we are in process, wich is global, of unification, but i think that in certain manner the question can be the opposite, the nationalist system specially in Pakistan is triying to take distance from the history and culture of the present day territory of the indian republic, triying to make an artifficial Pakistan in the past and that is impossible. Pakistan and India are only different entities since 60 years, and Pakistan with the present territory and present borders have too only 60 years, try to call "Pakistan" to the Indus Valley culture and sucessors is like to call "english" to those who built Stonehenge.
Edited by Ikki - 08-Mar-2008 at 23:49 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Bulldog
Caliph 
Joined: 17-May-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2800 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 23:37 |
|||||||||
|
What is more worrying than the level of ignorance shown towards the Indian Sub Continent is telling people from the region that they're wrong. Its like the classic, your all Arabs argument used against Iranians.
Or your all Africans, to a Nigerian trying to explain they are different to people in Angola.
Parts of Northern India and Southern Pakistan being similar does not make Pakistanis "Indians" or mean they have an Indian culture because to suggest this would imply that all of India is a mono-culture. India itself is very diverse, India as we know it with its current geographic boundries is a result of the Brittish period.
To say Indians and Pakistanis are to same first the Telugu, Tamils, Gujuratis, Punjabis would have to be the same.
It is Pakistani heritage, they have every right to claim it, or let me get this right...your suggesting a Tamil has of a legitimate claim.
I find the argument that Pakistanis have no heritage and are a fabricated people with only a 60 year old history who actually belong to India patronising to say the least.
There was no "India" as we know it in history.
The peoples of Pakistan have lived together under the same state and empires on and off for over a thousand years.
The peoples of India never lived under one united rule, the closest form came during the Maurya Empire, Delhi Sultanate under Muhammed Tughluq and Mughal periods and they only ever lasted a few centuries at most. Edited by Bulldog - 08-Mar-2008 at 23:51 |
||||||||||
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme Joined: 31-Dec-2004 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 1378 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 00:14 |
|||||||||
Remember me another time that in any forum any person can talk about anything out of his country.
No, conform the mighty and glorious Indian Civilization.
Megasthenes, 300 years before the born of Jesuchrist
(35.) India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile.
If you want, change "same" for the more concrete "more similar than different".
Try to aply your logic to any other country of the world, try to call "frenchmen" to the Cromagnon men.
I have not say that, i think Pakistan is an state and this state is triying to make a new people composed by historical peoples wich are brothers of others. India and Pakistan are two political entities in equal level, of the same human group. It's my opinion.
I'm not so sure... and i have three prooves, certain close relations in culture, a common foreign perception and similar frontiers of sucessive states in the subcontinent.
But they were close, and remember, not a mere geographical concept and not a homogeneous country, something in the middle. Edited by Ikki - 09-Mar-2008 at 00:17 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2800 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 00:40 |
|||||||||
It wasn't directed at you, sorry for the misunderstanding, I used to believe all Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis were the same, untill my Pakistani friends gave me a lecture on how stupid my views were
If your referring to the Indus Valley civillzation it was based in todays Pakistan
 The Vedic civillisation was also around the Pakistan/Northern India region.
India today doesn't just comprise of the north of the country.
The Mauryan Empire only lasted around 150 years and did not include the Tamil regions or Sri Lanka.
The Delhi Sultanate ruled for longer and so did the Mughals so according to this logic, as Pakistanis have stronger ties to these two empires they can have a claim over India.
Are they more similar than different? please explain how.
Northern and Southern Indians have some major differences, from language-group, to history, to culture, India itself is not the "same".
The peoples who have lived under the same frontiers together are mainly those of present day Pakistan and parts of Northern India. In modern-day India there were many different states, kingdoms and empires in different areas. Edited by Bulldog - 09-Mar-2008 at 00:45 |
||||||||||
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 06:21 |
|||||||||
Dear Bulldog from United Kingdom,
Your above statement and your map contradict each other. On the map you list 6 cities, one of which is not considered part of the Indus Valley civilization. Of the remaining 5 only 2 are in Pakistan and 3 in India. Would you care to explain your statement that Indus Valley civilization is based in today's Pakistan.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 06:49 |
|||||||||
|
The main cities were Mohen-jo-Daro and Harrapa.
Ikki,
Firstly there is no one language called "Punjabi", there are a varierty of dialects (which are often mutually unintelligable), for example the Lahori-Amristar one (which is often called Punjabi and if memory serves is the only one in India today), the Mianwali ones, the Sargodha one, the Gujrati and Sialkot ones. I have not included Potohari and Seriki since they are recognized as different languages.
Myths: you don't know and yet you calim that Bengal and Punjab are the same, well lets see, Bengal the myths of Kartik, the Ganagvatarana, in the Ounjabi, there us Heer Ranjha
Poetry: Bengali poetry, men like Tagore, Punjabi poetry: Bulleh Shah, Iqbal etc.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme Joined: 31-Dec-2004 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 1378 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 17:34 |
|||||||||
ups
 sorry Bulldog, i was confused.
No, i was not referring exactly to Indus Valley civilization, wich was based on Indus river but too in great territories into present indian union (Pakistan?
 ), but to Indus Valley civilization, vedic, classical hindu, medieval hindu-islamic and modern India until today, some people call it certainly the "Indian Culture", i prefer indian civilization and the concept followed for make books like these:
You have not seen my point: Megasthenes and like him many others ancient authors like Ptolemy consider India into those frontiers, wich are a mixture of geographical and ethnical elements: the sea to east and west, but mountains in the north taking out the scythes.
First, all India in the classical sense have a hindu base and in certain sense islamic (an Islam with native features all across the subcontinent), second althought there are differents linguistics groups specially important the dravidian vs indoeuropean split in fact the common tradition in religion, society (think about the caste system wich present a variation in present Pakistan), arts and history close the difference. Islam is not an argument of difference between Pakistan and India at the moment that there are lot of muslims in present India in the northwest, in the northeast and in the region of Hyderabad. There are a lot of things like cloths and food wich a particular for all the subcontinent but not outside, for example the sari, the female cloth, until 1950 common to all the subcontinent and the same can be said with a lot of festivals.
No certainly, we can't think same, a homogeneous subcontinent. Pakistan is closest to northern indian in some ways than south India. In fact along the history South India, wich is my favourite portion of the subcontinent is a history of independence, temporal union with the indogangetic empires and then again fight and the follow of the own way. Why a region with thousands years of common background like north India is splited in three portions one of they united with the always aside south is a mistery for me.
Right, but in fact the Indus Valley civilization was as pakistani as union indian.
Sure you are correct, i thought that both languages was more close both derive from prakrit recently but well, i'm in a mistake and if you say that "pujabi" have dialecst unintelligables... But
at the end the curious thing is that punjabis and western bengalis have the same official language, the so called "hindustani", urdu or hindi wich cover 95% of the subcontinent territory.
But Sparten, for centuries they have shared a common or similar base for society, literature, architecture...
I can't accept the pakistani tendence to stress the difference with other regions of subcontinent denying a lot of common features see the ban of the use of the sari in Pakistan after 1950
, or the negation of the closest relations between some pakistanis and indians than pakistanis-pakistanis (punjabis from one and another side of the frontier vs punjabis-shindis) and in this post you can see a lot of opinions about the absolute separation of both countries in all things, and that is clearly false.I don't deny Pakistan, this country is country loved and wanted by the people into the frontiers. Don't matter if they share common things with neighbours, the citizen opinion is what matter, but Pakistan is a nation-state under construction and is an entity new without precedent in the history, legitime but new; if you try to put in the past the present concept of this country i can't support you and sincerely, i don't see with good eye the tendence to isolate the present territory from union indian history, that is lie for the own pakistanis for their self conscious.
regards
Edited by Ikki - 09-Mar-2008 at 17:39 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 17:59 |
|||||||||
|
Ikki, since when did Pakistan ban the Sari? It was never a part of the local culture here, but it is still worn on formal occasions. It is the uniform of the Pakistan Army female officers to this day. Here is a picture of Pakistani General Shahida Malik HI(M).
 Pakistan has links with India more so in '47 then say '08, that is undeniable. But we are a country where the culture and language and traditions change literally every ten miles so saying that say district Attock on Indus is similar to Dhaka in Bengal is patently untrue.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme Joined: 31-Dec-2004 Location: Spain Online Status: Offline Posts: 1378 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 18:38 |
|||||||||
I thought that was traditional until the independence, and then fall in daily use because the negative opinion of the pakistani goverment
 Agree and sorry if i have said something offensive to you.Guys i will take a rest for some time in this discussion, recognize that walk over a minefield is a hard work
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Mar-2008 at 05:27 |
|||||||||
|
You are using Indian sources. It was never traditional here, in modern day Pakistan, its always been Shalwar Kameez.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
bilal_ali_2000
Baron
Joined: 03-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 409 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 09:52 |
|||||||||
Please tell me that how Shalwar Qameez is a West Asian dress. Shalawar Qameez is a dress which is not worn by anyone but South Asians (I am including Afghanistan here).
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke 
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Mar-2008 at 01:48 |
|||||||||
Try looking at an Indian's wedding alblum and the wedding alblum of a Pakistani. Unless the Pakisitanis are wearing head scarves or there are visible Hindu statues etc, it is difficult to tell the two wedding photo alblums apart. Edited by Cryptic - 12-Mar-2008 at 01:50 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Mar-2008 at 18:00 |
|||||||||
|
Wedding album? From which region?
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King 
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 09:01 |
|||||||||
What about Arabs? Even the same word is used.
So? Can you tell the difference between a French and Polish wedding? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 19:00 |
|||||||||
They were from Karachi, Pakistan. I do not think the Pakistanis had kept an ethnic identity other than mainstream "Pakistani". The Indian Hindus were from Mumbai.
I understand that Pakistanis and Indians with distinct tribal or ethnic identities may have less in common. "Mainstream" Pakistanis and Indians from the cities, however, have local versions of the same culture (except religion).
Probably not just by photos. If the Poles spoke a regional variant of French and ate a variant of French cuisine, I would say that the two had local versions of one culture.
Edited by Cryptic - 13-Mar-2008 at 19:08 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2008 at 19:36 |
|||||||||
|
"mainstream" Pakistanis? All Pakistanis are mainstream. We have no ethnic majority or minority. A wedding in Hyderabad will be different from one in Hayatabad so much as to be unrecognizeable. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 13:32 |
|||||||||
|
^
I was under the impression that the Kalash were a distinct minority. Also, are tribes from the NWFP province, Kashmiris, Indian derived Paksitanis and Afghans (legal and illegal residents) considered ethnic minorities?
Honestly, I am aware that there are very few Kalash. I am also not so foolish as to argue with a Pakstani about Pakistan. My only point is that somebody who has been living in Lahore for years, who does not have a tribal identity or rural customs is going to have a similar culture with urban Indians (Hindu, Muslim, Christian) living close to the border areas.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 00:10 |
|||||||||
|
Sure, for that reason in your comparision between a Bombay & Karachi wedding, you should remember that alot of muhajirs from Karachi came from Bombay. So there are probably more similarities between Bombay & Karachi than other cities.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
True Afghan
Janissary 
Joined: 21-Mar-2008 Location: Paradise Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 00:46 |
|||||||||
Shalwar Qameez/Piran Tonban has nothing to do with South Asia...in fact in warm weather of South asia it is senseless to wear this kind of cloth. Shalwar Qameez is iranic people cloth---Pashtons, bloch, Persian, kurd, Tajik and. Here is traditional Persian cloth....Shalwar Kameez....  This is you south asian cloth!----
 Edited by True Afghan - 23-Mar-2008 at 00:49 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 5> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
