Print Page | Close Window

Pakistani Identity

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=19444
Printed Date: 14-May-2024 at 02:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Pakistani Identity
Posted By: SpartaN117
Subject: Pakistani Identity
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2007 at 20:44

http://lahoreschool.wordpress.com/2005/06/11/pakistan-identity/ - Pakistan Identity

“An Ancient Connection”: The Indus River, the Silk Route, the Grand Trunk Road, and the Makran Coast.
Sonia Salim
The need to conduct a research on the Pakistani identity is important because it is necessary, and it compels continuity. It is necessary because as a relatively new nation-state in this world, Pakistani’s are in a constant struggle with how they see themselves; more succinctly put, what does it mean to be Pakistani post 1947? 

What is the Pakistani identity? With a 5000-year-old history, the Pakistani identity is historically constituted, not just a product of the last century [Ahsan, 1996]. This identity is indeed rich with an indigenous culture, traditions, and language, separate and distinct from a specific Indian, or Arab, or Turk, or Afghan identity. The problem at hand is that most Pakistani’s at present do not appeal to their ancient history when confronted with this identity crisis. Most nationalist campaigns only appeal to the recent events that lead up to 14 August 1947. Thus a research conducted on the Pakistan Identity needs to reveal the historical stories and events, which made us who we were yesterday, who we are today, and will continue making us tomorrow. There is a need to inculcate a feeling of surety and confidence by imparting knowledge on being “Pakistani” which appeals to all prehistoric, pre-Islamic elements and entities too. These elements form a large part of being Pakistani, which is often forgotten. Knowledge is power, and such power can dissipate any confusion amounting to how Pakistanis behave, or think, and not be told how they should be doing so. Of course, an historical account is a story of evolution, slow change; of change that has roots imbedded in Pakistan’s present area.

“History reveals the truth above politics and diplomacy” [Dani]. This area is known as the Indus valley pre-historically, and at present too. The Indus valley owes its being to the River Indus, which has its source in Tibet. This river cuts through the Himalayas and the Karakoram mountain ranges in the north, and runs through all four plains, south, i.e. N.W.F.P., Punjab, Balochistan, and Sindh. This river is the heart of Pakistan since time immemorial, binding and connecting the whole of the area, the Indus valley historically, or Pakistan, presently. These names can be used interchangeably. The River’s veins or tributaries run through all the four provinces, providing at once life, and subsistence, and hence a common civilization. This important fact predetermines the formation of Pakistan. It immediately distinguishes this land mass from the rest of India, pre-partition, and before any other invading foreign influence that the centuries have brought this way. This fact cannot be reiterated enough, and is often forgotten in light of Pakistan’s political instability, and hostile relations with India [Fairley, 1993]. This fact must be instilled in every Pakistani head and heart, and must precede any other notion on being Pakistani.

“In pre-history, Pakistan was one of the lands where civilization was born” Rahmat Ali. The River Indus, the Ancient Silk Route, the Grand Trunk Road and, the Makran Coast, will form the skeleton of this project. Infrastructure is one of the significant causes of development, which is why I wish to study the formation of the “Pakistani Identity” using the latter two historical routes, and the coast, in addition to the River. So far, having gone through a period of texts on Pakistani history has revealed repeatedly that the Archimedean point of our history for nationalists and textbook writers starts with the advent of Islam in 711 C.E. This is because Pakistan at present is an Islamic Republic, and for present day nationalists, this fact is what wholly, and solely makes us “Pakistani.” The pre-Islamic era is ignored and not considered as intrinsic, or is some how “Indian” or “Other”. This project seeks to inform the readers that the Indus region was a prosperous and organized, more than what it is today perhaps. And this fact is just as much a part of being “Pakistani”. Our history is multilateral, not unilateral. Professor Dani says, “A country like Pakistan has deep roots in history, going much further back than the time when the new name “Pakistan” was applied in 1947” [Dani, Ancient Pakistan vol 1].

This fact makes it significant to include all the four possible trade routes during the ancient period as far back as the third millennium B.C.E. The Indus civilization is thus as important as the Egyptian civilization as a landmark of history in terms of organized, systematic living. The Indus civilization had clean and functional cities where a metropolitan culture evolved, and hence a modern lifestyle which bared no equivalence in any other civilization. One could deduce that this civilization was one of the harbingers of urbanization [Samad, 2000].

Briefly, the kind of modern urban lifestyle that the Indus civilization enjoyed was that of 10 m wide streets and lanes, public drainage and sewerage systems in houses, sectors dividing residential areas from the craft industrial sites, the agricultural farms, and public buildings. There is no evidence of palaces or castles, hence no monarchy, rendering it an absolute republic governed by the people. Each city was a city-state. The language they used was Indo-European based, probably belonging to the Brahui group spoken in West Baluchistan, Iran and Southern Afghanistan [Samad, 2000]. In retrospect, it is hard to believe that an ancient civilization is being discussed. It seems more modern and civil than what we are at present.

The Indus River being the Archimedean point of our civilization, will thus form the foundation of this project. Primarily, this river distinguishes us from India, Central Asia, and China as an entity. Therefore, it repels, and renders this area sovereign. Secondly, however, it is also this river that attracted many invaders, religions and international traders, to seek the riches of this region, and to flourish. Alexander the Great, Changez Khan, and Muhammad Bin Qasim are but a few of the prominent invaders who fought many Indus heroes to resist their invasion. The spread of Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and Sufism mark the varying influences on this region, and demonstrates how significant a region it is on the world map.

The project will start with an in depth discussion of the Indus River, and its civilization. There is a vast collection of literature available on this region, highlighting its significance in history. The two capital cities of the Indus Empire, are known as Moenjodaro and Harrapa. The first is located in the province of Sindh, the second in Punjab. These were both pre-Buddhist civilizations and extremely sophisticated to say the least. The rest of the Indus civilization was / is present day Pakistan, and extended to the Indian cities of Rajasthan, Haryana, Cutch, and Kathiawar. This civilization was thus spread over vast and varying landscapes, from mountains, plains and deserts [Ahsan 1996, Samad 2000]. There are thousands of sites all over Pakistan bearing evidence, and affirming that we are primarily the Indus Civilization, over and above anything else. “We are not an imported civilization, or culture” [Samad 2000]. This point cannot be reiterated enough, and is the whole raison d’etre of this project. 

An in depth and thorough study on how we lived 5000 years ago can reveal how our habits, behavior, likes and dislikes, and basic nature, began and have evolved. Such as, were we nomadic or stationary? Liberal or chauvinistic? Feudal or capitalist? Or an amalgamation of all of the above? What was the economic, social and political system of that time, and what have we at present acquired from it? How we were socially organized? What language did we speak? What were the causes of change, evolution and, adaptation? How does an Islamic republic at present supersede our pagan past? These are the main questions that the project will seek to answer.

Similarities can be drawn, to demonstrate that “Pakistani” is synonymous with the “Indus citizen”.

The Ancient Silk Route is the second focus of this project. This route is one of the oldest paths and means of international trade, and probably the first form of globalization. A study of which is an essential aid to answering the above questions. It will help in seeing how this magnificent trade route influenced the culture of the Indus citizen, once it has been established what the Indus citizen was like in the beginning. The Indus region was part of the silk trade route. Hence what knowledge did this route impart and how did it change, and evolve the Indus citizen; its economic, political and social system? Did the Indus region flourish because of this route? Did the Indus citizen benefit from this route?

The Ancient Silk Route began in Xian in China and ended in Venice Italy. This famous route connected East Asia, Central Asia, and the Mediterranean for trade in silk from China to glass from Venice. Along this extensive path, other goods were exchanged according to what each region had to offer, and international migration began. The Silk Route thus, definitely influenced culture and helped in the development of the Indus civilization, as well as many others along the way. Perhaps it is because of this route that we harnessed a tradition of looking to other traditions, such as that of Central Asian, Indian, or Chinese, to confirm our own? Thus it will be important to look at what all was transmitted because of the trade route, such as knowledge, ideas, religion, people, as well as goods [Grotenhuis, 2001].

The Grand Trunk Road connects Kabul in Afghanistan to Calcutta in India. Its purpose in ancient times was as a channel for the import and export of trade between India, Central Asia and the West too, just like the Ancient Silk Route, but the goods were not specific, like silk for glass. Nor was it as vast as the silk route. It stretches across the Indus region 2000Km’s to the west coast of India. The Grand Trunk road was also a road intended for travel regardless of trade, and it still exists and is used today. The Grand Trunk road was given its name by the British, however it was primarily called “The Royal Road”. Contrary to popular belief, this road was first constructed by Chandra Gupta during the Mauryan era 300 B.C.E, not Sher Shah Suri. The latter helped reconstruct it in the 16th century, as he recognized its fundamental importance to the flourishing of the region. The British also recognized this road’s importance, and had it completely metalled to make it suitable for wheeled traffic. Up until then, this road only ran from Kabul to Delhi. The British extended it from Delhi to Calcutta.

The Grand Trunk Road has a rich history in itself, and deserves to be studied just because of that. It has obviously played a key role in the development of the Indus region, and beyond. It is where cultures have met and created that unique Pakistani Identity. A study of it will reveal how [Sarkar, 1998].

The Makran Coast located along the provinces of Sindh and Baluchistan, made them maritime coastal states open for trade and invasion. This project will only focus on the Makran coast as a sea gateway to trade for the Indus civilization, before the advent of Islam, formally, and hence before the invasion of the Arab Muslim General Mohammed Bin Qasim in the 8th Century. Both these provinces were intrinsic to the Indus civilization, as Moenjodaro, one of the capitals was situated here, in between these two provinces. Baluchistan at the time was known as Gedrosia, which is a Persian word. Thus, its location was either described as West Baluchistan, or in Sindh. Presently though Moenjodaro is formally placed in Sindh. Thus, the Makran coast served as a trading post for one of the most important capitals, as well as the rest of the region. There were five main trading coastal cities spanning the length of the entire coast. These cities were crucial for trade to the inland cities of the civilization, as well as development all around. They served the purpose of being trading stations or post, supplying goods to the entire Indus river valley. The flow of goods went back and forth; imports were sent north, and exports were sent south to the coast. With the increase in trade, the importance of the coastal cities grew, which led to their expansion in size, and complete urbanization. More land was cultivated in the vicinity which led to industrialization. The coastal cities supplied fish and seafood and shells inland.

The ancient coastline of the Indus civilization stretched much farther east than it does at present. Of course, the passage of time and history has redrawn the borders of civilization. At present the Pakistani Makran coast stretches 600 Km. It also has a visually distinct race from the rest of Pakistan that boasts of Arab/African features, rather than Indo-European. Were people transmitted along the sea trade route from Oman and Persia, and Africa? If they were, did they come as slaves, or as traders? Alexander also traversed this region. Did he leave behind any racial legacy, as is attributed to the north of Pakistan? Or are the Makranis a natural part of the Indus civilization? The Makran coast thus deserves special scrutiny on this point [Kenoyer 1998].

There are many aspects to the Pakistani identity. But once it has been determined prehistorically, it could be interesting to see how it is portrayed and perceived at present. Therefore I think a prologue would be essential to see how we have evolved, and reinforce that we are not an imported culture. What is Pakistani at present, or who is the contemporary Indus person? One such way to view the contemporary Indus person would be to look through the lens of contemporary Art, such as the Pakistani film Industry from 1947 till present. But that of course will require a whole separate proposal, once this project is complete.



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

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



Replies:
Posted By: Azat
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 23:51
Oh Great man !Happy to see a true approach free from biases .
 
Pakistan has one of the greatest history a nation can be proud of  but due to certain religious factors Pakistanis and more precisely the Pakistani govt.try to overlook the great past just to lay more emphasis on its neo history that is not so great and its great history has been portrayed as some one else (Indian ) with the complicity of Pakistani scholars themselves. The genetic results have shown that most of the Pakistanis have indigenous ancestry so current version of history is just a travesty of the real past which was much more glorious.
 
Now both Indus Valley and Aryan civilization were Pakistani centric and should be a part of Pakistani heritage ,claim of Indian scholars to relate them to hinter lands are so hollow to  stand simple scrutiny by a common man.
 
Indus valley was never in any way was related to Dravidian people but the efforts of Hasan Dani in this regard does not find favour with Pakistani scholars themselves ,which  is an irony.Mahadevan Asko parpola Michael witzel all proved false when tested on genetics on archaeological and cultural factors and views of Hasan Dhani proved right when he pointed out Scythic past of its inhabitants more commonly identified with Jatts of today.
 
Now further scientific researches has substantiated Jat ancestry of its inhabitants based on crania reports of Indus valley skulls ,Dental reports  cultural similarity and hints provided by genetic analysis of present and Indus valley times' population.
 
Now if we look more precisely we have to take a nation that stretches between makran on east cost areas and areas around Delhi on western side Afghanistan on northern and Gujarat on southern side .It  had been one nation historically and people were of similar race that matched with current  populations that have scythe ancestry .
Again Aryans were too inhabitants of this area and vedic religion only made progression not the real people beyond Delhi neighbouring areas ,so people of eastern up or mp has nothing to do with the Aryans expect the fact some priest adopted these scriptures and than later wrote puranas on their own.
 
All great empires like Morya  Kushnas Parthian were originally belonged to this nation ,who moved east or west wards later and should more be a part of great historical legacy of a nation called Scythia ,Sindhu or Sindhu sauvira or Pakistan today .Though boundaries have been changing over a period of times but this nation has been more represented by Pakistan than India .I would call this nation as Saptha sindhva of ancient times.
 


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2007 at 06:48
Agree with Azat. There's a lot of false history, partly as a result of people government, education (or lack thereof), name confusions etc. Though I don't know where you get the Jatt ancestry of the IV from. They were a mix of people. Probably just as Pakistan is today.
 
 
 
 


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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 12-May-2007 at 16:41
Pakistan isn't allowed to have it's idenity.It must either be known as "Indian" or "Pakistani-Indian."


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 09:09
Originally posted by Distel

Pakistan isn't allowed to have it's idenity.It must either be known as "Indian" or "Pakistani-Indian."


What? Nice argument

Its called the "Indus Identity", and it was limited to Pakistan, and it belongs to Pakistanis.

Indians dont come anywhere into this. A name change doesnt mean the people of Pakistan lost 9000 years of their history.

Please dont be ignorant, apart from the name, indus has nothing to do with Indians. It was separate from the rest of India for most of the history.

You can see this on Arab and Portuguese maps, they clearly mark out the Indus Valley, separate from India.

The British were the ones to mess everything up. They associated the terms hindoo and india with totally different meanings.


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

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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 10:44

Iran is a modern day state consisting of various ethnic groups (like India, Pakistan, Afghanistan) and was officially established in 1935 yet "ancient Iran" is a valid term since Iranian (mainly Persians) are proud of their ancient pre-Islamic identity yet "ancient Pakistan" is not a widely used term.

Most people you speak to today will hardly remember that Iran was founded in 1935, Afghanistan in 1747, India 1947 yet everyone remembers that Pakistan was "created' in 1947 thanks to Indian propagandists.
India has amongst the strongest propaganda machines in the world near the USA.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 11:51
See, thats where you are wrong.

Ancient Pakistan is a term, we plan on calling Pakistani history what it was actually called in ancient terms. Unlike Indians, who call everything Indian.

e.g Ancient Ghandara, Ancient Indus, Ancient Sindh

All these form Ancient Pakistani history. Ancient Pakistan is the term, but what it represents is the actual history of Pakistani people.

And, everyone knows Iran was called Persia, but Ancient Iran is used as a term to describe all the kingdoms which belonged to the iranian people.

Ancient Pakistan is simply a term. And just for the record, the people of South Asia never referred to themselves as "Indian" before the 18th century. They didnt even like it, when the Brits used the term.
The preferred terms like Punjabi, Sindhi, etc.

The whole world knows that it doesnt matter Pakistan was "created" in 1947. Because it doesnt mean the Pakistani people came into existance in 1947. The Pakistani identity is ancient.

You are right, the term "ancient something" couldnt be used, if the identity is new. Kinda like Israel, where most settlers are Jews from US, Germany, and Poland.
The term Ancient wouldnt really apply here.


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

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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 14:10
You got me wrong.All I said was ancient Pakistan is a valid term, however most people don't see it that way that's all.Now the reason ancient Iran is used by scholars and hstorians is because Iranians, being proud of their pre-Islamic history (beleive it or not some Iranians hate Arabs for bringing Islam into their country) and have always used the term since the founding of their country and presented their country that way to the rest of the world.
 
Pakistanis on the other hand are ashamed of their pre-Islamic past and extremly generally pro-Arab.Also the Indians are jelous of Pakistan's identity and history so they'll stop at nothing to claim it.(Who would you be more jelous of your freind or your enemy?)
 
That is why the term ancient Pakistan is not yet validated by most people.However that does not mean it is an invalid term since the ancestors of today's Pakistanis were the people of the indus.However it is still a fact that most historians would likely not use it due to the powerful Indian propaganda machine.
 
 


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 14:24
PS-When i said Pakistanis aren't allowed to have their own history/identity I meant it since Indians will stop at nothing to claim it and appropriate it as theirs.
 
I didn't mean it in the sense that it's "wrong" of Pakistanis to be proud of their identity.
 
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.I am agreeing with you.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 14:27
Yes, its our history.


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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 14:31
Originally posted by Sparten

Yes, its our history.
 
Ofcourse it's our history and we must reclaim it before it's too late.If it wasn't for patriotic people like us, almost no one could argue with the Indian claims of stealing and falsifying our history.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 12:09
A lot of work is being done on this. Pakistan will soon be credited for the history of their own ancestors.


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

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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 17:29

There is nothing exclusive to the "territory" called Pakistan or populace called Pakistani that can form the basis of a distinct Pakistani identity. Even Islam is not specific to "Pakistanis" as Judiasm is specific to Jews (an unbreakable relationship between a race and a religion retained over millinia and live in the memories of successive generations---so the historical continuity). And although, they have imported Urdu-Hindi and after "Islamizing" it, have defined it as a further element of Pakistani Identity, still every body knows that Urdu-Hindi has more to do with India than Pakistan.

 

Equally interesting is the desperation of secular "Pakistani" ideologues/intellectuals to engineer/ construct (or should I say "fabricate") a distinct identity for Pakistan. Basis their distinct Pak-identity argument on Indus Valley Civilization, which they claims to be confined to Pakistan only. Either they doesn't know or is ignoring the fact that this civilization flourished over a vast area extending over parts of north-west India and Pakistan. Three of the major six centers of Harrapn Culture are in India. They also forgets that Indus Valley Civilization is a dead civilization, isolated in time, and probably space also, that couldn't pass, in any substantial way, its influences to any ethnicity inhabiting Pakistan now. These Pakistanis historicans also don't take into account the fact that Pashtuns, Baluchis, Sindhis, and even Punjabis don't have any remotest sense of affiliation with Harrapan Civilization.

 

The fact is that Pakistan is not a geopolitical, cultural, or ethnic continuity---the commonalities between various ethnicities in Pakistan are very few and contradictions too huge and too many.



Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 20:45
The people of Pakistan are direct descendants of the Indus civilization.
 
No one is trying to "create" a distinct identity for Pkistan.the languages in Pakistan are not spoken in India except for urdu and Punjabi and the same is said for india.
 
If both countries share one province and should be labelled "the same" on that basis then PAKISTANIS should be known as "Iranians" because we share the Balochistan province with Iran.
 
If Indians can go about bragging about "ancient India" then there's no harm in Pakistanis doing so.
 
India is a western name given to South Asia it's not like South Asians ever reffered to themselves as "Indian" until the british gave them that name.
 
 


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 21:14
Please stop about the indus valley rant. Its more Pakistani than anything. And the major centers? What are you talking about? All the major centers are in Pakistan, and there are only 3. Mehragh, Mohenjo daro and Harappa. Lothal certainly is not a center.

Just to clear it up, Indian is a very new identity. It came with the Brits who united you guys.

Pakistan started with the Indus Valley, not Pakistan as a "home land for muslims", but the identity. Might be hard for you to understand this, but consider this. If you claim Pakistanis cant have IVC, how can Indians?
(p.s Thats also assuming that you know the Dravid theory is false)


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

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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 18-May-2007 at 23:51
LOl-when you speak of the differences in Pakistani ethnic groups i don't think you can compare it to that of the differences in the different ethnic groups in "India" and the contradictions in Indian propaganda.
 
Indus is a Pakistani based civilization.The reason why modern-day Pakistani culture differs from the Indus is because of religion-based culture.
 
 


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 00:43
Originally posted by 1234

There is nothing exclusive to the "territory" called Pakistan or populace called Pakistani that can form the basis of a distinct Pakistani identity.


Whether you like it or not there is a history unique to that reason that transcends the modern languages, sindhi, punjabi, saraiki, pashto, baloch. Those languages and dialects are spoken today due to influences from east and west of pakistan. On top of that there is a new language, urdu that has been created and more and more pakistanis are learning and using it every year. Urdu is different from Hindi which is becoming more and more sanscritized. Ironically sanscrit is also a creation of ancient pakistan(not ancient bharat) but thats another story.


Originally posted by 1234

Even Islam is not specific to "Pakistanis" as Judiasm is specific to Jews (an unbreakable relationship between a race and a religion retained over millinia and live in the memories of successive generations---so the historical continuity).



Nonsense. 90% of the Jews even in Israel are East European converts. Ashkenazis have certainly not been Jewish for millenia and Judaesm is a religion not a race anyway. Yeah its a closed one that does not encorage converts with the same fanaticism and Islam or Christianity but still, its a religion and most of its adherants are descendents of East European converts.  Learn some history before you go writing falseties.


Originally posted by 1234

And although, they have imported Urdu-Hindi and after "Islamizing" it, have defined it as a further element of Pakistani Identity, still every body knows that Urdu-Hindi has more to do with India than Pakistan.


You mean North Bharat? Utter Pradesh? You bharatis are doing the same thing with urdu/hindi. You made it the national language of Bharat.


Originally posted by 1234

Equally interesting is the desperation of secular "Pakistani" ideologues/intellectuals to engineer/ construct (or should I say "fabricate") a distinct identity for Pakistan.


Thats nowhere near as comical as Bharatis who steal Pakistani history from the Vedic period and turn it around and call it their own religion called "hinduism" which once again is a word invented by the British and actually pertains to the Indus valley which once again lies in PAKISTAN not BHARAT.


Originally posted by 1234

Basis their distinct Pak-identity argument on Indus Valley Civilization, which they claims to be confined to Pakistan only. Either they doesn't know or is ignoring the fact that this civilization flourished over a vast area extending over parts of north-west India and Pakistan.


Pakistan IS northwest India.


Originally posted by 1234

Three of the major six centers of Harrapn Culture are in India.


What?? Major?? Name them.

Originally posted by 1234

They also forgets that Indus Valley Civilization is a dead civilization, isolated in time, and probably space also, that couldn't pass, in any substantial way, its influences to any ethnicity inhabiting Pakistan now. These Pakistanis historicans also don't take into account the fact that Pashtuns, Baluchis, Sindhis, and even Punjabis don't have any remotest sense of affiliation with Harrapan Civilization.


Yeah they don't. Its ancient history. However the culture did evolve and mix over the centuries and the current day Pakistanis have the blood of the Indus valley inhabitants coursing through their veins, the pakistani temperament and culture is also descended in some part from those ancient inhabitants.


Originally posted by 1234


The fact is that Pakistan is not a geopolitical, cultural, or ethnic continuity---the commonalities between various ethnicities in Pakistan are very few and contradictions too huge and too many.



Four major languages. Whats funny is that India has around 40 major ones yet you keep talking about pakistanis. LOL


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 02:00
Yeah I keep trying to explain to these Indians and they just don't listen.They are full of contradictory when they try to kill Pakistan's culture.
 
Here's one for you:
They claim Hindi and Urdu to be the "same language" at the same time They claim that Urdu "comes from Hindi".
So that means Hindi came from Hindi .Wow that makes alot of sense.Cool
 
How about one more.They claim that Pakistanis are "Muslim invaders from the middle east."
At the same time they bluntly claim "Pakistanis are Indians" so that means Indians are calling themselves "Muslim invaders" from the Middle East.Quite hilarious.


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 03:16
We should refer to them as Bharatis not Indians in threads such as these.LOL Even the name India is stolen from pakistan(the real land of Indus, Sindh, Sapta Sindhu). They should be called Bharat or Gangastan or something like that. Each time they use the word/name Indian it makes it easier for them to steal history that does not belong to them.

And hindi/urdu being bharati? Maybe you could say that STREET hindi is bharati because  commoners in Uttar Pradesh speak it now but firstly it was ancient pakis which gave all of Bharat the language of Sanskrit and its vernacular derivatives. Vedism thrived in Punjab and thats a historical fact. Bharat only has about 3% of its people living in punjab and Pakistan has most of its people living in Punjab.

Well I guess if they keep wanting to relearn these history lessons then we will have to comply. Approve


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 03:57
This thread is walking a very fine line on the Code of Conduct. Remeber that excessive nationalism especially if it causes offense to others is prohibited.

Originally posted by SpartaN117


Just to clear it up, Indian is a very new identity. It came with the Brits who united you guys.

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.


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


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 11:18
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.




Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 13:05
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

This thread is walking a very fine line on the Code of Conduct. Remeber that excessive nationalism especially if it causes offense to others is prohibited.

[quote=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.
 
Can you please provide evidence of when the entire subcontinent was ever "united."
 
So far I've heard nothing but false claims and theory after theory from Indians.
 
Never given solid evidence because there is none.Anything to claim Pakistani history and identity.


Posted By: Azat
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 13:14
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.


 
Agree with you on that with  a little correction that even the name Bharat is based on  Bharat son of famous Aryan King who were originally from sapthasindhva .
 
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.


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 13:29
You gave no proof South Asia was united.So it shows you just claim it but no it's not true at all.


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 14:24
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.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 21:20
Can you please provide evidence of when the entire subcontinent was ever "united."

Between 1313 and 1335 under the Delhi Sultans Allahuddin Khilji, Ghiasuddin Tughluq and Muhammed bin Tughluq.


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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 22:04
First of all that did not include the entire subcontinent.Second of all I am puzzled why you are using an Arabic name.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 05:37
First of all that did not include the entire subcontinent.

Which bit do you mean? Baluchistan and Afghanistan were not included, and control over the South only lasted for the years I mentioned.
Second of all I am puzzled why you are using an Arabic name.

Confused Because it is my real name of course.


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


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 07:45
If you are Pakistani, why are you trying to force Indian revisionist history on us so bad? You should know better than anyone?

unless...


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

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


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 19:45
Correcting your blatent mistakes is not forcing indian revisionist history on you. If you want to have a nationalistic outlook on history, at least make sure your facts are right if you want any credibility.


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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 19:51
Again you made a blant claim without providing any sources so your claim remains invalid.
 
The point remains the South Asian people never reffered to themselves as "Indian" until the British labelled them.
 
Second there were many empires that united SOuth Asians but never the entire portion.
 
But in any case if you have no sources to prove that South Asians called them selves "Indian" before British rule, it is just a claim.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 20:13
Don't attribute words to me, I never said they reffered to themselves as Indians, I said other refered to them as indians. Have you never heard of the lands of Hind and Sindh?

There aren't any good maps around for the Delhi Sultanate. On this map the areas that are marked in Tughluqs empire are directly controlled by Delhi, and the Independent Areas are either tributries, or already in rebellion by 1335.



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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 20:21
But it does not include modern day Pakistan which was the entity of Sindh.
 
So that just contradicts your claim of akistan ever being part of "India."
 
Hind included India yes but not Pakistan and the map even shows it.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 20:57
I can only assume that either you don't know where Sindh and Pakistan are, or you haven't looked at the map.
So that just contradicts your claim of akistan ever being part of "India."

Which India? The nation state, the British Raj, the subcontinent or the land around the Indus? Pakistan has been a part of the British Empire, it is on the subcontient, and it certainly is the land around the indus, but it has never been a part of the nation state.

Your just arguing for the sake of arguing. A good proportion of the people of this world would consider the Delhi Sultanate to be a Pakistani empire anyway. Which is nearly (but not quite) as silly as you really can't backdate nationality


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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 00:31
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"
 
The land today known as "India" is where the entity of Hind was.I can't make it any clearer.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 06:22
I'm not sure we are having the same argument. (you can definitely make it clearer )

On the map of the delhi sultanate, the whole of Sindh and Punjab are included as part of the sultanate.

In the antique usage of the word Ind/Hind, is the Indus valley, punjab and Sindh.
In the medaeval usage, "Hind" could well refer instead to the far south and malabar coasts.

However it must be remembered to the people who used the word, (non-South Asians), Hind applied to the whole of the subcontinent. Which is precisely why the British applied the word to the whole of their subcontinent possesions.


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


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 07:04
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


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

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


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 19:53
Hind only applied to India. Indus Valley was known as Sindh.
It depends at what time you are talking about. In antiquity, Hind, was the (H)indus river valley. Graeco-Bactrian maps will show the Pakistan region labelled India (or rather their pronouciation of the word). The word Hind has moved around alot as regards to which part of the subcontinent it applied to.


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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 21:56
The map you provided, Omer, is good enough to disprove your claims.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 03:37
Then you haven't been listening to what I have been saying. Show me one thing that I have said that is disproved by my map. While making up history is wrong, its far worse to attribute things to a person that he didn't say.

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


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 08:30
wouldn't ashoka's empire come close to uniting the subcontinent?


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 17:56
Yea, he "united" the subcontinent for 34 years. Wow, a perfect reason to label 5000 years history to the whole subcontinent.

We need to face that the Indus Valley has always had a distinct identity. And I have lots of examples to back that up.


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

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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 20:55
If Indians and Pakistanis are "the same" they should speak 1 language, 1 culture, one colour.


Posted By: innocent
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 00:44
In India language chages every 50 miles.Differnt sub-cultures and different types of people Clap.


Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 00:44
Pakistan is so much like a mixed salad moreso than India.....so its hard to pin-point its idenitity to any one specific group that would represent the face of the nation.

-------------
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.

-- Albert Einstein


Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 00:45
Well Pakistan also has a vast variety of languages...indeed.

-------------
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.

-- Albert Einstein


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 01:06
Okay North "pakistani "cut out the games you are an indian predenting to be Pak.You're country is more mixed and diverse and has no single culture.Pakistanis are all geneticly realtes cause of the indus.


Posted By: innocent
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 01:51

Entire India even though is diverse is linked to a common high level culture and which also similar to pakistan.



Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 05:05
Originally posted by SpartaN117

Yea, he "united" the subcontinent for 34 years. Wow, a perfect reason to label 5000 years history to the whole subcontinent.

We need to face that the Indus Valley has always had a distinct identity. And I have lots of examples to back that up.
just answering a straight question quoted below. if the question isn't straight or genuine then those that can only accept facts that fit their narrow reality shouldn't ask them.

qualify 'united' then....


Originally posted by Distel

 
Can you please provide evidence of when the entire subcontinent was ever "united."
 
So far I've heard nothing but false claims and theory after theory from Indians.
 
Never given solid evidence because there is none.Anything to claim Pakistani history and identity.



Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 10:44

First off South Asians were never united.Second off unity means nothing.The people of Eastern Europe and central asia were united under the Soviet banner.Hey wait a minuite that means Central Asians=East Europeans doesn't it?



Posted By: kshtriya-Mer
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 13:30
pakis were conqured and ruled by most hindu kshtriyas communitesbefor the monglas, Meds/Mers/ jatts, Sumra rajputs, samma rajputs, and other numerouse brhmin dynastys, it is no different frm any other part of idea. it has been ruled by manay people frm the india not just ashoka,
 
 


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 21:08
Originally posted by Distel

First off South Asians were never united.
with the exceptions already provided, though maybe those in the deep south of India have a better arguement than those in pakistan's punjab
 
Originally posted by Distel

Second off unity means nothing..
Ok I'll take that as, 'even if we were united im not going to give it much importance' which is a bit of a back flip on your previous posts (and this one) were you make a point to prove that it didnt happen as proof of your distinctiveness
 
Originally posted by Distel

The people of Eastern Europe and central asia were united under the Soviet banner.Hey wait a minuite that means Central Asians=East Europeans doesn't it?.
 
Try this; Central Asians and East Europeans = Soviet Union, and it that way they were united even if by force. They share that peroid of history together even if from different perspectives. Now I can take that, at least on a political level, your undertand that you and those people  over the border in the east were united at one point in time - and lets face it a few more times than once.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 21:47
Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

pakis were conqured and ruled by most hindu kshtriyas communitesbefor the monglas, Meds/Mers/ jatts, Sumra rajputs, samma rajputs, and other numerouse brhmin dynastys, it is no different frm any other part of idea. it has been ruled by manay people frm the india not just ashoka,
 
 


Wrong. Pakistanis have ruled over India more than Indians have ruled over Pakistan. Its called non revisionist history. Ty it out some time.

To the guy pretending to be Pakistani. How in gods name are Pakistanis more diverse than Indians?
There are 4 major ethnicities in Pakistan, and they would all be the same colour hadnt it been for Alexanders invasion of Pakistan.

Please explain.

And also, only Sikhs can say they are related to Pakistanis. This doesnt hold true for North Indians. North West Indians might be a closer bet, but Sikhs are much more specific.


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

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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 24-May-2007 at 10:38
greeks and Macedonains have shared history but doesnt mean Alexandar was greek.The Indus did stranch into parts of India,but it still originates in pakistan.Indus streches till Turkmenistan and Iran, no claims over iranian and Turkmen history by Indians why?


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 24-May-2007 at 20:42
Originally posted by SpartaN117

Wrong. Pakistanis have ruled over India more than Indians have ruled over Pakistan. Its called non revisionist history. Ty it out some time.

You know the last time there was a powerful North subcontinent country in pakistan and not ruled from India was 800 years ago. It was the Ghanzavids, and was ruled from Ghazni - in Afghanistan.
Originally posted by Distel

The Indus did stranch into parts of India,but it still originates in pakistan.Indus streches till Turkmenistan and Iran, no claims over iranian and Turkmen history by Indians why?

Just wondering, do you have any concept of geography? The Indus and Turkmenistan are separated by the whole of Afghanistan. The Indus never travels through Turkmenistan or Iran.
And also, only Sikhs can say they are related to Pakistanis.

Yeah like Sindhis and Rajputs are very different people

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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 24-May-2007 at 21:37
Bad geography? Say did you even know the indus had colonies going all the way to Turkmenistan? You didn't know that did you? And now you come here to claim the indus for india when you don't even know the limits of it's (the indus) colonies.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 03:01
I am not claiming anything for anyone. Do not forget that.

The Indus is a river, it doesn't have coloneys. If you were talking about the Indus valley civilisation then make it clear. The only people I have ever heard 'claim' the IVC for the republic of India are the paki nationalists in this thread. Ancient civilisations do not belong to any modern country. When you hear someone say "ancient indian civilisations such as the IVC" they mean india the subcontinent, not india the nation state.

One word has multiple distinct meanings. Deal with it.



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


Posted By: kshtriya-Mer
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 17:22
ClapClapClap


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 20:28

I think I caught you off guard.I definately did NOT mention the INDUS RIVER I stated the indus stretched till Turkmenistan.

But when you realised I caught you off guard and you didn't know that you then pretended I reffered to the river indus.I certainly did not mention the river nor the civilization.But you then sought an excuse to hide the fact you were caught not knowing that so you decided to pretend I was reffering to the river which you knew I was not since we've been discussing the civilization and NOT the river the whole time.
 
So moving on you claim that no modern state has any claim to ancient history.Well for decades we've heard Hindutvas playing the drum and boasting about the indus, we've seen the proud Greeks showing off ancient Greece, the proud Iranians showing off "ancient Iran," the proud Italins showing off ancient Rome, but after all this when Pakistanis decide that it's their time to feel proud people barge out of the corner and decide "no modern state has a claim to any ancient history."
 
Well then how aobut telling that to the Iranians, the Greeks, the Itlains.Tell that to the historians who have recorded their histories and given them ancient datings.
After all the histories of all these countries are not recorded from modern days but from ancient times.Persian history is given for Iran.
Ancient Rome is given for Italy.
 
I do not beleive you are Pakistani.Sounds like a Muhajir to me.And never heard of a South Asian Muslim with an Arabic name.
 


Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 22:56
lol, Omar is the last person on this forum who needs to prove who he is. He has been a part of AE longer than any of us have, and anyone who has read all his posts can clearly see he NOT an Indian claiming to be someone else. I can fully accept that he is who he says he is, and i think any reasonable person here can as well.

Notice that he is a Moderator. All the Moderators at AE are well respected and trusted in the community. I'm afraid you are alone in your doubts.

It seems that Omar has developed his own beliefs separate from what you expect him to believe, and for that, he is unfortunately getting pounded and dismissed by his own brethren.

I have not actively been a part of this community for that long, but i have been here from before Omar became Moderator, and i will vouch that Omar is who he says he is. Not that he needs me to. Or that this will change any of your views, as you will simply dismiss it by saying, "typical. It's cause ur Indian, so of course you'll show support," which, in a black and white world, doesn't make any sense because he is Pakistani and therefore i should being trying to discredit him.

And as for the name, the electrician i hired the other day is named Aristo, and he is a Hindu from Goa. It's just a name.


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 00:10
I don't think being alone makes me wrong necessarily does it? If everyone beleived 2+2=7 and I didn't so what?
 
Okay so guess what I'm moderator too-on Pakhub.I have chased out a quite a few Islamists out of there by deleting their racist comments.But the fact is being a moderator on a forum doesn't mean you can be free of mistakes or lack of knowledge on a subject.Like I lack knowledge in many things.
 
But bottom line let' not pull out the moderator or administrator card.You just might end up pulling it out on the wrong person who himself is a mod or admin.So let's not get into "I know it cause I'm this..." whn the person you're telling it to might be just the same thing.
 
I mean Muhajirs say "Jinnah was indian" Quadeer khan:Indian."  At the same time they claim to be Pakistanis when they've looted and destroyed the country.
 
And no Pakistanis don't have "al" in their last names.Only Arabs do.And specificly Arabian Gulf Arabs not even Medditerenan Arabs have "al" usually in their names.


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 06:21
Originally posted by Distel

I think I caught you off guard.I definately did NOT mention the INDUS RIVER I stated the indus stretched till Turkmenistan.
But when you realised I caught you off guard and you didn't know that you then pretended I reffered to the river indus.I certainly did not mention the river nor the civilization.But you then sought an excuse to hide the fact you were caught not knowing that so you decided to pretend I was reffering to the river which you knew I was not since we've been discussing the civilization and NOT the river the whole time.
 
Confused
caught of guard?

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


The Indus is a river, it doesn't have coloneys. If you were talking about the Indus valley civilisation then make it clear.


in response to


Originally posted by Distel

Bad geography? Say did you even know the indus had colonies going all the way to Turkmenistan? You didn't know that did you? And now you come here to claim the indus for india when you don't even know the limits of it's (the indus) colonies.


'the Indus' is a river. if your talking about a Indus civilization, then specify it, and while your at it which one (harrapan, kushun etc)......duhErmm


Originally posted by Distel


After all the histories of all these countries are not recorded from modern days but from ancient times.Persian history is given for Iran.
Ancient Rome is given for Italy.
Roman is Roman and it would be unfair to say it is simply Italian ( a modern identity). Much like your own Pakistani identity which is also quite modern as opposed to ancient everything before might not fit under that particular label, but its a part of your history anyway.

Originally posted by Distel

I do not believe you are Pakistani.Sounds like a Muhajir to me.And never heard of a South Asian Muslim with an Arabic name.

Originally posted by Distel

I mean Muhajirs say "Jinnah was indian" Quadeer khan:Indian."  At the same time they claim to be Pakistanis when they've looted and destroyed the country.
  Your president is an Indian?Shocked

Omar background has nothing to do with his opinion. No matter what he is, his opinion counts, as does every other member. I was labeled a Muslim by an Indian member, for what? being objective. Now grow up and read below carefully.

(this is an offical warning) your breaking the rules of the forum for bigoted remarks on a particular ethnic group. I will quote and link the rules for your benefit, there is nothing in there that is unreasonable, it is here to make everyone feel welcome including you. Want respect, then show it.


     6. Nationalism, derogatory remarks to national or ethnic groups, jingoism, bigotry, racism, political propaganda. (see appendix below)

     8. Negative attitude; tone of confrontation, annoyance, or contempt; disrespectful toward other members.


Appendix

Definition of unacceptable nationalistic remarks:

This category of violations has been perhaps the most troublesome to deal with. The definition is that remarks are unacceptable if they have the intention of disparaging, belittling, or insulting another ethnic or national group. Unacceptable remarks can take the form of direct messages disparaging a national group, indirect messages overly promoting one's national group, and/or a more implicit attack, written against a particular political, cultural, or historical aspect of that national group. An acceptable remark is one that is objective and presents facts without a certain element of tone in the message. A criticism merely points out a problem, whereas an insult implies inherent inferiority. In order to make the forum less susceptible to these problems, topics regarding modern politics can only be posted in the "Intellectual discussions" section. Moderators and Administrators reserve the right to delete threads or comments that are controversial.
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6512 -


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 14:53

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.

 
Second I couldn't really care of being banned from a silly forum.I am a mod on Pakhub and I am active on many forums so no sweat.


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 07:42

Pakistan is a political union based on religion. The inevitable shift in power from Muslims of the pre-colonial era to hindus in the post-colonial era meant that the Muslims of the sub continent had to deal with a new set of realities. The options open to pre partition Muslims of British India were two:

1. A political minority in a secular political union.
2. A political majority in a separate Muslim political union.(hence partition)  
 
For majority Muslim areas No.2 was possible. For minority Muslim areas no.1 was the only plausible course. The post partition map reflects just that. The Pakistani Identity is a result of this zeal. There was however a sizable minority from all faiths sternly against any form of partition.  IVC can not be attributed directly to a particular 'ethnic' group from Pakistan, but it's inheritors are none the less people that have inhabited those lands from time immemorial. These people belong within present day Pakistan and from the Punjabi, Sindhi, Seraiki groups. The only extension would be parts of the Punjab delta that due to partition politics is now placed in India. Another area that was directly influenced by the IVC's was the Western Gujarat. Which may have been initially settled by IVC people via Kutch, much like the Greek settlements around the Mediterranean.
 
We must not therefore confuse the national identity bourne out of a percieved political necessacity of Indian muslims with the more rooted historical identities, like punjabis, sindhis, etc. The fact


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


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 11:54
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.



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

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


Posted By: Sander
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 22:03
If it should be  called Pakistani or Indian civilzation, Pakistan has better cards.
 
Its true that in some cases geography alone does not matter. For example : Al -Andalus was in Spain but still, even Spaniards dont call it a Spanish empire/polity because these people are clearly linked to non Spaniards.
 
This aint the case with IVC though. Its in Pakistan and and Indians do not seem to have more to do with it than people from Pakistan.
 


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 23:00
Thankyou i appluad your last post.


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 23:02
Pakistan is no more political than India (actually it's less articificial as it has lesser cultures than India) or Iran, Afghanistan or the Russian Federation or China or countless other countries on this Earth.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 28-May-2007 at 02:17
@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


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


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 28-May-2007 at 08:52
Originally posted by SpartaN117

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.

Italians cant say Rome was Italian, though Italian history is proudly inclusive of almost all of Roman history. Italy cannot claim Rome just for herself as it touched so many other countries. The legacy is regional not country specific. Only fascists like Mousilini will try turn such a inclusive period of history into something exclusive.

 All these South Asian civilizations influenced, conquered and traded with each other, lines are not neatly defined into Indian or Pakistani. Is the Greko-Bactrian kingdoms simply Pakistani, or Mughal simply Indian? No, but it is a part of the region's history and the countries created within it. Your borders only split the physical countries, not the history.

Originally posted by SpartaN117

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.
well the hindu's that left that area and shared that same history, have the same rights as those that stayed. No one has more rights over a history that was shared in the first place. It is never as black and white as you would like





Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 28-May-2007 at 11:37
@Leonidas member_profile.asp?PF=1957&FID=35 -

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.



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

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


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 28-May-2007 at 14:51
To Leonidis next time don't post me bogus warnings accusing me of "biggotry" when your own friend Omer is guilty of biggotry and racism by using the term "Paki."


Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 28-May-2007 at 14:54
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.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 28-May-2007 at 15:55
There are so many names to use apart from India, including the ORIGINAL names.

What do you have against the original names, or names which show where the civilisation is and who it is related to?


Why India, India, and India?


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

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


Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 28-May-2007 at 16:06
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 :)


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 28-May-2007 at 19:13
Originally posted by SpartaN117


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.


How can it be called a Pashtun kingdom when the Pashtuns had not even made it out of the Sulayman mountains into any part of Gandahar yet?


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 28-May-2007 at 22:01
I believe we are winning.Many people are reffering to Pakistan even before it's pre-47 period just like my history teacher.
 
Iran was officially named in 1935 with it's borders, however iranians have proudly made "ancient Iran" a valid term.Afghanistan was created in 1747, today nobody says "what is now Afghanistan" they reffer to the land by it's current name so will it be with Pakistan in years to come.
 
Indian fundamentalists will stop at nothing to prevent that but Pakistanis seem to be pushing for it so it will happen but it will take time that's fer sure.


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 01:26
Firstly why do people keep calling Bharatis Indians all the time? Can't deprogram yourself or what? Anyway, Bharatis have not stolen the history of Pakistan all by themselves: it was thrown away by pakis and they just took it! In fact it is the religious fanatics of Pakistan who are responsible for letting this history be lost. They have been trying to empty the heads of every single pakistani of every historical fact except for their own choice of religious fables.

These religious fanatics are in fact more responsible than Bharatis are for producing prideless, culturless dumbed down zombies who obsess over religion and toss away real history and important historical facts. People need to turn at least a part of their anger and indignation at the overgrown cancer of religion that has been chewing away at pakistani society and destroying history that should not have been touched and which needs to be revived before its completely ripped off by Bharatis.


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 01:41
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.
 
I don't mean to generalize, since there are many productive Muhajirs out there who care about Pakistan, but the fact is most of the Islamists have been Muhajirs.Today it's slightly beyond that.
 
But yes Maqsad does make the point Islamists are amongst the biggest problems for Pakistan by selling it's history and causing political and economic setbacks.


Posted By: kshtriya-Mer
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 07:23

You can not say that the ancient cultures like the Indus vally  belong to just pakistain because the people that used to occupy the Indus are not the same people that are in pakistain today.

 

Their has been so many invasions and conversions of religion on that area more then any other of India that the modern day pakistaini is likely to have more Mongolian and arab blood then ancient Indian.

 

 never mind thousands of years I doubt the same people inhabit pakistain that did 2 or 3 hundred years ago.

 

The only two most well recorded ancient inhabitants of Pakistain are the Meds and Jatts and maybe an other few inhabitants. The other clans that came to Pakistain when Islam became more powerful in that area because Muslims saw this and migrated towords Sindh and other areas of modern day Pakistan. Just like some of the hindu sumra rulers left the state after they lost power and sultans started taking over.

 

I see modern day Pakistain as just a etemted Islamic state that started molding after the sumras aligned with the Islamises (arabs) and muslim population grew and during partition the transition was complete.



Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 12:09
Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

You can not say that the ancient cultures like the Indus vally  belong to just pakistain because the people that used to occupy the Indus are not the same people that are in pakistain today.

 

Their has been so many invasions and conversions of religion on that area more then any other of India that the modern day pakistaini is likely to have more Mongolian and arab blood then ancient Indian.

 

 never mind thousands of years I doubt the same people inhabit pakistain that did 2 or 3 hundred years ago.

 

The only two most well recorded ancient inhabitants of Pakistain are the Meds and Jatts and maybe an other few inhabitants. The other clans that came to Pakistain when Islam became more powerful in that area because Muslims saw this and migrated towords Sindh and other areas of modern day Pakistan. Just like some of the hindu sumra rulers left the state after they lost power and sultans started taking over.

 

I see modern day Pakistain as just a etemted Islamic state that started molding after the sumras aligned with the Islamises (arabs) and muslim population grew and during partition the transition was complete.



Are you just making all this up?
How do you all that?

Pakistanis have been living on Pakistani land as far back as written records go. You dont know ANYTHING about the IVC to say that they were not Pakistanis. They were invaded by the Arayns, and we dont know if they got wiped out, or mixed with Arayns.

Please, dont go around making up your own facts.

Its generally annoying how you want to "prove", that Pakistanis have nothing to do with their own land, but Indians across the border do.
Pakistanis were not invaders, they have always been living on that land.

How do those theories even make sense to you? Do you genuinely believe that the 170 million Pakistanis in Pakistan have nothing to do with their own land?
Its mind boggling how you dont even consider the Pakistani population, when talking about their history.


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

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


Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 12:54
Originally posted by SpartaN117


Are you just making all this up?
How do you all that?

Pakistanis have been living on Pakistani land as far back as written records go. You dont know ANYTHING about the IVC to say that they were not Pakistanis. They were invaded by the Arayns, and we dont know if they got wiped out, or mixed with Arayns.



Just to let you know, the IVC was NOT wiped out by Aryans. They died out due to successive flooding. There is no evidence of ANY invasions of the IVC culture. It's just that they were unable hold their civilization together.


Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 13:03
Oh, and another thing to keep in mind.

Even if you assume that the people of the IVC remained unmoved for thousands of years, that would mean that, if anything, only Sindhis (seeing as how the center of IVC is in their lands) and perhaps Balochs would have claim to this. In other words, only about 17% of all pakistanis can really lay claim to the IVC culture.

Which is why, IMO, ancient cultures as old as the IVC do not belong to ANY modern states. I've said this before, but the IVC is no more _____ian than Sumer is Iraqi.


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 14:01
i can't beleive how many excuses I've heard about the Indus not being Pakistanis.This whole time it's being called "idnain" but when Pakistanis finally start claiming their heritage, all these excuses have popped up from around the corner.


Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 14:52
Please use the term IVC or something to that effect when talking about the Indus Valley Civilization. The Indus is a river, and simply saying "Indus" throws people (or maybe just me) off for a bit, as i have to reread to figure out exactly what you're talking about.

I hope it's not too much of an inconvenience.


Posted By: kshtriya-Mer
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 15:52

Also partition must also be taken into account a lot of Pakistainis were Muslim refugees from across the border



Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 15:59
Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

Also partition must also be taken into account a lot of Pakistainis were Muslim refugees from across the border



Well, only 7.5% of Pakistan's current population are Muhajirs. That isn't significant enough.


Posted By: kshtriya-Mer
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 16:07

I can give you a whole list of cultures that ruled the most thrhiving areas of Pakistain before the invasion of Muslim invaders started taking over.

 

Were do you think all these hindus went? They surtanly are not situated in modern day Pakistan as most the population is entirely Musalman. The original rulers and people moved out of areas like sindh around 11 century,

 

The original rulers of Sindh left, wt els happened to the brhmin rulers and hindu peoples that origionaly inhabited the city?

 

The Arabs came to conquer Sindh under command of Muhammad bin Qasim in 711 CE. This was an easy task, as the people of Sindh had been practicing Buddhism and Hindu ahimsa (non-violence) for many years, and battle was sinful. The Arab Muslims quickly destroyed the Sindhi forts and conquered Sindh. Many Hindus chose to flee Sindh and move to Punjab and Kutch. Those that stayed behind were asked to convert to Islam. For those that did not comply to this request, heavy taxes were levied on them and their properties were taken from them.

 

Link - http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~agha20e/polit116/musliminvasion.html - http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~agha20e/polit116/musliminvasion.html

 

so you see a lot of the original people of Sindh left the city after arab invasion and fled into India.

 

Also as I mentioned before during partition a lot of non Muslim people left the Pakistain province and went to India.

 

I am not saying that Pakistain has nothing to do with Pakistain history but it is ridicules to say that Pakistaines are only to be acknowledged for the ancient achievements of the city



Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 16:21
What Hindu nationalists hate to admit is the fact that many people converted to Islam to escape the famous caste system.
 
For one the Sindhis that fled to India still came from Pakistan, secondly every country must be given the right to it's own history.
 
Just like there are many Italians in Canada, doesn't mean Canada's history begins in ancient Roman times. Jeez why is it so hard to explain this to people.
 
And now I assume another excuse will come out of the laundry list very soon.
 
As for the Indus I was assuming that people knew I was talking about the IVC as we haven't been talking about the river at all.


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 16:32
Anyways why do we always get off topic.The fact is India the republic has claimed the indus as their history for so long and now it's our turn to reclaim it.


Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 16:40
Originally posted by Distel

As for the Indus I was assuming that people knew I was talking aobut the IVC as we haven't been talking about the river at all.


Didn't you run into some confusion with Omar about it? That's why i was saying, it'd be easier for all of us to just use IVC.

As for reclaiming IVC, as i stated before, ancient civilizations around this old do NOT belong to anybody. And just because the Indians once claimed it doesn't make it right for anyone else to. That doesn't correct anything.

Once more, the IVC is no more _____ian than Sumer is Iraqi.


Posted By: Distel
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 20:45
Ancient Greece is the history of modern-day Greece.Ancient Egypt is the history of modern-day Egypt.Egyptians might speak a different language but it doesn't mean they changed otherwise over all in genetics.
 
Pakistanis are the people of the indus river just as the Egytptians are the people of the Nile.


Posted By: SpartaN117
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 22:27
Even if you assume that the people of the IVC remained unmoved for thousands of years, that would mean that, if anything, only Sindhis (seeing as how the center of IVC is in their lands) and perhaps Balochs would have claim to this. In other words, only about 17% of all pakistanis can really lay claim to the IVC culture.


Please do tell me where Harappa is located...

And, if the Dravidian theory is true, then why no cities? Were the huge cities just a one time thing? Or did they just not bother because it was too much hassle?

And also, do you think that historians have linked Ancient Egyptians to Modern Egyptians?

I have said this before, History belongs to the people. Pakistan is only being used to imply the location and the most likely people involved.


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

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


Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 29-May-2007 at 22:57




Well, Mehrgarh and Mohendrojaro are both located in Sindhi or Baloch lands. Harappa is, on the other hand, located in Punjab. So, i perhaps spoke too soon.

Regardless, it is quite unreasonable to assume that all three of these cultures coexisted within what appears to be a monolithic IVC. Coupled with the fact that strong Balochi presence in the region is only found from the Seljuk invasion, and the fact that the Punjabi ethnicity is infact an amalgamation of several ethnicities (most of which are the result of numerous invasions), to say that these three modern ethnicities were coexisting as they are now within the IVC banner is a stretch.

My point is, only one of these ethnicities can lay claim to the IVC. Now, let us assume that Pakistan's largest ethnic group, the Punjabis, existed exactly as they do now in the time of the IVC. Even then, more than half of Pakistan's population cannot lay claim to the IVC.

As for your question about cities, i'm afraid i do not understand. There were certainly huge cities in the IVC. The proof of the flood theory lies in the fact that each city has numerous layers. The bottom layers all show evidence of flood type damage, and each subsequent layer above appears to have been built quicker and with less care than the layers below, as the inhabitants tried to rebuild after each flood. This suggests that the IVC was home to a series of floods that eventually proved to be too much to bare.

As for the ancient Greece and Egypt thing, there are a few things you are forgetting. First, the term "Ancient Egypt" only really applies till the establishment of Ptolomeic Empire. The fact that it has the word "Egypt" in it is just for convenience. As for Greece, Greek history doesn't truly start till 1600 BC. Comparing it with the IVC's start (3300 BC), it is more than 1500 years younger. Civilizations as old as the IVC don't really belong to anybody.

I don't think you are understanding just how old the IVC is, and why it is ridiculous to lay claim to something that old. The IVC is around the same time-frame as Sumer, and the Aegeans. Modern day Iraqis do not claim to be descendants of the Sumerians, modern day Greeks do not claim to be descendants of the Aegeans. It's like if a Mestizo Mexican today tried to claim the Aztec civilization. See how it doesn't work?


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 02:57
Originally posted by kshtriya-Mer

Were do you think all these hindus went? They surtanly are not situated in modern day Pakistan as most the population is entirely Musalman. The original rulers and people moved out of areas like sindh around 11 century,

The original rulers of Sindh left, wt els happened to the brhmin rulers and hindu peoples that origionaly inhabited the city?

Well not at all really. There haven't been any major migrations into or out of sindh since the Arab invasion and it is a fairly safe thing to say that the sindhis that Muhammed bin Qasim invaded are the same sindhs who live there now. The conversion of sindh from hinduism to islam is well documented and happened over a very long time. After the Arab rule sindh was still majority hindu and this continued for several centuries more. I can't remember when the first native muslim rule of sindh was off the top of my head however there was a few hundred years where muslim sindhis had hindu names. Even now Sindh has a comparatively large hindu population compared to the rest of pakistan (but it declined alot in partition of course).

The Arabs came to conquer Sindh under command of Muhammad bin Qasim in 711 CE. This was an easy task, as the people of Sindh had been practicing Buddhism and Hindu ahimsa (non-violence) for many years, and battle was sinful. The Arab Muslims quickly destroyed the Sindhi forts and conquered Sindh. Many Hindus chose to flee Sindh and move to Punjab and Kutch. Those that stayed behind were asked to convert to Islam. For those that did not comply to this request, heavy taxes were levied on them and their properties were taken from them.

Thats completely wrong in all respects. The hindus were certainly happy to do battle with Qasim, although the buddhists who had been perrsecuted by the Hindus of sindh for years defected to the muslim side, and were rewarded by the typical Arab tolerance -- especially to those who joined them.

Originally posted by SpartaN117


And also, do you think that historians have linked Ancient Egyptians to Modern Egyptians?

Clearly you aren't up to speed with the Coptic-Muslim history claims. There are plently of people who would claim that the Egyptions are Arabs and not the ancient Egyptions who are the Copts - they are wrong, but they say it.

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


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 04:55
And while we are on the topic Punjab was severly depopulated by Mongol attacks in the 12th and 13th centuries which resulted in several repopulation campaigns. I don't actually know where the people for the repopulation campaigns came from but I suspect it was the UP region, as it had to be somewhere that hadn't been subject to mongol attacks and was ruled by the sultanate. Which means only the UP, Bihar and Bengal regions.

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


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 08:41
Originally posted by SpartaN117

@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

Originally posted by SpartaN117

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.

were in my posts or any post have I argued it was simply Indian? Lets not make straw men out of my posts in order to try and counter them

for your benefit read again.
Originally posted by Leonidas


Italians cant say Rome was Italian, though Italian history is proudly inclusive of almost all of Roman history. Italy cannot claim Rome just for herself as it touched so many other countries. The legacy is regional not country specific. Only fascists like Mousilini will try turn such a inclusive period of history into something exclusive.

 All these South Asian civilizations influenced, conquered and traded with each other, lines are not neatly defined into Indian or Pakistani. Is the Greko-Bactrian kingdoms simply Pakistani, or Mughal simply Indian? No, but it is a part of the region's history and the countries created within it. Your borders only split the physical countries, not the history.

Originally posted by SpartaN117

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.
it is an extension of the logic put to me, 'mohajirs aren't Pakistani because they are from India'....

cant have it both ways

Nor do i think all the minorities in india belong to that nation or that label (ladhaki's, Sikkimese, naga, etc etc), but thats another thread.

Originally posted by SpartaN117

Consider Ghandaran kingdom. It was a Pashtun Kingdom. They never called themselves "Indian", but Ghandrian, or Pashtuns.


which era, kushun, greek, parthan? and why would the Pushtun be the only inheritors of such a richly mixed history, wouldn't the kalash and other nuristanis also qualify?

and even if you can argue its pushtun, so what? you would have to share it with Afghanistan and did it ever occur to you some pushtun nationalist using your very own logic,  would not want punjabi's stealing their history....

Originally posted by SpartaN117

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.
or any other label, refer back to my first comment.

think about it, your argument that they aren't Indian works against the pakistan label as well

Originally posted by SpartaN117

I have said this before, History belongs to the people.

yes, but not to any one country

Originally posted by Distel

Ancient Greece is the history of modern-day Greece.
our history is regional not national, people in turkey, Balkans, the Black sea, the Levant and Italy have Greek history as well. ancient Greek history belongs to all of them simply stapling it to one country doesn't do it justice.

Originally posted by Distel

To Leonidis next time don't post me bogus warnings accusing me of "biggotry" when your own friend Omer is guilty of biggotry and racism by using the term "Paki."
the warning is real enough. You are clearly racist and inflammatory towards mohijirs of your country. If i said 'Pakistani Australians aren't really Australian and bad for the country' it would be racist.

In Australia we abbreviate everything; an Italian can be called an Iti or Lebanese, leb or lebo while even a cigarette is a ciga and almost all place names cut in half or quarters and ending in "o". There nothing racist in abbreviating, only in tone. That is our type of English. There is definitely nothing racist for an Italian to say iti when talking about his own kind, same thing in this case. Build a bridge Distel and move on.



Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 18:24
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

And while we are on the topic Punjab was severly depopulated by Mongol attacks in the 12th and 13th centuries which resulted in several repopulation campaigns. I don't actually know where the people for the repopulation campaigns came from but I suspect it was the UP region, as it had to be somewhere that hadn't been subject to mongol attacks and was ruled by the sultanate. Which means only the UP, Bihar and Bengal regions.


Do you have any proof of which direction the colonizers came from? What if there were none, what if all that happened was that everyone who was having 10 kids per family actually were able to feed them because the land produced the same amount of food when tilled? If you "suspect" that UPited repopulated punjab then you have to prove it since its definately not the only place which could have done so.


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 18:32
Originally posted by AlokaParyetra






I am looking at the Mohenjodaro, Kot-Diji and Amri cluster of cities and its hugging the Indus. Then you have Harrappa that is on the Ravi. Now I see another cluster of red that is near no river at all, any of it. Could this cluster be on the location of the Saraswati?


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 19:55
Originally posted by Maqsad

Do you have any proof of which direction the colonizers came from? What if there were none, what if all that happened was that everyone who was having 10 kids per family actually were able to feed them because the land produced the same amount of food when tilled? If you "suspect" that UPited repopulated punjab then you have to prove it since its definately not the only place which could have done so.

I have no idea where they came from. UP is just a guess. All I know is that the Delhi Sultanate had a repopulation campaign for the punjab.

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



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