Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Ancient India was Pakistan

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857
  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ancient India was Pakistan
    Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 20:20
Originally posted by Vedam

Teldeinduz what are you on with your "ancient Pakistanis".
The millions of Indians who left during partition tell me are they actually Pakistanis, and if so why did they end up in INDIA - APPROX seven million, lets say now about 40 million. Belive me there are not millions of Pakistanis living in India.
And what makes you think that the people who occupy Pakistan now are the same ones who resided there during ancient times. Dont people move around? Doesn't Pakistan have 8% Mujahirs from India. How about the Arabs and sheiks and Sayyids, Mughals are they also the "ancient Pakistanis" the Greeks and Romans knew.
The "ancient Pakistanis" you make me laugh! 
Remember you need to go by people not just who occupies the land at a particular point.
 
1) 7 million did not cross from Pakistan to India.
2) The Indus Valley civilization has not been recorded as moving anywhere. Most likely they're just ancestors of some Pakistanis, though not all. They didnt migrate to India if that's what your implying..at least there's no evidence of it.
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
  Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 21:39
Originally posted by Ikki



Two points.

1. The fact that present Pakistn was called first India don't exclude to present India for the name, at the moment that since the III century BC the entire subcontinent was called India. This is exactly equal than the example of frica: the first region so called was Tunisia, then the name expanded to the entire Moghreb and then cover the entire continent like in the present we know it. But, the fact that Tunisia was first frica can't be a reason for sack this name to the entire continent.

At the same moment that anybody say "Pakistn is more India than present India because was called India first", another guy can perfectly say "present India is more India, because follow a native tradition, and not a foreigner tradition". So i recommend don't begin with this game.

2. The "supporters" of the article are the greeks. But only the ancient greeks that knew India as the land of the Indus, not the ancient greeks that after the Alexander campaigns knew the entire subcontinent called it "India".


I don't know what we get repeating the fact that all the world know: that the first territory called India was the Indus valley.



Yes the entire subcontinent became known as India later on but one thing you did not get from me because I did not really say it...east india was a part of the indus empire....not a part of the indus valley. East India(especially east of the ganges) was a colony of the ancient Indus Valley Vedic civilization. 

Now, west india(mostly between the ganges and the indus) was the heart and the headquarters of this ancient empire whose official HOLY(learned) language was sanskrit and common(popular) language was prakriti. Where was sanskrit created? It was created in ancient pakistan by an ancient pakistani called panini. You have indians today fighting over panini and saying he was "a hindu" or an "indo aryan" and some are even making outrageous claims that this guy was an afghan without any proof. Why? Because the indians want to erase the ancient historical identity of pakistan from their minds and their books since it offends them. Strangely enough using the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" rule they have found great allies with Afghan historians also. They all conveniently forget that the language panini spoke(prakriti) was the language of ancient pakistan(indus valley and extensions) and it was not the language of persians, afghans(pashtoons) or dravidians(south indians today).


So now we are ready to make a little comparison. Does the U.S. state of massachussetts have a right to be considered a part of New England? Of course...nobody minds and nobody really cares. Does some English Atheist guy living in London have the right to call himself British? Of course he does. But does some Christian Protestant guy in Boston, Masacchussetts have the right to say that he is English but that some guy in London is not English at all? Do you see what you are supporting now and why SOME pakis feel this way? Most don't care and in fact might even be happy( most pakis have lost their identity and that makes a lot of indians very happy btw). But some pakis feel that this is wrong.

And we are not saying Bharat has no connection with ancient pakistan. We are saying they have no right to make such ridiculous claims like pakistan had nothing to do with the ancient indus valley culture and empire. Yes it may be part of their religion today but it is more part of our history than theirs. This "culture" argument you are supporting is not really a culture argument it is a religious argument in favor of the Hindu Indians(bharatis).

Yes, religious history supports your argument but geography, history, linguistics and a lot more supports the argument the greek was making.

Now you ask why I am repeating what the world already knows? I just want to put it in perspective here.
Back to Top
Vedam View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Vedam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 09:08
So by your logic Maqsad, the Moors in Cordoba have nothing to do with the Arabs because it is now called Spain and is a Christian
country.
Let me tell you about this "Panini" that you call an ancient Pakistani. Panini is part of the Kaushik clan of Brahmins who are one of the first Brahmin clans, Kaushik today is a very popular surname in India for Brahmins.
Tell me do the Jews no longer have any claims to Jewish historical figures if they no longer live in the exact same place for 3000 years.
I do not say that Pakistan has nothing to do with the Indus valley civilasation, but you cannot say the Indian involvement in that area was only religious, and yet somehow manage to separate history, politics and geography somehow, as if you have different ethnicities for different types of culture somehow.
Back to Top
Ikki View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Guanarteme

Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
  Quote Ikki Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 12:52
Originally posted by maqsad





...


Those are political questions and i don't want enter there Confused



Anujkhamar said

Ikki, can I ask where you got that map from? It may be usefull in a project i'm doing now.



The first from here

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/images/PtolemyMapLarge.jpg

And the second is posted on Wikipedia about if i remember well the kingdom of the indogreeks or in the Ptolemy section, wiki don't rule right now Dead

There are several renaissance versions of the Ptolemy map.

bye




Edited by Ikki - 19-Sep-2006 at 12:55
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
  Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 13:16
Originally posted by Vedam

So by your logic Maqsad, the Moors in Cordoba have nothing to do with the Arabs because it is now called Spain and is a Christian
country.


"The Arabs" is a very vague term. Arabic is just a language. And by my logic they have a lot to do with the Arabs in Morocco and Algeria if you look at history regardless of religious conversions and affiliations.

Originally posted by Vedam


Let me tell you about this "Panini" that you call an ancient Pakistani. Panini is part of the Kaushik clan of Brahmins who are one of the first Brahmin clans, Kaushik today is a very popular surname in India for Brahmins.


Mohammad is a very popular surname today in Pakistan. Does that mean anything? Think about it.  Wouldn't somebody living in Mecca today have a stronger historical link with that certain someone?

Originally posted by Vedam


Tell me do the Jews no longer have any claims to Jewish historical figures if they no longer live in the exact same place for 3000 years.


"The Jews" is a very vague term once again. And in answer, Talmudics have very little claim to Orthodox Shepardic historical figures because they did not live in "that place" even 3000 years ago.

Originally posted by Vedam


I do not say that Pakistan has nothing to do with the Indus valley civilasation, but you cannot say the Indian involvement in that area was only religious, and yet somehow manage to separate history, politics and geography somehow, as if you have different ethnicities for different types of culture somehow.


I never said East Indian involvement was only religious. I say that the current day links that are left between modern eastern India and the IVC are just mainly religious. This is because of conversions to Islam, 90% of the people in Pakistan don't know and 10% don't care and like to pretend to be of Iranian, Afghan or Arab stock. You know this well, you can even see these self sponsored hallucinations in full force on AE once in a while.
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857
  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 13:58
Maqsad, IVC had nothing to do with Hinduism or Vedism. Eastern, Souther, Central and much of western India had nothing to do with IVC. A bit of of the states of Punjab (only just) and Gujerat (coastal) is about all. It was centred on Sindh and Balochistan as well as Punjab mainly.
 
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
  Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 16:01
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Maqsad, IVC had nothing to do with Hinduism or Vedism. Eastern, Souther, Central and much of western India had nothing to do with IVC. A bit of of the states of Punjab (only just) and Gujerat (coastal) is about all. It was centred on Sindh and Balochistan as well as Punjab mainly.
 


You are correct. I should have said the vedic Indus civilization aka Saptha Sindhu or whatever. I know that the connection, if any, between the IVC and Vedic Sindhu culture has not been explained.
Back to Top
Vedam View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Vedam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 17:20

Originally posted by Vedam


Let me tell you about this "Panini" that you call an ancient Pakistani. Panini is part of the Kaushik clan of Brahmins who are one of the first Brahmin clans, Kaushik today is a very popular surname in India for Brahmins.

[/QUOTE=Maqsad] 
Mohammad is a very popular surname today in Pakistan. Does that mean anything? Think about it.  Wouldn't somebody living in Mecca today have a stronger historical link with that certain someone?

[/QUOTE]

OK i will tell you about Brahmin ancestry and how it works. All brahmins derive there ancestry from 7 lineages, which further sub divide into 49. All Brahmins are obliged to know which ancestor he belongs to for ritual purposes. Surnames are not just taken they denote which ancestor you are desended from, which is important during marriage as you are not suppose to intermarry with one who shares the same ancestor. 
You should not use the example of Mohammad as a surname but that of Sayyids for Islam who trace there ancestry to the Prophet Muhammad and Levite/Cohen for Judaism  who will trace there ancestry to Arron brother of Moses.
Using your arguement i can say that Sayyids in India are ancient Indians, which i do not believe is true.


Edited by Vedam - 19-Sep-2006 at 17:28
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
  Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 23:07
Originally posted by Vedam


OK i will tell you about Brahmin ancestry and how it works. All brahmins derive there ancestry from 7 lineages, which further sub divide into 49. All Brahmins are obliged to know which ancestor he belongs to for ritual purposes. Surnames are not just taken they denote which ancestor you are desended from, which is important during marriage as you are not suppose to intermarry with one who shares the same ancestor.


Whats your point here? What does this prove or disprove? What are you trying to say?

Originally posted by Vedam


You should not use the example of Mohammad as a surname but that of Sayyids for Islam who trace there ancestry to the Prophet Muhammad and Levite/Cohen for Judaism  who will trace there ancestry to Arron brother of Moses.


Trace their ancestry? The only thing they can trace(if the ancestry indeed is unbroken) is their Y chromosome. Nothing else. That was in the case of Arron. For Sayyids its the same thing, just a club a person belongs to. You can see the difference in appearance between Indian Sayyids, Bedeuin Sayyids and Syrian Seyyids. Obviously they are not of exactly the same stock barring the mininal remaining similarities.

Originally posted by Vedam


Using your arguement i can say that Sayyids in India are ancient Indians, which i do not believe is true.


I don't think you understand my argument or my subtleties. The sayyids in India could be anything. The only assurance is they would most likely have mtDNA that they share with most other sayyids and even that is being generous because we have not done any tests but are just assuming.
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 01:42
Originally posted by Ikki

Originally posted by maqsad





...


Those are political questions and i don't want enter there Confused



Anujkhamar said

Ikki, can I ask where you got that map from? It may be usefull in a project i'm doing now.



The first from here

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/images/PtolemyMapLarge.jpg

And the second is posted on Wikipedia about if i remember well the kingdom of the indogreeks or in the Ptolemy section, wiki don't rule right now Dead

There are several renaissance versions of the Ptolemy map.

bye




Dear ikki why dont you accept it, the 50 year old backward, underdeveloped, poor nation of pakistan can have infinitely more knowledge than the entire thousands of years old Greek culture, infact it is more knowledgeble than the entire world. It being lower on the social, financial, military, economic, developmental hierarchy in the world list of nations does'nt mean it should also be lower on the knowledge hierarchy. This is broadly the philosophy telde is trying to prove.

Remeber discretion is the better part of valour. The wise rule not by the volume of their voice, but by its content. What you say is public knowledge, tried & tested & documented. it does'nt need any proof now.


PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
M. Nachiappan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

suspended

Joined: 09-Jun-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 315
  Quote M. Nachiappan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 04:43
1. The co-called Greek maps or the maps attributed to the Greek caretographers have been made much later, as the researchers believe.
 
2. All the maps are dated to mideaval period with the claims that the
******"copied from the original",
@@@@"copied from so and so, wjho is reportely copied from from the original",
##### "originals were lost"
and so on.
 
3. In any case, Pre-1947 Pakistan was a myth and 1947-Pakistan is the creation of Jinnah, which was and is "Bharat", as the history of "Pakistan" cannot go beyond August 1947 without "India" or India that is Bharat!
 
4. Vivek Sharma passed some remarks about the "infinitely more knowledge than the entire thousands of years old Greek culture, infact it is more knowledgeble than the entire world", this is totally wrong, let him read Herodotus, the "father of History", he says "Indians were having two heads, three eyes and so on....."
 
5. Incidentally, Can I refer those "Indians" as depicted by the "father of history" as Pakistanis?
 
6. If that is the case, the "Pakistanis" can claim that they were "such people" and then, definitely, Panini becomes Pakistani, Ayodhya is located in Afganisthan (a person read such a paper in Indian History Congress" in India few years back), then, perhaps, most or some of "Aryan looking" Pakistanis might be(come) "Brahmins"!.
 
 
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 05:05
What I meant by that statement was to ask Ikki to stop expecting logic fro telde as telde's theory is that the 50 yr old pakistan is much more knowledgeble than the thousands of years old greek or Roman or indian culture.


PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 05:07
Telde has another great theory which says that the genetic make up of the persons on the two sides of Indo - pak border is also different. That this border demarcated by the british is not just a political line but also a genetic border, the persons on the pak side being better looking, fairer & so on & so forth.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.