India Part of Greater Middle East?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Post-Classical Middle East
Forum Discription: SW Asia, the Middle East and Islamic civilizations from 600s - 1900 AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7554
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 13:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: India Part of Greater Middle East?
Posted By: Cellular
Subject: India Part of Greater Middle East?
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 22:31
|
I have always viewed India as a part of the "Greater Middle East"
India for much of its history has been ruled by Muslim dynasties and kings.
-Many of
-India had a great muslim population until
-(I know this does not count as too much) Much of Northern India is desertious and semi arid.
I had alot more written yesterday but after I sent my topic it was deleted 3 times because of errors, so I will add more as discussion goes on
Note: I am not saying ------------- Photo shows a Mexican flag flown above an upside-down U.S. flag during a high school student protest over immigration reform. http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/mexicoflag.asp |
Replies:
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 22:48
|
Well India/South Asia is large enough to make a region of its own. SW
Asia (aka Middle East) is not defined by Islam (only) but by geography
and history. Central Asia, North Africa, Sud-Saharan Africa and SE Asia
also have wide Muslim populations and history yet they are not
considered SW Asia (aka Middle East or rather Near East). Yet, if we were to divide Asia in two halves, India would be clearly in the Western one, with the possible exception of the NE region (Assam and other states east of Bengal). ------------- 
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 06:45
|
I would consider us to be more part of SE Asia than SW Asia. I'd be careful as to what you mean by "much of india's history has been under muslim rulers". If you mean some of India's history has been under muslim rulers then it's fine. But for the majority of human history the majority of India has not been under muslim rulers. It's also as Maju said, the middle east isnt defined as regions where Islam exists, as he said, SW Asia |
Posted By: OSMANLI
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 07:02
|
Pakistan and Afghanistan are often refered to as the Middle East. However i would consider Pakistan as the maximum extent. India is too far. In addition to the coutries depicted as MEastern i would also add Egypt, Israel, TRNC, Palestine and S.Cyprus. -------------  
|
Posted By: Jhangora
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 07:05
Cellular I think this topic should have been titled "Impact of Islam on India".You are mixing religion n geography .-------------  Jai Badri Vishal
|
Posted By: OSMANLI
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 07:18
|
Islam is bound to be the dominant factor in any discusion about the ME. However countries such as Israel and S.Cyprus are non-Muslim states whilst still being in the ME. Countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Palestine are home to a Christions to. -------------
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 07:47
| Call me picky but i would regard the Indus as the natural border to the South Asia region, if we look past modern boundaries |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 12:00
|
And hasn't India had much more influence on the middle east than the middle east on India in terms of technology and culture. Perhaps the middle east should be part of greater india. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 13:39
I doubt the Indus is any border. It has normally been the center of most states, not their border. I rather think that the deserts of Eastern Iran are the diffuse borders of SW Asia. The borders of South Asia are rather the mountains of NW Pakistan. The border is diffuse and I would rather think of Central Asia as a fluctuant frontier of mainly semi-nomadic peoples, penetrating in Afghanistan and NE Iran. Baluchistan seems rather Southern Asia to me but it's also somehow of a border region. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 13:57
|
Logically, half of Iran is not in the Middle East, from the longitude of the Eastern coast of the Mazandaran/Caspian Sea it is, with Afghanistan and Western Pakistan in what would logically be called CA. ------------- |
Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 05:33
|
India is in the middle, beginning and end of the main asian influence,
not Near East not Far East, India is India with her own civilization;
¿islamic influence? right, the hindu influence, not only the religion,
is absolutelly crucial for SE Asia; another example, Buddism is an
indian religion, although is not present today. Can't be ascribed to
these simplistic concepts as Middel, Near, Fast... |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 04:09
Not really, it has never been the boundry of any state. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 06:19
|
Posted By: Tyranos
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 06:41
|
Ancient World maps had India as included as partve Asia, granted North Africa was included as Asian as well on those maps. Even today though, the Middle East is just as broad, and often includes North Africa within its deffinition too .
------------- 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 11:54
|
Not really, in the South, it bifurcates Sindh completely, and is Sindhi on both sides except for some areas. And Sindh is the most "Indian" of our provinces. In the North, well again not really. There is no real geographic feature which is a sharp divide like say the Rhine. Its more of a transition. By the time you reach Lahore in C Punjab you find a change from say Peshawar, but there is not much at say Mianwali which is in W Punjab.
------------- |
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 16:06
That's a HORRID map of the Middle East, with all do respect OSMANLI but that's just no accurate. Egypt not even included, you serious? Egypt was one of the original Middle East countries that encompassed Egypt, the Arabian penisula, and the Levant and now they include Afghanistan and Pakistan South Asian countries and exclude Egypt and consider it the Middle East!? Not to mention Palestin/Israel which has been at the center piece for centuries!
Historically the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, and the Levant have shaped the cultures of the Middle East anything that involves Turkey and Iran is used fro geo-political reasons anything for Pakistan and Afghanistan would be for the sole purpose of Islam itself. Misconceptions is that South Asia and the Middle East are alike, we are completely different culturally and historically I just hope Westerners realize this.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 16:54
|
Not really true. If you include Iran in the Mid East, than Pakistan and Afghanistan should be included too. ------------- |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 17:36
| From civilizational point of view, Pakistan and Afghanistan are a part of the Middle east. But the countries differ in ethnic culture. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 17:48
|
Pakistan and Afghanistan are multicultural they do not have one culture.
In Pakistan, we have Sindhis and Serikis who are v "Indian", Baloch who are a transition between Mid East and India, pakhtuns Baltis, Chitralis and Kashmiris who are C Asian, Hindko and Punjabis who are a transitiona; group. Not to mention Muhajirs who are from all over India.
Pakistan is a country which straddles W, C and S Asia. We are a part of all three. ------------- |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 18:01
| Exactly Sparten. Like many countries Pakistan and Afghanistan are multicultural and multi ethnic. What I would like to point out is that those countries share the same civilizational inspiration with the Middle east. In terms of ethnicity and folkloric culture however, some regions of Pakistan are Middle eastern some are Central asian and and other South Asian. You're so right about that. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 18:21
|
And others are mixed. In Islamabad, to the North is C Asia, to the south, S Asia, ------------- |
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 18:40
|
So we include Afghanistan and Pakistan and disclude Egypt and Palestine? Are you serioulsy going to say that's a good map? Fact is Aghanistan and Pakistan are considered South Asia and that the Middle East is Levantine, Arabian Peninsula, and North Africa. If Islam had not reached Pakistan there is little doubt it would be considered part of the Middle East. Again, Israel and Egypt is so more important to the area that to exclude them and to include Pakistan and Afghanistan in exchange is just outright wrong.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 18:43
|
Pakistan was ruled by Mid East and C Asian based empires for most of its history pre-Islam. Indeed the last 300 years of being tied to India are counter to the norm.
Certainly Egypt should be Mid East. But then Egypt also has a lot of Med and N African influence. It is like Pakistan, a nation that cannot be placed in one area. ------------- |
Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 18:45
| Egypt is part of the core of the Middle east. No doubt about that. That map is incomplete. The issue is about Afghanistan and Pakistan being a part of the Middle east or not. |
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 18:53
The difference is Pakistan was ruled by Persians who came into the area spreading Islam. The Delhi Sultanate in India, would then India proper be considered part of the Middle East? Egypt is included in the core not because of culture and Islam but because it was part of the origin and history of the Middle East. Altough we are not Levantine we still influenced the Middle East and sent powerful armies across our borders into Southwest Asia.
During the Indus Valley Civilizations, Pakistan was the start of South Asian civilization spread apart from a Middle East civilization, Mesopatamia who traded with them.
Again, the religion of Pakistan and Afganistan is having a huge impact on what they are considered. If Islam had not impacted these two nations I don't think Middle East and Pakistan would be used in the same sentence. Pakistan pledged allegiance to their religion and the Middle East hence their Pan Arabic color the green and white flag.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 19:00
|
And during most of the first 2000 years of its history, Egypt has little do do with Mesopotamia or even Palestine. It was not until the new Kingdom and messrs Thutmosis, Seti and Ramses that Egypt became a power in the Mid East or even a player. The Indus Valley Civilisation is dead. Most of Pakistan's culture is linked with its neighbours to the west and north, far more than with say India (and the Delhi Sultanate's main power base was from C Asia it was not until Aurengzeb that the Mughals looked towards India exclusvly).
------------- |
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 19:27
| How was Egypt not a major player in the Middle East? It traded extensively with them importing Phoenician cedars and Levantine pots and pans for wheat and papyrus since the earliest times! It adveresly influenced the Middle East and vice-versa and became assimilated to the Middle East since very early. The imperialist ambitions of Egypt had nothing to do with Egypt being a 'major player' in Middle East affairs considering it was part of it the entire time. Also Egypt was the only civilization, besides Mesopatamia, in the Middle East. Pakistan was originally South Asian and was only considered Middle East with the advancement of Islam into the region simple as that. Even since the earliest times before the New Kingdom Egypt extended its domain from Nubia to Palestine and influenced Phoenician art to this very day. The idea of using columns to support building seen in Persia, Phoenicia, and Asia Minor, yeah ah started in Egypt! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 19:43
|
The Indus Valley also traded with the middles east. And before Islam, the Kushans, the Indo-Sassanids, the Bactrian Greeks and the Persians all ruled here. Pakistans links with the Mid East and C Asia go back to at least 500 BV and probably before if you count the Aryans. As for the national flag of Pakistan, its not a Pan Arab color, the flag is based on the pre-partition Muslim League flag which was based upon the Turkish flag which was due to the Leagues active support of the Turkish cause in WWI and after the treaty of severs,.
------------- |
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 19:47
My regards to your post is you saying that Pakistan had more connections to the Middle East then Egypt, I don't know if I'm taking you out of context if so then I apologize, but in relation to that it's just not true. Egypt is more a part of the Middle East then Pakistan is or ever was. We ruled over Palestine at times and only expanded more into the greater part of the Levant during the New Kingdom. The use of columns was Egyptian. The use of papyrus which slowly replaced cuniform was Egyptian.
Hey, whatever floats your boat but I just don't consider Pakistan a part of the Middle East.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 07:20
|
ANd I said that Pakistan was a country that encompassed three regions.
Well you have a right to your opinion but Pakistan dose not not need your certificate to be considered part of ME. Or C Asia or S Asia for that matter. As Egypt dose not need mine or anyone elses. ------------- |
Posted By: Conservative
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2007 at 22:59
|
India is not apart of the Middle East. The Middle East actually has no real meaning in any historical, geographical or cultural sense. The term Middle East is something invented by the British within the last couple of centuries and imposed on the region for their own political perceptions of how the World is shaped. What the British defined as the Middle East are the countries from Egypt to Iran.
|
Posted By: Conservative
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2007 at 23:03
You're right. Pakistan is not apart of the Middle East but Egypt is.
|
Posted By: Windemere
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2007 at 02:18
|
I think that geographically , historically, and ethnically India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Iran could all be considered Central Asian. They are all inhabited predominantly by Indoaryan peoples and have some cultural similarities. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan have historical associations, and Iran and Afghanistan have historical associations. Sri Lanka is a little different but it also has associations with southern India and could be considered part of Central Asia.
The Middle East has always been predominantly Semitic ethnically, historically, and linguistically. ------------- Windemere |
Posted By: Killabee
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2007 at 04:33
Windemere, according to your logic, Burma , Tibet and Thailand also have cultural association with India and should be part of Central Asia 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2007 at 05:30
|
India is not a country it is a continent. The N W Part has more links with say C Asia the S E part more with E Asia. ------------- |
Posted By: Conservative
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2007 at 23:04
Geographically Iran is apart of West or Southwest Asia, not Central Asia. As for India being in Central Asia you are way off. The Indian subcontinent is its own geographical region and India/Pakistan/Bangladesh are all apart of it. Only Pakistan's Baluchestan is apart of the Iranian plateau and so can be considered to fall in West Asia. But overall as a country Pakistan is in South Asia (for political, historical and cultural/ethnic reasons).
Afghanistan in my opinion could fall into either West Asia or Central Asia for political and cultral/ethnic reasons. Although historically Afghanistan (in particular western Afghanistan such as Herat) has been apart of the Iranian civilization and shares close linguistic and cultural/ethnic relations with us.
Perhaps with the exception of the Pashtuns in the southeast there is nothing Afghanistan has in common with Pakistanis/Indians/Bangladesh in any of those areas you mentioned lol... and the Afghans only share a relationship with South Asia because some of their Pashtun kin now form apart of Pakistan.
By the way Indian/Pakistan/Bangladesh are predominantly Dravidian (racially) whereas Central Asia is now predominantly Turkic. There is absolutely no similarity between the two so i dont know on what basis you are labelling everything it seems from Sri Lanka to Iran to be "Central Asian".
|
Posted By: SuN.
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 03:01
Very true. This region is a subcontinent of it's own. |
Posted By: Windemere
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 03:31
|
Central Asia really isn't a well-defined geographical expression and it means different things to different people. Perhaps a better geographical expression to represent the aforementioned nations would be South-Central Asia. Although the people of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh belong to different tribal groups they probably share closer historical ties with each other than with any other nations. And many of these tribal groups ultimately trace back to the Indoaryans. The Dravidians have a different lineage but their presence in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka does serve to tie these countries together. The Pashtuns (of Indoaryan descent) are the largest tribal group in Afghanistan (15 million) and the second-largest in Pakistan (40 million). The integrity of the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan as modern nations is an accepted
international fact. But historically the Pashtuns crossed the border at will (as they continue to do today) and many Pathan clans, even families, are represented on both sides of the border. The original border was probably created somewhat arbitrarily by the British in the 1800's. Iran has a different history than India, Pakistan, Bangladesh but it has very close historical ties to Afghanistan and the predominant ethnic group in Iran (Persians) are also of Indoaryan descent.
The new nations of Turkestan/North-Central Asia are predominantly Turkic (Turanian). These include Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and also Tajikistan (which is a little different, being Indoaryan). These nations probably have more in common with each other ethnically, linguistically, culturally and historically than with any other nations, and may compose a valid geographical entity by themselves. There are many Tajiks and Uzbeks living in northern Afghanistan but I believe that as a nation Afghanistan has a closer historical association with South Central Asia than with Turkestan (North Central Asia).
This is only my own opinion, looking at it from one perspective. Everyone has their own opinions based on their own perceptions and cultural background, which is as it should be, since geographic entities are based on shared physical and cultural conditions as well as geography and different people will always have different perceptions. ------------- Windemere |
Posted By: SuN.
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 04:51
|
A simple way to find out the truth is to look at the meaning of the word when it was coined & it's interpretation by the people who invented the term. They didn't ever mean to include this region in Central Asia or mid east.
------------- God is not great. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 05:52
|
Nobody here has the foggiest clue about India it seems. India is not a nation it is a continent. Bangadeshis are Bengalis, there language culture and some would say religion is v different from say Pakistan, hence '71. Secondly Sri Lanka are mostly Sinhalese and Buddhist, again totally different from Pakistan or India.
As for Pakistan, well we have only any similarity with say Indian Punjab and Rajestan, the as for the rest, well S India or Deccan is very different, as they are from N India.
As for the Balochis and Pashtuns comment, well Balochis and Sindhi are very similar there are many tribes who are Balochi but speak Sindhi (the jatoais for instance) and vice-versa. Pashtuns and Hindko/Potoharis also have a degree of affinity as many of the latter are often bi-lingual in Pashto.
------------- |
Posted By: SuN.
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 07:27
All this further point sout to the fact that the Indian subcontinent consisting of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Tibet, Parts o Afghanistan cannot be clubbed with Mid east or central Asia. It deserves it's own separate regional identity which was given to it in the form of being called "The Indian Sub Continent" |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 08:57
|
'71 was because of a treasonous actions of a few communist Bengalis.
Balochi langauge is not related at all to Tamil, it is a variation of Persian. ------------- |
Posted By: SuN.
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 12:07
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 12:28
|
Nighty Night Vivek.
------------- |
Posted By: anum
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2007 at 20:32
| I think the land west of indus can be included in greater part of middle east, but certainly not the land east of indus |
Posted By: Conservative
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 12:18
The Middle East is a political region not a geographical one.
|
Posted By: Ardeshir
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 02:23
|
no india cant be included as part of the middle east, there is nothing middle eastern about it! ------------- Thinking is the essence of wisdom |
Posted By: anum
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 17:20
| Lol technically what does iran have middle eastern? only islam i think. |
Posted By: Conservative
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 22:07
Iran shares its history and politics with the rest of the Middle Eastern countries moreso than it does with any other region. Being Middle Eastern has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with socio-political factors and history.
The only other 'region' Iran could be included in would be Central Asia since Iran's history and civilization is pretty much tied up with countries like Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan too. But like i said before the Middle East is a political region, and thats where most of Iran's politics are to be found.
India on the other hand has no significant connection at all to Middle Eastern affairs, either contemporary or historically.
|
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 02:42
Iran was also linked with the Middle East. Like the Egyptians and Babylonians they helped to shape the face of the Middle East in culture, language, and religion.
|
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 08:12
| India and Pakistan can not be part of middle east. Pakistan and India plus Bangladesh and Sri Lanka make South Asian countries. I know Pakistani fellows don't like it but, Indians and Pakistanis are culturally and ethnically related. The only ethnic group with some Indian influence inside Iran is Baluchi. Afghanistan is more a central asian country to say a middle eastern one. Egypt is culturally and ethnically middle eastern. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 08:28
|
Please explain to me how Pak and Ind are culturally related? I am getting tired of this. As mentioned before Pakistan is a border region. India is the size of Europe, with 1500 languages god only knows how many dialects. Two states in India are different from each other in most ways, and now you say Pakistan India Bangladesh are similar? Or Sri Lanka? Or Nepal? Please support your assertions with some facts. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 10:17
|
Hello Sparten
First, the Punjab, where half the Pakistani population come from is a natural continuation of Indian Punjab as well as Rajasthan. The same clans and peoples live on both sides of the border but have different religions.
Also, culturally, the caste system exists one way or another in Pakistan which is a remnant of the Hindu days especially in the Sindh. Now we covered 75% of the Pakistani people. The remaining part is partially influenced by Indian culture primarily defined by the continuing existance of Hindu practices, which is the main part of Indian culture, in those areas. I saw funerals of several prominent pashtun tribals i documentries and you can clearly see unislamic practices like the extensive use of roses and flowers to cover the bodies of dead people and to through them on graves which if I am not mistaken a hindu practice. So, Pakistan is deeply influenced by Indian culture and thus part of greater India.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 11:07
|
Simply, Pakistanis Food, Cloth, Language, art and a lot of more are influenced by Indian culture. The only different matter is the religion. Dear Sparten @ you are free to think whatever you want but my personal answer is what I stated above. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 11:11
|
1) Indian Punjab is Sikh, Pakistani Punjab is muslim.
2) Punjab "province" in Pakistan is different from Punjabi people. Northern Punjab is the Potohar which is linked to Hazara area, most of the regions on the Indus are linked to the Frontier (and have Pushto speakers to boot). The South is Siraiki which again like the Potohar has a different langage. Only C Punjab Province is Punjabi strictly speaking, mainly the Gujrawala, Lahore and Okara divisions. Indian Punjabis are 2 % of Indians population.
3)Throwing flowers on a grave is unislamic? Since when? And if that practice was borrowed from the Hindus than they would be cremated, not buried. And BTW "Hindus" are vey different too, the C India and S India and Bengalis and Himalyan Hindus are so different from eacjh other as to be completely a different religion, indeed the term Hinduism is an umbrella term for all the non-Buddhist and non-Abrahamic religions of S Asia. Adding superlous similarties like that can lead to ridiculous assertions, like if I say that Saudis are really Scots since in both men wear a skirt like garment.
4) 99% of Pakistani native languages are undecipherable to Indians and vice versa.
5) We have different cultures, different beliefs, differentr myths, different traditional tales, different cusine, different dress, different features, different language from both the Indians and each other. There is no greater India. There is no India anything except the modern day nation state whose official name incidentally is not India but Bharat.
Pakistan has several similarties with the Mid East, mostly Balochistan/Sindh SW Punjab, several similarties with C Asia mostly Frontier, N Areas, Kashmir and Potohar, and several similarties with NW India, Punjab, Siraki, Jummu and Sindh East of the Indus. This dose not mean that we are Mid eastern or C Asian or Indian, just that by virtue of geography we encompass elements from all.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 11:16
Food: N Indian diet, vegetarian, E Indian: rice, fish, S Indian diet: heavy meat.
Pakistan: Punjab, Frontier, Kashmir: mixed with vegetable, meat and a lot of dairy products. Sindh: fish, rice, Balochistan: heavy meat
Language:
N India: 1500 languages,
Pakistan: 150 languages
Dress:
India: Sari, Dhoti
Pakistan Shalwar Kameez
Suren, you really have had little interaction with S Asians have'nt you. ------------- |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 11:29
| Honestly I have seen enough Pakistani and Indian in my life. I said pakistan is Influenced by Indian culture not an exact copy. please read it again. When I was a kid we had Pakistani Neighbours their food was very spicy and they even used cari. their girls always copied their cloth from Indian movies and they could easily sing Indian songs. |
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 11:43
Which is nothing like Middle Eastern food. We eat a lot of bread (pita), fava beans, grape leaves, cabbage leaves, and use little to no spices in our food. We hate foods with spices, something Pakistanis and Indians love, and our food is a mild flavor that is heavily influenced by the Mediterranean sphere. There is no correlation between our cuisines.
Languages of India and Pakistan are influenced by Indo-Europeans and Dravidian languages, most of the Middle East is Afro-Asiatic with the exception of Iran who has directly influenced the Middle East as stated above.
Middle Easterners, galibays, jalaba, and mehagabeen.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 13:15
|
Suren maybe you should have asked where your neighbour was from.
Watching which Indian movies they have 6 or 7 different film industries, the famous Bollywood, the there is the Bengali, the S Indian and the Tamil industries. All completely different from each other. They even used curry? What the hell dose that mean, curry is a type of a dish, its like saying they even used "hamburger"
------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 14:24
|
Hello Sparten
Since the Punjab are Sikh, then where did they come from? oh yes did't Manmohan Singh come from Chakwal? weren't Lahore, Gujranwala, Sialkot etc the main cities of the various Sikh kingdoms in those areas? Same goes to the Sindh and their Hindu population which is still a majority in some places there. I am with the school of thought that says that there is no one India but I do support the idea that Pakistan, India, Bengladish and the himalaya states are al part of the same cultural cluster or subgroup. Plus throwing flowers is un Islamic and it is a remnant from the Hindu days.
Also if 20 or 30% of Pakistanis were not "Indian", the rest are. This said I don't think there is any doubt about it.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 15:20
| you guys are all wrong some what. Firstly punjabis only make up 50% of pakistans population not 75% as some one mentioned. 25% of pakistanis are Pashtuns and Baluchis, who are definatly more central asian/persian then being south asian. The other thing is no all of subcontinent is not related. The only places that are related are pakistani punjab/indian punjab, sindh/rajishatan. Other then that when people say Pakistan is related to Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, they are totally wrong. I am not saying pakistan is middle eastern or central asian, but it has strong elements from all regions, so pakistan is neither fully south asian, neither it is fully central asian or middle eastern. it is a mix bag of all populations. |
Posted By: Conservative
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 20:11
|
I agree with Suren, andrew and Al Jassas.
Pakistanis are no way Middle Eastern. Their people and cultures have next to nothing in common with either Iranians, Arabs or Turks from what i have seen. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are definitely culturally and ethnically related to all of the other South Asian countries like India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh. Afterall that country only came into existence so that the majority Muslim regions of India could govern themselves as a Muslim state (which is why Pakistan used to have an East and West part). I've seen a few documentaries about how and why the British divided India and Pakistan's founder himself said that Pakistan was to be a homeland for the Indian Muslims.
As for the comment about Baluch and Pashtuns i checked online about their demographics in that country and not even 4% of Pakistan's population is Baluch and just 14% to 15% is Pashtun. The rest (over 80% of Pakistanis) is all Indic/Indo peoples that belong to the same civilization and cultural sphere as India, Bangladesh etc
I really don't know why Pakistani people always deny this over the internet and pretend that they are Middle Eastern or "Central Asian" when they're not. Seriously, have you people ever in your lives seen an Ozbek or Kazakh or a Turkoman before? There is absolutely no resemblance at all between Central Asian peoples and Pakistanis either in their physical looks or their languages, cultures or customs. Even Afghans who border Pakistan look very different from the typical Pakistani. And coming to Middle Eastern countries let me tell you that Pakistanis definitely do not share any culture or civilization with Iranians and neither are you related to the Arabs. But you have so much in common with Indians that i find it really bizarre you try to deny it.
No way is Pakistan a "mixed bag" of "three different regions". It is a clearly South Asian country with a minority Baluch and Afghan community living on its periphery.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 20:26
|
Have you ever visted Pakistan? And why the obsession with looks? And yes I have seen a lot of Uzbeks and Tajiks, my neighbours for one. Finally, with all due respect; why all the pride, being Mid Eastern or C Asian is no big deal, niether is being S Asian or any other ethnicity for that matter.
Incidentally in your last post you showed your ignorance. You obviously read the provincial figures, well upto 40% of Sindh is ethnic Baloch, most of Punjabs districts on the Indus are Pashtun, and you forgot about Kashmirs, Gilgitis and Farsiwans.
Finally kindly tell me what exactly do say Punjabis (Pakistani mostly) have in common with say Tamils? Or Garwalis, or Marhata. Or the last three with each other. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 01:08
| Punjabis and Sindhis are related to north indians, not bengalis or sri lankans as some people are suggesting. By north indian i mean people from indian punjab, kashmir and rajishtan area. Other then that people from south india, sri lanka and bengal are very different. People are really being ignorant here in a sense that they think pakistani and sri lankan are the same thing. How would you like if i say a Sudani and Iraqi are the same thing? ofcourse that is not true. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 01:12
| but i agree 80% of pakistanis are indeed south asian. The rest 20% Pashtuns and Baluchis are afghans. If Afghanistan is considered central asian then they are central asian. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 06:08
|
^
Arash again.
Get a life moron. ------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 08:07
|
Indian, Pakistan and Afghanistan certainly cannot be called part of the greater middle east. Reason, middle east is, or, was semitic whereas Pakistan, Afghanistan and India like, the ancient Romans who ruled over all of middle east that was really worth ruling, ancient Greeks which also ruled over all of middle east that worth ruling, the Ancient Hittites who also ruled over a large part of middle east and had the wonderful Egyptians of Andrews ducking for cover, the Ancient Mittanis which also ruled over a crucial part of middle east, and various other Indo-Aryan of the middle east from about 1500 B.C, the Ancient Persians which also ruled over all of middle east, Scythians who also ruled over most of Central Asia, the Ancient Indians the most prosperous region in the world for all of history, are indeed Aryans.
Hah! take that you Arab chauvinists.
|
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 08:22
|
Pakistan is nominally an Indian nation. India representing the South Asian cultural axis.
However, notice Pakistan is in the center of 3 great civilizations: Iran, Hindustan, China. And Pakistanis are mostly Indian Muslims + Turkoman Central Asians + Iranian type in the Western fringes. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 08:35
This is a map of South Asia.
India is a continent, Bharat is a concept of nationhood.
Greater India includes the following nations and societies: Pakistan-India-Bangladesh-Sri Lanka-Nepal-Myanmar and arguably Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 18:29
|
Over All Pakistanis are a very mixed people because all the invaders who came from Khyber pass came and settled in Pakistani region |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 18:30
|
as for pakistan being Middle eastern, no its not. But it has defenatly a large population which is central asian (Pashtuns) which make up 30% of Pakistan. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 18:31
30% of pakistanis are pashtuns, how are they Indian muslims? they had nothing to do with india. The rest Punjabis and Sindhis are mixed races, even the indian punjabis, Rajishtanis are mixed races because these lands are where all the invaders came in and settled. There was never such thing as greater Bharat, it is only a modern concept that Hindu fundemetalist came up with. yes this region was hindu but that doesn't mean they were the same. Its like calling all of you Europe same, which its clearly not
|
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 23:26
Pakhtuns have their origins in the suleman mountains where they are mentioned as the mountain tribe of Pactiyan by Herodotus and hence they are South Asian and Pakistanis. and about Pakistani's being very mixed well who isn't and who hasn't had invaders but this region actually stood up better to invaders than other regions such as Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt etc and was independent for much more time than those regions. Sure the peple of this region had more foreign influence than say Australian Aboriginals but also this region was the most populace in the world and was able to absorb invaders much more. The people of Punjab are almost the same as the people of Harappa and people of Sindh are almost the same as the people of Mohenjodaro. Everyone had a lot of mixing but this region had a lot less than soem of the other regions of the world especially compared to the middle east.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 23:47
| ^ Pashtuns origins are unknown, there culture is much more central asian then Indian and they make 30% of Pakistans population. And I disagree not all people in the subcontinent are that mixed, The present day Pakistan region and present day western India like (Rajhistan, Punjab, Haryana etc..) are much more mixed then lets say bengal or Tamil Nadu. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 00:14
|
I don't find so wild the idea of linking India with a theoretical "Great Middle East". After all, ever since Sumer it is known contacts existed between Mesopotamia and India. It is also well known that Ancient Persia and India also had a narrow relashionship.
Let's say at least that all these people know each other from a very long time ago.
------------- |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 00:24
|
So are Greeks Indians too? ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 00:28
|
Indians attacked Greece as troops in the Persian army. Greeks lived in India after Alexander. There is even a style of art called Greek-Budhist. Aryhabatta, the mathematician, knew and used Greek mathematics fully.
So, I guess they also knew each other quite well, at least for a while. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 01:17
I'm sorry but this comment is on parallel with an American saying
American: "Hey hows life in Arabia"
Persian: "I'm actually from Iran"
American: "Well its all the same thing, your all Arabs, speak Arabic"
Persian: "Actually I'm not an Arab and my mothertongue is Farsi"
American: "Persian or whatever your all Arabs man whats the difference..."
Do you know any Sri Lankans? please explain the similarities between them and Pakistanis, actually please go into the similarities they have with Indian Punjabis.
India itself is so diverse, ethnically, religously, linguistically, how can one speak of India as a monoethnic/linguistic/cultural block.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 01:31
no why would you say that?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 01:33
|
Pakistanis share as much as Afghanistan as they do with northern india. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 01:34
This is probably the best post ever, thank you
 its amazing how some people are so ignorant and just people together for no reason
|
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 14:49
Ok i have to ask you back up that claim. Aryabhatta's work was written in verse very different from your traditional Greek style. And of course there were many things which were known by many cultures that doesn't make any one work derivative of another. Here is good commentary on the work of Aryabhatta by an expert in the field.
http://www.gongol.com/research/math/aryabhatiya/ - http://www.gongol.com/research/math/aryabhatiya/
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 00:39
Well, I am not downplaying Aryabhatta's work, because he is a genious I admire a lot and I have known all my life.
My point was very simple: Greeks, Indians, Iberians, and all the peoples of the Classical times knew each other and where at contact quite often. In the case of Aryabhatta, is just common sense to realize that after the age of glory of math in Alexandria, and given the contacts that city had, among others, with India, some knowledge and techniques reached India as well.
Now, with respect to Aryabhatta writing in poetry, you should realize that style is only for presenting the final works. In ancient times (in the West, too), the record of all the intermediate steps for a demonstration where usually hiden from the public, and only the results were shown (for instance, only recently a book that describe the methods of Archimedes was found!). I am certain that Aryabhatta knew many methods commonly used in his days by mathematicians, but that are not preserved fully.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 01:20
| lets get back to the thread topic, India itself as a whole doesn't belong to the middle east, but the middle east has influenced parts of Northern India and Pakistan a lot. |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 09:28
Well i agree with you. Aryabhatta' work was in a very large part a compendium of previous subcontinental mathematical knowledge. Yet you should realize that it were the many Greeks who came to the subcontinent to study there not the other way round for example Pythagorus came here to study.
And i disagree with your claim that many important common scientitfic knowledge does not survive to us. If a work is important enough and common knowledge then it should reach us in some exactant work either explicitly or by the indication in some works which hinted at familiarity with that knowledge. Yet many of Aryabhatta's work has no parallels anywhere. Al-Khwarizmi in his writting gives full creadit to Aryabhatta for much of his ideas and he had full access to most of the works of mathematics of his time.
And the role of mathematics in sub-continental traditions goes very far back in time with the clear indstructions of Sulba Sutras for the construction of fire altars. In the Indus Valley Civilization geometric instruments have been found as well as decimal fraction weights.
So of course yes there was much contact between the two nations and exchange of new ideas however to say that the subcontinental mathematics would not go anywhere without the Greeks is in my opinion wrong.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 23:51
That's interesting and I don't doubt it. I know Pythagorus went to study to "Mesopotamia" but there aren't specifics about the region he visited, as far as I know.
As I said before, there are lot of works missing. That's not strange at all. Besides all cultures have periods of glory followed by decadence, and in the bad times many things get lost. And also, as I said before, an example is the Archimedes Palimpset you can find here
http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/ - http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/
That book was missed during two thousand years! And contains nothing less than the Integral calculus methods used by Archimedes to calculate the volume of the sphere and other volumes. Now, as you know, Archimedes and others Greek mathematicians proposed a formula and prove it by reduction ad absurd or other logical technics. But the way at how archimedes found the formula in the first place was lost during all that time.
The methods were hidden in the past. It is very likely as well that many results shown by Aryabatta in poetry were backed by thousand of pages in less poetic calculations. Well those pages don't exist anymore, I believe.
And he is one of the most respected Indian mathematicians in the West as well.
Yes. Influences go both ways. However, it was the interaction between all the civilizations of the Ancient world, which allow them to go faster. Isolated civilization progress slowly. Just see the case of Incas and Aztecs for instance, isolated of all the other major civilizations in the World.
------------- |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 07:29
|
Bulldog, Saba
I think when people put Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar in the same boat, its in reference to the Hindic Cultural Axis and not neccessarily in regards to language or physical features.
India itself is so diverse and unique. One can argue there is no such thing as "Indian" but Gujrati, Rajastani, Bihari, etc.
Just like Germany, France, Italy, Spain are within the Greco-Roman cultural axis (or European) Pakistan-Nepal-India-Sri Lanka-Bangladesh-Myanmar are all within the Indian Cultural Axis. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 01:18
| ^ your axis theory is wrong because if you consider pakistan, Pakistan's areas such as Baluchistan and NWFP were under persians more then Indian through history, so how are they part of indian axis? |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 07:50
|
First of all I consider Pakistan a multicultural nation. However I also understand that a certain majority or elite in Pakistan runs the nation, and even that a certain language is made the national language due to cultural sensitivity and purpose of unity. Having said that, yes Pakistan can be between two cultures much as Lebanon or Iraq is multicultural. Id also argue you dont know what my axis culture theory really means. Id also argue your someone else on this forum under a different name. Its up to the mods to prevent this. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 15:28
|
this axis theory is made by you though, give me evidence that some historian agrees with this theory? |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 15:44
There is no cultural continuity between Northern, Western, Eastern India with Sri Lanka, I would love to discover how Sri Lankan and Pakistani culture is similar.
These cultural axis don't bare any resemblance to the cultures listed today.
Language also has an impact on culture.
Exactly. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 19:27
|
No. India historically, culturall, linguistically has never had anything to do with the Middle East, it is confined to South Asia with countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.
While it has had several foreign ''Muslim'' Rulers at various times, they were never from the Middle East but were often from Ancient Pakistan/Afghanistan and Central Asia in such small numbers that they're impact was not significant.
|