ChennaiDude
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2011
- Messages
- 2,588
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
An interesting article about China`!
- Thread starter rcrmj
- Start date
It is time you stop stealing identities to create a history for yourself which is not yours.
And thank you for posting the above link. It supports my point of view that it is Pakistan which is the pivot of Indus Valley Civilization and not India.
I will expand the image for all to see.
INDIC
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 18,512
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
It is time you stop stealing identities to create a history for yourself which is not yours.
And thank you for posting the above link. It supports my point of view that it is Pakistan which is the pivot of Indus Valley Civilization and not India.
I will expand the image for all to see.
Why is the radcliffe line passing through mid of the green area when Pakistan owns all.
Why is the radcliffe line passing through mid of the green area when Pakistan owns all.
ulti ainak walay jin ... ainak to pehen lay linein dekhnay se pehlay
notsuperstitious
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 10,473
- Reaction score
- -15
I'm laughing so loud... can't type... just read my signature...
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Ticker, your compulsions are revealed in your choice of language and the visible departures from fact that you have to take resort to, and your deliberate obfuscation of my main comment by introducing irrelevancies.
Let us deal with your diversionary efforts first. These have nothing to do with what I pointed out, but allowing them to continue amounts to an implicit acceptance, a much-used technique used by officials of a frustrated nation in establishing their fictitious claims in the eyes of a gullible world. They need to be addressed, a waste of time which is one of the objectives of the original diversionary ploy.
Before we consider any other point, there were no "international governance obligations" faced by the UN in its considered quasi-judicial decision; it was a decision on the status of a divided colony, and the question of whether there was an equal division or there was a portion separated from the other. That decision was clear and unambiguous; its scope was the scope of the Independence of India Act, 1947, and it had nothing to do with the concept of a cultural entity, nor with a geographical term. Your seeking to conflate the UN's consideration of the differences or continuity of a colony with the succeeding Dominion is a deliberate attempt at a straw horse strategy, to pretend that the UN considered cultural and geographical aspects of the situation and opined on it in a casual, informal way, and by knocking down this pretended casual, informal decision to denigrate the cultural and geographical aspects that you wish to avoid.
The UN decision, which was definitive, in terms of international law, was that the British colony of India, a political entity created by the British through parliamentary action in 1858, therefore consistent with the legal systems governing the world order of the day, was the origin of the Dominion of India.
The British colony of India was a concrete political reality, which
# took part in international treaties, like the establishment of the UN itself,
# in wars, in both the First and Second World Wars, in wars on Afghanistan, on Burma, on Nepal, on Iraq, on Iran that was named Persia, on the Ottoman Empire, on Malay states singly and collectively and against Japan, and
# entered into alliances on its own accord in shipping pacts and agreements, covering the precursors of the current Laws of the Seas, for instance, in
# settlements of political nature outside its territory, including the Simla Pact with Tibet and China, and in several agreements and treaties with Czarist Russia,
# in international commercial arrangements and administering regional economic and trading groupings of countries and regions outside its own, including the use of its currency as common coin in the Persian Gulf, in Aden and in parts of east Africa and south east Asia prior to the introduction of separate currency and economic regulations by those regions and areas;
and was a clearly-defined political reality which spanned the gap between a mediaeval dispensation strayed into modern times and these modern times themselves.
It is this political reality that the UN recognized and identified as the root of the Dominion.
In doing so, the UN made no comment on any older India. Your introduction of such an older India into the limited nature of the UN decision can only be described as mischievous and made with the single purpose of claiming that such an adjudication cannot define the nature of the older entity. It is mischievous since nobody has claimed that the British colony of India a political entity, represented cultural India, or geographical India in its entirety. Pretending that such a claim exists is necessary only in order to introduce further confusion by stating that such a claim cannot be maintained. That claim was never made, so there is no value in your claim that it cannot be maintained; it was never sought to be maintained, and the issue is being brought up by you repeatedly to obscure other issues.
Your second fallacy is to suppose that Mountbatten issued a decree defining that the old India, whatever your construction of that ambiguous term, was equivalent to the new India. Mountbatten issued no such decree. A decree, as you term it, cannot be as ambiguous and formless, and shapeless as a fatwa, and perhaps your lack of understanding of law is responsible for your confusion.
The British ruled India through the rule of law, a rule of law that was one of the most prized tenets of your founding father, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and a principle and practice for which he worked throughout his professional life. It is ironic that in order to substantiate other nebulous claims, you have undermined that whole broad principle which he and millions of citizens of colonial India worked under.
There was no question of Mountbatten issuing a decree, or an Ordinance, and thereby oversetting legislation by the British Parliament.
Neither Britain nor colonial India was a banana state ruled by decree, or by Martial Law or by avoidance of constitutional responsibility. Your casual, throw-away remark betrays a lack of understanding of the legal framework under which India, a concrete, existent India, was ruled and governed. It fails to understand the day-to-day reality under which even your own state functions TO THIS DAY. If nothing else, you might like to ponder over the origin of the blasphemy law that is causing such a furore in your country today, and work out for yourself, in your own time, what body brought this into existence. You might also like to find out by asking those who know their history who the statesman was who moved for this entire legislation to be brought into the books of statute, not by decree but by legislative action.
In place of this mythical decree that has been created for the sole purpose of furthering your fallacy, there was an Act of Parliament by the British Parliament. It was not the act of a single, whimsical tyrant, it was the considered deliberation of the representatives of a whole people, in a method of proceeding which is accepted to this day as one of the most wholesome expressions of the idea of democracy seen by the world throughout its history. Certainly, nothing equivalent has been available to compare with it outside the Athenian democracy, and to equate it to a one-man decree would be laughable if it was not based on an outrageous attempt to serve up propaganda in the guise of reason or a considered opinion on a piece of legislation.
Such a proceeding was not accidental, and reflects the culmination of more than a century's legislation in collective form, the culmination of the efforts of a leading democracy hailed by the world to put a modern political shape onto an ancient cultural and geographic entity.
It is sad to see you resorting to deliberate distortions of fact in order to make your case.
Neither the UN decision regarding the nature of the Dominion of India, nor the British legislation on the commencement of independence of India, have anything to do with the idea of historical India prior to 1858. They have been used in arguments to show that there was continuity between the political entity that legally supplanted older regimes; that there was a military tradition based in India, the cultural and geographical India which was harnessed and managed with brilliant success by the British, who injected their technology and organizational skills into that tradition; that there was a continuity between borders and frontier arrangements between that age and today; that there was a continuity between laws prevalent today and then; and that there was an intellectual recognition of the nature and concept of cultural India and geographical India under that political entity which we carry forward into the future in this new political India.
Neither of your preliminary remarks has anything of relevance to do with the subject of the cultural or geographical concepts named India. Let us now examine whether or not they have anything to do with historical India. In particular, let us examine whether or not India is representative of an old mythological religion base, in distinction to a civilisation based on historical fact and ground reality.
KRAIT
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 16,971
- Reaction score
- -27
- Country
- Location
kaykay
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 8,933
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
aabe ankho wale andhe...can't you see that almost 1/3rd of green territory remain lies in India too....whole of gujarat and some parts from rajasthan,punjab and JaK......apna ainak thik kara pehle...
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Apart from the nonsense stated by Ticker with regard to legal roots of the modern Indian state, we have an opportunity to examine whether 'Indian' civilisation is a mythological religion-based creation, or a vibrant culture independent of any religion though deeply interactive with it, with two distinct ones in this case. Rather like European civilisation, for instance, or Iranian, Turkish, or Indonesian, or Chinese or Japanese or Vietnamese or Malay.
The point has already been made, numerous times, that India as a cultural entity was well represented by a number of constituent political entities through its history, some encompassing portions of the geographical India, some approximating to the same, and some exceeding the geographical India. Both cultural and political aspects are recorded in history, and are ground realities; it is, in fact, the mythological portion which is the happy hunting ground of Hindu revisionist, Muslim obscurantist and latter-day political propagandist alike. I hope you can recognize yourself in this rogues' gallery.
With regard to cultural India, there are so many pieces of historical evidence, and signs and indicators which continue into today's ground realities, that singularly unfortunate phrase selected, that listing them itself is a monumental task which will take several days even in the shallow manner of this forum. Culture, whether represented in art or in the daily manner of life of people, is profusely present in today's world, and can be traced in cases through the preceding centuries to the pre-Christian era, or in other cases to recent efflorescences based on these earlier foundations.
Let us consider language first, and its concomitant aspect of script.
On an Indian currency note of today, it will be apparent that there are two kinds of languages which are in daily use by citizens of the world's second largest nation. These are those with foundations in ancient usage, dating back to the pre-Christian era, and those which have flowered on those earlier foundations in more recent times. Thus we have, and I quote this from an examination of a 100 rupee note,
From the Indo-Aryan group of languages:
Assamese
Bengali
Oriya
Kashmiri
Urdu
Gujarati
Hindi
Konkani (in Nagari script)
Marathi
Nepali
Punjabi
Sanskrit and
Sindhi
From the Dravidian group of languages
Kannada
Tulu
Malayalam
Tamil
Telugu
None of this mythological, none of this religious.
Coming to the script, the scripts of modern India are written in two distinct forms, those derived from the Sanskrit radix and those derived from Dravidian forms, essentially, from Tamil. Those derived from the Sanskrit radix are based on Nagari script, used to write Sanskrit and Prakrit before the 10th century AD, which was based on the earlier Gupta script. Another derivative of the Sanskrit radix, through the Gupta script, was Sarada, a western Indian equivalent of Nagari, from which are derived a form of Kashmiri which was wiped out by cultural genocide, and Gurmukhi, the standard script followed in Indian Punjab.
The Gupta script was itself derived from Brahmi, which is a script which dates back to Asoka, again, from before the Christian era, and gave rise to Sarada, Nagari and Siddham. Tibetan script, although Tibeto-Burmese is a different language group, is also a derivative of Brahmi, through Gupta Brahmi.
This was the script in which the literature of northern and cis-Deccan India was composed, consisting of a body of literature as large as any other in history, and of a quality which still permits its performance or readership in contemporary times, with relevance.
Of the scripts in which Dravidian languages are written, Tamil script of modern times was derived from southern Brahmi, and was popularized by Pallava and Chola patronage, and displaced an earlier script, also derived from Brahmi. Telugu script derived from Brahmi as well, and was well-established by the fifth century AD. Kannada script (I hope I am allowed to go home by 'diga chauvinists) is a calligraphic variant.
The Silapattikaram, and the other four of the five great Tamil epics, was written in a parallel Tamil Brahmi script, since fallen into disuse, in the first century of the Christian era. Those who have read this classic will recognize that the characters, the places, the social context, the norms, economic relations, trade and commerce and the administrative pattern could be drawn from any other part of cultural India, from the distant mountain territories of the Bahlika to the the river valleys of Kamarupa, or from the valleys of the northern Himalayan mountains, with little or no change.
Nothing religious, nothing mythological.
So, too, if we go through other parts of culture, like painting, or sculpture, or architecture, or dance, or drama, or literature, there is one Indian civilisation.
Nothing religious, nothing mythological. All existent in one form or the other in India today, Ticker, sadly for your thesis.
On the other hand, nothing exists of the IVC but the ruins, lost and forgotten by the people in their neighbourhood, found by a Bengali, and extricated painstakingly by the British, whose supposed misconceptions of the nature of Indian polity, culture and geographical extent you were so scornful about in your sadly mistaken comment.
I hope you have a sense of humour, Ticker, and that you laugh to yourself when putting down your tongue-in-cheek fantasies to raise Pakistani morale. It would be pathetic if it were otherwise.
I have already listed the political formations which are to be seen today, in today's republic that is called India. However, just for the sake of the record, let us look at them again. In the next comment.
Nothing mythological, nothing religious.
ajtr
BANNED
- Joined
- May 25, 2010
- Messages
- 9,357
- Reaction score
- 0
Scions of IVC....WTF...
Its thread about China and he is discussing IVC.
well he is contesting based on article the following point the article says.so he is not off the mask in discussing IVC.
KRAIT
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 16,971
- Reaction score
- -27
- Country
- Location
We all know about his argments from the past. These words are different but content is same. Same old stale rants about IVC and roots of IVC. Problem is picking one sentence and changing the entire discussion just to repeat same old things, derail the thread and it happened here, Again.
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
He is completely off the 'mask' in discussing IVC, since the portion placed in bold by you has nothing to do with the Indus Valley Civilisation. Unfortunately, silly little creatures, like you, among others, think that there was only one civilisation in the geographic entity known as India.
There were two; one, which disappeared without trace, was forgotten for 3,200 years, between 1300 BC and 1900 AD, by the people who are being proclaimed its heirs and successors from the rooftops, and was re-discovered by a Bengali, and painstakingly brought out in its form by a succession of British archaeologists.
The reference in the text bolded by you is to the second, which is an amalgam of the culture of the autochthonous inhabitants of India, including perhaps the Dravidian culture, and the culture introduced by those who introduced the Indo-Aryan language to India. This civilisation lasted without a break from sometime around 1500 BC to today, and this is the one being referred to.
So your friend is completely off the mark, and so are you. Stick to propaganda pieces, and leave history alone, until you have made an effort to get to grips with it. History is not fluid dynamics, nor is it network theory.
ajtr
BANNED
- Joined
- May 25, 2010
- Messages
- 9,357
- Reaction score
- 0
Forget about one sentence even if a word is used wrong way in an article then it questions the whole intelligence of the author.Just for example how tulasi das is questioned these days left right and center just for using the "Naari" word in his chopai at wrong place.
Dhor Ganwar shudra pashu naari,ye sab hain tadan ke adhikari.(animals, illiterate, of lower caste, animals, and female deserve a beating to straighten up and get the acts together)
If you go in any hindi dept of indian univ you 'll find 4-5 phd thesis on tulasi das based upon above chopai itself.
As for ticker or any other pakistani you may call their IVC claim as rant or fantasy but they gonna beat it with you everytime you wish to claim it as major portion of it is n pakistan.Thats what he say Pakistan was the pivot of IVC.
He may be off off the mark but he wont allow indians to claim it.As for people keep migrating thien i must think africans should slaim entire world...im not too sure about it.
Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Again, your personal biases and prejudices are misleading you. Since your personal biases and prejudices are towards seeing the culture of the Gangetic plain as equivalent to the culture of India, which it is not, and seeing Tulsi Das as an embodiment of the culture of the Gangetic Plain, it is easy for you to fall in line with the propagandist slogan that India is represented by mythology of a religious variety. Unfortunately, the obsession with myth and religion displayed by individuals does not amount to a summation of the Gangetic plain culture, and does not represent the whole of Indian culture.
With regard to the IVC, it cannot be claimed by either India or Pakistan, other than as curators. The thought that its original inhabitants and creators are still around it and are its cultural or civilisational heirs is fantasy, a fantasy cruelly punctured by 3,200 years of those supposed heirs living in complete ignorance of their inheritance.
While we understand and deeply sympathise with the personal predicament of individuals, and their urgent need to align themselves with characters and positions around them, these are essential personal issues, and do not belong to a general discussion. These predicaments have nothing to do with 'ground realities'.
Rafi
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2010
- Messages
- 11,752
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
We claim the IVC on the simple basis of geography - it's most significant sites discovered so far - are on our land.
All along the valley, stream that flashest white,
Deepening thy voice with the deepening of the night,
All along the valley, where thy waters flow,
I walk'd with one I loved two and thirty years ago.
All along the valley, while I walk'd to-day,
The two and thirty years were a mist that rolls away;
For all along the valley, down thy rocky bed,
Thy living voice to me was as the voice of the dead,
And all along the valley, by rock and cave and tree,
The voice of the dead was a living voice to me.
All along the valley, stream that flashest white,
Deepening thy voice with the deepening of the night,
All along the valley, where thy waters flow,
I walk'd with one I loved two and thirty years ago.
All along the valley, while I walk'd to-day,
The two and thirty years were a mist that rolls away;
For all along the valley, down thy rocky bed,
Thy living voice to me was as the voice of the dead,
And all along the valley, by rock and cave and tree,
The voice of the dead was a living voice to me.
Similar threads
