Vinod,
Why not? If the Arabs intermarried with the locals, lets assume the locals were IVC descendants, then some Pakistanis would be absolutely correct in claiming that they were descendent's of the Arabs, but that does not take away the part of their identity that belongs to the lands of Pakistan.
lands of Pakistan? Pakistan as I have said was created by the British it could well have been anywhere where the muslims were in majority..
what about Bangladesh?
I personally do not know of any part of my family that is Arab, maternal or paternal side.
Both sides of the family are Rajput, though not related.
A non Hindu Rajput to me is an oxymoron as per historical and ancient scriptures..
There are many, many more people in Pakistan with similar family history's - that do not have any recollection of Arab ancestry (which does not mean it may not exist). So just because of people like myself and others who claim no Arab ancestry or claim both Arab and local ancestry, we have a right to claim the IVC.
How do you have a right to claim IVC, when quite clearly HIndus and Muslims were 2 different nations with nothing in common.. so if IVC was Muslim then yes you have a right.. otherwise NO..
Similarly tomorrow if Pakistan is divided then the community who has been arbitrarily given those lands can claim IVC?
Yes, but by that same argument India could have become a dozen nations after the British left as well, and then those in the South would not be claiming the history of the North, and neither would be claiming the history of the East.
Do you as a Rajput claim history of Turkics like Babur? Tipu Sultan? Habshi Kingdoms of Bengal? Maharana Pratap of Mewar? Ranjit Singh of Punjab? Shahi Kingdoms of NWFP?
Pakistanis who speak Punjabi, Pushto, Sindhi, Urdu, Balochi or whatever are claiming the IVC as Pakistanis, not on the basis of individual ethnicities - just as Modern Indians are claiming Modern India's history regardless of their individual ethnicities, or whether their particular region had anything (or very little) to do with that history.
Claiming IVC then Claiming Mughal History etc..
Then why are Muslims not allowed in places of non Muslim worship in Pakistan even though you claim them as being built by your ancestors?
[quote[The various peoples comprising Pakistan, including the Pashtun who voted overwhelmingly in a referendum for Pakistan, decided that they subscribed to a sense of shared nationhood and nationalism and chose to join Pakistan. The fact that they chose this new idea over the long established idea of an Afghan nation is indicative of how powerful that sense of nationhood was.[/quote]
How is it possible that a minority can dictate a division of a nation?
Do you think that the migrant workers of UAE have a right to a nation?
or that tomorrow Shias will be allowed a seperate state within Pakistan? will Baloch be granted be freedom etc,?
Referendum is valid if majority votes not minority..
In the end, it does no matter whether Afghanistan or India covet Pakistani territory, or whether China covets Indian territory - it is the fact that the people decided what their nation was, what it meant, and what their destiny was - and they roundly rejected Afghanistan and the idea of joining India.
these people were minority.. I can get a minority in Pakistan who will reject Pakistan and accept Afghanistan will they be allowed a new nation? or will the non muslims or shias for eg will be allowed to have a new nation for themselves?
and if those nations hypothetically created over IVC then Pakistanis lose right to IVC and the new nationality so created has an exclusive right to IVC?
Quite honestly I don't think it matters what basis India and Pakistan were created on. Any way you look at the idea behind nations, they are formed on the basis of divisiveness.
Pakistan was created by British to protect the interests of eltists muslims which is unethical...
tomorrow a new ruler comes in Pstan and a few minority elements want a new nation and vote for it. then he gives them the right.. their insecurity and minority beliefs allows them a new nationality?
Whether the justification is shared "culture", "race", "ethnicity", "history" or faith, it is ultimately a divisive rationalization: "I want a nation separate from everyone else because of XYZ."
Then why are Baloch etc. being not allowed to liberate?
But just to answer your question, Pakistan was formed because the sense of being a separate identity, and therefore not getting fair treatment in India was too strong. It doesn't matter what the reason was, ultimately wanting a separate nation boils down to a fear of not having a particular community's interests being taken care of.
300million Indians couldn't do jack about 300,000 Britishers I doubt those Hindu Indians would've decimated Muslims.. and in any case irresp if Muslims were insecure or not if a majority vote was not there then they could not have a seperate country.. how can a minority override majority?
if tomorrow some Balochs vote against Pakistan will they get independence??
That is why the peoples under the control of the British, including those in the colony of British India, chose to separate from the British empire.
Continuously trying to cast the creation of Pakistan as some sort of horrible communal event is a very intellectually dishonest canard.
I am dumbfounded by the fact that an ethnically Indian community converts to a foreign religion and suddenly they have a new identity.. and if majority of Pakistanis are of foreign ancestry then they should be kicked out and not allowed a seperate nation they should go back to their motherland...
Similiarly if Pstan is allowed then why is the problem with Israel? Israelis claim Israel to be their motherland and rightfully took it over and in an overwhelming referendum chose to form a seperate nation...