Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[Flintlock]

This is all related to water and proving the existence of the Saraswati, when no Saraswati existed in history. Look at his map. He's giving the impression IVC sites were located along this fictitious Saraswati River.

Arey Bhai, the term Saraswati doesn't appear till much later in the Rig Veda. Here we are discussing a satellite image which clearly shows the bed of an extinct river, and numerous harappan sites located strung along it.

The Ghakkar-Hakra river was at best a minor river that perhaps did dry up. But it was not a major river, such that inhabitants would look to settle along it as opposed to the Indus. The Indus always was the main river in the region. That is why Harrappa and Mohenjendara (which Michael Wood mentions by name in your clip), were located along the Indus.

Actually, in terms of numbers, the sites along the Ghaggar -Hakra river system far outnumber the ones along the Indus.

In a survey conducted by M.R. Mughal between 1974 and 1977, over 400 sites were mapped along 300 miles of the Hakra river.[8] The majority of these sites were dated to the fourth or third millennium BCE.[9]

S. P. Gupta however counts over 600 sites of the Indus civilization on the Hakra-Ghaggar river and its tributaries.[10][11] In contrast to this, only 90 to 96 Indus Valley sites have been discovered on the Indus and its tributaries (about 36 sites on the Indus river itself.)[12][13][14] V.N. Misra[15] states that over 530 Harappan sites (of the more than 800 known sites, not including Late Harappan or OCP) are located on the Hakra-Ghaggar.[16] The other sites are mainly in Kutch-Saurashtra (nearly 200 sites), Yamuna Valley (nearly 70 Late Harappan sites) and in the Indus Valley, in Baluchistan, and in the NW Frontier Province (less than 100 sites).

Ghaggar-Hakra river - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is as speculative as the rest of your ideas.

Speculative? Its hard cold fact. The FACT is that the climate of Central Asia is far harsher and much less hospitable than the climate of the Indian subcontinent. The soil is far less fertile also. Which is why the Aryan migrants were nomads and not settled people. Infact if you examine the history of Central Asia, you will find a predominance of nomadic hunter-gatherers over settled life.

Your reason for the IVC inhabitants allegedly leaving, is that their water source (monsoons, rivers etc) drying up.

Not only that, but change in climatic patters like the strength of the monsoon, the duration of the monsoons, the weather patterns. All these factors can lead to the decline of a civilization.

If this was the case, then the Rig Vedic people would leave also, they had more advanced technology for travelling.

Bhai, this is not a railway platform, and nobody had perfect information. The Rig Vedic people settled progressively from west to east, is it not? Didn't they settle in the Gangetic plains as well, and fight wars among themselves, as attested in Rig Ved, and later Mahabharata?

This theory of yours that everyone one day decided to pack their bags and leave what was their home is absurd.. The IVC inhabitants were not animals they migrate from place to place in search of fresh pastures. IVC was their home, such a migration you're talking about has never happened in history, and it wouldn't ever happen.

You're joking right? Humans migrate all the time. This is getting ridiculous. The history of humanity is the history of migrations, first out of Africa into South India, then progressively northwards, and then reverse migrations from the northern parts of the globe into the southern parts (Iranians, Indian Aryans, Mediterranean tribes etc.).

Then there's your suggestion that it was a harsher climate in central asia is just speculation. First the Rig Vedic people coming from central asia is an assumption. Second, the Rig Vedic people evolved whole languages, cultures, and civilizations in the Indus Valley, so it was clearly not an uninhabitable place where the IVC inhabitants could not live.

Again its not an assumption. Its a fact. Why don't you google the climate of central asia?
The Rig Vedic people did Indeed come from Central Asia. Infact, they found one of the settlements of the Aryan tribes in Central Asia. It is shown in the BBC documentary as well. Why don't you watch the entire documentary from start to finish, so that we can have a more informed discussion?

Michael Wood is not a researcher, he's a presenter. His academic opinion means very little. He's doing an investigative piece. I could cite some other things, but no need.

Obviously, he has a whole team of researchers behind him, as well as the BBC editorial board. Don't be ridiculous please. The documentary is as legit as it can possibly be. If you want to somehow insinuate that the BBC is allied with "Hindutva groups" then you are fooling yourself and also in a complete and utter state of denial.

Reminds me of your ridiculous denials and obfuscations in the light of mounting evidence that the Mumbai attackers were from Pakistan. Haha - the Pakistani Media, the Pakistani establishment, the Americans, the British, the Indians, the Indian media - everybody said that the attackers were from Pakistan. But No. Mr. RoadRunner here refuses to believe it, like an ostrich with his head in the sand refusing to lift up his head and see the real world around him.

It's good enough for Dr Gupta. However, those LANSAT maps do not show the existence of a major river. They show the existence of the Ghakkar-Hakra River afaik, and that's it. They do not show the main bulk of the Saraswati, and provide no evidence it was a major river. That is all extrapolated.

Dr. Gupt is not a historian. He is Geologist, and one of the most reputed ones in Britain to boot. If he says its a major river, then it probably is a major river. Nobody, except perhaps your like-minded groupies will take your word against his. Grow up already.

And agian your bringing the Saraswati into it. Don't. Saraswati is related to the Aryans of the Rig Veda, nothing to do with Harappans.

This is a quote from Oldham's 19th century archaeology:

"Between Sutlej and Yamuna there is no opening in the Himalaya through which a large river could have entered the plains"

19th century? You are quoting from a book which is 200 years old, and I am quoting from the most recent research. Guess which is more valid?

Your researcher, Dr Gupta, is trying to make it look like IVC sites were only located along the Ghakkar Hakra River. This is blatantly false.

What? When did he do that? "He's trying to make it look like" - that's just your perception, and nothing to do with reality. He was infact focussing on the Ghaggar-Hakra riverbed, so obviously he wouldn't mention the Indus River, which by the way is described in detail in the earlier parts of the documentary.
You are trying your best to introduce a perception of bias where there is none.

 

[Flintlock]

The first point of contention is that you must avoid exclusivist and isolationist interpretations (Pakistan was always separate, was always independent, always different etc.) which are basically not true.

Pakistan and India have a shared history, and it is impossible to study the history on the western side of the Radcliffe line without studying the history on the eastern side.

The other point of contention is that since Pakistan for so long refused to acknowledge (and still does) the great history of the land it was founded on, focussing instead on the 'glorious coming of Islam', and denigrating the achievements of the pre-Islamic civilizations, it is rather strange to now find Pakistanis in one context, dissing the Indic civilization, and on the other hand, glorifying those sections of Indic history which happened on Pakistani land. That is just cynical double-dealing of the worst kind.

And not only that, trying to somehow claim the word India as well, based on bogus thinking that the meaning of a word must remain the same as the meaning of its root. All you have to do is spend a little time studying etymology, but you'd rather use selective interpretation to further your own ends.

The fact is that discussions on this forum are not going to change history, only real reasearch can do that, so even if you manage to do a bit of wordplay and convince your fans of your ideas, it is not going to convince the people who matter - the experts and opinion makers.

This thread is about Pakistani civilisations from the Mehrgarh/Indus Valley period onwards. Any statements on 1947 independence or drive by arguments which have been covered at least twice on each page of this thread should be discouraged.

We seem to have moved on from the stage where Indian members were obsessing about Pakistanis being created 60 years ago and having no links to their history dating 61 years ago. Lets not go back to square one.

 

[UnitedPak]

Flintlock, You have repeatedly shown your delusion of the British Indian empire existing before colonialism. What you fail to understand is that not only was Pakistan separate from India, but there were multiple kingdoms in Pakistan separate from each other too.
Your definition of ancient India is basically an empire of Kingdoms. This is an absurd nationalist distorted version of history.

For the umpteenth time, I am not basing my arguments on modern borders. When I speak of Ghandara, Porus Kingdom and the Indus valley, I have never denied any overlaps but I speak of these kingdoms because they were based where the Pakistani people live today. You want to classify this as Indian history despite the fact that Indian people cant relate to it. And you are the one who has to use colonial events to justify this revisionism.

Go through the posts. Only Indian members have been talking about mass migrations from Indus to Ganges. These statements are so blatantly aimed at denying Pakistanis their history because of modern events.
Give me one instance where I have used the British created Punjab border to argue about the ancient history of the region.

Pakistani civilisations have always been based around the Indus rivers. The kingdoms were based around these rivers. This is where you invent the mass migration theories and shared history.

 

[Flintlock]

Flintlock, You have repeatedly shown your delusion of the British Indian empire existing before colonialism. What you fail to understand is that not only was Pakistan separate from India, but there were multiple kingdoms in Pakistan separate from each other too.
Your definition of ancient India is basically an empire of Kingdoms. This is an absurd nationalist distorted version of history.

Well, then how is Pakistan as a single entity separate from India if the kingdoms within Pakistan were separate from each other as well? We can go on and on about this, or else we can stop labelling everything and take a more authentic and broad look at the history of the Indic civilizations.

For the umpteenth time, I am not basing my arguments on modern borders. When I speak of Ghandara, Porus Kingdom and the Indus valley, I have never denied any overlaps but I speak of these kingdoms because they were based where the Pakistani people live today. You want to classify this as Indian history despite the fact that Indian people cant relate to it. And you are the one who has to use colonial events to justify this revisionism.

Indian people can and do relate to Gandhara. Of course they do - the Gandharan culture was nothing but one of the the predecessors of the modern Indian culture, so obviously trying to label as "anything but Indian" is completely false.

Go through the posts. Only Indian members have been talking about mass migrations from Indus to Ganges. These statements are so blatantly aimed at denying Pakistanis their history because of modern events.
Give me one instance where I have used the British created Punjab border to argue about the ancient history of the region.

Frankly, it shouldn't matter who makes the statements, what the "aim" or the "ulterior motive" of these statements are. The fact is that the successor cultures of the Harappan did shift eastward into the Gangetic plains, as corroborated by scientific evidence. If you choose to ignore the evidence because it doesn't suit your agenda then you are simply fooling yourselves.

 

[roadrunner]

You're joking right? Humans migrate all the time. This is getting ridiculous. The history of humanity is the history of migrations, first out of Africa into South India, then progressively northwards, and then reverse migrations from the northern parts of the globe into the southern parts (Iranians, Indian Aryans, Mediterranean tribes etc.).

Look, Flintlock, I'm going to take your post one step at a time, since this is obviously a little much for you.

First this, as it's very important.

Humans do not pack up and all leave their home, like some mass migrating animals.

Groups of humans may well migrate, but whole populations do not migrate and never have.

If the first Africans all migrated out of Africa, there would be no Africans remaining there today!

This is not the case. What you're suggesting is so bogusly wrong and desperate, that it would be laughed off by any serious historian or population study.

I've seen AM trying to explain this to you as well. You've not grasped this simple point for well over 20 pages now.

Do you understand it?

 

[Flintlock]

^First of all, this isn't a seasonal mass-migration like a herd of animals, so stop making it out to be one.

It is a progressive eastward shift of settlements due to changes in climate over several centuries. Do you get it?

Please tell us, that why are the post-harappan cultures which immediately follow the decline of the IVC nearer to the Gangetic plains than before?
If there were indeed post-harappans civilizations in the exact same location as the harappan ones, where is the archaeological evidence?
Or did your Harappans suddenly turn into nomads?

Here are Harapan Sites: (before 1700 BC)

Here are the Cemetery H culture maps (after 1700 BC) and the succeeding Painted Gray Ware Culture (after 1100 BC)



That is the "Shift in the Center of Gravity" that the Documentary talks about. The people moved over time further into the gangetic plains (which btw were uninhabited during the Harappan era) and established new cultures over there.

 

[roadrunner]

^First of all, this isn't a seasonal mass-migration like a herd of animals, so stop making it out to be one.

It is a progressive eastward shift of settlements due to changes in climate over several centuries. Do you get it?

You still havent grasped the point. This is the final time I'll repeat it for you. If you fail to grasp it now, you're simply not listening and choosing to be in denial.

What YOU are suggesting is the people simply got up and evacuated the Indus Valley and resettled at some point gradually going Eastward.

This is NOT, NEVER, EVER the migrational process. Populations simply do not just get up and leave their homelands. Populations even in modern day do not relocate ubiqutously when there are genocidal famines. We know that the Rig Vedic people settled in the Indus Valley after the IV civilization, and created their own civilization that flourished. Therefore, the area of the Indus Valley was quite habitable even after the demise of the IVC.

Therefore your thinking that the population of the IVC simply got up and evacuated the IVC and settled in the Ganges is bogus. Migration has never been like you describe. AM has understood this point, it's taken you 20 pages to not understand it. What's the problem here?

I'll tell you why there's an Eastward shift of cultures, such as Painted Ware in your maps. Because it's precisely as the maps suggest. A shift in culture, and not people!!

 

[Flintlock]

What YOU are suggesting is the people simply got up and evacuated the Indus Valley and resettled at some point gradually going Eastwar
Therefore your thinking that the population of the IVC simply got up and evacuated the IVC and settled in the Ganges is bogus. Migration has never been like you describe. AM has understood this point, it's taken you 20 pages to not understand it. What's the problem here?

I'll tell you why there's an Eastward shift of cultures, such as Painted Ware in your maps. Because it's precisely as the maps suggest. A shift in culture, and not people!!

So are you saying that the Harappans simpy stopped building houses, making pottery, and generally doing what a settled people do, after the demise of the IVC? Why are there no (or less) post-harappan settlements in the Indus Valley?

I think its you who is finding it hard to understand that there is very little archaeological evidence of human habitation in the region of the harappan sites after the demise of the IVC.

You are also finding it hard to understand that the Gangetic plains were largely devoid of human habitation before the Harappan people migrated in to create the Cemetary H and Painted Gray Ware cultures.

 

[niaz]

IMO the main problem is the definition of “India”. The region is so big and diverse that it is not a country but a” Subcontinent”. On this basis both the arguments that i.e. Pakistan is separate entity and also that it is part of India can be successfully argued. Frontiers of the modern British India extended beyond the limits of ancient definition of India. For example, Baluchistan has historically never been a part of ‘Bharat’. Baluchistan alternated between Iran and Afghanistan.

At Naqshe Rustam in Iran, there is a tablet which mentions various Satrapies or provinces of the Sasanian Empire. Punjab area is mentioned as the one generating the most revenue. Thus most of what is Pakistan was part of Iran for a few centuries.

If one examines the extent of area under different kings; all except Ashoka, Alauddin Khilji and Aurangzeb; only ruled north India. Great Kanishka rule included central Asia, Punjab and Uttar Pardesh. Other great Indian kings, such as Chandra Gupt Maurya only ruled North India. Gupta’s kingdom was also north of the Deccan plateau. Last of the great Indian kings Harshvardhna did no better.

Indo Greeks (180 BC to 10 AD) ruled the areas of NWFP and Punjab including Haryana. Ghaznavids, after being kicked by the Suljuqis ruled Punjab until 1180. At that time India proper started at Sirhind, on the border of Punjab. Arabs ruled extended to Sindh and parts of Southern Punjab.

Raja Man Singh had trepidations crossing the Indus River when he was made Governor of Kabul by Akbar, say thing Bart ended at Attock. South had several centuries of Independent Bahmani and Vijaynagar kingdoms.

Indus civilization is so old; the name of country is meaningless. It is called Indus valley civilization rather than Indian civilization. Therefore the whole debate appears pointless.

 

[Vinod2070]

For example, Baluchistan has historically never been a part of ‘Bharat’. Baluchistan alternated between Iran and Afghanistan.

That is correct. Pakistan is composed of two clearly distinct entities: The tribal areas West of Sindhu (which were mostly Westward looking) and the areas East of Sindhu which have always had a distinct affinity to their East. It has always been a challenge for Pakistan to effectively merge these two distinct entities.

The 1947 partition did happen in a manner that combined these two disparate entities

The Indus valley civilization lies mostly to the East of Sindhu AFAIK and has little to do with the tribal people West of Sindhu.

I guess the areas East of Sindhu are the heart of Pakistan, the vast majority of Pakistani population lives there, the majority of industries, agriculture and cultural aspects are also in these areas. These are the areas that will take Pakistan forward as a nation. they account for the majority of advancements happening in the country.

These are exactly the areas which are most difficult to separate from the ancient Indian civilization.

 

[roadrunner]

Frontiers of the modern British India extended beyond the limits of ancient definition of India.

Difficult to say.

The actual definition of ancient India is what? The Greek definition, then perhaps this is right, or the Rig Vedic definition, in which case it's not right.

For example, Baluchistan has historically never been a part of ‘Bharat’. Baluchistan alternated between Iran and Afghanistan.

Balochistan has never been part of Bharat, true, but it was a predecessor of the IVC, and in fact related to the IVC.

But it has not been part of Iran. Persia as Iran was historically known, was not related closely to the Nal culture of Balochistan, but this was related to the IVC culture.

Indus civilization is so old; the name of country is meaningless. It is called Indus valley civilization rather than Indian civilization. Therefore the whole debate appears pointless.

I'll disagree to that. The IVC is old, but this does not mean one should disregard any of the history. There's no cut-off where history becomes insignificant. What makes a civilization insignificant is the degree of advancement of it. The IVC was very advanced, and therefore is an important civlization (together with its names) of the Indus Valley.

Calling it the Indus Valley Civilization just illustrates the confusion that has been created in recent years due to the naming at partition.

 

[TopCat]

IMO the main problem is the definition of “India”. The region is so big and diverse that it is not a country but a” Subcontinent”. On this basis both the arguments that i.e. Pakistan is separate entity and also that it is part of India can be successfully argued. Frontiers of the modern British India extended beyond the limits of ancient definition of India. For example, Baluchistan has historically never been a part of ‘Bharat’. Baluchistan alternated between Iran and Afghanistan.

At Naqshe Rustam in Iran, there is a tablet which mentions various Satrapies or provinces of the Sasanian Empire. Punjab area is mentioned as the one generating the most revenue. Thus most of what is Pakistan was part of Iran for a few centuries.

If one examines the extent of area under different kings; all except Ashoka, Alauddin Khilji and Aurangzeb; only ruled north India. Great Kanishka rule included central Asia, Punjab and Uttar Pardesh. Other great Indian kings, such as Chandra Gupt Maurya only ruled North India. Gupta’s kingdom was also north of the Deccan plateau. Last of the great Indian kings Harshvardhna did no better.

Indo Greeks (180 BC to 10 AD) ruled the areas of NWFP and Punjab including Haryana. Ghaznavids, after being kicked by the Suljuqis ruled Punjab until 1180. At that time India proper started at Sirhind, on the border of Punjab. Arabs ruled extended to Sindh and parts of Southern Punjab.

Raja Man Singh had trepidations crossing the Indus River when he was made Governor of Kabul by Akbar, say thing Bart ended at Attock. South had several centuries of Independent Bahmani and Vijaynagar kingdoms.

Indus civilization is so old; the name of country is meaningless. It is called Indus valley civilization rather than Indian civilization. Therefore the whole debate appears pointless.

Alll true but there are missing pieces... How the hell Buddism ended up in Afganistan????

 

[Flintlock]

Alll true but there are missing pieces... How the hell Buddism ended up in Afganistan????

For that matter, how were large parts of Afghanistan ruled by Hindu Shahi kings.

 

[UnitedPak]

For that matter, how were large parts of Afghanistan ruled by Hindu Shahi kings.

Hinduism is a very poorly defined religion. Didn't the Supreme Court of India once state that Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are sub sects of Hinduism?
Even today the religion can hardly be defined, so when talking about a period 1400 years ago, certain Historians ignorantly claim all non-Muslims to have been Hindus in one form or another.

And this vague definition of Hinduism goes on to define 'Ancient India'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Indian people can and do relate to Gandhara. Of course they do - the Gandharan culture was nothing but one of the the predecessors of the modern Indian culture, so obviously trying to label as "anything but Indian" is completely false.

That makes no sense - many civilizations and people have had influences from other civilizations and cultures, that does not mean that every set of peoples impacted by another can lay claim to that people or culture.

Pakistanis have been impacted significantly by the Arabs and Islam, but Arab history is not our history, nor is their culture our culture, nor would it be appropriate for Pakistanis to claim it (unless some believe they are descendant from Arabs I suppose).