What's new

Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Friend, settlements are always constructed over older ones, which is why archaeological digs are done in "levels". If the Harappan sites have been excavated, they would have to uncover the most recent settlements first and the older settlements later. Obviously, that would mean that the post-harappan settlements (if any) would have been discovered.

You could possibly argue that there are some undiscovered settlements which are waiting to be uncovered, but that's mere speculation for now, and highly unlikely IMO.

Again, if the settlements were continuously inhabited, torn down, new structures raised on the same spot or torn down and used for agriculture, what would remain of them?

Secondly, it is a far more fantastic explanation and leap of faith to argue (without any evidence) that the entire region became uninhabited and barren, than it is to suggest that the region was populated continuously.
 
Which has been recommended for merger with "Ancient India" (the region), which itself lists various civilizations and cultures.

Sorry, no such thing as an "Indian civilization".

Correct, that civilization is a shared heritage of all peoples of the region.
 
Correct, that civilization is a shared heritage of all peoples of the region.

That is 'a civilization' and 'a culture', among the numerous others that existed in the region, hence no such thing as 'Indian civilization'.

Your statement above has nothing to do with your initial incorrect argument.
 
That is 'a civilization' and 'a culture', among the numerous others that existed in the region, hence no such thing as 'Indian civilization'.

Your statement above has nothing to do with your initial incorrect argument.

I stand corrected on the issue of the spread of IVC to Baluchistan.

hence no such thing as 'Indian civilization'.

This is obviously something that no reputed historian in the world will agree to. Just see any among the hundreds of books on the topic, do an internet search, take a history course anywhere outside Pakistan, see the various documentaries on BBC or other TV channels and you will find this term that correctly identifies the civilization of this land of ours. Not to take away anything from the local variations which are again incredibly rich in themselves but combined they create a beautiful mosaic.

Sorry, this is just a view held by a very small clique in Pakistan!
 
This is obviously something that no reputed historian in the world will agree to. Just see any among the hundreds of books on the topic, do an internet search, take a history course anywhere outside Pakistan, see the various documentaries on BBC or other TV channels and you will find this term that correctly identifies the civilization of this land of ours. Not to take away anything from the local variations which are again incredibly rich in themselves but combined they create a beautiful mosaic.

Sorry, this is just a view held by a very small clique in Pakistan!

By that argument, that 'mosaic' also flows into Afghanistan and Persia, and from there into the Islamic/Arab heartlands as influences from various regions overlap - the same to the East of India, where cultures and peoples slowly blend and weave into different identities. There is hardly ever any abrupt end/beginning of culture.

I do see the term "ancient Indian civilizations", as being accurate. However, in the context of Delta and your comments, the usage was incorrect, or your comment of 'there was an Indian civilization' was incorrect - since you chose to tie it to the modern Indian state, when the usage of that term (ancient Indian civilizations) refers to a region.
 
Last edited:
My post has raised many questions. I shall try to answer these one by one.

There is an inscription in Qandhar which suggests that the city was part of the Ashoka’s Empire (perhaps the greatest King of subcontinent). Additionally, Begram in Afghanistan was one of the Capitals of the Kushans of Mahayana Buddhist Faith and Gandhara was one the seats of learning in the Buddhist world. I would say that area of modern Afghanistan was under the Buddhist influence for 500 years until 300 AD. Probably this was among the regions ceded to Chander Gupt Maurya by Seleucids.

Hindu Shahi Kings who ruled the area of modern Afghanistan were Scythians (Sakas). These were East Iranian people who replaced Indo Greeks as rulers of Modern Afghanistan and Punjab and adopted Hindu faith. They were still around until the advent of Islam.

Hon Roadrunner, there is no such thing as Vedic definition of India. In Mahabharata epic, the areas of Pakistan mentioned are Gandhara, Panchala and Sindhu Desh. There is no mention of any state located in what is now called Baluchistan.

I would tend to agree with Hon Vinod2070 that parts of Pakistan West of Indus have little historical connection to India whereas East of Indus region of Pakistan has a lot in common with the north Indians. Additionally, there have been long periods of history when even East of Indus region has been separate kingdom such as during the Indo Greeks, White Huns or Hephtalites (capital Sialkot), Arabs and Ghaznavids.

Thus my assertion that both arguments have historical basis. As Kuldip Nayyar says, he found Pakistanis as friend and foe combined into one.
 
Gosh, I dunno, is worshipping Ganesh and Shiva considered Hinduism?

Kolkata, Jan 4: A stone inscription in Sanskrit, recovered from the city of Mazar-i-Sharif of northern Afghanistan a few years ago, has thrown new light on the reign of the Hindu Shahi ruler `Veka' in that country.

The recovery and significance of the inscription, telling a story of the Hindu ruler Veka and his devotion to lord `Siva', was told by leading epigraphist and archaeologist Prof Ahmad Hasan Dani of the Quaid-E-Azam University of Islamabad at the ongoing Indian History Congress here.

The inscription, with eleven lines written in `western Sarada' style of Sanskrit of 10th century AD, had several spelling mistakes. ``As the stone is slightly broken at the top left corner, the first letter `OM' is missing'', he said.

Inscription throws new light to Hindu rule in Afghanistan

Ganesh idol recovered from Gardez:



Afghan Association of America website:

AfghanHindu.com - Afghan Hindu Association



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'.
 
Erm, even if they were torn down or whatever, they would have left evidence - pottery, tools, gems, human remains etc. etc.

You don't seem to understand how archaeology works. If there was post-harappan habitation, the evidence would have been found and the maps would have been marked with "x-culture". But they are not.

Also, direct evidence is not a leap of faith. What is a leap (a giant one at that) is that inspite of there being no human remains, you are claiming human habitation.

Again, if the settlements were continuously inhabited, torn down, new structures raised on the same spot or torn down and used for agriculture, what would remain of them?

Secondly, it is a far more fantastic explanation and leap of faith to argue (without any evidence) that the entire region became uninhabited and barren, than it is to suggest that the region was populated continuously.
 
God, you people are tying yourself up in knots.

Lets see your various claims:

There was no ancient Indian civilization (contradicts most historians, but fine)

There was an ancient Pakistani civilization (gosh, and somehow the same arguments that are used to trash the concept of Indian civilization don't seem to apply here!)

Pakistan is actually Ancient India,( and yet, Pakistani civilization isn't Ancient Indian civilization!)

Look. Most historians (except perhaps our two resident historians UP and RR) refer to Ancient Indian civilization as a single entity with variou sub-branches.
If you don't want to accept that, fine by me, but that doesn't change the facts in the real world.

Check out the number of google books on "Indian Civilization":

ancient indian civilization - Google Book Search

ancient indian civilization - Google Book Search

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).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom