Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

Again, in the context of referring to the various cultures and regions of 'ancient India - synonymous with South Asia,i.e region, the usage is correct, as would be the reference 'ancient Asian civilization' etc.

Given Delta, Vinod and my exchange however, the context was more in terms of nationhood.

I think the only ones tying themselves in knots are the ones claiming some sort of homogeneous entity and civilization throughout thousands of years in South Asia.

 

[roadrunner]

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.

Noone denied that Afghanistan was a centre of Buddhist learning and advancement, did they?

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.

No. This is false. The term "Hindu" is trivialized by many, just as the term "India" is trivialized. Whether it's laziness or whatever.

The derivation of Hindu is this. From Sindhu comes Hindu. Now, Hindu was simply a "citizen" of Sind to the Persian foreigners who knew of the Saptha Sindhu. Remember Hindu is actually a Persian word.

Therefore when you say Hindu in this quote of yours, you're referring to a time when Hindu was not in reference to religion, but as a citizenship.

I do hope you know the derivation of the word "Hindu", and that Hinduism per se was never practised in its current form in Afghanistan.

Vedism was practised in Afghanistan to a degree, but this was a completely separate philosophy to Hinduism.

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.

Well, that's all confused.

The Mahabharata is a Hindu book, not a Vedic book.

The Mahabharata was written somewhere in the Ganges.

It does include references to Gandhara, to perhaps Sindhu Desh ( I have not read it), but the important point is that the Mahabhrata was written much later than the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda was the book of the Vedics, and the Vedic people are the ones that "christened" the Saptha Sindhu.

I noticed a statue of Ganesh on the previous page, as somehow proof that Afghanistan was ruled by Hindus. This is ridiculous by any extent, almost as ridiculous as the one found in the Urals. All this proves is that trade between later day Hindus and Gardez inhabitants did occur. It does not prove they were all Hindus in Gardez or anywhere else.

Ganesh was a later day God of Hindus. He was not anything to do with Pakistan or Afghanistan.

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.

The people of Punjab share a history to an extent with the people of Indian Punjab and a degree with those of the neighbouring state, but definitely not all of North India without clarification.

It's not really possible to say that there's a big differential between the west and east of Pakistan historically. If you look at most empires they've tended to include both East of the Indus and West of the Indus. You've given a couple of examples which are wrong. All these kingdoms were in a state of flux, constantly. Picking one kingdom during one time period and saying this represents the whole history of that kingdom is just disingenuous. An example here is the Hephthalite kingdom at 500 AD.

You can see that the kingdom included West and East of the Indus. If you go a bit before this however, you'll find it was only West of the Indus. So to assert the whole empire's chronology was based on the initial hepthalite period is wrong.

Whether you want to claim lack of movement across the Indus is up to you, I don't think it's particularly relevant. The people have generally been subjected to the same recent histories though.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

You are claiming some sort of massive climactic event or catastrophe, despite nothing to back it up. Shifts from the cities to surrounding countryside have occurred in other parts of the world as well, as I pointed out - it does not mean the population was wiped out.

For the sake of being specific, what periods are you contesting, in terms of the lack of human presence in the areas of Pakistan?

 

[roadrunner]

The whole theory of populations just uprooting themselves and fleeing, despite the fact several highly successful civilization followed the IVC shows imo

1) That there was no cataclysmic event, of which there's not even any historical or geological proof of

and

2) The whole Indus Valley was very inhabitable.

When you combine it with the fact that not a single population in the history of human existence has smply decided one day to get up and leave a perfectly inhabitable land which was their home, it makes the whole theory ludicrous.

 

[UnitedPak]

Flintlock you are way to angry about Pakistanis getting familiar with their roots to understand anything we are telling you. South Asia is massive, there are so many different people in Pakistan alone with their own roots, cultures and history.
To define Pakistani history and civilisation we are looking at the history and identity of all the Pakistani people.
'Indian civilisation' should be defined by the history and civilisation of the Indian people instead of being defined by the British Indian empire.

There are always connections with neighbouring regions and nobody has denied this. We can all agree that Middle East has a lot of shared history. But no single country or people can claim everything. Egyptians dont claim Iranian history. Iranians dont claim Egyptian history etc.
Even if all Arabs unite, Moroccans wont claim Palestinian history etc.

You always seem to ignore the fact that South Asia is a very diverse place.

 

[roadrunner]

I'll second that UP, but add further to the example of the Middle East (explained many times here).

If Morrocco renames itself "Middle East" in the future, with the present Middle East known as "Al-Arabiya", does all the history of Al-Arabiya now become Morrocco's history?

The answer is a firm no.

You can see how much confusion this creates. What is annoying is the way Indians are proactively trying to ignore any qualification, which is simple dishonesty, cheating, lying, disingenuity etc etc. A simple, Ancient India (now Pakistan) would suffice. But since this is never going to happen, Ancient Pakistan must be used. I see it as looting imo.

 

[Vinod2070]

The confusion with names is only confined to some guys here.

When we talk of Indian civilization, we don't talk of the modern Indian nation. No one claimed as such.

It belongs to all people who were historically a part of that civilization. Whatever be their current country. That civilization is not as cut and dry as modern boundaries.

 

[Vinod2070]

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.

Yes, I would agree that the mosaic may overlap with other civilizations at the boundaries but anyone who wants to see can see a distinct difference between tha major civilizations of our region. The Indian civilization, the Persian civilization and the Chinese civilization.

Persian civilization was pervasive much beyond the borders of Modern Iran, Chinese civilization is pervasive across most of East Asia much outside her current borders and the same is the case with Indian civilization. Its extent was much beyond our current borders.

There are obviously areas where these civilizations merged and the mosaic became possibly even more beautiful and colorful.

 

[roadrunner]

The confusion with names is only confined to some guys here.

When we talk of Indian civilization, we don't talk of the modern Indian nation. No one claimed as such.

It belongs to all people who were historically a part of that civilization. Whatever be their current country. That civilization is not as cut and dry as modern boundaries.

No, it does not.

Going back to my example where Morrocco decides to rename itself the Middle East and the Middle East is known as Al-Arabiyah.

Why is Egyptian history shared with Morroccan history in this case?

I don't expect you to be able to answer this, but try.

 

[Vinod2070]

Read my second post and think for an hour.

If it is still not clear, do let me know and I will try my best to make it even easier.

 

[roadrunner]

Read my second post and think for an hour.

If it is still not clear, do let me know and I will try my best to make it even easier.

I thought you wouldn't be able to answer it. That proves it all.

I know AM has tried rationalizing with you, unsuccessfully, so I'm not about to.

I will say this though, even though I realize you'll choose to be in denial.

The Middle East has a history of hundreds of civilizations. Therefore the history of the Middle East is not that of a civilization. The history of the Middle East encompasses hundreds of civilizations. Therefore you can say "Ancient Indian civilizations" - Indian civilization is wrong, and it's been pointed out.

This isn't my point. I don't care whether you want to call it a civilization or civilizations.

My point is to do with the term "India". This is where the Morrocco/Middle East comparison comes in.

I'll even adhere to your guidelines to draw an answer out of you.

Here goes.

In 50 years time, Morrocco decides to rename itself the Middle East and the Middle East is known as Al-Arabiyah. Egypt was a Middle Eastern civilization in the past, so can we now say that the pyramids were designed/built by the Berbers of Morrocco? - this is where the attempted looting of Pakistan's history is occurring - go on Indian websites, and they talk of the IVC, even Gandhara as their own civilizations!!

 

[Flintlock]

You are claiming some sort of massive climactic event or catastrophe, despite nothing to back it up. Shifts from the cities to surrounding countryside have occurred in other parts of the world as well, as I pointed out - it does not mean the population was wiped out.

For the sake of being specific, what periods are you contesting, in terms of the lack of human presence in the areas of Pakistan?

No, I'm not claiming anything. I am basing my posts on reputable research.

The researcher that I'm referring to is not claiming some catastrophe which wiped out the population. I mean comeon. You watched the video, you read my posts, and yet you are typing this. Either you are unwilling to understand or unable to understand. I suspect it is the former rather than the latter.

Now, what the researcher is saying, which by the way is backed up by archaeological evidence, is that gradual climate change, i.e. weakening of the summer monsoon and drying up of the Ghaggar-hakra river, led to the decline of the Harappan civilization and the gradual migration (not a sudden migration like a flock of birds, but a progressive eastward shift of settlements) of the people eastwards into the fertile gangetic plains.

The archaeological evidence backs this up. The regions around Harappa and Mohenjodaro do not show evidence of human habitation after the decline of the IVC. The sites around the Ghaggar hakra riverbed were also devoid of human habitation after the decline of the IVC.

On the other hand, the successor cultures, the Cemetery-H culture for example, are located further east of the core Harappan settlements in hitherto uninhabited lands, clearly indicating that the population shifts took place over time.
The successor of the cemetery H culture - i.e. the Painted Gray Ware culture, is located even further eastward in the Gangetic plains.

Even primitive rural habitations leave archaeological evidence. Infact the Cemetary H and PWG cultures were not urban at all, but rural communities. Urban life in the subcontinent disappeared after the only to reemerge during the Mahajanapada era of Iron age kingdoms, much later.

There was no sudden abandonment, no great catastrophe, no massacre etc. etc. So please stop bringing up red herrings.

 

[Flintlock]

Hindu Shahi Dynasty in Afghanistan:

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




When the Chinese visitor Hsuan-tsang visited Kapisa (about 60 km north of modern Kabul) in 7th century, the local ruler was a Kshatriya king Shahi Khingala. A Ganesha idol has been found near Gerdez that bears the name of this king, see Shahi Ganesha.\
Shahi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Obviously, since the name of the Khatriya King Shahi Kingala is mentioned on the Ganesh Idol, it clearly indicates not only that the Ganesha idol is from the same historical period as the Shahi Kings, but also that it was worshipped by the king.

Coins:


Obv: Recumbent bull facing left, trishula on bulls rump, Devnagari Legends : Sri Spalapati Deva. Rev: Rider bearing lance on caparisoned horse facing right.

Obv: Rider bearing lance on caparisoned horse facing right.Devnagari Legends : 'bhi '?. Rev:Recumbent bull facing left, trishula on bulls rump, Devnagari Legends : Sri Samanta Deva.

Shahi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The first Hindu Shahi dynasty was founded in 870 AD by Kallar (see above). The kingdom was bounded on the north by the Hindu kingdom of Kashmir, on the east by Rajput kingdoms, on the south by the Muslim Emirates of Multan and Mansura, and on the west by the Rashidun Caliphate. In 671 AD Muslim armies seized Kabul and the capital was moved to Udabhandapura[86], where they became known as the Rajas of Hindustan.

The Hindu Shahi, a term used by history writer Al-Biruni[92] to refer to the ruling Hindu dynasty[93] that took over from the Turki Shahi and ruled the region during the period prior to Muslim conquests of the tenth and eleventh centuries.

Archeological sites of the period, including a major Hindu Shahi temple north of Kabul and a chapel in Ghazni, contain both the pre-dominant Buddhist and Hindu statuary, suggesting that there was a close interaction between the two religions.


Several 6th or 7th century A.D Buddhist manuscripts were found out from a stupa at Gilgit. One of the manuscripts reveals the name of a Shahi king Srideva Sahi Surendra Vikramaditya Nanda. See Gilgit Manuscripts.

The kings of Kashmir were related to the Shahis through marital and political alliance. Didda, a famous queen of Kashmir was a granddaughter of the Brahmin Shahi Bhima, who was married to Kshema Gupta (r. 951 - 959). Bhima had visited Kashmir and built the temple Bhima Keshava.

 

[Flintlock]

Again, in the context of referring to the various cultures and regions of 'ancient India - synonymous with South Asia,i.e region, the usage is correct, as would be the reference 'ancient Asian civilization' etc.

Sure, you're right, but the fact that the people of "Ancient India" followed the same religion, culture and social structure as the modern Indians, means that the modern day India is infact the inheritor of the ancient Indian civilization, even if the region now in Pakistan and Afghanistan has passed into the Middle-Eastern civilization.


.

I think the only ones tying themselves in knots are the ones claiming some sort of homogeneous entity and civilization throughout thousands of years in South Asia.

Hardly. Nobody is claiming that Indian civilization was homogenous. Indian civilization's trademark is diversity. It is still one civilization, as real historians (not internet warriors) will agree.

 

[roadrunner]

Afghanistan followed Vedism and Buddhism, not Hinduism.

Shiva was a God, allbeit minor of the Rig Veda - Rudra.

Now Ganesh is definitely Gangetic. And finding a stature of Ganesh anywhere in the world is not uncommon given the trade links.

You're trying to find Hinduism everywhere, when not even you intellectuals agree with you.

"It was not hinduism that existed in Afghanistan, it was Vedic culture."
Asian/Middle Eastern History: expanse of hinduism, muslim genocide, river chenab

-NB The guy is politicizing Kashmir. Kashmir was an influential Buddhist kingdom always.