Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[roadrunner]

In much the same way that Indian space technology is bought and adopted from the Russian space program, the spread of Cemetart H abd Painted ware cultures was also adopted.

The Russians did not migrate, the technology migrated.

Similarly, the IVC did not migrate, its culture migrated.

The suggestion that a cataclysmic event of nature occurred is ridiculous given that the River Indus hasn't changed its course for millenia, and flourishing civilizations have occurred straight after the IVC is a far fetched theory which goes against the bulk of evidence.

 

[Flintlock]

In much the same way that Indian space technology is bought and adopted from the Russian space program, the spread of Cemetart H abd Painted ware cultures was also adopted.

The Russians did not migrate, the technology migrated.

Similarly, the IVC did not migrate, its culture migrated.

The suggestion that a cataclysmic event of nature occurred is ridiculous given that the River Indus hasn't changed its course for millenia, and flourishing civilizations have occurred straight after the IVC is a far fetched theory.

Bhai, why don't you counter the evidence instead of re-stating and re-re-stating your position?

 

[roadrunner]

It's been countered before.

If I said it again would it make a difference?

 

[Flintlock]

It's been countered before.

If I said it again would it make a difference?

You didn't, you just sidetracked by claiming that all the evidence is falsified/hindutva propoganda/ridiculous etc.

 

[UnitedPak]

Now, it is true that no population groups remain "pure", modern Pakistanis did probably mix with the descendants of the IVC people, but then the same can be said for South Indians also - its not like South Indians were an isolated group of people who never mixed with North Indians.

While Pakistani populations did mix with invaders, they are still the natives of the Indus, whereas the Indian population has no links with the Indus region.

Flintlock, when you lose the argument of Pakistanis not being natives to the land, you move on to equally flawed arguments of Pakistanis being "too mixed" to identify with their own ancestors. Even if the invaders outnumbered the local population when mixing, Indians are still completely foreign to the Indus region.

Invasions, mass migrations, landscape changes? I can only see these as desperate attempts at eliminating all presence of the Indus civilisation from the region.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But surely far too many claim Arabic or Central Asian or Persian descent!

That is anecdotal, not a scientific observation, nor does someone claiming somethign make it true. We have gone over this multiple times, yet you insist on repeating this.

Who knows that better? Why would an invader settling from Arabia have any claim over that history and not the people of this country itself!

If they married into the local population, their offspring would continue to be descendants of the ancient IVC, Aryans and Arabs - so they woudl have a claim to that history.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Erm because they are part of modern India, so yes, they do have a direct claim.
If they were not part of the same country today, then things would be different.

That is based on the retrospective argument of a modern entity - not a historical association, and in fact validates my point about no "Indian Civilization" vs " ancient Indian Civilizations".

The "Indian Civilization" argument is a result of modern Indian nationalism, and the need to offer a revisionist argument of a historically united entity and civilization.

 

[Flintlock]

Invasions, mass migrations, landscape changes? I can only see these as desperate attempts at eliminating all presence of the Indus civilisation from the region.

Well, perhaps you should contact those desperate researchers instead!

I'm afraid that your perception of it being a 'desperate attempt' doesn't change facts!

 

[Flintlock]

That is based on the retrospective argument of a modern entity - not a historical association, and in fact validates my point about no "Indian Civilization" vs " ancient Indian Civilizations".

Fine by me, but I consider all attempts at "owning" history as false because arguments can be made at all levels that would deny such ownership.

As Niaz said the IVC is so old that attempts to associate it with a country are meaningless.

However, if Pakistan wants to claim IVC as a Pakistani civilization, then very strong arguments can be made that IVC was an Indian civilization as well, and if migration patters are anything to go by, then the people of the Gangetic plains are the descendants of the IVC people ( as elucidated in the BBC documentary).

The "Indian Civilization" argument is a result of modern Indian nationalism, and the need to offer a revisionist argument of a historically united entity and civilization.

As I said, all arguments that associate the IVC with a country are potentially revisionist and nationalist in character.

 

[Vinod2070]

That is anecdotal, not a scientific observation, nor does someone claiming somethign make it true. We have gone over this multiple times, yet you insist on repeating this.

If they married into the local population, their offspring would continue to be descendants of the ancient IVC, Aryans and Arabs - so they woudl have a claim to that history.

Yes, we seem to be going in circles over this.

I don't completely disagree to the second part as long as the person in question does not claim the foreign identity to be his primary one even now after a thousand years.

 

[asq]

hay Flint lock this Argument can go on for ever, without proving any point as u will continue to argue in your favor and so on.

Let me make a point that in today's time we should see what can we done to avoid a catastrophe and what can be done to be reasonable and fair and what can be done to solve all the problems between the two countries.

Every time both sides are near a solution something happens and thing go back to square one.did you ever stop and think that why is that and did you ever think that even though it was terrible what happened in Bombay, that if we do not continue to the end to make peace, only those who intend to see a catastrophe will win.

Why does Indian establishment not see it, i tell you why, they think like a bully. and do not care to make peace, and start a nasty incident and go back to square one. except Bombay indicant which has yet to go through all its phases, all other incidants were carried out by Indian citizens in one way or another.

Wiser are those who under such circumstances work harder to achieve the right goal to signal those who are bent on bringing dooms day that their wished will never come true.

May your leaders see the light and do the right thing.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not really - the Gandhara Grave Culture doesn't appear to have mixed with the people of the IVC.

The later cultures - the Cemetery H for example, are considered the nucleus of the Vedic civilization that fused the culture of the IVC people and the arriving Aryan migrants.

How can the Ghandara Grave culture be classified as one of three major phases that developed out of the IVC, as did teh Cemetery H, if it did not have links to the IVC.

"The Gandhara grave people have been associated by most scholars with early Indo-Aryan speakers, and the Indo-Aryan migration into India, that, fused with indigenous elements of the remnants of the Indus Valley Civilization (OCP, Cemetery H), gave rise to the Vedic civilization.

The Ghandara Grave culture people shared biological affinities with the population of Neolithic Mehrgarh, which suggests a "biological continuum" between the ancient populations of Timargarha and Mehrgarh.[1]"

It would appear then that this is more evidence that the land comprising Pakistan was not abandoned by the IVC people - they migrated North, North West, and likely remained in the Indus plains as well, since there is no evidence of any major catastrophe that would have wiped them out.

Obviously the IVC itself died out in what is largely Pakistan today, and its successor people and cultures migrated.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, we seem to be going in circles over this.

I don't completely disagree to the second part as long as the person in question does not claim the foreign identity to be his primary one even now after a thousand years.

If one individual claims so, and another doesn't, then do you go and count how many support position X vs position Y? Of course not.

There are Pakistanis who claim their history and ancestry, that is obvious. Whether other Pakistanis do or do not claim their history or ancestry has no bearing on the issue.

You are focusing solely on the latter group of people.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Fine by me, but I consider all attempts at "owning" history as false because arguments can be made at all levels that would deny such ownership.

As Niaz said the IVC is so old that attempts to associate it with a country are meaningless.

However, if Pakistan wants to claim IVC as a Pakistani civilization, then very strong arguments can be made that IVC was an Indian civilization as well, and if migration patters are anything to go by, then the people of the Gangetic plains are the descendants of the IVC people ( as elucidated in the BBC documentary).

As I said, all arguments that associate the IVC with a country are potentially revisionist and nationalist in character.

The IVC itself largely existed and died in what is today Pakistan, though the descendants of the IVC people possibly live on in Pakistan and India.

I suppose it would be akin to a Greek American claiming that ancient Greek history is US history. The Greek Americans would have a claim on an individual level, but the US would not.

 

[Omar1984]

Wow! This is a really long debate.

Well let me make it simple for you guys:

To see Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro, and Mehrgarh you must travel to Pakistan and get a visa for Pakistan.
To see Lothal you must travel to India and get a visa for India.

As for some of you Indians saying Pakistanis are Arabs, thats funny...even if Arabs came to our region and married some local women, it doesnt make us full Arabs. There were many invasions in the region of Pakistan...Turks, Arabs, Afghans, Mughals, Greeks, throughout history maybe some mixed in with the local population and married some of the locals..who knows? Most people in Pakistan cant trace any foreigners in their family tree...before Pakistan we were Punjabis, Pashtuns, Baloch, Sindhis..each have their own unique history. Before partition, the region of Pakistan was majority Muslim and Indus valley sites are in region of Pakistan...so I guess its Pakistan.
Well you Indians will always have Lothal