Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[rubyjackass]

Claim it as Pakistani based on the fact that both Mehrgarh, the predecessor to the IVC, the IVC itself, and good chunk of the Cemetery H plus the Gandhara Grave Cultures existed in the lands comprising Pakistan, and being descendants of the IVC people, along with the other migrants to the region.

Thats a strong argument on several levels, not just on the basis of having the majority of sites including the major centers of the civilization.




The distinction you made is valid - I suppose Macedonia and Greece woudl be better examples. But my argument for the Pakistani claim I made above.

People feel too much attachment about civilizations that existed and lost their links with the continuum of time.

The point is that civilizations that existed then do not correspond to today's nations in such a great way. Only the ethnic composition is a signature of those days in today's people.

Pakistan definitely has right for heritage from the IVC. But people are not sure as to what present population correspond to IVC. Dravidian perhaps, which means the present south Indian people Tamils, Kerala, Telugu and Kannada people. Telugu and Kannada are relatively modern(only relatively) languages. Some theories suggest an Aryan invasion that pushed Dravidians to the south. In any case the pre-independence India has predominantly mixed population with too much diffusion of ethnicity. Now many people even can't tell if they are Dravidian or Aryan(example yours truly).


Geographically Pakistan may have IVC. But population wise people need not be sentimental about whose civilization it was. Even India should not care. But IVC belonged to either Dravidians or Aryans either way Indian(pre-independence).
I think Pakistan can consider any part of this Indian history as its in that the population diffusion between the two regions is beyond measurement(from the times of IVC).

But our coming generations should know about all the history without any omissions or misrepresentations. Should they feel it(IVC) theirs is IMO a meaningless question.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

I tend to agree that most are fakes. Neither here nor there.

In the context of this thread, I meant they are also the people who can't claim any pre-Islamic heritage. Most likely vast majority of them will not bother as they will consider that period as jahiliyah.

I am sure there are many such people in India. The whole Ashraf thing, the superiority complex from claiming foreign origins!

Boggles the mind especially when the religion is supposed to be egalitarian!

Vinod, come on now, you know 99% of the people in Pakistan have no idea what we're talking about. even the limited amount of kids enrolling in schools, have no access to this kind of information. for them, history books begin with Qasim and Sindh. the cirriculum hasn't changed since the beginning. barely anyone knows about the indus valley civilization. it's not considered jahiliya-jahiliya in the truer sense of the word, means practices that are an abomination in Islam such as burying girls alive, which unfortunately still exists today. I don't need to go into detail about senator zehri, recently declared to be one of the most richest senators we have today, burying girls alive.

however, I agree with you. most people are faking their claims, intentionally or unintentionally. some people have no idea, no proof, but go on declaring themselves to be of such lineage-although it makes no difference in islam.

 

[DarkStar]

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.

Well, you can count the Harappan Civlisation/Empire out of this claim, as Historians are absolutely sure that whatever religion they may have followed, it was nothing at all like Vedism/Hinduism.

It's amazing how you seem to have appropriated our own civilisation from us, cloaked yourself in it, and then shamelessly deprive us of it by trying to push us into the Middle East.

Cultural robbery is what I would call it.

 

[DarkStar]

This foreign ancestry thing that vinod is talking about is a red herring.

Most Pakistanis affirm local ancestry. We have almost all the north indian and punjabi castes, gotras, that Bharatiyas have.

Punjab is what i am familiar with, and it is the most populous province. Major groups are gujjars, Arain, maliks, Jatts (various gotras), Rajputs (various gotras), dogra, Kyanis (Ghakkar), butt/bhatt (kashmiri pundit ancestry, shaikhs (bunya ancestry), quraishis ( also local ancestry). Then you have the various pathan tribes and baluchis which are also not foreigners.

Go to karachi, Hyderabad and also Lahore and you will find musilms of every northern "Hindu" surname imaginable, wether it is Mehta, Modi, Lakhani, Sehgal, Mittal, Patel, Jhaveri, etc, etc.

Sindhis' ancestry is also well established, although there is some Baluchi ancestry among many Sindhis too.

We have a few Turkic clans, along with some ARab, Persian descent too. In Baluchistan, we even have the Shidi African tribes, but the majority of people that I have met throughout my whole life in Pakistan, were people whose ancestry is well established in the sub continent.

 

[rubyjackass]

Well, you can count the Harappan Civlisation/Empire out of this claim, as Historians are absolutely sure that whatever religion they may have followed, it was nothing at all like Vedism/Hinduism.

It's amazing how you seem to have appropriated our own civilisation from us, cloaked yourself in it, and then shamelessly deprive us of it by trying to push us into the Middle East.

Cultural robbery is how I would call it.

This is from Wiki.

There are several theories as to the origin of the Indus Valley civilization. The earliest hypothesis was that it was an early form of a Vedic and early Sanskrit civilization which would come to dominate most of South Asia, which was presumed to have been characterized by influence from Indo-European migrations. However, this theory began to be rejected when no signs of the traditional culture associated with the Vedas was uncovered in that of the Indus Valley. The absence of horses amongst the many realistic representations of animals was also considered significant, considering the importance of horses and chariots to the culture described in the Vedas. Detailed bone analysis has revealed that the horse itself was introduced to the subcontinent only at the beginning of the second millennium B.C., which contributes to the chronological problem with this theory.[31][32] Finally, the concept of urban life which dominates the Indus Valley civilization is foreign to the more rural lifestyle which is described in the Vedas.[33]

The next theory put forward was that the civilization was of proto-Dravidian origin.[34] This theory was first proposed by researchers from Russia and Finland who attempted to show that Indus valley symbols could be derived from the Dravidian language group. Today, the Dravidian language family is concentrated mostly in southern India and northern Sri Lanka, but pockets of it still remain throughout the rest of India and Pakistan (the Brahui language), which lends credence to the theory. Finnish Indologist Asko Parpola concludes that the uniformity of the Indus inscriptions precludes any possibility of widely different languages being used, and that an early form of Dravidian language must have been the language of the Indus people. However, the proto-Dravidian origin theory is far from being confirmed due to an emphasis on linguistic connection while evidence of a broader cultural connection remains to be found.[33]

Indus Valley Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both ways the civilization is Indian in any sense.
Read my previous post about owning the civilization.

If it is not Aryan, and there is truth in Aryan invasion theory, the population certainly must have moved into present India. Whether they are Dravidians or not is a different question.

The word Hinduism came much much later as a term for all the beliefs and gods in the region.

 

[DarkStar]

its fromi wiki, so it must be true, right?

How can the Harappan Empire/civilisation be sanskritic, when sanskrit was not even their language, and the earliest evidence of sanskrit is a millenia after the abandonment of the Harappan settlements.

The article you have quoted actually discredits teh theories, if you read it till the end.

The second theory is itself cast into doubt with the last words "However, the proto-Dravidian origin theory is far from being confirmed due to an emphasis on linguistic connection while evidence of a broader cultural connection remains to be found."

No matter how hard Bharatiyas try, the shoe just won't fit. Flintoff and vinod, and others have tried, to become the Cinderella upon whose foot the glass shoe of the Harappan civilisation might fit.

You can have a go too.

 

[DarkStar]

asaadul islam, how many years have you studied in Pakistani schools?

I only spent three years, and I was taught about Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, so I don't know what you are trying to say.

Almost everybody i know is aware of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa, even my 78 year old grandmother who only went to school until she was 12.

There are even organised public school trips, and a lot of historical and cultural tv programme about the Harappan Empire/civilisation.

And Pakistan's curriculum has been changed. When my father went to school, he had to learn about Henry Hashtam and Richard Sher Dil, and Malika Victoria, etc.

I'm glad the curriculum was changed, and British History was replaced by Subcontinental History. Yes there is more emphasis on the Mughal era, especially. But that was a golden era of history, and we have much resource material for that time of history, so you can't blame our schools for that.

 

[rubyjackass]

its fromi wiki, so it must be true, right?

How can the Harappan Empire/civilisation be sanskritic, when sanskrit was not even their language, and the earliest evidence of sanskrit is a millenia after the abandonment of the Harappan settlements.

The article you have quoted actually discredits teh theories, if you read it till the end.

The second theory is itself cast into doubt with the last words "However, the proto-Dravidian origin theory is far from being confirmed due to an emphasis on linguistic connection while evidence of a broader cultural connection remains to be found."

No matter how hard Bharatiyas try, the shoe just won't fit. Flintoff and vinod, and others have tried, to become the Cinderella upon whose foot the glass shoe of the Harappan civilisation might fit.

You can have a go too.

Do you suggest a cultural footprint exclusively in present Pakistan then? Please give sources.

I did not claim IVC people are definitely Dravidian. I suggested The IVC population must have moved eastward after Aryan influx(into present India).


There would not be any problems of feelings if Pakistan treated Indian descent to the appropriate level.
Unfortunately Pakistanis look at the word Indian for the present India.

I did not say Pakistan has no connection with IVC. For me 'owning' of the IVC is irrelevant. Read my last two posts.

Populations survive through invasions and live under foreign rule. They mix and propogate their culture. Now asking who owns it is a stupid question.

 

[Vinod2070]

Vinod, come on now, you know 99% of the people in Pakistan have no idea what we're talking about. even the limited amount of kids enrolling in schools, have no access to this kind of information. for them, history books begin with Qasim and Sindh. the cirriculum hasn't changed since the beginning. barely anyone knows about the indus valley civilization. it's not considered jahiliya-jahiliya in the truer sense of the word, means practices that are an abomination in Islam such as burying girls alive, which unfortunately still exists today. I don't need to go into detail about senator zehri, recently declared to be one of the most richest senators we have today, burying girls alive.

however, I agree with you. most people are faking their claims, intentionally or unintentionally. some people have no idea, no proof, but go on declaring themselves to be of such lineage-although it makes no difference in islam.

It's a very interesting discussion. I would surely be interested in carrying it forward but I guess that may derail this thread.

Let's hope we will have a good discussion about this soon. Let's keep this thread to the ancient history.

 

[Vinod2070]

Well, you can count the Harappan Civlisation/Empire out of this claim, as Historians are absolutely sure that whatever religion they may have followed, it was nothing at all like Vedism/Hinduism.

It's amazing how you seem to have appropriated our own civilisation from us, cloaked yourself in it, and then shamelessly deprive us of it by trying to push us into the Middle East.

Cultural robbery is what I would call it.

I will only say that the shoe is on the other foot!

It is Pakistan that wants to be (or tried to be) a part of the ME.

 

[Vinod2070]

This foreign ancestry thing that vinod is talking about is a red herring.

Most Pakistanis affirm local ancestry. We have almost all the north indian and punjabi castes, gotras, that Bharatiyas have.

Punjab is what i am familiar with, and it is the most populous province. Major groups are gujjars, Arain, maliks, Jatts (various gotras), Rajputs (various gotras), dogra, Kyanis (Ghakkar), butt/bhatt (kashmiri pundit ancestry, shaikhs (bunya ancestry), quraishis ( also local ancestry). Then you have the various pathan tribes and baluchis which are also not foreigners.

Go to karachi, Hyderabad and also Lahore and you will find musilms of every northern "Hindu" surname imaginable, wether it is Mehta, Modi, Lakhani, Sehgal, Mittal, Patel, Jhaveri, etc, etc.

Sindhis' ancestry is also well established, although there is some Baluchi ancestry among many Sindhis too.

We have a few Turkic clans, along with some ARab, Persian descent too. In Baluchistan, we even have the Shidi African tribes, but the majority of people that I have met throughout my whole life in Pakistan, were people whose ancestry is well established in the sub continent.

I am sure you failed to notice some contradictions in this post. They are very obvious to all who would look.

1. This foreign ancestry is not my claim. It is Pakistanis who claim that!

2. If most of your ancestry is the same as North Indians, doesn't that make the ancient civilizational heritage a shared one!

 

[roadrunner]

We're going round in circles here.

The way I see it is this.

When the Indians contributing on this thread don't know how to respond, they sink back to the much discredited assertion that most Pakistanis claim to be Arab.

Can we get past this?

Science has proved Pakistanis, in fact all Pakistani groups have no lineage relation with Arabs or Persians.

I personally will state it.

I do not have any lineage relation to Arabs or Persians.

Why must you go round in circles? I do not claim a heritage that is Middle Eastern, or one that is Indian (Bharati), or one that is North Indian.

Simply, all that happened within the borders of modern day Pak.

Quit leeching and be satisfied with your own history.

 

[Vinod2070]

Let's get past this. I have made my point and no need to keep repeating it. Just saying "no" won't disprove anything, nor would calling something discredited.

Obviously there are several Pakistanis themselves who don't quite agree with you.

And as I said, the people of Afghania (if I call the tribals by that name) have much less in common with North India than the majority Pakistanis in Sindh and Punjab. Their history is mostly shared and entwined.

 

[roadrunner]

Some Pakistanis will be vehement in stating that Pakistanis are Indian (and some are, like the Muhajirs), some Pakistanis will be vehement in stating they're Afghani (like the refugees who are), so it stands to reason some will be Arab.

However it's a scientific fact that most Pakistanis are not Arab

Neither are they Indian or Afghani, but instead have antescendants from the land mass known today as Pakistan.

As for Punjab and Sindh, they would have more of a shared ancestry with Indian Punjab and Gujerat.

You will say that Indian Punjab is India, and therefore we (India) can claim all of Pakistan's history.

In that case why don't the Spaniards leech everything French and Portuguese, since there were minor overlaps into Spanish territory by these countries throughout.

Why is it only India that leeches off Pakistan in this way? Cursed, surely.

 

[Omar1984]

Some Pakistanis will be vehement in stating that Pakistanis are Indian (and some are, like the Muhajirs), some Pakistanis will be vehement in stating they're Afghani (like the refugees who are), so it stands to reason some will be Arab.

However it's a scientific fact that most Pakistanis are not Arab

Neither are they Indian or Afghani, but instead have antescendants from the land mass known today as Pakistan.

As for Punjab and Sindh, they would have more of a shared ancestry with Indian Punjab and Gujerat.

You will say that Indian Punjab is India, and therefore we (India) can claim all of Pakistan's history.

In that case why don't the Spaniards leech everything French and Portuguese, since there were minor overlaps into Spanish territory by these countries throughout.

Why is it only India that leeches off Pakistan in this way? Cursed, surely.

I think some Pakistanis (Punjabis) may be similar to the Punjabis of India, but Punjabi Indians are mostly Sikhs or Hindus while Punjabi Pakistanis are mostly Muslims. The Sindhi Hindus, who migrated to India after partition, are similar to Sindhis in Pakistan. The Muhajars, Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India during partition, are similar to Indian Muslims. Other than that, Pakistanis and Indians are not the same people. Before British invaded South Asia the word Indians didnt even exist. British played around with the name of the Indus river to give the people of the land they invaded an ethnicity. haha no one played around with the word Nile River to give Egyptians an ethnicity. Indians kept the word the British made for them, Pakistanis didn't.
Why does the British have so much power on Indian people's identity?