Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[asaad-ul-islam]

woah, where did you guys get the idea that most pakistanis' are arab descent? I meant many pakistanis' are of arab/persian/afghan descent, not all.

as agnostic said, he's from a Rajput family. most pakistanis' belong to the land. another example, look at our COAS, general Kayani. go look at his family roots, he's a Gakhar.

pakistanis, as Roadrunner confirmed, are compromised of many different ethnic groups. Sindhis (smack dab at the indus valley), Punjabis (land of the five rivers), pashtuns (afghans, greco-bactrian, kushan culture), etc.

look at Tahmina Daultana, she's from a famous Rajput clan. check out her website and family tree. (no i don't like her)
Daultanas of Ludden ~ Tahmina Daultana ~ This website is a tribute to Begum Tahmina Daultana

 

[Malang]

Vinod,
Why not? If the Arabs intermarried with the locals, lets assume the locals were IVC descendants, then some Pakistanis would be absolutely correct in claiming that they were descendent's of the Arabs, but that does not take away the part of their identity that belongs to the lands of Pakistan.

lands of Pakistan? Pakistan as I have said was created by the British it could well have been anywhere where the muslims were in majority..
what about Bangladesh?

I personally do not know of any part of my family that is Arab, maternal or paternal side.
Both sides of the family are Rajput, though not related.

A non Hindu Rajput to me is an oxymoron as per historical and ancient scriptures..

There are many, many more people in Pakistan with similar family history's - that do not have any recollection of Arab ancestry (which does not mean it may not exist). So just because of people like myself and others who claim no Arab ancestry or claim both Arab and local ancestry, we have a right to claim the IVC.

How do you have a right to claim IVC, when quite clearly HIndus and Muslims were 2 different nations with nothing in common.. so if IVC was Muslim then yes you have a right.. otherwise NO..

Similarly tomorrow if Pakistan is divided then the community who has been arbitrarily given those lands can claim IVC?

Yes, but by that same argument India could have become a dozen nations after the British left as well, and then those in the South would not be claiming the history of the North, and neither would be claiming the history of the East.

Do you as a Rajput claim history of Turkics like Babur? Tipu Sultan? Habshi Kingdoms of Bengal? Maharana Pratap of Mewar? Ranjit Singh of Punjab? Shahi Kingdoms of NWFP?

Pakistanis who speak Punjabi, Pushto, Sindhi, Urdu, Balochi or whatever are claiming the IVC as Pakistanis, not on the basis of individual ethnicities - just as Modern Indians are claiming Modern India's history regardless of their individual ethnicities, or whether their particular region had anything (or very little) to do with that history.

Claiming IVC then Claiming Mughal History etc..
Then why are Muslims not allowed in places of non Muslim worship in Pakistan even though you claim them as being built by your ancestors?


[quote[The various peoples comprising Pakistan, including the Pashtun who voted overwhelmingly in a referendum for Pakistan, decided that they subscribed to a sense of shared nationhood and nationalism and chose to join Pakistan. The fact that they chose this new idea over the long established idea of an Afghan nation is indicative of how powerful that sense of nationhood was.[/quote]

How is it possible that a minority can dictate a division of a nation?
Do you think that the migrant workers of UAE have a right to a nation?
or that tomorrow Shias will be allowed a seperate state within Pakistan? will Baloch be granted be freedom etc,?

Referendum is valid if majority votes not minority..

In the end, it does no matter whether Afghanistan or India covet Pakistani territory, or whether China covets Indian territory - it is the fact that the people decided what their nation was, what it meant, and what their destiny was - and they roundly rejected Afghanistan and the idea of joining India.

these people were minority.. I can get a minority in Pakistan who will reject Pakistan and accept Afghanistan will they be allowed a new nation? or will the non muslims or shias for eg will be allowed to have a new nation for themselves?

and if those nations hypothetically created over IVC then Pakistanis lose right to IVC and the new nationality so created has an exclusive right to IVC?

Quite honestly I don't think it matters what basis India and Pakistan were created on. Any way you look at the idea behind nations, they are formed on the basis of divisiveness.

Pakistan was created by British to protect the interests of eltists muslims which is unethical...

tomorrow a new ruler comes in Pstan and a few minority elements want a new nation and vote for it. then he gives them the right.. their insecurity and minority beliefs allows them a new nationality?

Whether the justification is shared "culture", "race", "ethnicity", "history" or faith, it is ultimately a divisive rationalization: "I want a nation separate from everyone else because of XYZ."

Then why are Baloch etc. being not allowed to liberate?

But just to answer your question, Pakistan was formed because the sense of being a separate identity, and therefore not getting fair treatment in India was too strong. It doesn't matter what the reason was, ultimately wanting a separate nation boils down to a fear of not having a particular community's interests being taken care of.

300million Indians couldn't do jack about 300,000 Britishers I doubt those Hindu Indians would've decimated Muslims.. and in any case irresp if Muslims were insecure or not if a majority vote was not there then they could not have a seperate country.. how can a minority override majority?

if tomorrow some Balochs vote against Pakistan will they get independence??

That is why the peoples under the control of the British, including those in the colony of British India, chose to separate from the British empire.
Continuously trying to cast the creation of Pakistan as some sort of horrible communal event is a very intellectually dishonest canard.

I am dumbfounded by the fact that an ethnically Indian community converts to a foreign religion and suddenly they have a new identity.. and if majority of Pakistanis are of foreign ancestry then they should be kicked out and not allowed a seperate nation they should go back to their motherland...

Similiarly if Pstan is allowed then why is the problem with Israel? Israelis claim Israel to be their motherland and rightfully took it over and in an overwhelming referendum chose to form a seperate nation...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Welcome back Malang,

lands of Pakistan? Pakistan as I have said was created by the British it could well have been anywhere where the muslims were in majority..
what about Bangladesh?

What does that have to do with anything? India was created by teh British as well - it could have taken any form or size if certain territories had chosen not to join it.

A non Hindu Rajput to me is an oxymoron as per historical and ancient scriptures..

Rajput is a clan from what I understand, and that is how they are described in Pakistan. A clan does not have to be a particular religion, so it may be an oxymoron to you, but it is perfectly understandable to me. My ancestors apparently converted from Hindu Rajput's to Muslim Rajput's.

How do you have a right to claim IVC, when quite clearly HIndus and Muslims were 2 different nations with nothing in common.. so if IVC was Muslim then yes you have a right.. otherwise NO..

Similarly tomorrow if Pakistan is divided then the community who has been arbitrarily given those lands can claim IVC?

I have quite clearly explained why Pakistanis have a right. You can address the arguments I raised in my last post.

Do you as a Rajput claim history of Turkics like Babur? Tipu Sultan? Habshi Kingdoms of Bengal? Maharana Pratap of Mewar? Ranjit Singh of Punjab? Shahi Kingdoms of NWFP?

I am claiming the history of all the peoples of Pakistan, not as a Rajput, but as a Pakistani. The Rajput mention was merely to point out to Vinod that there are people in Pakistan who do not claim descent from Arabs or Persians.

I might be interested in Rajput history as a matter of personal interest, to understand the history of my clan, similar to how Irish, Italian Americans etc. are interested in their Irish or Italian roots/history, but that does not make their Irish history American history.

Claiming IVC then Claiming Mughal History etc..
Then why are Muslims not allowed in places of non Muslim worship in Pakistan even though you claim them as being built by your ancestors?

This is related to politics, and the evolution of Pakistan's government and laws and society, not history.

How is it possible that a minority can dictate a division of a nation?
Do you think that the migrant workers of UAE have a right to a nation?
or that tomorrow Shias will be allowed a seperate state within Pakistan? will Baloch be granted be freedom etc,?

Referendum is valid if majority votes not minority..

these people were minority.. I can get a minority in Pakistan who will reject Pakistan and accept Afghanistan will they be allowed a new nation? or will the non muslims or shias for eg will be allowed to have a new nation for themselves?

and if those nations hypothetically created over IVC then Pakistanis lose right to IVC and the new nationality so created has an exclusive right to IVC?

Pakistan was created by British to protect the interests of eltists muslims which is unethical...

tomorrow a new ruler comes in Pstan and a few minority elements want a new nation and vote for it. then he gives them the right.. their insecurity and minority beliefs allows them a new nationality?

Then why are Baloch etc. being not allowed to liberate?

300million Indians couldn't do jack about 300,000 Britishers I doubt those Hindu Indians would've decimated Muslims.. and in any case irresp if Muslims were insecure or not if a majority vote was not there then they could not have a seperate country.. how can a minority override majority?

if tomorrow some Balochs vote against Pakistan will they get independence??

I am dumbfounded by the fact that an ethnically Indian community converts to a foreign religion and suddenly they have a new identity.. and if majority of Pakistanis are of foreign ancestry then they should be kicked out and not allowed a seperate nation they should go back to their motherland...

Similiarly if Pstan is allowed then why is the problem with Israel? Israelis claim Israel to be their motherland and rightfully took it over and in an overwhelming referendum chose to form a seperate nation...

Alll of the above is flawed since it assumes that a nation existed that Pakistanis separated from - no single nation existed before the British, nor during the British rule.

The British combined various territories, peoples and nations into one colony for governing purposes, and when they decide to leave was when the roots of two nations took hold.

The premise that a minority separated from a majority is wrong - there was no majority or minority. Several peoples and territories "reorganized" into two nations (for the most part), from no nation at all.

 

[Flintlock]

Rajput is a clan from what I understand, and that is how they are described in Pakistan. A clan does not have to be a particular religion, so it may be an oxymoron to you, but it is perfectly understandable to me. My ancestors apparently converted from Hindu Rajput's to Muslim Rajput's.

Rajput is a caste. Are you following the caste system Agno?

I am claiming the history of all the peoples of Pakistan, not as a Rajput, but as a Pakistani. The Rajput mention was merely to point out to Vinod that there are people in Pakistan who do not claim descent from Arabs or Persians.

Rajputs are descendants of the Sakas/Huns that invaded India during Vedic period.
They are not indigenous to the Subcontinent.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Rajput is a caste. Are you following the caste system Agno?

err. Like I said, in Pakistan it is considered a clan, not a caste. The British seem to have considerd them a "separate race", and your next statement indicates distinction based on race/ethnicity as well - descent from a certain community.

Rajputs are descendants of the Sakas/Huns that invaded India during Vedic period.
They are not indigenous to the Subcontinent.

I am not certain who Rajput's are descendent's of. But is anyone "indigenous" to the subcontinent?

Life did not pop up spontaneously in the subcontinent, people have migrated to it throughout history, (human migration theory). Just depends how far back in history you go.

 

[Flintlock]

err. Like I said, in Pakistan it is considered a clan, not a caste.

In India also its a clan. Clans are also classified under the caste system.

I am not certain who Rajput's are descendent's of. But is anyone "indigenous" to the subcontinent?

Life did not pop up spontaneously in the subcontinent, people have migrated to it throughout history, (human migration theory). Just depends how far back in history you go.

Rajputs are descendants of Central Asian/ Iranian migrants during and after the Vedic period.

The "foreign" tag is obviously in the context of the IVC. I thought that was obvious.

I don't claim that humans evolved from apes on the subcontinent. That happened in Africa.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In India also its a clan. Clans are also classified under the caste system.

Perhaps caste got dropped due to conversion to Islam, though in some cases in Pakistan, "Biradri/Clan" based prejudice can occur.

Rajputs are descendants of Central Asian/ Iranian migrants during and after the Vedic period.

The "foreign" tag is obviously in the context of the IVC. I thought that was obvious.

Oh gotcha. But I am not arguing that "pure IVC" people live in Pakistan, or for that matter anywhere. Migration into the region would have ensured that whatever people were there, interbred with the migrants.

With the CA/Persian migrants, that would be true as well, unless the region was completely unpopulated, so there would be ties to whomever was there before the migrants.

I don't claim that humans evolved from apes on the subcontinent. That happened in Africa.

lol

 

[Vinod2070]

woah, where did you guys get the idea that most pakistanis' are arab descent? I meant many pakistanis' are of arab/persian/afghan descent, not all.

It is not my idea and I don't even believe it to be true.

It is what I have read that many Pakistanis claim. And the articles were by Pakistani writers.

I think you also mentioned your Saudi roots somewhere. Musharraf too has done so in his book!

The point is that those who tout their Arab origins (and obviously they feel that to be their predominant identity) don't feel any affinity to the Pre-Islamic history of this ancient land of ours. And they can't claim any of that.

They consider it Jahiliyah just as the Arabs do so. And such people are in a majority. It includes almost all of the cleric class. Even if these people are lying about their Arab connection, they don't belong to that ancient history and civilization. They have rejected it and vice versa.

Good riddance, I will say. On both sides.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The point is that those who tout their Arab origins (and obviously they feel that to be their predominant identity) don't feel any affinity to the Pre-Islamic history of this ancient land of ours. And they can't claim any of that.

Is Assad (and for that matter anyone who claims Arab ancestry) denying his ancient history, even though he claims descent from Arabs, or are you merely assuming that?

Europeans refer to a part of their history as the Dark ages (similar to Jahiliyyah), that does not mean they lose claim to that part of their history.

 

[Vinod2070]

Is Assad (and for that matter anyone who claims Arab ancestry) denying his ancient history, even though he claims descent from Arabs, or are you merely assuming that?

Well I guess it's a bit of assumption based on my observations and reading. I will let Assad or any member who claims Arab ancestry answer this question.

Let them say how they feel related to the IVC and the pre-Islamic civilization before the invasion by Bin-Qasim.

And I am wiling to change my opinion if I am convinced that my understanding was incorrect. Let me get their thoughts on this matter.

Europeans refer to a part of their history as the Dark ages (similar to Jahiliyyah), that does not mean they lose claim to that part of their history.

Well, it's a bit debatable.

In a physical sense you are right. But not in the psychological and emotional sense.

I would say that all those who separated in 1947 lost their right to be called Indian even though they (their ancestors) were "Indians" for thousands of years (I can almost guess your answer ). Some may feel the same way for civilization. The land is just a minor piece of the civilizational jigsaw puzzle. It may change hands as we saw for Turkey and the Greco-Roman empire.

It is the human beings who matter more.

And again I feel IVC is being too much importance in this discussion. Not much is known about that civilization, its extent, its people, its script has not been read.

The ancient civilization was much more than IVC. India still lives it. Pakistan doesn't.

P.S.: I agree that there could be some (?) Pakistanis who may feel the way you described. I don't know what ratio they would be among the Arab origin people. I guess very few but I could well be wrong.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And again I feel IVC is being too much importance in this discussion.

IVC is just a representative of the ancient history in the lands of Pakistan. While reference is made to the IVC specifically, the arguments extend to all of Pakistani history.

The ancient civilization was much more than IVC. India still lives it. Pakistan doesn't.

There isn't enough known about the IVC to make the claim that modern India "still lives it". The Greeks do not worship the ancient Greek God's anymore either, nor do they follow ancient Greek practices - Greek history is still their history.

Bit even if we were to know conclusively what beliefs the IVC followed, your argument of "India still lives it" would be the equivalent of Muslims outside the Arab world (assuming the Arabs stopped following Islam), at some distant time in the future, saying that Arab Islamic history was their history, since non-Arab Muslims "still lived it".

 

[Vinod2070]

IVC is just a representative of the ancient history in the lands of Pakistan. While reference is made to the IVC specifically, the arguments extend to all of Pakistani history.

Fair enough.

There isn't enough known about the IVC to make the claim that modern India "still lives it". The Greeks do not worship the ancient Greek God's anymore either, nor do they follow ancient Greek practices - Greek history is still their history.

There is a major difference in the Greek case and the case with subcontinental history. It is too obvious to bear repetition.

Bit even if we were to know conclusively what beliefs the IVC followed, your argument of "India still lives it" would be the equivalent of Muslims outside the Arab world (assuming the Arabs stopped following Islam), at some distant time in the future, saying that Arab Islamic history was their history, since non-Arab Muslims "still lived it".

When I said India still lived it, it was basically to denote that our civilization still continues the same basic thread.

While we don't know the customs of the IVC people, many of the ancient traditions (documented in our scriptures thousands of years back) and practiced in Indian lands since time unknown still continue.

I really don't see the analogy you presented here. I would say that if a minority but significant portion of Arabs started following a new religion (and totally forgetting Islam for a 1000 years, also let's say those people include the Arabs in Madina where the prophet first gained power) claims it after a 1000 years, the others would surely feel a sense of puzzlement even amusement.

The converted Arabs may do well to say that we shared that past but to say that because Madina is with them now, they own the Islamic heritage would not be sound logic. At least I won't be convinced.

What do you think their motive would be in such a case?

 

[Flintlock]

I am basing my post on what I got from Wikipedia:

First Quote:

The most important tribes within Punjab include the Arains, the Gakhars, the Gujjars, the Jats, the Rajputs, the Punjabi Shaikhs and the Syeds. Other smaller tribes are the Awans, Rawns and the Maliks. In Central Punjab, there is a significant population who are descendants of settlers from the Kashmir Valley

All of these tribes are descendants of settlers from Central Asia, Persia or Arabia. Hence, it is safe to assume that the genetic pool of the IVC has been mostly, if not completely, supplanted by these tribes.

Second Quote:

The Sindhis as a whole are composed of original descendants of an ancient population known as Sammaat, various sub-groups related to the Siraiki or Baloch origin are found in interior Sindh. Sindhis of Balochi origin make up about 30% of the total population of Sindh, while immigrant Urdu speaking indian refugees make up 15% of the total population of the province. Also found in the province is a small group claiming descent from early Muslim settlers including Arabs, Turks, Jews, Afghans and Persians. Most of the indian refugees given shelter by the Sindhi nation in the big cities of Sindh, Karachi and Hyderabad in 1947.

'Sammaat are Rajput by race, and they are the long dwellers of the region. Sammaat came to Sindh with Aryan immigrants and since then have lived in the region.

Again, on examining the quote, we find that none of the population groups are indigenous to Sindh in the context of IVC.

Third Quote:

The Baloch are an Iranian People.

Iranian tribes are the Aryan migrants which came to the Iranian region rather than the Indian one.

Fourth Quote

NWFP is mostly made up of Pashtun Tribes

Since Pashtuns are also an Iranian tribe which migrated after the demise of IVC, they are foreign from the perspective of IVC.


Considering these 4 quotes, and considering that wikipedia probably accurate on such elementary issues, we can safely say that almost all of the Pakistani gene-pool is "foreign" to the IVC gene pool.

Now, if the theories that suggest an eastward migration of the IVC people are validated, then perhaps modern day Indians could have the Harappan genes, thus making them the true inheritors of this civilization.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

All of these tribes are descendants of settlers from Central Asia, Persia or Arabia. Hence, it is safe to assume that the genetic pool of the IVC has been mostly, if not completely, supplanted by these tribes.

If a majority of the IVC people did not migrate, the larger immigrant population would still end up supplanting the IVC gene pool, through interbreeding. But that only means that the IVC over time became the minority, Pakistanis would still be descendant from them.

The only way Pakistanis would not be descendants from the IVC people would be if, like I Said earlier, it could be shown conclusively that the vast majority of the IVC population migrated out of the region, or was destroyed.

Now, if the theories that suggest an eastward migration of the IVC people are validated, then perhaps modern day Indians could have the Harappan genes, thus making them the true inheritors of this civilization.

Actually, if the IVC migrated Eastwards, the arguments you raised above, of the Gene pool being supplanted over time by increasing numbers of other immigrants, would be valid. It would still make Indians descendants of the IVC people, as I have argued that Pakistanis are still descendants of teh IVC, reagrdless of how much the original IVC genepool has been supplanted, but I just want to point out that you are making two contradicting arguments.

Your first argument says Pakistanis are not IVC descendants because the gene pool got supplanted through migration into the region (which I argued is false -in the sense that Pakistanis would still be descendants of the IVC).

The second refuses to acknowledge the same effect Eastward migration into an already populated region would have on the gene pool of the IVC.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Fair enough.
There is a major difference in the Greek case and the case with subcontinental history. It is too obvious to bear repetition.

When I said India still lived it, it was basically to denote that our civilization still continues the same basic thread.

While we don't know the customs of the IVC people, many of the ancient traditions (documented in our scriptures thousands of years back) and practiced in Indian lands since time unknown still continue.

I am not sure why you don't see the connection. You are raising the issue of "India still lives it" presumably to indicate a greater claim of modern India to that history, which as I have argued is false given that following or not following an ancient belief system (as in the Greeks) is not indicative of whether the hsitory of your lands belongs to you.

I really don't see the analogy you presented here. I would say that if a minority but significant portion of Arabs started following a new religion (and totally forgetting Islam for a 1000 years, also let's say those people include the Arabs in Madina where the prophet first gained power) claims it after a 1000 years, the others would surely feel a sense of puzzlement even amusement.

The converted Arabs may do well to say that we shared that past but to say that because Madina is with them now, they own the Islamic heritage would not be sound logic. At least I won't be convinced.

What do you think their motive would be in such a case?

You completely lost me with what you were trying to say.

Perhaps you are being confused since you are treating all of the subcontinent as one race, like teh Arabs, it is not, and hence my argument used non-Arabs (who never lived in Arab lands and do not live in Arab lands) claiming Arab Islamic history.

Arab-Islamic history would belong to the Arabs. Other Muslims would teach it as the history of their faith, but not as the history of their nations.

The closest I can understand your comments above is by assuming that teh Saudis converted to another religion, while the Yemenis and others did not. In such a case, only Saudi Arabia as a nation could claim the history of Medina and Makkah. Islamic history in Saudi Arabia would be a part of Saudi History.