Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Erm, the Gandhara Grave Culture is associated with the arrival of the Aryan migrants from Central Asia (BMAC). (1500 BC to 500 BC)

The Cemetary - H culture (1900 BC) was a significant shift eastward from the IVC, and the later Painted Gray Ware culture (1100 BC) succeeded the Cemetery H culture.

Remember, before Cemetery H, the Gangetic plains were uninhabited, thickly forested.

The painted gray ware culture on the other hand is associated with the Mahabharata.

Gandhara is considered one of the cultures that developed from the IVC, but yes, supposedly in conjunction with the arrival of the Aryan immigrants - which I imagine implies a melding of the two peoples and cultures. So it quite obviously involves the IVC, or it wouldn't be classified as one of three major off shoots of the IVC like the cemetery H would it?

I have also read that the Painted Greyware was influenced by the local (to the Gangetic plains) Black and Redware culture along with the cemetery H, how does that tie in with uninhabited Gangetic plains?

 

[roadrunner]

Except, my friend, the "Vedism" that you talk about died out, lets see, in 500BC!!

The beliefs and practices of the pre-classical era (1500–500 BCE) are called the "historical Vedic religion".
Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hindu Shahi Kings ruled during the 8th to 10th centuries AD, clearly indicating that they were worshipping the deity Shiva as he is recognized in current day Hinduism, and not the Rigvedic deity. Get the point?

One more Important thing - the word SHIVA is never mentioned in Rig Veda. Infact, the word Shiva first appears here:

The Śvetāśvatara Upanishad (400 - 200 BCE)[21] is the earliest textual exposition of a systematic philosophy of Shaivism.[22]
History of Shaivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shiva is a product of the Gupta age - of Classical Hindiusm !

Worshipping Siva in the 10th century does not prove it was anything to do with the Gangetic form of Hinduism. Vedism didn't just stop in 400 BC. People started converting to Buddhism, but remnants of Vedics remained, as do remnants of Zoroastrians in Iran.

The Vedic society also had Rundra/Siva as a God. These Shahi kings did not come from the Ganges, they were in all likelihood from Central Asia or from Iran. Therefore it would not be the Gangetic form of Hinduism that they would have picked up.

You are assuming it's Hinduism. I'm explaining to you, your assumption can be wrong, and probably is, due to triviaizing the words "India" and "Hindu".

Either way, this is a very small time period, and the predominant religions of pre-Islamic Afghanistan were Buddhism and Vedism, not Hinduism.

 

[Flintlock]

Gandhara is considered one of the cultures that developed from the IVC, but yes, supposedly in conjunction with the arrival of the Aryan immigrants - which I imagine implies a melding of the two peoples and cultures. So it quite obviously involves the IVC, or it wouldn't be classified as one of three major off shoots of the IVC like the cemetery H would it?

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.

I have also read that the Painted Greyware was influenced by the local (to the Gangetic plains) Black and Redware culture along with the cemetery H, how does that tie in with uninhabited Gangetic plains?

Erm, Black and Redware culture I think is post-Rigvedic, perhaps late bronze age and early Iron-age.

The Gangetic plains were uninhabited during the IVC period, that's what I meant.

 

[Flintlock]

Worshipping Siva in the 10th century does not prove it was anything to do with the Gangetic form of Hinduism. Vedism didn't just stop in 400 BC. People started converting to Buddhism, but remnants of Vedics remained, as do remnants of Zoroastrians in Iran.

The Vedic society also had Rundra/Siva as a God. These Shahi kings did not come from the Ganges, they were in all likelihood from Central Asia or from Iran. Therefore it would not be the Gangetic form of Hinduism that they would have picked up.

You are assuming it's Hinduism. I'm explaining to you, your assumption can be wrong, and probably is, due to triviaizing the words "India" and "Hindu".

Either way, this is a very small time period, and the predominant religions of pre-Islamic Afghanistan were Buddhism and Vedism, not Hinduism.

Erm, except for the fact that the inscription says SHIVA. How did they learn the word Shiva without coming into contact with the Shaivite texts?

 

[Vinod2070]

I disagree - if the Indus Civilization only had a peripheral impact on the people in South India and East India, then what claim do they have on this civilization and culture?

You are right. No direct claim. But they would be justified in thinking it to be a part of the broader Indian civilization.

Same as North Indians were no part of the Chola empire but still feel pride of that civilization's achievements. I personally felt that I was in some way a part of that civilization when I recently visited the grand temples of Tamilnadu.

They were mostly Siva temples and also temples to other Hindu Gods/goddesses like Saraswati etc. Extremely unique in their construction and still following the various rituals as they would a 1000 years back.

I don't think I am wrong in thinking that I belong to that civilization as I can directly relate to it. Even though a South Indian can always challenge me to it and he would own it more than me.

Now suppose Tamilnadu became a separate country in 1947. Should it change these dynamics?

 

[Flintlock]

I disagree - if the Indus Civilization only had a peripheral impact on the people in South India and East India, then what claim do they have on this civilization and culture?

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.

 

[Vinod2070]

I see another variant of the discredited kasab kalava theory (and the non-existent Hindi speaking of kasab) playing out all over again.

The facts clearly give a lie to the useless crap of trying to differentiate Vedism/Hinduism. Let's accept this and move on.

 

[UnitedPak]

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.

Your views dont make any sense. If Tamil Indians have no links to Assamese history, they cant claim Assamese identity even if they both are part of India.
But assuming your logic; this was only the case during the British Raj. Pakistan and India were under one huge empire, and the people were referred to as "Indians".
But now the people of the Indus are not part of the same country/empire, so things are different.

Indian people have no links to the Indus region, therefore they cant claim the region as part of their heritage. (in reality they couldn't do this during the British Raj either.)

No wonder you have to make use of the mass migration and vanishing river theories.

 

[rubyjackass]

Here is some of what the world knew India for in history.

India was east of Indus(may be you will argue that it just the Present Pakistani region)
India was rich.
India's religion is hinduism(There was no one religion as such. People came to call them collectively as hinduism ).
India was ruled by hindu kings.
India then adopted Buddhism and propogated it.
India was invaded by Muslims.
India was then ruled by muslim rulers with Delhi as its capital.
India a population of many religions.
India ruled by the British.

This is how India was defined in people's minds.

Which geographical region and population now shows most allegiance to the above connections?

Clearly the present India...

 

[Flintlock]

Your views dont make any sense. If Tamil Indians have no links to Assamese history, they cant claim Assamese identity even if they both are part of India.
But assuming your logic; this was only the case during the British Raj. Pakistan and India were under one huge empire, and the people were referred to as "Indians".
But now the people of the Indus are not part of the same country/empire, so things are different.

How many Pakistanis are direct descendants of the IVC people? Not too many. Most are descendants of migrating tribes which arrived in Pakistan long after the demise of the IVC.

So, do these people have a direct claim on the IVC? Yes, you would say. Why? Because they are part of the same country - Pakistan.

Similarly, all Indians have a claim on Indian history.

Indian people have no links to the Indus region, therefore they cant claim the region as part of their heritage. (in reality they couldn't do this during the British Raj either.)

They do, as I demonstrated in the thread. The Indus people themselves interacted with the Aryan people to give rise to Indian civilization.

No wonder you have to make use of the mass migration and vanishing river theories.

Guilt by association?

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

How many Pakistanis are direct descendants of the IVC people? Not too many. Most are descendants of migrating tribes which arrived in Pakistan long after the demise of the IVC.

do you have any proof? I mean solid material that everyone can agree upon. do you have genetic evidence to suggest that the people in Pakistan are not descendants of the Indus people?

 

[UnitedPak]

How many Pakistanis are direct descendants of the IVC people? Not too many. Most are descendants of migrating tribes which arrived in Pakistan long after the demise of the IVC.

The people of Pakistan have never been replaced by anybody. A small number of invaders mixing with the local population happens everywhere. Pakistanis are the natives of the land.

Indians on the other hand have no links to the Indus region. You have not demonstrated anything. Rambling about a vanishing river and ancient mass migrations without any evidence is not going to convince anybody.

Are you seriously claiming that India was uninhabited when IVC declined around 1500 BC? Humans settled in India 30 000 years ago.
I don't understand why you are so obsessed with Pakistani history. Every period has a convenient explanation to associate it with Indian people. Pakistani people don't exist/haven't invaded yet

 

[Vinod2070]

do you have any proof? I mean solid material that everyone can agree upon. do you have genetic evidence to suggest that the people in Pakistan are not descendants of the Indus people?

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

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!

 

[Flintlock]

do you have any proof? I mean solid material that everyone can agree upon. do you have genetic evidence to suggest that the people in Pakistan are not descendants of the Indus people?

I don't think I have genetic evidence (primarily because I am clueless about haplogroups and genetic markers and all that).

However, all you have to do is make a list of ethnic groups in Pakistan, and then trace their migration histories. I think I once did post something similar in this thread, or the India naming thread.

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.

 

[Flintlock]

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

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!

Modern Balochis are an Iranian people I think - they have little to do with the IVC people.
Same for the people of NWFP, FATA and these areas.

As far as Punjabis and Sindhis are concerned, there have been a number of migrations into these areas throughout the post-harappan history, starting with the Aryan invasions, Sakas, Hunas, Kushans, and finally the Islamic invasions, so a significant portion (I cannot say exactly how much) would be foreign (with respect to IVC obviously).

So would the people of Pakistani who arrived after the decline of the IVC be entitled to claim it as their own civilization?

The problem is, of course, that it is entirely subjective. Things like "ownership of history" depend on the terms in which you define ownership.

If you define ownership in terms of descent, then things are different. If you define ownership in terms of belonging to the same country, then again, it would be different.