Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[jarnee]

I will share some more facts that i saw on History channel , last week. When i say facts they are not biased by my origin. A researcher in now Turkmenistan, took the team to a site where they found remains of Aryan's , they found a Havan Kund ( place to burn holy fire), they also found idols (made of clay) of Lord Indra with a Rath (Charriot) and some artifacts drawings of Indra and few words written in Sanskrit(script).

They could date this to about old as 3000 years. They also said that at that time their use to be Indra as the main God of Aryans. (Maybe because he was god of rain and rain was important for agriculture ). Other god being Fire. Remember this was the time when concept of religion did not exist.
This was part of huge site , which was found in digging, remains of old houses etc.

There is one other fact that i will like to highlight the - The Kushan Empire (c. 1st–3rd centuries) originally formed in Bactria and Gandhara.

Most of Pakistani's in Pheshawar can still see the remains of the sites and artifacts in Museums.
I saw it on TV . Pak govt has done a good job in preserving them.

Please see this link and from wiki - Kushan Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was when Bhudhism was at its height and Peshawar being the capital of the Kushan king.

After this the era of invasions started , from the Kyber pass. Alexander used it in 328 BC, then later Mehmood Ghazi in 1000 AD.

Now lets talk about who are ancestors of Aryans, German's (Hitler) in WWII time claimed that they are pure blood the blood lines of Aryans. They even had the symbol on Nazi flag. of Swastik. Same Swastik is used in many Hindu rituals even today.

However there was another great civilization , that kept blooming in Southern India the Dravidian race.Which over the years merged with remaining region.

I will say that people in Pakistan would have or rather should have Aryan origin and similarly people in Indian Northern regions.

Remember Religion was made by Man not other way.

Even today in the world people are changing religions because of their will or influence. But that does not change origin and Genes

 

[Vinod2070]

Pakistanis are natives to the Indus region.

Please provide any kind of evidence for your absurd claims that Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns and Balochis are not natives to their respective provinces.

As I said, these are claims by Pakistanis that I have read in Pakistani papers and possibly they are exaggerated. It is for you to prove that what Pakistanis are themselves claiming is false!

You are forgetting the major point that this region was never a separate region till 14th august 1947. The regions that you talk about share a lot with parts of India. DarkStar also mentioned the obvious fact that most Sindhis and Punjabis share common roots with North Indians. The 1947 separation does not take that away. The history after 14 Aug 1947 is Pakistani history. The one before that is common.

And let's avoid going in circles. If you don't have anything new, let's give this thread some well deserved rest!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As I said, these are claims by Pakistanis that I have read in Pakistani papers and possibly they are exaggerated. It is for you to prove that what Pakistanis are themselves claiming is false!

On the contrary, it is up to you to show that no Pakistanis care for their history.

Merely quoting a handful of articles as representative of the sentiment of 170 million Pakistanis is completely disingenuous.

As I said before, even if a minority of Pakistanis care for their history, and the GoP accepts that history (both claims are beyond doubt) then this argument of 'some authors have said this or that' is nothing but a distraction.

You are forgetting the major point that this region was never a separate region till 14th august 1947. The regions that you talk about share a lot with parts of India. DarkStar also mentioned the obvious fact that most Sindhis and Punjabis share common roots with North Indians. The 1947 separation does not take that away. The history after 14 Aug 1947 is Pakistani history. The one before that is common.

And let's avoid going in circles. If you don't have anything new, let's give this thread some well deserved rest!

The region was completely splintered before the British occupied it and turned it into a large colony.

Even from a civilizational point of view there were multiple civilizations, and the presence of multiple peoples and cultures is unarguable.

The history before 1947 is the history of the peoples that inhabited that land - that history was primarily of the peoples who inhabited what is now Pakistan. Yes there was some overlap with what is today India, but origins, nucleus and major parts of the IVC were all in Pakistan.

Pakistan does therefore have a far stronger claim to the IVC.

 

[Vinod2070]

We have gone over all this multiple times. Nothing new here.

All of it has been rebutted earlier.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We have gone over all this multiple times. Nothing new here.

All of it has been rebutted earlier.

On the contrary, absolutely nothing has been refuted.

There is nothing to show that there was a mass migration of the IVC people out of the lands comprising Pakistan, which means that the people of Pakistan are the descendants of the IVC, though possibly mingled with other migrants into the region. The origins of the IVC, its nucleus and the major part of the civilization was in the lands comprising Pakistan, there is no question about that either.

The civilization was therefore largely an ancient Pakistani one.

 

[Vinod2070]

On the contrary, absolutely nothing has been refuted.

There is nothing to show that there was a mass migration of the IVC people out of the lands comprising Pakistan, which means that the people of Pakistan are the descendants of the IVC, though possibly mingled with other migrants into the region. The origins of the IVC, its nucleus and the major part of the civilization was in the lands comprising Pakistan, there is no question about that either.

The civilization was therefore largely an ancient Pakistani one.

The definition of "refuted" is a bit subjective on this topic. Let's just say we have presented our arguments on all these multiple times.

I will try to summarize.

1. The usage of modern historical boundaries for ancient history and civilization is not a good idea. It leads to many absurd situations that we have discussed.We discussed the case of Turkey and the Greco-Roman empire. It may not be entirely applicable here but it gives the idea.
2. The history is substantially shared with no clear demarcations. The people on both sides of the Radcliffe line in many cases have the same origins and the same surnames!
3. IVC has a substantial presence in modern India as well.
4. Pakistanis are not consistent about when they want to use modern geography and when faith to claim history. Some examples would include you guys claiming heritage of Muslim rule in the modern state of India, you surely feel a part of the heritage of Taj mahal etc., even Tipu Sultan in deep South.
5. The focus of this thread (as teh title suggests) should have been more internally focused. It should be about the very poor awareness of the ancient glorious history of the land and how that challenges the prevalent myths in Pakistan. Instead it became an unabashed criticism of India for "stealing" or "leeching" some mythical Pakistani civilization!
6. Some of you guys belatedly felt the need for an identity beyond Islam. That is why this belated and sudden incoherent claim over just the IVC but still aversion to the whole history of the land. Did you notice the pathetic attempts by RR of trying to invent some mythical "Vedism distinct from Hinduism"?
7. Pakistanis (not one or some individuals but a large number of Pakistanis) need to do a better job of really start respecting and owning that history and not just trying to wrest it from India. Once you do that, you will no longer feel the need to exclusively appropriate it, I can assure you of that. That civilization talked of "Vasudhaiv kutumbakam" (The whole world is a family) and was not so narrow minded as some of it's newly minted "owners" are!
8. We saw some claims about owning Sanskrit and Panini as well. And I can term them only pathetic. What are you doing about preserving the heritage of Sanskrit? Is there even one school/university teaching it? Isn't the hypocrisy so obvious?

I can go on but this should give a gyst of what has already been discussed.

There is no need to trying to wrest control of the ancient history only to throw it in the bin. Start owning it, take it to the logical conclusions, get rid of the myths and we are all good.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The definition of "refuted" is a bit subjective on this topic. Let's just say we have presented our arguments on all these multiple times.

I will try to summarize.

1. The usage of modern historical boundaries for ancient history and civilization is not a good idea. It leads to many absurd situations that we have discussed.We discussed the case of Turkey and the Greco-Roman empire. It may not be entirely applicable here but it gives the idea.
2. The history is substantially shared with no clear demarcations. The people on both sides of the Radcliffe line in many cases have the same origins and the same surnames!
3. IVC has a substantial presence in modern India as well.
4. Pakistanis are not consistent about when they want to use modern geography and when faith to claim history. Some examples would include you guys claiming heritage of Muslim rule in the modern state of India, you surely feel a part of the heritage of Taj mahal etc., even Tipu Sultan in deep South.
5. The focus of this thread (as teh title suggests) should have been more internally focused. It should be about the very poor awareness of the ancient glorious history of the land and how that challenges the prevalent myths in Pakistan. Instead it became an unabashed criticism of India for "stealing" or "leeching" some mythical Pakistani civilization!
6. Some of you guys belatedly felt the need for an identity beyond Islam. That is why this belated and sudden incoherent claim over just the IVC but still aversion to the whole history of the land. Did you notice the pathetic attempts by RR of trying to invent some mythical "Vedism distinct from Hinduism"?
7. Pakistanis (not one or some individuals but a large number of Pakistanis) need to do a better job of really start respecting and owning that history and not just trying to wrest it from India. Once you do that, you will no longer feel the need to exclusively appropriate it, I can assure you of that. That civilization talked of "Vasudhaiv kutumbakam" (The whole world is a family) and was not so narrow minded as some of it's newly minted "owners" are!
8. We saw some claims about owning Sanskrit and Panini as well. And I can term them only pathetic. What are you doing about preserving the heritage of Sanskrit? Is there even one school/university teaching it? Isn't the hypocrisy so obvious?

I can go on but this should give a gyst of what has already been discussed.

There is no need to trying to wrest control of the ancient history only to throw it in the bin. Start owning it, take it to the logical conclusions, get rid of the myths and we are all good.

That summary is also completely one sided, IMO, and distorts the arguments made by the Pakistanis on this thread. This thread, and various other forums such as allthingsPakistan.com,. the efforts by the GoP in preserving the ancient heritage of Pakistan etc. all amount to owning our history.

The arguments in favor of the IVC clearly being a civilization that originated from, and primarily existed in, what is today Pakistan is irrefutable. Certain overlap with other nations is inevitable, as is the case with the Afghan empires and the Persian civilizations. We have those links, but the Persian civilization does not become a part of Ancient Pakistan becasue the Eastern edges of the civilization permeated into what is today Pakistan.

Similarly, slight overlap of the IVC does not mean that the modern Indian state has an equal claim to the civilization. The lands and people of the IVC were what is today Pakistan, and it is primarily their heritage.

 

[Vinod2070]

Well, we didn't really have a bipartisan approach on this thread and I think it is because the issue evokes very strong emotions in all concerned.

I can only say that I am happy that some Pakistanis are making an attempt to connect to their pre-Islamic civilization at long last. Though as of now it just seems limited to trying to claim the civilization and little or nothing beyond that.

Nevertheless a good beginning. This is level-2. We will surely go to the next levels as the time progresses.

 

[Flintlock]

Pakistan was founded on the basis of "Two Nation Theory", which means that the muslims and hindus of India are separate nations.

Now, by claiming that Pakistan has always existed since ancient times, you giving up the two nation theory and creating a new theory for Pakistan's existence.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan was founded on the basis of "Two Nation Theory", which means that the muslims and hindus of India are separate nations.

Now, by claiming that Pakistan has always existed since ancient times, you giving up the two nation theory and creating a new theory for Pakistan's existence.

Not at all - the two nation theory was based on the reality of that particular time, it talked about uniting different cultures and peoples in the West of the subcontinent into a nation on the basis of faith and the desire to live according to their wishes.

I think we have extended that argument to naturally encompass the shared ancient history of the peoples of Pakistan.

Islam is Pakistan's modern identity, much as Christianity is the faith of most Greeks now, but like the Greeks, our ancestors and our history were not of our current faith. But our history is still ours.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I can only say that I am happy that some Pakistanis are making an attempt to connect to their pre-Islamic civilization at long last. Though as of now it just seems limited to trying to claim the civilization and little or nothing beyond that.

The you haven't been paying attention - we are claiming the history of ancient Pakistan- that includes its civilizations, cultures, achievements - everything.

To respect that history we need to preserve it and recognize it, not learn Sanskrit or the IVC script or convert to Buddhism or Vedism. Had the government more resources, we woudl undoubtedly see even more efforts being made in promoting and preserving our heritage - hopefully that will change as we progress.

 

[Flintlock]

To respect that history we need to preserve it and recognize it, not learn Sanskrit or the IVC script or convert to Buddhism or Vedism. Had the government more resources, we woudl undoubtedly see even more efforts being made in promoting and preserving our heritage - hopefully that will change as we progress.

What is vedism? Its Hinduism, or the Sanatan Dharam, which is the actual name.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What is vedism? Its Hinduism, or the Sanatan Dharam, which is the actual name.

The Vedic religion, different from Hinduism as far as I can tell.

It might be the predecessor of Hinduism, in that some of the elements were incorporated into Hinduism later, but this is all tangential to my argument.

 

[Flintlock]

The Vedic religion, different from Hinduism as far as I can tell.

It might be the predecessor of Hinduism, in that some of the elements were incorporated into Hinduism later, but this is all tangential to my argument.

The Vedic religion is nothing but an early form of Hinduism, which has changed and evolved continually throughout its history.

This whole business inventing a new term ("Vedism") just because Pakistanis don't want to admit that their ancestors were Hindus is complete bullshit.

 

[Vinod2070]

Not at all - the two nation theory was based on the reality of that particular time, it talked about uniting different cultures and peoples in the West of the subcontinent into a nation on the basis of faith and the desire to live according to their wishes.

That is turning the TNT on it's head! A few glaring facts:

The majority of Pakistanis on 15 August 1947 were in the East, not West!

The Pakistan demand came mainly from the Muslims of provinces where they were in minority. Places like UP, Bihar etc. In fact Muslims majority states were lukewarm at best in the beginning.

The father of the nation was a Gujarati. I have never seen him talk of a reason for Pakistan other than faith! His insistence on including places like Hyderabad (the Deccan variety ) in Pakistan suggests that geography was far from his mind and of other leaders of Pakistan.

The population exchange and riots on the basis of faith clearly give a lie to any geography bases ideology of partition.

This is nothing but revisionism. But that characterizes the whole of Pakistani arguments on this thread.

I think we have extended that argument to naturally encompass the shared ancient history of the peoples of Pakistan.

Islam is Pakistan's modern identity, much as Christianity is the faith of most Greeks now, but like the Greeks, our ancestors and our history were not of our current faith. But our history is still ours.

The analogy doesn't really make any sense. In the Greek case, one never knows of a period when the country was divided on the basis of old and new faiths. If there had been a division, the part still following the ancient faith and civilization would clearly inherit the civilization.