What's new

Ancient India in the time of the Mahabharata

The only people performing menal controtions here are Indians, to somehow divorce an entire people and nation from the history of their forefathers.

This is a false accusation as has repeatedly been shown and still repeated ad-nauseum!

India has never denied you your history. You yourselves did it. Show me one genuine proof where India denied you your history!

The flip-flops are all yours and you still prefer to blame India for some reason that is all too well known.
 
.
This is a false accusation as has repeatedly been shown and still repeated ad-nauseum!

India has never denied you your history. You yourselves did it. Show me one genuine proof where India denied you your history!

The flip-flops are all yours and you still prefer to blame India for some reason that is all too well known.

Don't insult my intelligence Vinod - including the first post on this thread, you and others have thanked the posts of Indian posters making similarly absurd arguments about 'Pakistan not having any rights to history that is not Islamic because Pakistanis do not have the same beliefs as their ancestors'.

Quite frankly this is disappointing - not only do you resort to such cheap and demonstrably flawed arguments, but then you also choose to blatantly deny making them and supporting them. Who is distorting here is obvious.

If you are going to make that argument then stick by it - don't make/support the argument and then pretend that you are innocent and being falsely accused.
 
.
Don't insult my intelligence Vinod

Never my intention! I apologize if you felt that way.

including the first post on this thread, you and others have thanked the posts of Indian posters making similarly absurd arguments about 'Pakistan not having any rights to history that is not Islamic because Pakistanis do not have the same beliefs as their ancestors'.

You know very well that I don't think that way. That may well be how some others may feel. But mostly Indians think of it as a shared heritage.

Thanking a post doesn't mean that you agree with it 100%. You should know that of all people.

Quite frankly this is disappointing - not only do you resort to such cheap and demonstrably flawed arguments, but then you also choose to blatantly deny making them and supporting them. Who is distorting here is obvious.

You may show me one post of mine where I made any argument along the lines.

If you are going to make that argument then stick by it - don't make/support the argument and then pretend that you are innocent and being falsely accused.

I stick by my argument that it is Pakistanis who are doing flip-flop on what their history and identity is. I will defend if accused of that, not of something I didn't say.
 
.
If you do not support that particular point made by Halaku, then I apologize for suggesting you did. The rest of my posts, the last two, stand as applying to those Indians, and Pakistanis, who have made such arguments.

On the 'flip flop' issue - it doesn't matter. Pakistan has tried to preserve its heritage and history. Whether some Pakistanis accept only part of it or not has no bearing on whether that history is Pakistani. So long as even a minority claim it, they claim it for all Pakistanis and all of Pakistan.

On the sharing point, most history is shared with ancient history overlapping modern political boundaries - but we still reference it with respect to where the nucleus of the history lay and where its origins were.

History associated with Alexander stretched all the way to the lands making up Pakistan - we share it in that sense, but Alexander is not a Pakistani or Indian legend - he is Greek/Macedonian.

I believe the Pakistani arguments are similar - the IVC and other cultures in Pakistan may have diffused into what is today India, but their origins and nucleus were in the lands making up Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
.
I have made the point already and that is something well known among historians that when we talk of ancient history, we have had three major civilizations in the region.

Indian, Persian and Chinese. That Arabic civilization came later but we are talking of pre-Islamic civilizations.

Just because they had significant local variations doesn't mean they were not large civilizations encompassing our region.

At different times probably the areas of Pakistan were more influenced or under the control of Persian civilization (or even Greek civilization) but for the largest time it was the Indian civilization and the overwhelming majority of the people obviously share roots with the people across the Eastern border. The small number of tribals obviously share the roots with the people across the Western border.

One difference I see in our approach is that you want to focus on the differences (I will call them local variations) while we want to focus on the commonalities.

Which is the right point of view? Well, I am not sure there is any right answer. I will say let's defer to the renowned historians who know what they are talking of and can look at the big picture.
 
.
Ghauri defeated Prithvi raj Chuhan. The significance of the name is that our Ghauri missile will defeat your prithvi missile.

Geez, don't tell me Indians didn't get it, till today?

Lol, this is your best post.
Shows your screwed up mentality. lol.

Ghauri...GauriKhan wife of Shahrukh Khan, somebody in PA seems to be a big fan of King Khan.
 
.
Civilization is a living thing. When you can understand the achievements of your predecessors, build upon them, live those traditions - then you can claim that you are a part of that civilization.

Can Pakistanis claim they are a part of the civilization of Panini? Even when they don't know anything about Sanskrit and therefore cannot understand Panini's work? I doubt it - but what you can claim is that the civilization that Panini belonged to once flourished on the land that you now inhabit. This civilization was, at that time, spread all over South Asia. Now that living tradition exists only in India, Nepal and to some extent in Sri Lanka. IMHO civilization is transmitted not through geography or genes but through the Guru-disciple relationship.

It is very similar to the case of Anatolia. There are doubtless many people there who have descended from the original Greek inhabitants. But their ancestors might have converted to Islam and now they may speak only Turkish, and know nothing of the Greek language and traditions.

There are millions of Madrassa graduates in Pakistan who are living the traditions of the seventh century followers of the Prophet Mohammed in Arabia. It could be that amongst these Madrassa graduates are descendants of Panini. But to what extent such Madrassa graduates can claim Panini, I don't know. I have no desire to divorce Pakistanis from anything. In fact I welcome Pakistani interest in their pre-Islamic culture. I merely pointed out the contradiction between saying on one hand that the "matlab" of Pakistan is "La Ilaha Illalah" and then claiming that Panini was a Pakistani on the other.


Are the British, Greeks, Italians - Europeans in general, required to learn and profess the languages, dialects of ancient Britan, Greece and Rome, before they can claim their history? Are they required to follow the cultures and faiths of Gaul, Greek and Roman mythology before they can claim their history?

Absolutely inane arguments continue to be repeated by the Indians here.

The only people performing menal controtions here are Indians, to somehow divorce an entire people and nation from the history of their forefathers.

The history of Pakistan and Pakistanis is the history of Mehgarh, of Harrapa of the Indus Valley Civilization, of Gandhara, of Mohammad Bin Qasim, of Durrani and Ghauri, and everything in between and before. It is the history of the people, cultures and civilizations that ebbed and flowed in the lands of Pakistan and evolved into the cultures and people inhabiting Pakistan today.
 
.
Topic says 'Ancient India' when did this thread degenerate to a dick measuring one?
 
.
..Groan....
And I'm still groaning. I participated in a similar thread here once and am groanign since then. Lost World!
 
. .
Civilization is a living thing.

The IVC died out thousands of years ago. Only Hindutva revisionists are the ones claiming that somehow there is some sort of 'continuity of a singular civilization in South Asia'.

Pakistanis are not claiming to be part of an IVC - what we are stating is that the fact that its origins, nucleus were in the lands comprising Pakistan, and that it existed primarily in the lands comprising Pakistan, means that the civilization shoudl be referenced as a Pakistani civilization, given the above and that Pakistanis are likely descendants of the IVC people.

I don't have to learn Sanskrit, or Panini's grammar to claim my history any more than Orthodox Greek, Italina or British Christians have to convert to the polytheistic faiths of their ancestors and learn learn those ancient dialects and languages to claim their history.

Your argument is demonstrably absurd and reflects the degree to which you will clutch at straws to somehow steal and deny Pakistan's history.
 
.
The IVC died out thousands of years ago. Only Hindutva revisionists are the ones claiming that somehow there is some sort of 'continuity of a singular civilization in South Asia'.

No comment here about the IVC, but the civilization of the Vedas is still alive.

Pakistanis are not claiming to be part of an IVC - what we are stating is that the fact that its origins, nucleus were in the lands comprising Pakistan, and that it existed primarily in the lands comprising Pakistan,
So far so good

means that the civilization shoudl be referenced as a Pakistani civilization, given the above and that Pakistanis are likely descendants of the IVC people.
That would be like saying that the city of Troy belongs to the Turkish civilization.

I don't have to learn Sanskrit, or Panini's grammar to claim my history any more than Orthodox Greek, Italina or British Christians have to convert to the polytheistic faiths of their ancestors and learn learn those ancient dialects and languages to claim their history.

Your argument is demonstrably absurd and reflects the degree to which you will clutch at straws to somehow steal and deny Pakistan's history.
Depends on what you mean by "claim". As you said, Pakistanis are not claiming to be part of the IVC. Similarly most Pakistanis are not a part of the civilization that Panini belonged to. Yet many Indians (and perhaps a very few Pakistanis) will regard themselves as being a part of that civilization.

Also, you may not be aware of the huge, profound influence that the Greek and Roman civilizations have had on the Western civilization of today. This includes law, philosophy, language, mathematics, and so on. In that sense, the civilization of Greece and Rome continues.
 
Last edited:
.
The IVC died out thousands of years ago. Only Hindutva revisionists are the ones claiming that somehow there is some sort of 'continuity of a singular civilization in South Asia'.

Pakistanis are not claiming to be part of an IVC - what we are stating is that the fact that its origins, nucleus were in the lands comprising Pakistan, and that it existed primarily in the lands comprising Pakistan, means that the civilization shoudl be referenced as a Pakistani civilization, given the above and that Pakistanis are likely descendants of the IVC people.

I don't have to learn Sanskrit, or Panini's grammar to claim my history any more than Orthodox Greek, Italina or British Christians have to convert to the polytheistic faiths of their ancestors and learn learn those ancient dialects and languages to claim their history.

Your argument is demonstrably absurd and reflects the degree to which you will clutch at straws to somehow steal and deny Pakistan's history.

agno,

If it augurs well ,lets go for who can legally inherit ancient indian civilization??U may refer to laws in pakistan on the question rightful inheritance.

I think there are long pondered reasons on why pakistan choose to fairly ignore history of time before the arrival of islam.
 
.
I think it is India - mostly Hindus - who seem to reject the Islamic history of India and marginalize it in comparison to the pre-Islamic period. After all, India under Muslim rule was just as Indian as it was under Hindu rule or Buddhist rule etc. Sure, India has the Taj Mahal as a national monument but is that really all the Mughals did for India?

On the other hand, as a Muslim and a Pakistani, I have to see things differently. Indian history remained Indian history even after the Muslim conquests of India. Contrary to what Indians might think, Pakistani history does not begin with Muhammad Bin Qasim, either for me or for Pakistan in general. After all, Pakistan does value and study sites like Harappa and Moenjodaro and others.

Furthermore, we don't view Islamic and pre-Islamic Pakistan and India as insurmountable divide. As Muslims, we believe that Islam has existed since the time of the first human beings, Adam and Eve. God has sent prophets to every people on Earth at various times to teach them versions of Islam relevant to their time and place and situation. Even India had its prophets. They all had the same basic message of worshipping one god alone. And we believe that Muhammad PBUH was the final messenger with the final version of Islam from God that was meant not for a particular time or place or people, but for all times and places and all human beings everywhere. So as a Pakistani, when I look back and I see those ancestors of mine who were Indian Hindus who became Muslims, it was a return back to the original message that an Indian prophet had brought them. We believe that Hinduism, Buddhism, etc are all corrupted and deviated messages that originated from true beliefs from prophets sent by God. So as a Muslim and a Pakistani, I have to say that I can properly own both periods of the history of the land, the pre-Islamic and the Islamic periods. But Indian Hindus I suppose cannot as they view the Islamic period as foreign and alien and not "Indian".
 
.
Cefarix, you seem to be a rational sort. We may not view things in the same way as you, but perhaps we can do business with you.

I think it is India - mostly Hindus - who seem to reject the Islamic history of India and marginalize it in comparison to the pre-Islamic period. After all, India under Muslim rule was just as Indian as it was under Hindu rule or Buddhist rule etc. Sure, India has the Taj Mahal as a national monument but is that really all the Mughals did for India?

On the other hand, as a Muslim and a Pakistani, I have to see things differently. Indian history remained Indian history even after the Muslim conquests of India. Contrary to what Indians might think, Pakistani history does not begin with Muhammad Bin Qasim, either for me or for Pakistan in general. After all, Pakistan does value and study sites like Harappa and Moenjodaro and others.

Furthermore, we don't view Islamic and pre-Islamic Pakistan and India as insurmountable divide. As Muslims, we believe that Islam has existed since the time of the first human beings, Adam and Eve. God has sent prophets to every people on Earth at various times to teach them versions of Islam relevant to their time and place and situation. Even India had its prophets. They all had the same basic message of worshipping one god alone. And we believe that Muhammad PBUH was the final messenger with the final version of Islam from God that was meant not for a particular time or place or people, but for all times and places and all human beings everywhere. So as a Pakistani, when I look back and I see those ancestors of mine who were Indian Hindus who became Muslims, it was a return back to the original message that an Indian prophet had brought them. We believe that Hinduism, Buddhism, etc are all corrupted and deviated messages that originated from true beliefs from prophets sent by God. So as a Muslim and a Pakistani, I have to say that I can properly own both periods of the history of the land, the pre-Islamic and the Islamic periods. But Indian Hindus I suppose cannot as they view the Islamic period as foreign and alien and not "Indian".
 
.
Back
Top Bottom