What's new

"Ancient India" was in Pakistan region, not present-day India.

This is so true, they go around claiming other peoples history as they lack there own identity. I mean we gifted them Hinduism and Buddhism. We gifted them Sanskrit from Haryana. We gifted them knowledge from Nalanda which made taxila look like a retards academy.

@Atanz was bullied by indians on another forum so he takes out his frustrations on a Pakistani forum where he has an advantage. On a neutral forum, this guy was considred a joke. He tries to bellittle india with his joke history and yet conveniently forgets indian history like:
Maurya
Gupta
Pala
Pratihara
Chola
Nalanda
Buddhism and bodh gaya
Vijaynagara
Defeating Seleucus
I could go on forever with our great empires and history which makes pakistans rubissh history look irrelevant.

Pakistan hs been conquered by Greeks, turks, Indians, Persians, arabs, huns, british, afghans. Only turks afghans and british have conquered us and not even india in its entirety. We are superior in all aspects while pakistan was a weak region which never accomplished anything.
+ Do not underestimate :-

sikhs

Marathas

as far as Peshawar with Lahore as the capital of empire though many Muslims chiefs from Punjab were their Ally and friend


Even during Mughals Indians were among HIGHEST GRADE mansabdar a great privileges only reserved for Mughal Royal blood.

That's why Indians were appointed as Governors of empire in Lahore and kabul

Man Singh I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
.
Kya Chutiyap thread hai.

If its so genuine why don't Pakistanis go international and claim their history?

Waha jaake bolti band hoti hai, when true acknowledged scholars finger point and laugh at Pakistani stories.

They don't laugh actually, in fact now they have started to separate Pakistan from Indian history thanks to our efforts. Indian now mean ganga land, south india, etc When they talk about indus valley history they always mention Pakistan. Most of Indian history is relatively recent phenomena, after aryans invaded and conquered India in last 2500 years or so. They formed empires in fertile lands of South Asia and ruled over their low caste slaves in east India, central india south india etc.

So when Indians have to look further back they come back crawling to IVC. Basically India is only country who's history start with another country, mehergarh in Balochistan.
 
.
In fact north west Indian hindu/sikhs from punjabi, himacheli, jammu are the ones who are in fore front in differentiating between their history and Indian history of east, central and south india. We don't have to do much work but we support their struggle.
 
.
For starters in the history of Ancient India, the following passages from various Greek chronicles and travel logs are strictly recommended before coming into any hilarious hypothesis.

Ancient India @Megasthenes

India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile. The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000. Being thus of such vast extent, it seems well-nigh to embrace the whole of the northern tropic zone of the earth, and in fact at the extreme point of India the gnomon of the sundial may frequently be observed to cast no shadow, while the constellation of the Bear is by night invisible, and in the remotest parts even Arcturus disappears from view. Consistently with this, it is also stated that shadows there fall to the southward

Ancient India @Arrian

But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world; Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months' journey. Megasthenes would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point. The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name.

Ancient India @Plutarch

As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed
their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was •thirty-two furlongs, its depth •a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. 3 For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
.........................................................................................................................................................

From the above passages, what is the only thing obvious here? The answer is quite simple. The Greek records of ancient India did not merely stop at Indus basin. The further they advanced, their idea of geographical India became gradually more transparent. The Greek expression of the territory beyond East of Indus was strictly a geography called 'India'. just as anything beyond East of Aegean sea was Asia whose eastern limits were yet to be explored by them.

https://ia600501.us.archive.org/18/...ribedByMegasthenesAndArrianByMccrindleJ.W.pdf
 
.
For starters in the history of Ancient India, the following passages from various Greek chronicles and travel logs are strictly recommended before coming into any hilarious hypothesis.

Ancient India @Megasthenes

India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile. The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000. Being thus of such vast extent, it seems well-nigh to embrace the whole of the northern tropic zone of the earth, and in fact at the extreme point of India the gnomon of the sundial may frequently be observed to cast no shadow, while the constellation of the Bear is by night invisible, and in the remotest parts even Arcturus disappears from view. Consistently with this, it is also stated that shadows there fall to the southward

Ancient India @Arrian

But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world; Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months' journey. Megasthenes would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point. The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name.

Ancient India @Plutarch

As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed
their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was •thirty-two furlongs, its depth •a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. 3 For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
.........................................................................................................................................................

From the above passages, what is the only thing obvious here? The answer is quite simple. The Greek records of ancient India did not merely stop at Indus basin. The further they advanced, their idea of geographical India became gradually more transparent. The Greek expression of the territory beyond East of Indus was strictly a geography called 'India'. just as anything beyond East of Aegean sea was Asia whose eastern limits were yet to be explored by them.
Brother, can u tell me history of bhumihars?
 
.
For starters in the history of Ancient India, the following passages from various Greek chronicles and travel logs are strictly recommended before coming into any hilarious hypothesis.

Ancient India @Megasthenes

India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile. The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000. Being thus of such vast extent, it seems well-nigh to embrace the whole of the northern tropic zone of the earth, and in fact at the extreme point of India the gnomon of the sundial may frequently be observed to cast no shadow, while the constellation of the Bear is by night invisible, and in the remotest parts even Arcturus disappears from view. Consistently with this, it is also stated that shadows there fall to the southward

Ancient India @Arrian

But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world; Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months' journey. Megasthenes would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point. The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name.

Ancient India @Plutarch

As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed
their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was •thirty-two furlongs, its depth •a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. 3 For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
.........................................................................................................................................................

From the above passages, what is the only thing obvious here? The answer is quite simple. The Greek records of ancient India did not merely stop at Indus basin. The further they advanced, their idea of geographical India became gradually more transparent. The Greek expression of the territory beyond East of Indus was strictly a geography called 'India'. just as anything beyond East of Aegean sea was Asia whose eastern limits were yet to be explored by them.

https://ia600501.us.archive.org/18/...ribedByMegasthenesAndArrianByMccrindleJ.W.pdf
Tnx

I have learn a lot from your posts
 
.
keep smoking the pot, you'll get there one day..
.

ohkay so thats how you got there good but buddy history says Pakistan word is not ancient and ancient India was in ancient India.It was a gateway of India for west thats how they started calling it India but this doesn't mean other people were of different race
 
.
Pakistan is no India/Bharat.
If it would be then it would Islamic Republic of India/Bharat.

Wait for my new thread to clear your head and yes almost all major civilization of Hindustan is currently in Pakistan areas and once all my research completed i will post in PDF in three to four days
 
.
This is so true, they go around claiming other peoples history as they lack there own identity. I mean we gifted them Hinduism and Buddhism. We gifted them Sanskrit from Haryana. We gifted them knowledge from Nalanda which made taxila look like a retards academy.

@Atanz was bullied by indians on another forum so he takes out his frustrations on a Pakistani forum where he has an advantage. On a neutral forum, this guy was considred a joke. He tries to bellittle india with his joke history and yet conveniently forgets indian history like:
Maurya
Gupta
Pala
Pratihara
Chola
Nalanda
Buddhism and bodh gaya
Vijaynagara
Defeating Seleucus
I could go on forever with our great empires and history which makes pakistans rubissh history look irrelevant.

Pakistan hs been conquered by Greeks, turks, Indians, Persians, arabs, huns, british, afghans. Only turks afghans and british have conquered us and not even india in its entirety. We are superior in all aspects while pakistan was a weak region which never accomplished anything.

The day that you 1,300 million do anything to me I will become a 'Hindoo '. The problem I was outnumbered like 10 to 1 and my nature is such that I can't struugle to ignore negative comments about Pakistan. That just led with insufficient time to cover my passion Pakistan history.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
The reason these articles come up is because they feel a sense of lost history. Afghan, Turks everyone's they have their people as their leader all over.
It's not an article, it's an extract from a comprehensive book, By an eminent scholar get your facts right. And the rest of what you wrote is gobbledygook, learn to write coherent sentences that's all that I can hope from you as clearly refuting the thread would be beyond you.

ohkay so thats how you got there good but buddy history says Pakistan word is not ancient and ancient India was in ancient India.It was a gateway of India for west thats how they started calling it India but this doesn't mean other people were of different race
Read previous posts it's getting boring now, Pakistan is an acronym for Punjab Sind afghania etc India is your slave name

Pakistanis identify themselves with the invading forces who didn't showed up unlit the 900s AD, they have no participation in the Ancient Indus valley civilization.
Clearly not, otherwise we wouldn't be posting here, ancient Ivc belongs to us, come and claim it if you can

Exactly. These people arrived after 900AD but claiming the IVC which is Dravidian and 5000 years old, just because that land is under thier control now is just pathetic.
What's more pathetic is your crying about something you have zero knowledge, who mentioned Dravidians? And IVC ppl just got up and vanished? Keep dreaming it's our land our history our geography you have to live with it

In my opinion there is no confusion on our part.We adopted India and Bharat as the official names of our country. Pakistan came into existence after partition of British India in 1947. You have decided early on to accept the history of Mogul invasion of Indian subcontinent as your history. Looks like you have realised what a blunder you have done by disowning your ancient past.

In contrast we have incorporated history of ancient India described in our Vedas. So, why blame Indians when in fact we are the torch bearers of ancient wisdom of Yoga philosophy and Ayurveda and still recite these scriptures during our marriages. We teach Sanskrit in our schools and promote epic poems of Ramayana and Mahabharata. We are living traditions of ancient India.

I agree to an extent what your saying however 60-70 years of disowning our history is a small drop in an ocean of antiquity if you look at the bigger picture. People are waking up, No body is blaming Indians for being opportunists. Rgveda was written in IVC, and all the Hindu stuff in your last paragraph, there's no evidence harrapans were Hindus. Hinduism is a British term, Santana dharma is anything and nothing.

Panini was from KPK which is outside indian civilisation, the Vedas mentioned them as barabarians and he only invented classical Sanskrit. Modern day Sanskrit comes from modern day Haryana. Learn to make an empire, then u can brag about history,



its funny how you take pride in Mughal history, give us everything Mughal in India and you can keep the vast riches of Banares state/empire


Where is all this big talk coming from, your country has never even produced an empire. Your history consists of being conquered by foreign kings including Mauryas and Guptas who came from India. Why such butthurt towards India? We are a continuation of the region of India since we make up the majority of that region. Bangladesh chose to align itself with a Bengali identity and Pakistan has with an Arab identity. We are a continuation of the Eastern Indian Empires of Maurya and the region of India in Republic form.


Mughals ruled from Delhi while forcibly converting your ancestors. And my ancestors rebelled against the Mughals and formed Benares state, nice try though.

looks like you never been to Delhi, it is Pakistan![/QUOTE]
Mughals conquered you and forcefully converted you, have some shame ****.


Have you ever produced an empire, yes or no?[/QUOTE]
Mehrgarh, Gandhara, IVC were ancient civilisations empires if not what were they?

This is so true, they go around claiming other peoples history as they lack there own identity. I mean we gifted them Hinduism and Buddhism. We gifted them Sanskrit from Haryana. We gifted them knowledge from Nalanda which made taxila look like a retards academy.

@Atanz was bullied by indians on another forum so he takes out his frustrations on a Pakistani forum where he has an advantage. On a neutral forum, this guy was considred a joke. He tries to bellittle india with his joke history and yet conveniently forgets indian history like:
Maurya
Gupta
Pala
Pratihara
Chola
Nalanda
Buddhism and bodh gaya
Vijaynagara
Defeating Seleucus
I could go on forever with our great empires and history which makes pakistans rubissh history look irrelevant.

Pakistan hs been conquered by Greeks, turks, Indians, Persians, arabs, huns, british, afghans. Only turks afghans and british have conquered us and not even india in its entirety. We are superior in all aspects while pakistan was a weak region which never accomplished anything.
Lol other than 100 years of maurya rule, no bharati laid foot on The area that is now Pakistan. Why are you so desperate to prove your empires credentials and why are hindutvas desperately trying to forge and fraud links to the great Indus Valley civilisations. Fact is IVC was there in our land 2000 Years before any of the states you have mentioned above, Harappa and mohenjadaro were there flourishing while your 'empires' were busy hunting and gathering berries and picking nits of each other

+ Do not underestimate :-

sikhs

Marathas

as far as Peshawar with Lahore as the capital of empire though many Muslims chiefs from Punjab were their Ally and friend


Even during Mughals Indians were among HIGHEST GRADE mansabdar a great privileges only reserved for Mughal Royal blood.

That's why Indians were appointed as Governors of empire in Lahore and kabul

Man Singh I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By your logic Sikhs can't claim ancient IVC because their history started with guru Nanak? In the 1400/1500's, oh sorry they didn't exist before?

[QUOTE="save_ghenda, post: 7077941, member: 158989"]They don't laugh actually, in fact now they have started to separate Pakistan from Indian history thanks to our efforts. Indian now mean ganga land, south india, etc When they talk about indus valley history they always mention Pakistan. Most of Indian history is relatively recent phenomena, after aryans invaded and conquered India in last 2500 years or so. They formed empires in fertile lands of South Asia and ruled over their low caste slaves in east India, central india south india etc.

So when Indians have to look further back they come back crawling to IVC. Basically India is only country who's history start with another country, mehergarh in Balochistan.[/QUOTE]
No Bakchodi. Post concrete links to prove acceptence of Pakistani fake propaganda by international bodies.
The article says it all, the point of thread is or you to refute, but the level or lack of intellect on your part means you won't go beyond ad hominem attacks
 
.
Mughals conquered you and forcefully converted you, have some shame ****.


Have you ever produced an empire, yes or no?
Mehrgarh, Gandhara, IVC were ancient civilisations empires if not what were they?


Lol other than 100 years of maurya rule, no bharati laid foot on The area that is now Pakistan. Why are you so desperate to prove your empires credentials and why are hindutvas desperately trying to forge and fraud links to the great Indus Valley civilisations. Fact is IVC was there in our land 2000 Years before any of the states you have mentioned above, Harappa and mohenjadaro were there flourishing while your 'empires' were busy hunting and gathering berries and picking nits of each other


By your logic Sikhs can't claim ancient IVC because their history started with guru Nanak? In the 1400/1500's, oh sorry they didn't exist before?[/QUOTE]
And why not IVC was not exclusive to present day Pakistan "region" of indian subcontinent[/QUOTE]

You know when someone's lost an argument they start with insults. Reported.
 
. .
It's not an article, it's an extract from a comprehensive book, By an eminent scholar get your facts right. And the rest of what you wrote is gobbledygook, learn to write coherent sentences that's all that I can hope from you as clearly refuting the thread would be beyond you.


Read previous posts it's getting boring now, Pakistan is an acronym for Punjab Sind afghania etc India is your slave name


Clearly not, otherwise we wouldn't be posting here, ancient Ivc belongs to us, come and claim it if you can

What's more pathetic is your crying about something you have zero knowledge, who mentioned Dravidians? And IVC ppl just got up and vanished? Keep dreaming it's our land our history our geography you have to live with it



I agree to an extent what your saying however 60-70 years of disowning our history is a small drop in an ocean of antiquity if you look at the bigger picture. People are waking up, No body is blaming Indians for being opportunists. Rgveda was written in IVC, and all the Hindu stuff in your last paragraph, there's no evidence harrapans were Hindus. Hinduism is a British term, Santana dharma is anything and nothing.



looks like you never been to Delhi, it is Pakistan!
Mughals conquered you and forcefully converted you, have some shame ****.


Have you ever produced an empire, yes or no?[/QUOTE]
Mehrgarh, Gandhara, IVC were ancient civilisations empires if not what were they?


Lol other than 100 years of maurya rule, no bharati laid foot on The area that is now Pakistan. Why are you so desperate to prove your empires credentials and why are hindutvas desperately trying to forge and fraud links to the great Indus Valley civilisations. Fact is IVC was there in our land 2000 Years before any of the states you have mentioned above, Harappa and mohenjadaro were there flourishing while your 'empires' were busy hunting and gathering berries and picking nits of each other


By your logic Sikhs can't claim ancient IVC because their history started with guru Nanak? In the 1400/1500's, oh sorry they didn't exist before?


The article says it all, the point of thread is or you to refute, but the level or lack of intellect on your part means you won't go beyond ad hominem attacks[/QUOTE]
dude. I just asked a simple valid question. Now he dint respond. You do it plz. Please post credible source to prove world has accepted Pakistani version of crap as that person claimed. Do it and I will shut up. Post the links of international summits where existing theory of Sub continent history same as Indian ancient history, refuted.

Why all such stories start in Pakistan and die within Pakistani borders?
 
Last edited:
.
What a rubbish, The Entire region East of Indus is called India.

When Vasco de Gama set sail to find India he did not land in Karachi, he landed in Souther part of India.

Look at the dates jahil, de Gama was before or after the Greeks and Darius? The Op is talking about what India meant durings its origin and you bring up what Euros thought it means hundreds of years later lmao.

Just as the Romans, Phoenicians traded spices with South India. None of them even went to Karachi, they were not looking for sand; they were looking for spices! :lol:

Another jahil, the op is talking about what India meant when it was first recorded in history. It is well known that during the time of Alexander and everything preceding him when anybody referred to Ind or hind they were referencing Sindh, modern day Pakistan. It was only during the end of Alexander empire and beginning of the Seleucid empire that it denoted anything east of Pakistan. For example even Indonesia was considered India and was called the East Indies. Which is why people wrongly say Columbus was looking for a route to India but in actuality he was trying to get to the East Indies or modern day Indonesia.

For starters in the history of Ancient India, the following passages from various Greek chronicles and travel logs are strictly recommended before coming into any hilarious hypothesis.

Ancient India @Megasthenes

India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile. The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000. Being thus of such vast extent, it seems well-nigh to embrace the whole of the northern tropic zone of the earth, and in fact at the extreme point of India the gnomon of the sundial may frequently be observed to cast no shadow, while the constellation of the Bear is by night invisible, and in the remotest parts even Arcturus disappears from view. Consistently with this, it is also stated that shadows there fall to the southward

Ancient India @Arrian

But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world; Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months' journey. Megasthenes would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point. The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name.

Ancient India @Plutarch

As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed
their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was •thirty-two furlongs, its depth •a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. 3 For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
.........................................................................................................................................................

From the above passages, what is the only thing obvious here? The answer is quite simple. The Greek records of ancient India did not merely stop at Indus basin. The further they advanced, their idea of geographical India became gradually more transparent. The Greek expression of the territory beyond East of Indus was strictly a geography called 'India'. just as anything beyond East of Aegean sea was Asia whose eastern limits were yet to be explored by them.

https://ia600501.us.archive.org/18/...ribedByMegasthenesAndArrianByMccrindleJ.W.pdf

The others I can understand for they are dumb as shit but you are far more inteligent. What you have written is 100 percent correct that those Greeks you mentioned considered parts east of the Indus basin as India as well but and this is the main point, the author in the op is talking about history even earlier than the men you have mentioned. There is no doubt that in the time of Alexander and Darius before him Hind and later Ind referenced parts of modern Pakistan only, because as stated in the OP the Persians did not consider there to be anything further east and what the Greeks of the era knew pf those regions came from their interactions with Persians. In fact Alexander did not know there were further kingdoms east until he had arrived in the region himself and it was under his successor the Selecids that anything further east was added as a part of "India". That of course meant all lands east which as I mentioned before included places like Indonesia which were referred to as the East Indies.
 
.
This is the problem. These Indian's are failing to comprehend that just because the name India has been around for a long time does not mean it is the same India they belong to or for that matter the one the British made.

I have said it before and I will bring this simple example again. If my name was Alexander it does not mean I am Alexander Fleming or Alexander the Great. In the same way India in 500BC meant differant than it did later. These people keep on shifting from one timeframe to another.

Frankly the main thing we are here is to educate our own people in our history. Even if Lord Shiva came and tried to tell these Indian's they would not agree. so let us just spen our effort on our own people and once slowly move on to the international community.

I am going to approach some Chinese and see if we can get their help to spread the word in China because I am sure they will be interested in our Buddhist Gandhara and Taxila.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom