Can Bangladesh be East Pakistan again?

[Flintlock]

Urdu is ultimately simplified Sanskrit with Persian and Arabic loanwords. Hindi is the same simplified Sanskrit with more Bharati loanwords. The grammar of each is somewhat similar to Sanskrit, but very different nonetheless. In fact there are some people who believe, with strong evidence I must say, that both Hindi and Urdu are derived from Saurseni Prakrit. So it's as much forgotten from both countries I would say, though Sanskrit was developed in Northern Pakistan.

I don't know much about the origins of Hindi and Urdu, but what I can say for sure is that Sanskrit isn't forgotten in India. It is spoken by the Brahmins and used extensively in rituals.
Also, Sanskrit is taught as a subject in most Indian schools. As far as Pakistani is concerned, yes, the earlier hindu-buddhist culture was completely forgotten.

Sanskrit is a highly complicated language. Hindi and Urdu are easy in comparison.

I hope you are kidding. Sanskrit is the easiest language to learn, simply because its the most logical.

 

[roadrunner]

I don't know much about the origins of Hindi and Urdu, but what I can say for sure is that Sanskrit isn't forgotten in India. It is spoken by the Brahmins and used extensively in rituals.
Also, Sanskrit is taught as a subject in most Indian schools. As far as Pakistani is concerned, yes, the earlier hindu-buddhist culture was completely forgotten.

There never was a Hindu culture in Pakistan. Buddhist culture was there though. Sanskrit is not spoken much in India. I don't know how many people speak it, but it's a very small minority.

I hope you are kidding. Sanskrit is the easiest language to learn, simply because its the most logical.

No. Sanskrit is much more complicated than Hindi or Urdu. Sanskrit is an 8 case language, Hindi is a 2 case one. This makes Sanskrit much more richer than the other two languages, much more descriptive. Something like nominative, vocative, datives, accusative, instrumental, genitive, locative, ablative, versus the Hindi oblique and dative description of nouns. There's no comparison in the complexity of the two.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

RR,

If what you have written is correct, then I feel that you have educated me.

I have no clue in this field and so I shall await your posts on this issue to learn more.

Thank you!

 

[Flintlock]

Incorrect my wiki brainwashed fellow. Brahmagupta studied in Gujerat, but was born in Multan, Pakistan. His descendants would be from somewhere within the region of Pakistan, and probably converted to Islam in the 13th century. He also was not a Hindu.

Lol....I wonder how hard you had to dig to find a french website describing him born in Multan!!

The closest link I've found is one saying that he was born in Ujjain or Bhilamal and possibly a native of Sindh.

Also, he lived in the 6th and 7th centuries, and was a devout Hindu. He studied and did his work at the famous astronomical school at Ujjain.

This really is the difference is it not? Pakistanis don't try and claim Bharati scientists such as Bhaskara, but Indians, such as yourself try and leech all the great ancient scientists from the region of Pakistan, because they are greater than those from Bharat. You guys can have Bhaskara. He was from Bijapur, South India, and was a Tamil. However, Brahmagupta, the founder of the counting system and modern mathematics was from Pakistan. This is undeniably true from my links.

There is nothing to Leech. Brahmagupta is understood to have been born in India, and did all his work within the boundaries of modern India.

By the slimmest chance that he was a migrant from Sindh, or that his ancestors were from sindh, it makes little or no difference.

 

[Flintlock]

There never was a Hindu culture in Pakistan. Buddhist culture was there though. Sanskrit is not spoken much in India. I don't know how many people speak it, but it's a very small minority.

Really? I wonder then what the Guptas did when they ruled over the areas of Pakistan?

Punjab was predominantly Hindu with Buddhist minorities, before the Islamic invasions.

What about the Rajputs?

Forgot about the Vedic Religion?

Try looking at the geography of the Mahabharata for a start.

As far as Sanskrit is concerned, it is spoken mainly by priests and scholars, but rarely used by the common person.

No. Sanskrit is much more complicated than Hindi or Urdu. Sanskrit is an 8 case language, Hindi is a 2 case one. This makes Sanskrit much more richer than the other two languages, much more descriptive. Something like nominative, vocative, datives, accusative, instrumental, genitive, locative, ablative, versus the Hindi oblique and dative description of nouns. There's no comparison in the complexity of the two.

For a beginner, Sanskrit is a lot simpler and easier to learn than any other language. I myself experienced this when learning the language in middle school.
However, it is clumsy for everyday use, and like all artificial languages, is rarely used by the majority.

 

[roadrunner]

Lol....I wonder how hard you had to dig to find a french website describing him born in Multan!!

The closest link I've found is one saying that he was born in Ujjain or Bhilamal and possibly a native of Sindh.

Also, he lived in the 6th and 7th centuries, and was a devout Hindu. He studied and did his work at the famous astronomical school at Ujjain.

I can quote many more creditable websites. That French one was from Strasbourg University. You, so far, have not quoted one. Quote me one creditable website (not Hindu/Indian in other words) that says Brahmagupta was born anywhere in modern India. Here is another book saying that Brahmagupta was a Multani Pakistani.

A History of Sanskrit Literature - Google Book Search

From "A History of Sanskrit Literature" By A. Berriedale Keith

Same thing. It says he was from Multan in that book also. So I await your links to say he was born in modern Bharat.

As for him being a Hindu, that is nonsense. If we assume that Pakistan was never Hindu (and this has to be true, given the length that Buddhism prevailed in the region), then Brahmagupta cannot have been a Hindu if he were born in central Pakistan.

There is nothing to Leech. Brahmagupta is understood to have been born in India, and did all his work within the boundaries of modern India.

Provide one neutral link, such as the Strasbourg University one, that says Brahmagupta was born anywhere in modern Inda. No wiki links, which are your favourite.

By the slimmest chance that he was a migrant from Sindh, or that his ancestors were from sindh, it makes little or no difference.

He doesnt have anything to do with Sindh. Multan is not in Sindh!!

 

[roadrunner]

Really? I wonder then what the Guptas did when they ruled over the areas of Pakistan?

Punjab was predominantly Hindu with Buddhist minorities, before the Islamic invasions.

What about the Rajputs?

Forgot about the Vedic Religion?

Try looking at the geography of the Mahabharata for a start.

As far as Sanskrit is concerned, it is spoken mainly by priests and scholars, but rarely used by the common person.

Get one thing straight. Vedism and Hinduism are two completely different religions, contradictory to one another. Rig Vedism was Pakistan's religion, Hinduism is Bharats. The Mahabharata has nothing to do with the Rig Veda.

What about the Rajputs? They are an ETHNIC GROUP!

Not sure what you mean about the Guptas. During the height of the Gupta Empire, Pakistan was ruled by the Kushans and Sassanians. Not once did Samudragupta dare enter the Indus basin.

For a beginner, Sanskrit is a lot simpler and easier to learn than any other language. I myself experienced this when learning the language in middle school.
However, it is clumsy for everyday use, and like all artificial languages, is rarely used by the majority.

Perhaps you're a bit strange then, I don't know. But Sanskrit is much more complex than Hindi. I've given the evidence for this.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

What does the word Rajput mean?

Raj -put?

Ethnic?

 

[Logic note]

The term ethnic means of or pertaining to a group of people recognized as a class on the basis of certain distinctive characteristics such as religion, language, ancestry, culture or national origin.

The Khastriyas are also called as Rajput or thakur and they are not an ethnic group

Not sure what you mean about the Guptas. During the height of the Gupta Empire, Pakistan was ruled by the Kushans and Sassanians. Not once did Samudragupta dare enter the Indus basin.

Lol you have taken this Partition Mentality , too far . Kushana s are the part if ancient Indian History and The Kushan Empire (c. 1st–3rd centuries) was a state that at its cultural zenith, circa 105–250 CE, extended from what is now Tajikistan to Afghanistan, Pakistan and down into the Ganges river valley in northern India.

 

[roadrunner]

The term ethnic means of or pertaining to a group of people recognized as a class on the basis of certain distinctive characteristics such as religion, language, ancestry, culture or national origin.

The Khastriyas are also called as Rajput or thakur and they are not an ethnic group

This is getting really silly. Rajputs have their own culture (Rajput traditions), their own language (Rajasthani), and claim to have their own ancetry (though they look South Indian in many cases to me).

I'm not the only one to call them ethnics.

"Current knowledge of odontometric variation among the people of south Asia is limited, yet variation in tooth size has the potential to answer important questions regarding genetic relationships among contemporary social groups. Here, we report tooth crown diameters for 3 ethnic groups (Bhils, Garasias, Rajputs) from Gujarat State"
Odontometry and biological affinity in south Asia:...[Hum Biol. 1993] - PubMed Result

Interesting website - Independant Rajputstan RAJPUTANA LIBERATION FRONT (RLF)

Lol you have taken this Partition Mentality , too far . Kushana s are the part if ancient Indian History and The Kushan Empire (c. 1st–3rd centuries) was a state that at its cultural zenith, circa 105–250 CE, extended from what is now Tajikistan to Afghanistan, Pakistan and down into the Ganges river valley in northern India.

The Kushan Empire was not an Indian Empire. If it had to be allotted to one of today's country's it would either be Afghanistan or Pakistan. That is where the driving force behind the Kushan rule lay. The part of Bharat that were conquered by the Kushans were just colonies of the Kushans..they were not the driving force behind the Kushans.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

I think i have lost my way in PK defence forum moderators !

I thought i was in Can Bangladesh be east Pakistan again?.

But it seems i am ending up in Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis!

Can any one of you guide me....