I think to some extent both you and stealth are correct, though Stealth's answer is probably closer to the reasoning behind such a stance - that the Pakistanis do consider themselves to be distinct from "Indians". I think Aryan at one time pointed out that there perhaps is no such thing as one Indian culture, it is an amalgamation of the myriad peoples and cultures that exist in modern India, as it has always been. And the same to an extent can be said about modern Pakistan, and if you were to look at that amalgamation - Pakistan does not, anymore, have two very large influences of Bengali and South Indian culture (which it never did). So to some extent perhaps the "distinctness" idea is not far off.
I think Punjab and Sindh of Pakistan has a lot in common with North India. However, I'll agree that the western parts of pakistan tend to match more closely with Afghan/central asian culture.
There definitely is such a thing called an Indian culture, as contrasted with other cultures of the world. However, there are numerous variations between indian culture with no clear dividing lines between two cultures.
Most reputable history scholars may use the term India with the proper context in mind i.e. the region of South Asia or "ancient India". As RR pointed out in another thread, the term India was initially used to describe the regions that comprise modern day Pakistan initially. For hundreds of years that is what India was, and the term was expanded to cover more and more of the sub-continent as it was discovered. Today's India never existed until Nehru decide to name it "India". But there is no getting around the fact that in modern day lingo "India" refers to the modern Indian State, and unfortunately less informed Indians (leave alone non-South Asians) will interpret anything described as "Indian" to mean modern India.
that is not entirely true. The Romans had contact with South India quite early, and they too referred to the area as some variation of "India".
Moreover, India was considered the land beyond the Indus. The lands towards the west of the Indus were not considered as "India" (perhaps including a thin line of the Indus flood plane on the west)
By the start of the CE era, the term "India" was applied to the entire subcontinent, as has been discussed on earlier threads, so no need to go there again.
Unfortunately or Fortunately, the term "Ancient India" will most likely always be used to describe the history of the subcontinent for convenience, since its cumbersome to name each country, and the term "South Asia" is quite vague.
This is precisely because there is no clear-cut division between the two countries in history.
A better term would be "Indian Subcontinent", which is also quite acceptable to all (except to Pakistan). Frankly, I've never seen a Sri Lankan, Nepali, Bangladeshi or Bhutanese complain about it.
Successive Pakistani governments are culpable in this, they have allowed our history to be forgotten, and the Mullah's have helped to erase association with our "non-Muslim" past, and are still trying (as evident from the MMA's oppostition to the new curriculum). The idea may have been that the existence of the Pakistani state might be strengthened by tying us all into Islam (foolish idea when you look at the inter Muslim tension the world over), rather than tying us all into our shared past (pakistanis only) of the Indus Valley civilization, that stretched into Afghanistan (and Stealth argues, the Gangetic plains as well) etc. That shared history, along with Islam (if they must) is a much stronger bond IMO than religion alone.
I'd agree with that. However, there is no need to take the other extreme and try to disconnect all historical bonds with the region east of Radcliffe's line.
We could have approached the Indians and argued in favor of more neutral terminology to describe our shared history, but then the question needs to be asked, why would the Indian govt. agree? They win by sticking to the status quo, as the description of all this history as "Indian" (never mind the contextual use) furthers the image and brand of "Modern India".
How do you know? Has any Pakistani agency officially approached the govt. of India?
In the absence of any mutual understanding, I don't think Pakistanis have much choice but to fight for and delineate what the consider their history (shared or not) and brand it "Pakistani". Its not stealing, its reclaiming.
He probably would be shocked at being called an Indian too - wouldn't he identify himself with whatever Kingdom, civilization, peoples he was part of at the time?
I agree. He would probably associate himself with his caste or tribe, and his native village (and he did, by mentioning his hometown in his mathematical text).
However, since there are attempts to brand him a Pakistani, I have no choice but to counter that claim.
There are some who argue that Pakistan gave up its right to its non-islamic heritage by creating an islamic state in the region.
These people are those who see this from the point of view of a "clash of civlilzations", i.e. the Hindu/Buddhist one versus the Islamic one.
They see Pakistan as a land that has been lost to the Islamic side.
This is the "Hindutva" view.
If Pakistan had accepted its non-islamic past at the start itself, then perhaps there would never have been this problem.
I suppose its too late now.
In the minds of a lot of Indians, the score is Islam-1, India-0. And now its time for India to score a goal. Not by military means, but by using something much more powerful: Brains.
Most unfortunate, but that's what it is.
Heard of V.S. Naipaul, the Nobel Prize winning author? He is one of those people who is thinking in these terms: A thousand year war between the land of the Hindus and the land of Islam. He is one of those people who lend intellectual credibility to the Hindutva movement.
Let us see what happens. Cos it sure ain't gonna be a boring match.
"
