Churches burnt in India

[Flintlock]

^^^In other words, there is more attraction between hinduism and buddhsim, than there is repulsion.

 

[Vinod2070]

To prove one lie, you need to tell a thousand lies.

This claim (of an exclusive Pakistani Pre-Islamic history and all it's belabored offshoots) is not made by any serious historians AFAIK.

Even if one wants to start a new novel arguement, it needs to have a leg to stand on, not some fantastic personal opinions masqueraded as facts.

 

[roadrunner]

Hu Shih - (Former Chinese ambassador to the USA):
India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border.

He doesn't mention Pakistan here, does he?

Well, he's a diplomat, so he's probably trying to "kiss some butt" for a few favours no doubt. But it's widely accepted that the Chinese form of Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism was developed in Pakistan/Afghanistan (in Gandhara). Even your own websites disagree with the Ambassador..

"Gandhara art, sculpture development, evolution of Mahayana School of Buddhism
The Buddhism flourished in these regions after the Ashoka embraced Buddhism post the war of Kalinga. There was one school called Nahayana, the smaller ferry which believed that the great Buddha will take all the followers to Nirvana. But as it has been happening to many religions of antiquity, the followers of Buddha in Pushklavati (Peshawar) and Takshala (Taxila) valley developed the sculpture to adjust with the demands of basic philosophy of Mahayana"

These valleys saw the emergence of Mahayana school of Buddhism which is the larger ferry and it said that there was possibility for many persons to get Nirvana and reach up to Buddhahood, this idea introduced the development of sculpture and taking guidance from the Maha Buddha

Chowk: Religion: Search for Origins of Mahayana Buddhism

You can read it up on several other links to. Chinese Buddhism is MAHAYAN, and this developed in Gandhara, the old name for Northern Pakistan. India is used to refer to the "Indian" people living there who were named so because they lived in the Indus Valley, that contained the Indus River system. If the Ambassador mentioned this while talking about modern Bharat, I've proved and most historians would know, that this is incorrect.

All I am saying is that there was a continuum of civilization between the two present countries. You are trying to say this happened in this part and that happened in that part as if it proves something.

A continuum exists between France and Germany, but they are different countries with the own cultures. A continuum exists between Sudan and Algeria, but the people of those two countries look completely different, and act completely different to each other. The same continuum exists between Pakistan and India as does between Afghanistan and Pakistan, or Iran and Pakistan. Soon, each continuum is replaced with another one, and that is what becomes history. The only similairy is that Pakistan and India can be described as the subcontinent, as Algeria and Sudan can be described as Africa, or France and Germany can be described as Europe.

Budhdhism originated and developed in India and took off from there all around. So it is an Indian religion. Specific forms of it may have developed in different places of India (that included even Gandhara then). That doesn't take anything away.

Buddhism was developed by a Nepali, and this was mainly developed by the Gandhrans of Pakistan to form Mahayana Buddhism and many other versions including the tantrics. India's only connection is that a minor form of Buddhism was developed in South India, and that after Asoka's reign quite a few Buddhists were slaughtered indiscriminately in the Gangetic plains of modern India from where they went to Pakistan (the Gandhara region) seeking refuge. I would say you're twisting history. Buddhism was never accepted in the Gangetic region.

Let's try to keep it civil. If we can't, let's end it RIGHT HERE. I may not agree with your opinions but I don't call them names as you are doing here. You have kept things civil in many discussions till now, hope the same can continue. We are trying to have a dispassionate discussion.

You don't call my opinions names because i'm not the one trying to steal Bharat's history! You're trying to steal Pakistan's which is probably why I call your theories ridiculous, which they are.

Every country and people has a history. French history includes Gaulic civilization, a different name, but you try and convince a frenchman Gaulic history is not part of French history. In the same way, Gandharan history is part of Pakistani history.

India referred to all the lands east of Indus, not just to the current Pakistani parts.

That's not true. India referred to the Indus Valley where the Indus River is. India was known to the outside world by the Greeks, who, until 300 BC believed the land of modern India to be a desolate empty land. India, was their name for Pakistan. It's discussed on another thread.

The Gangetic planes were always a part of it. Whenever the foreigners came in contact with South India, it was always called India. So, pl. get over this constant falsehood.

Well that's bullshyt. The Gangetic plains only became part of "India" from 300 BC onwards, in the eyes of the Greeks. For 3,000 years before this, India was Pakistan.

A map of Bharat in Mahabharat times:

Does it include Pakistan or no? Stop creating this false distinction between India and Bharat. Bharat always included the areas called Pakistan now.

That is a map based on a religious (Hindu) scripture. It includes Pakistan because Pakistan contains the most sacred river of the Rig Veda, the Indus River. This does not mean that Pakistan was a part of India, just what the fundamentalist Indians believe to be their rightful property. Hands off!

The rest of you post does not prove that Budhdhism is not an Indian religion. Three of the first four Islamic caliphs were killed in Arabia. Hussain was killed in the most vile way. So many Muslims were persecuted and murdered in Arabia. Does it stop making Islam an Arabic religion?

The difference here is that the Islamic caliphs were killed for greed by other Muslims, the Buddhists were slaughtered by a completely different religious group, for simply worshipping a non Hindu religion. One is greed, the other Hindu fascism.

 

[roadrunner]

To prove one lie, you need to tell a thousand lies.

This claim (of an exclusive Pakistani Pre-Islamic history and all it's belabored offshoots) is not made by any serious historians AFAIK.

Even if one wants to start a new novel arguement, it needs to have a leg to stand on, not some fantastic personal opinions masqueraded as facts.

Not sure what you mean here. ALL of Pakistan's pre-Islamic history belongs to Pakistan, and Pakistan ONLY. Every historian would acknowledge this, and admit that in this case when they mention India in the historical sense, it means Pakistan.

 

[Vinod2070]

Not sure what you mean here. ALL of Pakistan's pre-Islamic history belongs to Pakistan, and Pakistan ONLY. Every historian would acknowledge this, and admit that in this case when they mention India in the historical sense, it means Pakistan.

No one has taken it from Pakistan except your own people. It was not India who said that Pakistani history started with Arab invasion, its your own peolple. Its not Indians who are clamoring to prove themselves as of Arab or Persian origin, it's Pakistanis. So pl. lets try to keep some perspective.

If you feel you know better than all the historians, well good luck. Why don't you get published and make the historians agree to you?

Pending that, we all need to prove a new point being made by quoting someone known as neutral and knowledgable. Fair, isn't it?

Anyway I guess you have a much tougher job selling this to your own people than to the others. So good luck for that.

I am totally underwhelmed by the kind of arguements made and opinions presented and I mean that.

I don't see the discussion moving forward and things are moving in circles.

 

[Vinod2070]

I won't bother to answer your post pointwise. Just a couple quick points.

No one is claiming the present Pakistan. No one even wants it. So rest assured about that.

In terms of civilization. Nepal is not different from India. So quoting that just shows up the kind of belabored arguemnts being made.

Indians never claim that history exclusively. Its you (Pakistanis) who alternate between the extreme swings of the pendulum. Once rejecting the history and then appropriating it.

When I said coninuum, I meant it in civilization terms. Its not questioning the present 2 or 3 countries legality. So those points are irrelevant.

I don't call you names because I want to keep the discussion civil, not because I find your arguements or opinions not ridiculous (well not always may be ).

Even if I take your argument, are the Greeks going to decide what India is or was? Does a newsweek report (now Economist too) telling something about pakistan, represent the final word?

The map was only to say that ancient Bharat included the current Pakistani areas. Its not to claim anything. You make that distinction between India and Bharat. Mahabharata is of course based in Gangetic plains with Pakistan in the periphery. Does it say something about the spread of the Indian civilization? Mahabharat represents the story of the Bharat king's dynasty, the king after whom Bharatvarsha was named.

No proof of your comments about Budhdhist slaughter. And it's you who is trying to make that distinction.

 

[Flintlock]

Look, the general consensus among historians is the Pakistan has passed from the Indian civilization into the Islamic one.

You are free to make whatever you want of the above statement, but these words carry a lot of meaning in them.

Edit: Perhaps instead of "civilization", "sphere of influence" might be a better word.

 

[roadrunner]

I won't bother to answer your post pointwise. Just a couple quick points.

No one is claiming the present Pakistan. No one even wants it. So rest assured about that.

It looks to me like Bharatvarsha nationalists do claim Pakistan even by your map.

In terms of civilization. Nepal is not different from India. So quoting that just shows up the kind of belabored arguemnts being made.

Don't know about Nepal. But Pakistan cvilizations have been different to Indian civilizations, just as Persian civilizations have been different to Pashtun civilizations.

Indians never claim that history exclusively.

That history is not yours to claim even slightly. Gandhara for example, has nothing to do with India, Mahayana Buddhism development has nothing to do with modern India, everything to do with Northwestern Pakistan/Afghanistan.

Its you (Pakistanis) who alternate between the extreme swings of the pendulum. Once rejecting the history and then appropriating it.

I never rejected Pakistan's pre-Islamic history. If you are of the opinion that most Pakistanis subscribe to Mullah history, then you're just misrepresenting Pakistani attitudes. Like I said, Pakistani history books are adding a lot more pre-Islamic history to their books now. It's obviously not a Mullahified viewpoint that all Pakistanis have.

When I said coninuum, I meant it in civilization terms. Its not questioning the present 2 or 3 countries legality. So those points are irrelevant.

All civilizations are ruled from an epicentre. Some Persian civilizations overlapped with Afghanistan, but the Pashtuns cannot claim them as their own. The driving force behind them were the Persians.

I don't call you names because I want to keep the discussion civil, not because I find your arguements or opinions not ridiculous (well not always may be ).

Even if I take your argument, are the Greeks going to decide what India is or was? Does a newsweek report (now Economist too) telling something about pakistan, represent the final word?

The Greeks have no say imo. However, you're the one bringing them up. Did you not say "Whenever the foreigners came in contact with South India, it was always called India." I just proved your quote wrong. Foreigners called Pakistan India, not Bharat.

The map was only to say that ancient Bharat included the current Pakistani areas. Its not to claim anything. You make that distinction between India and Pakistan. Mahabharata is of course based in Gangetic plains with Pakistan in the periphery. Does it say something about the spread of the Indian civilization?

No proof of your comments about Budhdhist slaughter. And it's you who is trying to make that distinction.

Mahabharata is one of Hinduism's holiest texts. It gives details on the area of Bharat, or the Holy Lands to Hindus. Unfortunately Pakistan is part of them, which is why fundamentalists will not stop until they have Pakistan in their hands. Better to stop interfering in Pakistan affairs, since over 5,000 years, you've not been able to conquer it. What difference is another 5,000 going to make?

 

[Flintlock]

That history is not yours to claim even slightly. Gandhara for example, has nothing to do with India, Mahayana Buddhism development has nothing to do with modern India, everything to do with Northwestern Pakistan/Afghanistan.

You're missing the point. Gandhara has nothing to do with modern India.

But Gandhara has everything to do with Indian civilization.

Mahabharata is one of Hinduism's holiest texts. It gives details on the area of Bharat, or the Holy Lands to Hindus. Unfortunately Pakistan is part of them, which is why fundamentalists will not stop until they have Pakistan in their hands. Better to stop interfering in Pakistan affairs, since over 5,000 years, you've not been able to conquer it. What difference is another 5,000 going to make?

RR, you have chosen the wrong enemy.

While you keep repeating that India never invaded Pakistan, you forget that Arabia has already invaded Pakistan.

Arabic "fundamentalists" got Pakistan into their hands a long time ago.

A controversial statement perhaps, but isn't it a bit like holding up a mirror?

 

[Vinod2070]

Good point Assassin.

I see a lot of confusion between modern India and Indian civilization.

The extent of that civilization was up to Combodia. The airport in Bangkok has the Samudra Manthan scene beautifully represented. They were part of Indian civilization, not part of India.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The problem that I find that is afflicting this thread is that some see red with the word "Ïndia".

As Stealth Assassin has aptly indicated, there is a lot of difference between "India" and "Ïndian civilisation".

Notwithstanding, this thread has been a great education and a fund of knowledge.

 

[Flintlock]

Central Asia was under Buddhist rule, nothing to do with Hinduism. East Asia was predominatly Buddhist ruled. Hinduism in the present form never existed there.

....I think this point has been discussed....

Well that's bulllshyt. The Islamic (Arab) conquerors just ruled the area of Pakistan for a short while in 800 AD. The Pakistanis converted mainly from the 13th century onwards. The Arabs had very little to do with Pakistan becoming Muslim.

Oh, on the contrary.

Arabs had everything to do with Pakistan becoming Muslim.

In historical terms, Islam is the religion of the Arabs.

Arabs did not have to physically rule Pakistan in order for Pakistan to become Islamic. Such is the nature of Islam.

Oh really? The Mughal Courts and armies were filled with Hindu Generals and advisors. Tell me again how Hindus had to "completely give up their own culture" to join with the Islamic leadership? It seems such fascism against India's Muslims by Hindu nationalists is worse than any under Islamic leaders of the subcontinent.

Look, try to analyze this from the a better perspective.

The British hired many hindus to run their empire. Ultimately, these people became the Pukka-Sahibs, hindu by name but english by habit.

The Mughals, being a minority, obviously could not depend on their own people to man every post.
They had to use local talent for their purposes whenever necessary.
Moreover, their armies weren't "filled" with Hindu Generals. There were necessarily a few, whenever these "hindus" agreed to serve them. Obviously as second-rate subjects.

I am not talking about a few hindu elites, but the vast majority of the hindu population, when I say that they were unable to benefit from the Mughal rule.

It took 600 years to spread into the subcontinent..that too via peaceful means.

Yes, this "peaceful" record speaks for itself.

Spanish had an Inquisition. The Muslims did not.

The Muslims are having one right now.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The same is true for you Stealth Assasin ........

Islam evolved from Arab ....... The understanding of Islam is given by Arabs and everyone must follow the Scholars of the Land that holds the house of Allah........ We need no other interpretation of Islam ......

True.

But isn't there a clause called the Ijtihad?

Does any special knowledge appear to the Scholars of the Land that holds the House of Allah that is denied to other Moslems?

With all due respect, this is neither logical nor scientific.

Such a statement indicates that the Arabs are superior in intellect than other Moslems.

If true, it is a sad commentary.

 

[roadrunner]

You're missing the point. Gandhara has nothing to do with modern India.

But Gandhara has everything to do with Indian civilization.

And this has caused confusion. Pakistanis are fed up with Indians saying there's no history to speak of of their own. It will get worse. Gandhara has nothing to do with modern India, everything to do with modern Pakistan. So it's part of Pakistani history, not Indian history in today's understanding of the word. Anything else would be confusing the issue to a poorly educated person.

RR, you have chosen the wrong enemy.

While you keep repeating that India never invaded Pakistan, you forget that Arabia has already invaded Pakistan.

Arabic "fundamentalists" got Pakistan into their hands a long time ago.

A controversial statement perhaps, but isn't it a bit like holding up a mirror?

I have no love of Arab fundamentalists, just as I have no love of Hindu fundamentalists. I think Pakistan has many enemies in the world, including some Pakistanis themselves who believe Pakistan should be a service station for other Muslim countries. This all comes from a lack of identity which you guys tried to steal. It's a duty of every Pakistani to learn their history, which is why I don't like fundamentalists or illiterates, even if they are Pakistani (or any other nationality). Some Pakistanis are just too bloody lazy to voice their opinion, and I have the same opinion of them. I think UnitedPak is doing an excellent active awareness job, one true Pakistani in my book to be proud of. He's proud of his ancestor's pre-Islamic history, as he should be.

 

[roadrunner]

ProudtobePak,

Islam has no clergy. You don't need to follow any scholar. It's not a must. In fact it is written the scholarship will get worse and worse as time goes by. That much seems true. Think it's a Hadith that says it.