Did Ancient Pakistanis Defeated The Mighty Alexander The Great.,

[notsuperstitious]

Yes Purushottam won the war if ancient Pakistan existed.

 

[GUNNER]

Hell....I appoint you to make the deal with the Pakistanis for giving up Mogul history for the little bump in the road for Alexander....mountains out of molehills.... LOL!

If only it were so easy. The Moguls are part of the history of the land which is now Pakistan and India. But so are people like Abdullah Bhatti who stood up against them.

A few posts aren't gonna change this fact or how history will be written.

 

[Rain]

Whether we like it or not Pakistanis and north indians share a long history. some time our fav leaders were on same side and some time they were cutting eachothers' throats yet all of them are our history and we should be proude of history.

 

[SnIPeR Xr]

after so many pages is india still india or ancient pakistan?

India is still india but it was not still india 5000years back.

The term India is used by modern history tellers to describe the history of that ancient region which was at that time called HINDUSTAN
And it is used only to refer to that region.
It does not means that at that time there was a country india.

There was no india.This term is only used by modern history tellers to refer ANCIENT hindustan.

But this word has evolved into its modern form HINDUSTAN from many ancient names used by ancient civilizations to describe south asian region.
And those words describe the religion followed by south asians that was hinduism.

Those names were YINDU named by chinese civilization.

The word Y shows its affection to the chinese language.

The word YINDU is derived from HINDU and this word have nothing to do with term india.

So far India have gained succes to mislead world with the word India that it describes the ancient Hindustan.
But this is not the case.
This effort was made in order to claim all the history of south asia.

All the people of south asia at that time were hindus.

Those people include modern day Indopak bangladesh,nepal burma,bhutan,srilanka and maldives.

All of those people were hindus at that time.

Later on some people changed thier religion but how does it implies that they dont have any right on the history of their ancestors?

If a christian is living in a certain part of srilanka.
But his Ancestors were hindus and rulers of that part in which he is living.
His hindu ancestors made mandiirs temples and ,many other buildings in that part.
But a certain event changed all the hindus of that area into christians.

Does it means that now they are no more christian so all of the history of that area no more belongs to them and it is not their history.

Now hindus of other parts of srilanka should claim all of those history,buildings,traditions just because they are hindus even when they didn't stepped in that area and didn't took a bit in develping those buildings or even their happens no such event or any kind of relation or mutual interaction b/w the people of that area and those hindus who are claiming on it.

How is that logical????



Does history starts from religion???
Does change in religion vanishes all the history of a person???
If a person chages his religion but his ancestors are following the same old old religion,Does it means that those people are no longer ancestor of that person??
Does it means that, from the time when he changed his religion that person no longer have any Father,mother,sister,brother,uncle aunt???

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

By the way, can anybody tell me
How Alexander beat the War Elephants?

A series of videos on Alexander's Indian campaign given by some Historians.

YouTube - Battles BC-Alexander part 1/6

 

[The HBS Guy]

India is still india but it was not still india 5000years back.

The term India is used by modern history tellers to describe the history of that ancient region which was at that time called HINDUSTAN
And it is used only to refer to that region.
It does not means that at that time there was a country india.

There was no india.This term is only used by modern history tellers to refer ANCIENT hindustan.

But this word has evolved into its modern form HINDUSTAN from many ancient names used by ancient civilizations to describe south asian region.
And those words describe the religion followed by south asians that was hinduism.

Those names were YINDU named by chinese civilization.

The word Y shows its affection to the chinese language.

The word YINDU is derived from HINDU and this word have nothing to do with term india.

So far India have gained succes to mislead world with the word India that it describes the ancient Hindustan.
But this is not the case.
This effort was made in order to claim all the history of south asia.

All the people of south asia at that time were hindus.

Those people include modern day Indopak bangladesh,nepal burma,bhutan,srilanka and maldives.

All of those people were hindus at that time.

Later on some people changed thier religion but how does it implies that they dont have any right on the history of their ancestors?

If a christian is living in a certain part of srilanka.
But his Ancestors were hindus and rulers of that part in which he is living.
His hindu ancestors made mandiirs temples and ,many other buildings in that part.
But a certain event changed all the hindus of that area into christians.

Does it means that now they are no more christian so all of the history of that area no more belongs to them and it is not their history.

Now hindus of other parts of srilanka should claim all of those history,buildings,traditions just because they are hindus even when they didn't stepped in that area and didn't took a bit in develping those buildings or even their happens no such event or any kind of relation or mutual interaction b/w the people of that area and those hindus who are claiming on it.

How is that logical????



Does history starts from religion???
Does change in religion vanishes all the history of a person???
If a person chages his religion but his ancestors are following the same old old religion,Does it means that those people are no longer ancestor of that person??
Does it means that, from the time when he changed his religion that person no longer have any Father,mother,sister,brother,uncle aunt???

The most ancient name of the country/region/land was 'Bharat/Bharatvarsh'

The mention of these words can be found in ancient hindu scriptures which are dated to be thousands of year old.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

One interesting point to note here is,this whole thing about claiming Raja Paurava's nationality in modern context is similar to the conundrum the Greeks and Macedonians fight on.

Whether Alexander was Macedonian or Greek?

 

[SnIPeR Xr]

The history of those hindus who were living in Bangladesh at certian time and were ruling on it.
But after the change of religion the hindus of india cannot claim that the Hindu History of Muslim bangladesh is ours.

That history is still bangladesh's history and the Hindu ancestors of bangladesh are still ancestors of Muslim bangladeshis.

Hindus living in india cannot claim on the ancestors of bangladesh just on the basis of religion.

When they dont have similar DNA or race,how They can claim on ancestors of any people.

The claim based on religion will not change their DNA to that of those hindu ancestors of bangladesh.


Simiarly the history of hindu ancestors of modern nepal is the history of people of nepal no matter what religion they follow.

The history of hindu ancestors of bhutan people is their history.

The history of ancestors of Pakistani people who were living and ruling the territories of modern Pakistan are ancestors of Pakistanis and their History Should be Included in Pakistan's history.

No other country can claim on their history as the history of that country.

Only in some cases we can say that the two countries or territories can share certain events or time period or a thing.

Such as if a group of people migrated from Modern India to Modern Bangladesh in ancient times.
They lived their for a while but after that they returned back to india.

The events that took place in the lives of those people in the part of Modern day bangladesh is part of their history and also of the History of Modern Bangladesh and modern India.

The place of the history of those people in Bangladesh history is that they arrived here they lived here the did this & this and then they returned back.

The history of lives of those people while on Bangladesh is mutually shared by both countries.

But it is bounded to the fact that IF such event took place.
I think many of us understands the meaning of word IF.







If POURUS our ancestor was hero of the Battle of Hydapsis then AMBHI our ancestor a villain is also our ancestor,fore father
Nomatter what he did was good or bad.He was our ancestor.

Similarly Raja dahir was our Ancestor.

The Role of MBQ is just like a role of a policeman who came to rescue us from cruelity of our forefather and our Family member.
We are thankful to him for his kind work and for what good he has for us.

He is just an outside reformer.
He is part of our history as a policeman who at a certain time arrived in our lives and played a role in changing our lives.

 

[justanobserver]

Hindus living in india cannot claim on the ancestors of bangladesh just on the basis of religion.

When they dont have similar DNA or race,how They can claim on ancestors of any people.

The Indians living in West Bengal are the same race, same DNA, same culture same language as the Bangladeshis

Compared to "ancient Pakistani' an Ancient 'Bengali' identity exists, as the Pala and Sena dynasties were essential Bengali (with capitals in Modern day West Bengal and Bangladesh)

btw according to recent studies, all people of the subcontinent (east of the Indus and the Southern most point in Sri Lanka) are more or less the same (genetically)

Simiarly the history of hindu ancestors of modern nepal is the history of people of nepal no matter what religion they follow.

It's the history of the Indian subcontinent. eg: Buddha was born in Nepal, but he got enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree in Gaya (Bihar in present day India).

History is shared by the people of the Indian (why are you guys allergic to this word?) subcontinent

 

[MYSTIC]

Indians are not against the idea of shared history. It is several Pakistanis that think India and Pakistan have always been different regions. India, Pakistan, Srilanka, Burma, Nepal, Banglasdesh were all once India. Where the Persian empire ended India started.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Pakistan is founded on the two nation theory.

The concept of nation may not be the same as ancestry. Jinnah was the grandson of a Hindu Gujarati named Poonja Gokuldas Meghji.

However, changing the religion meant changing not only the nationality, but also the CIVILIZATION.

It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.


Muhammad Ali Jinnah's All India Muslim League Presidential Address delivered at Lahore, on March 22–23, 1940

Two-Nation Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SnIPeR Xr]

It was given back the original Marathi name.. which was used in 16th and 17 th century

The word MUMBAI was never used before 1992-3.

This word evolved from several names:

The name Mumbai is an eponym, derived from Mumba or Maha-Amba—the name of the Koli goddess Mumbadevi—and Aai, "mother" in Marathi.

The oldest known names for the city are Kakamuchee and Galajunkja; these are sometimes still used.Ali Muhammad Khan, in the Mirat-i-Ahmedi (1507) referred to the city as Manbai. In 1508, Portuguese writer Gaspar Correia used the name Bombaim, in his Lendas da Índia ("Legends of India"). This name possibly originated as the Old Portuguese phrase bom baim, meaning "good little bay", and Bombaim is still commonly used in Portuguese. In 1516, Portuguese explorer Duarte Barbosa used the name Tana-Maiambu: Tana appears to refer to the adjoining town of Thane and Maiambu to Mumbadevi.


The temple of local Hindu goddess Mumbadevi, after whom the city of Mumbai derives its name.Other variations recorded in the 16th and the 17th centuries include: Mombayn (1525), Bombay (1538), Bombain (1552), Bombaym (1552), Monbaym (1554), Mombaim (1563), Mombaym (1644), Bambaye (1666), Bombaiim (1666), Bombeye (1676), and Boon Bay (1690).[19][21] After the British gained possession of the city in the 17th century, the Portuguese name was officially anglicised as Bombay.

Sounds ridiculous

Very rediculos.
Similar to this:

Originally Posted by aristocrat
What in the name of god is ancient pakistan??First time the word pakistan was ever used was in 1940's.

 

[The HBS Guy]

The word MUMBAI was never used before 1992-3.

Oops! Looks like some people never read the replies to their posts:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/1255370-post78.html

 

[Rig Vedic]

We have to understand the process whereby a Hindu Gujarati named Poonja Gokuldas Meghji belonged to one civilization, whereas his grandson Jinnah belonged to a completely different and conflicting civilization.

 

[Rafi]

I again reiterate that the IVC is distinct from bharat which is the civilization of modern india, plus the culture and history of modern Pakistan is also distinct from modern india, except to indian Punjabis who are about 3% of the population.

The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books

Synopsis
Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age. It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.

This book in its brilliant and well thought out thesis destroys the myth of a "india" it explains that through out history the Indus Saga is distinct from bharat.