@ LoveIcon, @ Oscar
O Bhai Log please understand the context here. Khan A. Sufyan is only highlighting the historical context of events and happenings and is certainly not explaining the religiosity of religions. This is a very important point to understand here.
In many cases the religious scriptures are used to ascertain the historical events or happenings, as contemporary historical record of a particular era may not be available. The historians and analysts have been doing this since long and have related the happenings with explanations given in religious scriptures of various religions. This form of historical referencing has been practiced by renowned historians or historical analysts all over the world.
History of Republic of India has been related to references made in the Rig Veda, the epic Mahabharata and other Vedic and Hindu scriptures. The biblical referencing of historical events, the timelines of the eras of various Prophets and other related historical events are referenced to cite history of the era. So is the case with Islam and other religions. This is not related to religiosity in any manner – it is related to explanation of history and conduct of historical analyses.
In the papers written by Khan A. Sufyan, he does the same. The Indian historians and many westerners relate the happenings of IVC era with Rig Veda and other Vedic scriptures and cite references from it. This has been done as history of the era is vague and is not known in entirety. Khan A. Sufyan is probably one of those few if not the first one, who have cited references from Abrahamic description of timelines and happenings. Why was it not done before – there can be many reasons which could be highlighted but this is not under discussion here.
The problem here is that because he mentions monotheism, which is the primary Abrahamic propagation, he is being accused of a bias. When the same thing is being propagated by the Indians and westerners citing the Vedic/Hindu scriptures like Rig Veda and Mahabharata, it is accepted as a norm – why is this so. Probably because he is a Muslim and is from Pakistan. And probably because there is a so-called Muslim Terrorism cycle underway, everything and anything of historical value cited by a Muslim and a Pakistani is viewed and coloured with a bias. He has been slighted by westerners by being called **** and in search of a homeland that never was.
Contrarily, he is using the Abrahamic explanation of events and highlighting a purely historical happening which has never been analysed before in the manner he did. Instead of appreciating his research efforts, we accuse him of being a ****, because he is the only one who is challenging the earlier held historical non-facts. He has mentioned in both the papers that I cited, that historically, the people of Pakistan during various times were monotheists, Vedic/Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims etc. I wonder if the mention of Muslim hurt some so much.
When I read Khan A. Sufyan mentioning Jinnah’s interviews, I read a book which had compilation of Quaid e Azam’s interviews given to foreign journalists. In one such interview he explained the geopolitical importance of Pakistan. This interview was taken before the creation of Pakistan. It was an eye opener for me. He could not have given his vision if he was not aware of history in so much detail. And his vision of Pakistan’s geopolitical importance is remarkably true to this day as well – and it could not have been ascertained without the kind of understanding of history that Jinnah had with regard to the inherent separate identity of this land of ours.
The sense and spirit of history can only be understood if it is viewed and seen in continuity and not in isolation. All events are related to earlier happenings. After all, there were people who lived in the land we call Pakistan before the advent of Islam. Who were these people and how does the history relate to the present in essence and continuity, is at the heart of all this.
You may not agree with me, please don’t. But please do not under-rate historical prevalence of the fact that this land of our, whatever we call it – Meluhha, Pakistan or any other name – it remained as a separate political entity for major part of its over 9000 years of known continuous history and only remained as one political unit with old India for a short aberated time.
And please, appreciate those who bring such facts to life instead of resorting to historical isolationism.
