First World War - Finding Pakistan's place in history.

[Nexus]

Jinnah identified himself as Gujrati.. are you saying that the founder of Pakistan was not worthy of being Pakistani?
This attitude of only identifying Pakistanis if their heritage came from the boundaries of Pakistan has to stop.. or Pakistan will not last.

Additionally, there were/are Pasthuns/decendants in India today as well. They call themsleves Indians and not Pakistanis..

It's Gujarati

 

[FaujHistorian]

If they are talking as stupid as you are now, then I will support them. Syed is mentioning the right thing. If I go by any of this mentioned in article then show me one document before 1947 where these soldiers were mentioned as Pakistani soldier.

Look it is that simple.

WW-1 celebrations were done recently.

commemorative gifts for soldiers with home addresses in modern day Pakistan, were sent to Pakistan
--- should Pakistan celebrate those commemorations? yes.
--- the likes of Syeds will say, send them to USA to his home address



commemorative gifts for soldiers with home addresses in modern day india, were sent to India
--- should India celebrate those commemorations? yes.



commemorative gifts for soldiers with home addresses in modern day Canada, were sent to Canada
--- should Canada celebrate those commemorations? yes.



commemorative gifts for soldiers with home addresses in modern day Australia, were sent to Australia
--- should Australia celebrate those commemorations? yes.

Same with New Zealand and every other British territory.



Now should an Indian burn his tail about such celebrations? If your answer is yes!

Well go ahead and do so to your tail's content.


hope you get it now.

 

[VCheng]

commemorative gifts for soldiers with home addresses in modern day Pakistan, were sent to Pakistan
--- should Pakistan celebrate those commemorations? yes.
--- the likes of Syeds will say, send them to USA to his home address

It is not the present addresses, but the fact that the commemoration was done by the State that employed the soldiers at the time of the services rendered that is more important.

 

[Trev]

Hindu khatris and rajputs are punjabis/ not pure hindus so not surprising. I am talking about real hindus who are only found around ganga river.

Anyway its shamefull you are giving excuses like that, bihari like @INDIC most be burning right now. As if its ok to beat bihari hindus haahhahahah

Yeah you are definitely high.

 

[Armstrong]

Columbus wanted to search for Maharashtra? ..and did Vasco da Gama search for Gomantaka/Goa?
Ashoka's accounts are as factually proven as the Roman or Greek accounts. Historically there is no dispute whatsoever. No historian disputes that.

Plus there were extensive Gupta and Maratha periods - which are usually not known to most Pakistanis when the nation was united.

As for the name - yes 'India' came to exist in the people's imagination only in the late 19th century and as a geopolitical entity from 1947 as Dominion of India.

But there were also elaborate descriptions of Aryavarta, Bharata, Mahabharata ... not only in myths but also in documents written, signed, and preserved by visitors, traders, scientists, poets - mentioning that. There was a consciousness regarding what was Bharat and what was not.

Quite distinct to that of 'Pakistan'.

India as a geographic entity is very different than India as a Nation-State.

Unfortunately quite a few of your compatriots have a tendency of believing that just because the names are same thus to speak of one is to speak of the other.

A historical and geographical India is to the Republic of India what the Africas and the Americas are to the United States of America and South Africa respectively; we don't see either South Africans or Americans claiming some sort of bragging rights over the entire African or North American continent as some of your compatriots do as if the citizens living on the side of the border have some sort of a first movers advantage.

Ancient India has nothing to do with the Republic of India anymore than it has anything to do with Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bhuttan, Bangladesh and perhaps even Burma, as a continuation of these things.

Its like the Bolivians claiming that just because their country is named after Simon Bolivar they somehow have the prime rights over him to the exclusion or in preference to the rest of Latin America.

So far as the Gupta, the Mughal, the British or the Marhatta Empires are concerned; their administrative unity was forged at the tip of a sword or down the barrel of a gun not because of some natural evolution of the Indian Subcontinent fast approaching the semblance of a Nation-State (even if one were to historically contextualize it).

And the romanticized notions of an Ancient Bharat are great when it comes to mythology but mythology usually makes for a poor substitute of historical evidence and ancient documentation by traders etc. doesn't substantiate the presence of a India as a cohesive unit or anything remotely similar anymore than Columbus running into Native Americans or the First Nations substantiates the existence of the Americas being inhabited by Native Americans as some sort of a disjointed country of different nations and tribes.

ON TOPIC: Even an idiot can understand that the existence of Pakistan is not the issue here anymore than the exploits of Serbia which fall in the share of Montenegro belonging to the newly created state of Montenegro is !

 

[Pride]

Look it is that simple.

WW-1 celebrations were done recently.

commemorative gifts for soldiers with home addresses in modern day Pakistan, were sent to Pakistan
--- should Pakistan celebrate those commemorations? yes.
--- the likes of Syeds will say, send them to USA to his home address



commemorative gifts for soldiers with home addresses in modern day india, were sent to India
--- should India celebrate those commemorations? yes.



commemorative gifts for soldiers with home addresses in modern day Canada, were sent to Canada
--- should Canada celebrate those commemorations? yes.



commemorative gifts for soldiers with home addresses in modern day Australia, were sent to Australia
--- should Australia celebrate those commemorations? yes.

Same with New Zealand and every other British territory.



Now should an Indian burn his tail about such celebrations? If your answer is yes!

Well go ahead and do so to your tail's content.


hope you get it now.

Apart from your bold idiotic comment. I am having an issue with the way you are segregating history. If it is WW1 celebration then Soldiers should be common as British Indian soldiers for India/Pakistan/BD and not segregating.

It is idiotic to chose these soldiers separating based on location of Birth as they never got a chance to opt the country formed in 1947 or 1971. Does it makes sense?

My grandfather was freedom fighter for United India and not Current India only. He didn't fought for Delhi only but for Lahore, Karachi and Rawalpindi as well. What happened afterward is a Historical event, the more people will understand that , less animosity will happen.

Now you can come with another stupid "Tail" comment.

 

[FaujHistorian]

....If it is WW1 celebration then Soldiers should be common as British Indian soldiers for India/Pakistan/BD and not segregating. ...

Look bhai

one final time.

Let's celebrate sacrifices in WW-1 by sons of Pakistani soil.

If you want to come join us?

more the merrier.

happy?

It is not the present addresses, but the fact that the commemoration was done by the State that employed the soldiers at the time of the services rendered that is more important.

Bhai sahib,

See my response to @Pride in this post.

 

[INDIC]

India as a geographic entity is very different than India as a Nation-State.

Unfortunately quite a few of your compatriots have a tendency of believing that just because the names are same thus to speak of one is to speak of the other.

A historical and geographical India is to the Republic of India what the Africas and the Americas are to the United States of America and South Africa respectively; we don't see either South Africans or Americans claiming some sort of bragging rights over the entire African or North American continent as some of your compatriots do as if the citizens living on the side of the border have some sort of a first movers advantage.

Ancient India has nothing to do with the Republic of India anymore than it has anything to do with Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bhuttan, Bangladesh and perhaps even Burma, as a continuation of these things.

Its like the Bolivians claiming that just because their country is named after Simon Bolivar they somehow have the prime rights over him to the exclusion or in preference to the rest of Latin America.

So far as the Gupta, the Mughal, the British or the Marhatta Empires are concerned; their administrative unity was forged at the tip of a sword or down the barrel of a gun not because of some natural evolution of the Indian Subcontinent fast approaching the semblance of a Nation-State (even if one were to historically contextualize it).

And the romanticized notions of an Ancient Bharat are great when it comes to mythology but mythology usually makes for a poor substitute of historical evidence and ancient documentation by traders etc. doesn't substantiate the presence of a India as a cohesive unit or anything remotely similar anymore than Columbus running into Native Americans or the First Nations substantiates the existence of the Americas being inhabited by Native Americans as some sort of a disjointed country of different nations and tribes.

ON TOPIC: Even an idiot can understand that the existence of Pakistan is not the issue here anymore than the exploits of Serbia which fall in the share of Montenegro belonging to the newly created state of Montenegro is !

That sounds very crude. Why you comparing a small part of Asia(the historical India with a common historical perception of culture) with continents like Africa or America. Yes, we Indians have a perception of common history, that's why it was called as Bharatavarsha. What it has to do with Simon Boliver, America, Africa etc.

 

[Koovie]

Talking about India or Pakistan in this context is nonsense anyways

 

[Pride]

Look bhai

one final time.

Let's celebrate sacrifices in WW-1 by sons of Pakistani soil.

If you want to come join us?

more the merrier.

happy?




Bhai sahib,

See my response to @Pride in this post.

This is why I say the quality of defence.pk is going drain as it was way back by.

Define who were sons of Pakistan in 1914-1919 then only we may discuss if you can't then you know the answer.

Let me give you an example, My grandfather's some freedom fighter friends were Muslims (UP) who moved to Karachi, Pakistan in 1947. So, Should I consider them freedom fighter of India or not?

 

[VCheng]

Bhai sahib,
See my response to @Pride in this post.

Did Pakistan commemorate its involvement in WW1? No. Why? Because it did not even exist then.

Did Britain commemorate its involvement in WW1? Yes. Why? Because it fought the war with soldiers from all over its dominions. They were sons of the soil which at the time of the war were parts of the Indian Empire, which later became to be called Pakistan. That is why they sent tokens of their recognition to those soldiers that fought for it.

 

[FaujHistorian]

This is why I say the quality of defence.pk is going drain as it was way back by.

Define who were sons of Pakistan in 1914-1919 then only we may discuss if you can't then you know the answer.

Let me give you an example, My grandfather's some freedom fighter friends were Muslims (UP) who moved to Karachi, Pakistan in 1947. So, Should I consider them freedom fighter of India or not?

did they fight in ww-1?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Ancient India has nothing to do with the Republic of India

Slightly Incorrect statement. Ancient India has little to do with the Republic of India. Ancient Bharatvarsha was a civilization (that survives to this day), while the Republic of India was born officially with the ratification of the Constitution of India. before that we were Dominions (from 1947).

Nation states are a new concept. Just 200 years ago there was no Germany(only Prussia, Bavaria, Duchy of Hamburg etc), nor was an United Italy(Venezia, Rome, etc) for example.
As far as Bharat is concerned, the name finds reference in multiple historical documents APART from mythology. This includes coins, stamps, letters, trade documents, etc.

The cohesive entity that you are pointing to is an 18th century construct - called a Nation state.

The rest is interpretation and hence subjective. The idea of a land that is now called India is ancient. @Joe Shearer , if he is still there, can elaborate on that.

 

[Pride]

did they fight in ww-1?

Nopes.. Freedom Fighters as communists (few peaceful, few HSRA) and congress. some of them actually met Chandrashekhar Azad and gang. You might found it interesting that Chandrashekhar azad and gang (Then HRA later on HSRA) actually looted some rich Zamindar for funding of their guns. Once they got hand of some German guns, they had challenge for testing as no one knows to operate them and bullets were difficult to find.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Slightly Incorrect statement. Ancient India has little to do with the Republic of India. Ancient Bharatvarsha was a civilization (that survives to this day), while the Republic of India was born officially with the ratification of the Constitution of India. before that we were Dominions (from 1947).

Nation states are a new concept. Just 200 years ago there was no Germany(only Prussia, Bavaria, Duchy of Hamburg etc), nor was an United Italy(Venezia, Rome, etc) for example.
As far as Bharat is concerned, the name finds reference in multiple historical documents APART from mythology. This includes coins, stamps, letters, trade documents, etc.

The cohesive entity that you are pointing to is an 18th century construct - called a Nation state.

The rest is interpretation and hence subjective. The idea of a land that is now called India is ancient. @Joe Shearer , if he is still there, can elaborate on that.

Oh yaara,

you want to manufacture a narrative. Fine. Just don't get held as a hostage to it.

Nopes.. Freedom Fighters as communists (few peaceful, few HSRA) and congress. some of them actually met Chandrashekhar Azad and gang. You might found it interesting that Chandrashekhar azad and gang (Then HRA later on HSRA) actually looted some rich Zamindar for funding of their guns. Once they got hand of some German guns, they had challenge for testing as no one knows to operate them and bullets were difficult to find.

you my friend are now talking about ants in the discussion of elephants.