Foreigners' trip to Pakistan - March 2011

[53fd]

Brush up on geography boy, There is no such thing as uniform indian ethnitiy because India is a very diverse pool of genes.

Next you gonna see a blonde from gilgit balistan and say she looks russian

Well, I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way, of course you're right. I never implied there was no such thing as a uniform Indian ethnicity when I said "India & Pakistan were once one country". I meant it in terms of the British Indian subcontinent, not in terms of Indian ethnicity. As I said in my Post # 32:

Besides Indian heritage, Pakistan also has Persian heritage in Balochistan, Tajik heritage (close to the Wakhi corridor; close to Kafiristan, Afghanistan) in the North, Afghan heritage in the North West, Mongolian & Tibetian heritage in Gilgit-Baltistan.

That basically means that Pakistan has just as much Indian heritage as it does Afghan, Persian, Mongolian/Tibetian, Tajik & others. A person from KPK or FATA will have nothing in common with India. A Balochi will have nothing in common with Indians. A person from Gilgit-Baltistan will have nothing in common with Indians. There is some overlap between Indians & Pakistanis in Sindh & Punjab. So of course sir, you are right. I think you just misinterpreted what I was trying to say. Peace.

 

[Mujeeb47]

I dont think that India has historic influence on Pakistan. Balochistan province had Irani influence. Sindh had local, Gilgit-Baltistan had Tibetian, Kashmir has Kashmiri, Khyber Pukhtonkhwa had Afghan influence. Only Punjab had Indian Punjabi influence. But now we are only Muslim and Pakistani.

 

[53fd]

I dont think that India has historic influence on Pakistan. Balochistan province had Irani influence. Sindh had local, Gilgit-Baltistan had Tibetian, Kashmir has Kashmiri, Khyber Pukhtonkhwa had Afghan influence. Only Punjab had Indian Punjabi influence. But now we are only Muslim and Pakistani.

The confusing thing is, the name 'India' itself is a paradox. Pakistan is more 'India' than present day India is. After all, the Indus flows through Pakistan, not India. And even the term Hindu is derived from Sindhu, or Sindh; which is in Pakistan, not India. Anyways. That's just my opinion.

 

[somebozo]

I dont think that India has historic influence on Pakistan. Balochistan province had Irani influence. Sindh had local, Gilgit-Baltistan had Tibetian, Kashmir has Kashmiri, Khyber Pukhtonkhwa had Afghan influence. Only Punjab had Indian Punjabi influence. But now we are only Muslim and Pakistani.

You forget the Ummayad, Abbasid, Mongolean and Turk who ruled Pakistan and shaped its todays culture.

That basically means that Pakistan has just as much Indian heritage as it does Afghan, Persian, Mongolian/Tibetian, Tajik & others.

THe culture came from all those countries to India through Human migration and even in that case it was largely concetrated into today's Pakistan. The Hindu culture largely spread eastwards until they reached the Indian ocean and everyone fell into it!

Get your geography straight boy!

 

[53fd]

THe culture came from all those countries to India through Human migration and even in that case it was largely concetrated into today's Pakistan. The Hindu culture largely spread eastwards until they reached the Indian ocean and everyone fell into it!

Get your geography straight boy!

Please read what I said in Post # 48, no need to get upset sir.

 

[Mujeeb47]

@ bilal haider
Yes, river Indus is in Pakistan. From which India is derived. Indus valley civilization, Aarya, Buddhist, Afghan, Mughal, all first entered into Pakistan. In subcontinent, human beings first came to Mehar Ghar (Balochistan) from Iran. Then humans migrated to India. Rig Wida was initially written in Pakistan. We can say that civilization first entered Pakistan and then India. But, anyhow, now Islam and Pakistan is our identity.

 

[Mujeeb47]

@ Somebozo
Yes, Ummayids had influenced our history (like Muhammad bin Qasim) and Turks also (like Babar). But Mongol and Abbasyids have low level influence.
Pakistan has multicultural society. But I think we have different history from India (except Murya, Mughal and English empires, which we both shared.)

 

[Peshwa]

The confusing thing is, the name 'India' itself is a paradox. Pakistan is more 'India' than present day India is. After all, the Indus flows through Pakistan, not India. And even the term Hindu is derived from Sindhu, or Sindh; which is in Pakistan, not India. Anyways. That's just my opinion.

I dont subscribe to your theory, but since we are on topic, Ill give my POV..

India as a name may have originated from the name Indus, but the concept of India is much larger than that....which I think is a basis for the names of our respective countries...

The below refers to India as a historical entity ie. the subcontinent

India as a geographical concept stretches from the frontier to the NE and Kashmir to Kanyakumari....
India's ethnic concept consists of both the people of the north (ones that have been subjected to various conquests), people of the south (if the Aryan Migration theory is to be believed) and the people of the NE that are part of the fringe states that border China and Burma...
India's cultural concept consists of and is influenced by the Vedic (Hindu) traditions started in the IVC, the Buddhist and Jain influences, Muslim conquests and their deep rooted impact on the society and culture as well as the Sikh traditions that although restricted to the North west were signiciant influence on Indian culture...

As a nation (present day India) is the true successor of the name as it embodies all of the above characterics of the concept of India.....
Pakistan on the other hand was created only on the basis of religion....
Being that Islam isnt native to the subcontinent, it is irrational to think that Pakistan is the successor of the concept of India when it represents only a fraction of the 5000 year history that the subcontinent has had...

PS: This is my POV...one is free to disagree. Personally I think its useless to argue about names of our respective countries as it seems we all have no problems with the present day names of the countries and are arguing just for the sake of doing so...
Secondly, Its not the name of the country that makes it great...its the people...Changing Pakistan's name to India because the river Indus flows through it will not change the current situation and plight of the people of Pakistan as it has not done for India either..

 

[53fd]

I dont subscribe to your theory, but since we are on topic, Ill give my POV..

India as a name may have originated from the name Indus, but the concept of India is much larger than that....which I think is a basis for the names of our respective countries...

The below refers to India as a historical entity ie. the subcontinent

India as a geographical concept stretches from the frontier to the NE and Kashmir to Kanyakumari....
India's ethnic concept consists of both the people of the north (ones that have been subjected to various conquests), people of the south (if the Aryan Migration theory is to be believed) and the people of the NE that are part of the fringe states that border China and Burma...
India's cultural concept consists of and is influenced by the Vedic (Hindu) traditions started in the IVC, the Buddhist and Jain influences, Muslim conquests and their deep rooted impact on the society and culture as well as the Sikh traditions that although restricted to the North west were signiciant influence on Indian culture...

As a nation (present day India) is the true successor of the name as it embodies all of the above characterics of the concept of India.....
Pakistan on the other hand was created only on the basis of religion....
Being that Islam isnt native to the subcontinent, it is irrational to think that Pakistan is the successor of the concept of India when it represents only a fraction of the 5000 year history that the subcontinent has had...

PS: This is my POV...one is free to disagree. Personally I think its useless to argue about names of our respective countries as it seems we all have no problems with the present day names of the countries and are arguing just for the sake of doing so...
Secondly, Its not the name of the country that makes it great...its the people...Changing Pakistan's name to India because the river Indus flows through it will not change the current situation and plight of the people of Pakistan as it has not done for India either..

Yeah, I think I'll just stick to the topic being discussed in the thread. Thanks for your POV though.

 

[American Pakistani]

I am an avid traveller and seeing pics posted by Fellow Pak members I want to travel whole ccountry from mountains of G&B to long deserted area of Balochistan. Wish Pak become normal and our relationship become better and better..

You are most Welcome in Pakistan. Don't worry for some negative thinking peoples.

 

[Peshwa]

Yeah, I think I'll just stick to the topic being discussed in the thread. Thanks for your POV though.

Fair enough....

Just wanted to point our the flaw in your statement from where I stand..To each his own though

 

[53fd]

Fair enough....

Just wanted to point our the flaw in your statement from where I stand..To each his own though

Yeah, I don't want to make this topic about Rig Veda, IVC or anything else, there are more than enough threads discussing those things. Anyways, enjoy.

 

[Peshwa]

Yeah, I don't want to make this topic about Rig Veda, IVC or anything else, there are more than enough threads discussing those things. Anyways, enjoy.

Oh I dont care about those things.... Its the line "The name India itself is a Paradox" is what caught my attention...

Anyways....lets end this here...

 

[53fd]

Oh I dont care about those things.... Its the line "The name India itself is a Paradox" is what caught my attention...

Anyways....lets end this here...

You're right, I guess I might have been wrong there. Anyways, you're right, let's end it here. It's ended.

 

[Burger Boy]

JFK's wife in 1960s.