Historical Background of Pakistan and its People

[Jade]

You just be blind then, since comments by Indians to that effect are all over the internet.

In addition, as discussed in a thread on Indira Gandhi, her views of the Pakistani State as it exists currently were not exactly supportive of Pakistan's territorial integrity (and I am speaking of Baluchistan and NWFP).

Comments by Indians on internet are not the official position of the State of India. What should matter to you is the position of the government of India. According to the government of India Baluchistan and NWFP are part of Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Comments by Indians on internet are not the official position of the State of India. What should matter to you is the position of the government of India. According to the government of India Baluchistan and NWFP are part of Pakistan.

They do reflect a mindset amongst the people however, and governments are from the people, and Indira Gandhi's views about Pakistan suggest that that particular mindset did indeed creep into Indian leadership.

In any case, move on with the topic please.

 

[Jade]

They do reflect a mindset amongst the people however, and governments are from the people, and Indira Gandhi's views about Pakistan suggest that that particular mindset did indeed creep into Indian leadership.

In any case, move on with the topic please.

Yes I agree that governments are from the people, but represent collective mindset and diverse interests and needs. Believe me, today a common Indian is more concerned about his family, job, security etc... than about Pakistan, and 99% of Indians don’t know what Baluchistan is. I think that can also be said of a common Pakistani

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Well i wouldn't mind if anyone on this forums praises Iran or any other country (except for india)!

As long as they don't praise india then i'm good!

You sound so much more intelligent when you remain silent

 

[jinxeD_girl]

Farci is not an important language of Pakistan, (although I would like to learn so I can talk to their hot girls ) Urdu is. And if we are to learn any language besides Urdu and English it should be Arabic.

Because:

1.) It is what Prophet Muhammad was spoken to and what he spoke.
2.) Qur'an is written in it
3.) When Arabs talk crap to us we know what they are saying and we can kick ***

The importance of Farci is just as important as Hindi is Pakistan...hehe.

Emotions aside.. I don't think Pakistanis should learn Arabic as a compulsory language.. (it should be optional) If anything, besides Urdu and English, Pakistan should promote regional languages.. I think Pakistan is one of the ONLY few countries of the world where regional languages don't have any official status.

Arabic belong to Semitic Languages and is not related to Urdu in anyway.. Even English is closer to Urdu as compared to Arabic as both Urdu and English are Indo-European languages and are distant cousins... and Farsi and Urdu are closer cousins.. but Urdu is closer to Sansikrit.

http://img15.imageshack.us/i/semiticlanguagetree.jpg/

http://img338.imageshack.us/i/indoeurotree.jpg/

 

[dolphin]

but Urdu is closer to Sansikrit.

Yes thats true Urdu is associated with Sansikrit (thats why PERSONALLY i'd rather choose to speak Farci with family since many of my grandparents spoke Farci and my parents have always urged the importance of this language particularly since i'm a muslim, and thus its considerably valuable to understand Farci (as well as classical farci) since there is a great deal of islamic literature written in Farci. I'm a sunni muslim that practises sufism (the mystical and spiritual side of Islam) which is another reason why its important to me. Many fundamental muslims suggest its bid'ah yeah right!!! spiritualism never existed in Islam! They even disregard the great Islamic renaissance period.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/101relationship.pdf
This is an interesting paper regarding the relationships among Farci, Urdu and Sansikrit


Incase you didn't notice one of my posts earlier:

Regarding Farci, it is a very important language of Pakistan (since the four provinces of Pakistan speak derivatives of the Persian language and was banned in the 1850s when the British arrived to divide and conquer.

The Persian Language: (The following is a reference from the book Modern Persian by Narguess Farzad)

Until recent centuries, Persian was culturally and historically one of the most prominent languages of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. Persian is the second language of Islam and was instrumental in the spread of the faith during the reign of the Moguls in the Indian subcontinent. For example, it was an important language during the reign of Moguls in India, where knowledge of Persian was cultivated and held in high esteem. To a lesser extent it was instrumental in bringing the Arabic script, known as Jawi, to Malaysia. Jawi is less commonly used and a Romanized Malay writing script has gained more of an official status. However Jawi is written in the Perso-Arabic script. The use of Persian in the courts of Mogul rulers ended in 1837 when it was banned by officials of the East India Company, but not before the development of a Persian-Indian vernacular. Persian poetry is still a significant part of the literature in the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent.

Very close links between Persian and Urdu, and the presence of numerous Persian words in Turkish, offer a high degree of mutual intelligibility to speaker of these languages and the study of the Ottoman Turkish literature without knowledge of Persian would be meaningless. Malay also contains countless Persian words and for scholars of Malay literature a classical Persian dictionary is often among their most used reference books.

If you are interested in learning other modern Iranian languages, such as Baluchi or Kurdish, knowledge of Persian and the Perso-Arabic script helps. For example, all the languages in the following list are written in this script or were written in it until very recently:

Assyrian, Southern Azeri spoken by 20 million people in Iran, Hausa (gradually superseded by Romanized script), Kashmiri, Punjabi of Pakistan, Pashtu, Sindhi and Uyghur.



P.S- I FORGOT TO MENTION EARLIER I'M A GIRL- NOT A GUY! You referred to me as a guy earlier eeeww....

 

[nightcrawler]

Cant get my answer & I dont want to start a new thread!!!
I am more confused simple was the question why Pakistan came into being when neither of great leaders wanted but where is the answer
I dont like flowery language out of untutored emotional jargon just be simple plz

 

[dolphin]

Read the earlier posts to this thread you may find your answer. This thread was merged with another..

 

[EjazR]

The interesting thing about India is it does actually refer to more than just a sovereign country as of today. Its equivalent is Europe where the Europe consists of different races but are united in the their unique European culture and history where they have borrowed from each other extensively as well as good dollops of foreign influence in terms of knowledge and culture for example by the Arabs and Turks.

What is ironic is that probably present day Pakistan is more deserving to be called India than say other parts like the South or NE which are no where near the river Indus. The word is corruption the British used originating from the river Indus and the term used then Hindiya/Al-Hind by the Arab explorers. The Persians referred to anyone living around that region as Hindus/Hindis. So did the Arabs. Now please note that Hindus was a religion neutral term, it was strictly associated with geographical terms of people living east of the river Sindhu/Indus. Similarly the Arabs referred these people as Hindis regardless of whether they followed Islam, Buddhism e.t.c

It was only under the British rule that Hindus became associated with a religious term. I remember some lecture in which Zakir Naik himself that as long as the term Hindu is taken as the geographical context, then "I am a Hindu".

Of course the communal affects of the British rule and the partition later on have created such an affect that Hindu has been reduced to a religious term. I guess people in Balochistan or other areas of Pakistan that are far away from the Indus valley could be ambiguous, but the Punjab and Sindh that cradle the Indus river would ironically be definitely have been referred to as Hindu/Hindi regardless of WHO ruled over them. Just as for example when the Arabs ruled of the Persians, they automatically didn't become Arabs.


Here is an interesting read on this:
The Meaning and Origin of the word Hindu

 

[Speaker]

The interesting thing about India is it does actually refer to more than just a sovereign country as of today. Its equivalent is Europe where the Europe consists of different races but are united in the their unique European culture and history where they have borrowed from each other extensively as well as good dollops of foreign influence in terms of knowledge and culture for example by the Arabs and Turks.

What is ironic is that probably present day Pakistan is more deserving to be called India than say other parts like the South or NE which are no where near the river Indus. The word is corruption the British used originating from the river Indus and the term used then Hindiya/Al-Hind by the Arab explorers. The Persians referred to anyone living around that region as Hindus/Hindis. So did the Arabs. Now please note that Hindus was a religion neutral term, it was strictly associated with geographical terms of people living east of the river Sindhu/Indus. Similarly the Arabs referred these people as Hindis regardless of whether they followed Islam, Buddhism e.t.c

It was only under the British rule that Hindus became associated with a religious term. I remember some lecture in which Zakir Naik himself that as long as the term Hindu is taken as the geographical context, then "I am a Hindu".

Of course the communal affects of the British rule and the partition later on have created such an affect that Hindu has been reduced to a religious term. I guess people in Balochistan or other areas of Pakistan that are far away from the Indus valley could be ambiguous, but the Punjab and Sindh that cradle the Indus river would ironically be definitely have been referred to as Hindu/Hindi regardless of WHO ruled over them. Just as for example when the Arabs ruled of the Persians, they automatically didn't become Arabs.


Here is an interesting read on this:
The Meaning and Origin of the word Hindu

I guess this validates the point that Hindustan is the land of the Hindus, Hindus here meaning the people who live on the eastern side of the Indus (or Sindhu). It also makes sense that Hinduism does not have a mention or name. Being the oldest organized religion, it never needed to have a "branding", since whoever was born around that time probably belonged to the religion of the day, whatever they chose to call it. And since it is not associated with a champion or prophet, there was no scope for fixing a name.

 

[EjazR]

Being the oldest organized religion.....

You misread my post, go through the link. Historically, hindus referred to people living in this area. Its equivalent is Arabs, Europeans e.t.c., you could have an ethnic Arab who is a Christian or an ethnic European being a muslim.

It was only in the recent history that it has been associated specifically with religion. But yes, Hindustan referred to people living in this area, and that includes present day Pakistanis who lived along the banks of the river Indus. Regardless of the religion they followed

 

[ADT]

The interesting thing about India is it does actually refer to more than just a sovereign country as of today. Its equivalent is Europe where the Europe consists of different races but are united in the their unique European culture and history where they have borrowed from each other extensively as well as good dollops of foreign influence in terms of knowledge and culture for example by the Arabs and Turks.

What is ironic is that probably present day Pakistan is more deserving to be called India than say other parts like the South or NE which are no where near the river Indus. The word is corruption the British used originating from the river Indus and the term used then Hindiya/Al-Hind by the Arab explorers. The Persians referred to anyone living around that region as Hindus/Hindis. So did the Arabs. Now please note that Hindus was a religion neutral term, it was strictly associated with geographical terms of people living east of the river Sindhu/Indus. Similarly the Arabs referred these people as Hindis regardless of whether they followed Islam, Buddhism e.t.c

It was only under the British rule that Hindus became associated with a religious term. I remember some lecture in which Zakir Naik himself that as long as the term Hindu is taken as the geographical context, then "I am a Hindu".

Of course the communal affects of the British rule and the partition later on have created such an affect that Hindu has been reduced to a religious term. I guess people in Balochistan or other areas of Pakistan that are far away from the Indus valley could be ambiguous, but the Punjab and Sindh that cradle the Indus river would ironically be definitely have been referred to as Hindu/Hindi regardless of WHO ruled over them. Just as for example when the Arabs ruled of the Persians, they automatically didn't become Arabs.


Here is an interesting read on this:
The Meaning and Origin of the word Hindu

God Forbid

And

I would never ever want India to be called Pakistan (except Indian held Kashmir territory.)

 

[Speaker]

No, I did not mean to contradict what you said. I was referring to some people who misunderstand the name to be associated with Hindus in the religious sense, especially on this forum. Basically being Hindu is a geographic affiliation and not a religious one. I knew that this was a corruption of the term Indus or Sindhu, just not sure who did it - Arabs, Persians or British as you stated.

I did not mean that its antiquity is of any relevance, just to make a point to people that why the term Hindu could have no reference to the religion.

 

[jinxeD_girl]

Yes thats true Urdu is associated with Sansikrit (thats why PERSONALLY i'd rather choose to speak Farci with family since many of my grandparents spoke Farci and my parents have always urged the importance of this language particularly since i'm a muslim, and thus its considerably valuable to understand Farci (as well as classical farci) since there is a great deal of islamic literature written in Farci. I'm a sunni muslim that practises sufism (the mystical and spiritual side of Islam) which is another reason why its important to me. Many fundamental muslims suggest its bid'ah yeah right!!! spiritualism never existed in Islam! They even disregard the great Islamic renaissance period.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/shacklesnell/101relationship.pdf
This is an interesting paper regarding the relationships among Farci, Urdu and Sansikrit


Incase you didn't notice one of my posts earlier:

Regarding Farci, it is a very important language of Pakistan (since the four provinces of Pakistan speak derivatives of the Persian language and was banned in the 1850s when the British arrived to divide and conquer.

The Persian Language: (The following is a reference from the book Modern Persian by Narguess Farzad)

Until recent centuries, Persian was culturally and historically one of the most prominent languages of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. Persian is the second language of Islam and was instrumental in the spread of the faith during the reign of the Moguls in the Indian subcontinent. For example, it was an important language during the reign of Moguls in India, where knowledge of Persian was cultivated and held in high esteem. To a lesser extent it was instrumental in bringing the Arabic script, known as Jawi, to Malaysia. Jawi is less commonly used and a Romanized Malay writing script has gained more of an official status. However Jawi is written in the Perso-Arabic script. The use of Persian in the courts of Mogul rulers ended in 1837 when it was banned by officials of the East India Company, but not before the development of a Persian-Indian vernacular. Persian poetry is still a significant part of the literature in the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent.

Very close links between Persian and Urdu, and the presence of numerous Persian words in Turkish, offer a high degree of mutual intelligibility to speaker of these languages and the study of the Ottoman Turkish literature without knowledge of Persian would be meaningless. Malay also contains countless Persian words and for scholars of Malay literature a classical Persian dictionary is often among their most used reference books.

If you are interested in learning other modern Iranian languages, such as Baluchi or Kurdish, knowledge of Persian and the Perso-Arabic script helps. For example, all the languages in the following list are written in this script or were written in it until very recently:

Assyrian, Southern Azeri spoken by 20 million people in Iran, Hausa (gradually superseded by Romanized script), Kashmiri, Punjabi of Pakistan, Pashtu, Sindhi and Uyghur.



P.S- I FORGOT TO MENTION EARLIER I'M A GIRL- NOT A GUY! You referred to me as a guy earlier eeeww....

I think you misunderstood me.. I was only making a case against Arabic being chosen as our language.. as far as Farsi is concerned I don't have any objections to it ..

I mentioned one of your points below in some other thread too and I completely agree

"Regarding Farci, it is a very important language of Pakistan (since the four provinces of Pakistan speak derivatives of the Persian language and was banned in the 1850s when the British arrived to divide and conquer."

 

[jinxeD_girl]

I guess this validates the point that Hindustan is the land of the Hindus.

yeah that also explains why many Hyderabadi Muslim women wear Mangal Sutra.. as they live in the land of the hindus