In 1947 two muslim countries should have been created!

[Vinod2070]

when did i compare south asians with arabs? i was pointing towards south asians and south asians only, welcome to the third world. it's where we belong.

No, we don't belong there. This holy land was the most advanced in the world for millenia. I am sure, we will get back to our appointed place soon. This will require a lot of work, but this region will get it's manifest destiny.

The people of this region lack nothing that prevents them from achieving big. Whatever the roadblocks they are self made and can be removed in a jiffy.

why don't you make your point a little clearer. if it's insult you want to throw at me, do it in a more direct way, not in backstabbing manner.

I think I was clear enough. It was not meant to be insulting but a direct reply. India is a nation and has been a nation since ancient times. No foreign invaders have made it a nation. If at all they have only broken it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There's a thin line between ethnic nationalism and xenophobia. Or maybe they are different degrees of the same emotion.

Its a thin line, and it has been crossed.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No, we don't belong there. This holy land was the most advanced in the world for millenia. I am sure, we will get back to our appointed place soon. This will require a lot of work, but this region will get it's manifest destiny.

I believe Assad's comment was a reflection on the current state of South Asian nations, on which count it is accurate.

The people of this region lack nothing that prevents them from achieving big. Whatever the roadblocks they are self made and can be removed in a jiffy.

That is true of any nation in any part of the world, and it is true of India, Pakistan, bangladesh etc. as well.

India is a nation and has been a nation since ancient times. No foreign invaders have made it a nation. If at all they have only broken it.

The facts bely that assertion where it relates to 'ancient times', though India has been a nation since 1947.

The region was composed of different nations even before the Muslims arrived - different civilizations, empires and Kingdoms.

 

[Vinod2070]

First of all, as I pointed out to Malang, the only idea being rubbished is that of any united entity called India, or an Indian nation existing prior to 1947. You don't need a certificate, most international maps indicate clearly what constitutes India (sir Creek, Siachen and Kashmir notwithstanding).

What is this whole Arab thing you keep dragging in?

This is the obvious fact that some Pakistanis would be expected to rubbish the idea of ancient India. Especially those who identify themselves more with outside invaders than the natives.

That would strike at the root of the theory that India was a Ja.hil land before the invasions. They would like to believe that they brought civilization to this land.

When I say natives, it doesn't mean that people may not have migrated thousands of years back (especially if we all came form that African pair), but how they identify themselves.

Do you deny that a substantial number of Pakistani people identify themselves with Arabic/Afghan/Turkic/Central Asian ancestry? And pl. let's not simplify it by saying that because of intermarrying etc. they are now natives. I am not sure how much inter-mixing has taken place as marriage within the family is a common occurrence.

My own family has nothing to do with Arabs, yet I rubbish the idea of an India prior to 1947 just as vociferously as others - so please don't incorrectly characterize and generalize everyones sentiments.

Almost every part of the inhabited land of this planet was formed by humans migrating there, so lets not get into the 'invaders vs indigenous' rubbish. The people in the subcontinent did not sprout out of the ground at the call of Hanuman.

Trying to work in the 'migrant vs indigenous angle' reeks of xenophobia.

I am not talking of migrants but invaders. The difference is obvious: Parasis were migrants who came to India escaping persecution back home, the likes of Bin Qasim, Gazanavi, Gauri etc. are invaders.

It is a valid argument. Arabs don't accept Israelis in their midst as they consider them invaders to a land that they occupied for 700 years.

I can assure you that I am not xenophobic, but people having obvious agenda against India trying to define and denigrate India gets my goat.

Same as people who are anti-Pakistan trying to define and denigrate Pakistan would do to you.

 

[Vinod2070]

No more of the Arab vs South Asian BS.

It is nothing but racist nonsense. The arguments being raised have little to do with that line of thought.

Further posts will be deleted

I think I mis-understood Assad's post as trying to denigrate South Asians from the viewpoint of an Arab.

I guess it was not intended that way by Assad, so yes my post was unnecessary.

Anyway bashing South Asians (even if done by South Asians themselves) is as wrong as bashing Arabs.

 

[Vinod2070]

I believe Assad's comment was a reflection on the current state of South Asian nations, on which count it is accurate.

No, South Asians are there, but they don't belong there. South Asians are too bright and have too many historical achievements to belong to third world.

That is true of any nation in any part of the world, and it is true of India, Pakistan, bangladesh etc. as well.

Yes, I meant the whole Akhand Bharat.

The facts bely that assertion where it relates to 'ancient times', though India has been a nation since 1947.

The region was composed of different nations even before the Muslims arrived - different civilizations, empires and Kingdoms.

Let's agree to disagree on that. You are an interested party to say that. While that doesn't make the argument invalid, it does make it motivated.

It will be like an Indian defining what Pakistan is or should be. Chances are it will be a motivated argument in line with his belief system.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Some points

1. India was never a nation!

The concept of Nation and Nationalism are relatively new ones.. Till a few centuries back there weren't any nations..

Though interestingly look at EU.. people of various nations are trying to unite under the banner of a united land..
Now think of India as a more advanced, socio-culturally more similar, historically more united and much more ancient version of EU..

thanks, you proved my point. india didn't exist a few centuries back. india is not an ancient version of the EU, that's laughable. EU is a group of nations that decided to come together for the sake of improving their economy through cooperation. they weren't colonized and united by an imperialistic army/navy, life the US for example.

even now, there are europeans who resent this and want to go back to the old status quo. EU is definitely nothing like india, the european countries opted to join, they weren't coerced like princely states of the sub-continent. don't worry, india isn't the only guilty one, pakistan can share that fault as well.

after seeing what went down in south asia, frankly i'm starting to think that there should have been a lot more partitions in south asia. both pakistan and india having the most separatist movements, is proof of that.

2. What is the need for a nation?

Absolutely no need.. its due to effect of the "base" nature of Man that he seeks to form associations and divide himself..

IMO I am not an expert on Islam but Ummah to me is one of those concepts which seeks to uplift mankind though I feel most of the scholars on Islam are incompetent and many of the Muslims are too narrow minded; selective application of Islamic concepts in isolation too have led to the failure of this concept uptill now.... religions are meant to unite without being divisive.

I quite like the Pakistani Muslim concerns over Kashmir,Godhra and Babri Masjid but it would be nice if some tears were shed for Shias in Saudi Arabia, Tibetans in China, Uighur Muslims in China, Pakistani labourers in Gulf etc..

come on now, Malang, there's no need for fallacies. this is where indians (mostly hindus) focus their arguments on, what has pakistan done for the ummah. why don't pakistanis focus on the other muslims in the world.

first of all, pakistan never had that responsibility to begin with. although I come from (what most people think to be) a religious background, I will say it loud and clear, "Pakistan is supposed to be a secular state, not a theocratic one." pakistan has turned out to be a semi-secular state, but that's not the point.

don't get confused with my words and Jinnah's, my plans for pakistan are quite different. besides, even if we make comparisons of actions pakistan has taken to benefit the "ummah", we will come to the fact that pakistan has more than proven itself to be the "arm" or "helper" of the ummah. we have supported resistance against the Soviets in afghanistan, going as far as gathering foreign fighters. even bengalis, who just a few years earlier were spitting venom at the name of pakistan, were helping us. it was perhaps a time where islamic unity was at its peak, which wasn't the case for nearly a hundred years.

we've helped the chechen movement as well, bosnia, kashmiris, so forth. the uighurs of china is a hot topic among indians, as i can see on this forum. first of all, most pakistanis, actually most of the muslim world does not know what is going on in turkestan. besides, i don't see the point of you complaining when a bunch of indians on this forum were quite eager to report that uighur terrorists were being trained in pakistan. i really don't see your point.

besides, most scholars definitely agree that pakistan or the region has a lot to do with the endtimes. a part of pakistan, much to your dismay, is a part of greater "khurasaan" or persia. it's a well estabilished that the army of black flags will emerge from this area and go on to conquer jerusalem, better yet, a second army will emerge from the same region and conquer "hind" or india.

assuming and categorizing kashmir to be a muslim problem is a deliberate by indians to hide the legality issues. kashmir should have gone to pakistan, not india. they share nothing culturally with indians, yet they share everything with pakistan. if kashmir was a "muslim" problem like indians try to make it, there would have been movements for a khilafah, or super islamic state stretching from morocco to indonesia. better yet, they would have been trying to annex indian, with or without our help. since none of the above has occurred, it's definitely more than enough to prove that kashmiri's opt for independence or pakistan.

3. British united a bunch of people who had nothing to do with each other and gave them a nation.

Aren't France, UK, Russia, Brazil, Italy, US, Canada, Brazil, Spain, Nigeria, South Africa etc. a nation of bunch of different people too?? They are as fake a nation as India going by your definition..

British followed Divide and Rule Policy how do you expect them to unite the people? why? what for? In fact British have severely disunited Indians hint: Partition..

What united India/Indians was enlightenment, and allegiance to India aka Nationalism.

To my limited knowledge, Men have united (as per the zeitgeist of Nationalism) under the banner of land(and the various trait of that land) and this I believe to be nationalism.

... God's teachings, God's messengers, banners of religion, Ideologies etc. trying to break the above have largely failed to a large extent as well eg. compare Indians, India, Germany, with Muslims, Pakistan/Bangladesh, Khalistan...

May be in a few centuries from now, a concept that builds upon nationalism may be prevalent..

Please don't give so much credit to the British fer Allahsake and if you continue with this line of thought do give importance to Pakistan instead, in case of India and vice versa...

PS: Do read Ancient History, Modern History and Books on India.. these people had as much to do with each other in past as they do now..
search for Gothra btw.. most Indians claim descent from a select group of ascetics clad in just a dhoti .. practicing austerities in Himalayas and subsisting on alms.. the role of Hinduism too cannot be undermined here..

i'm not getting your point, really. the british united the various peoples of the sub-continent to begin with. we were so helpless being unable to fight back, the british had every right to "re-divide" it before they left.

as i mentioned earlier, i'm starting to realize that the sub-continent should have a lot more borders. the only proven concept of unity lies with islam, islam is the only "way of life" that can successfully unite various peoples under one banner.

4. What is India then?

India, simply, is the name of the landmass(also called the Indian subcontinent).. and those who live in it are Indians, they speak Indian languages, follow Indian customs, etc. albeit like Hinduism, India cannot be entrapped in an all encompassing single defintion.(in the above Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. to come under India).

On a further classification there are various regions/states/subnations encompassed in India like Bengal, Punjab, Maharasthra, Gujarat etc. and people indigenous to them are called Bengalis, Punjabis, Marathis, Gujaratis etc.. the natives of these regions speak different languages, practice different customs, eat a different cuisine, right a different script though broadly all have similarities with one another and share a lot
of commonalities of culture, language, history, origin, beliefs etc.

now the question comes is how is a Punjabi and a Bengali united in India under the banner of India/Nationality and couldn't be united in Pakistan under the banner of Islam/Ideology?? For this you have to come to India and refer to the various points too..

Malang, I've already admitted before that punjabis and sindhis may share similarities with northern indians. however, you and the rest of indians refuse to address this point, "what do we make of the pakhtuns, balochis, hindkowan, hazaras?" afghanistan was already an ancient land before it came to be called "afghanistan".

they share nothing in common with indians. had there been no partition, the pashtuns would have definitely broken away from india and don't even bother saying that the indian army would have been able to stop them. if the powerful red army couldn't successfully contain them, i doubt the indian army would even have half the success. and trust me, they are not kashmiris or assamese, they definitely would have succeeded in breaking away and joining afghanistan.

why then, have pashtuns been living with and successfully integrated with the rest of the others in pakistan when they could have been easily tempted into joining afghanistan? the answer lies with our muslim identity, for the sake of islamic unity they have agreed to live with us.
refer to the original creator of pakistan and it's original purpose:

The originator of the word PAKISTAN, Chowdhry Rehmat Ali wrote of his concepts,
" 'Pakistan' is both a Persian and an Urdu word. It is composed of letters taken from the names of all our homelands- 'Indian' and 'Asian', that is Punjab, Afghania (North- West Frontier Province), Kashmir, Iran, Sindh (including Kachch and Kathiawar), Tukharistan, Afghanistan and BaluchistaN. It means the land of the Paks - the spiritually pure and clean. It symbolizes the religious beliefs and the ethnical stocks of our people; and it stands for all the territorial constituents of our original Fatherland. It has no other origin and no other meaning; and it does not admit of any other interpretation."
( PAKISTAN: "THE LAND OF THE PURE" )

note that i have underlined a few "new" regions that i have forgot to mention before. i hope Roadrunner or Agnostic can comment on Tukharistan, i'm quite interested in learning about the "bactrian" kingdom. ayy... i was trying to avoid a debate right now. actually i wanted to avoid posting, since i'm at the end of my summer school session and a lot is at stake here.

oh yeah, and not all of pakistan lies in the sub-continent. only half of it does, i'll post a pic just to rub it in. remember, pakistan is composed of the indus valley civilization, graeco-bactrian, kushan, gadhara civilizations. there wasn't an ancient land called pakistan (neither was there india) but there are definitely people who inherit the history of these civilizations living in pakistan. "Punjab, Afghania (North- West Frontier Province), Kashmir, Iran, Sindh (including Kachch and Kathiawar), Tukharistan, Afghanistan and BaluchistaN. It means the land of the Paks - the spiritually pure and clean. " for the sake unity, we decide to call ourselves "pakistani".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Earthquake_Information_for_Pakistan.gif

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This is the obvious fact that some Pakistanis would be expected to rubbish the idea of ancient India. Especially those who identify themselves more with outside invaders than the natives.

That would strike at the root of the theory that India was a Ja.hil land before the invasions. They would like to believe that they brought civilization to this land.

When I say natives, it doesn't mean that people may not have migrated thousands of years back (especially if we all came form that African pair), but how they identify themselves.

Do you deny that a substantial number of Pakistani people identify themselves with Arabic/Afghan/Turkic/Central Asian ancestry? And pl. let's not simplify it by saying that because of intermarrying etc. they are now natives. I am not sure how much inter-mixing has taken place as marriage within the family is a common occurrence.

The identification is more with religious beliefs than with Arabs. And whether substantial numbers of Pakistanis identify themselves with Arabs or not I cannot say - some do, but there are no 'numbers', nor does that identification invalidate the arguments against the position that there was a 'ancient Indian nation'.

I am not talking of migrants but invaders. The difference is obvious: Parasis were migrants who came to India escaping persecution back home, the likes of Bin Qasim, Gazanavi, Gauri etc. are invaders.

It is a valid argument. Arabs don't accept Israelis in their midst as they consider them invaders to a land that they occupied for 700 years.

The invaders were the militaries of the respective rulers who came to the subcontinent and conquered various Kingdoms. Once they settled in the land they were migrants.

The Arabs have multiple grievances - they argue that they were pushed out (Palestinian refugees) while Jews settled in from the outside and becaem a majority. There is no evidence that the peoples of Pakistan were all pushed out and the current population is primarily Arab.

I can assure you that I am not xenophobic, but people having obvious agenda against India trying to define and denigrate India gets my goat.

Same as people who are anti-Pakistan trying to define and denigrate Pakistan would do to you.

No denigration has taken place here - except what you posted. The reference was to the corruption, backwardness and misery you find all over South Asia, and unless you are blind you can't deny it.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

agnostic, frankly i'm starting to feel "hate" and "frustration" here. if these indians see us as the "dirty and vicious" afghans who "invaded their land, raped a gajillion women, and killed a gajillion people", then that is more than enough to partition the sub-continent.

i'm disgusted at how you were treated by these people when you claimed your rajput heritage a while back. it was as if you couldn't claim your right because you were a muslim. neither had i intended to compare arabs with south-asians nor did i claim that south-asians were inferior with a racial taunt. these words were seemingly "shoved" up my mouth.

what is the point of talking about hate bred by religion when you have these ideas floating around. i'm glad this land is divided, seeing how racism to this extent exists even today, i was right, south asia has no hope. as i mentioned earlier, separatist movements in pakistan and india prove the fact that the sub-continent can hardly get along.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No, South Asians are there, but they don't belong there. South Asians are too bright and have too many historical achievements to belong to third world.

They are 'there', as you admit. However, no one belongs 'there' - lets get rid of the superiority complex shall we.

Commenting on the current poor state of affairs is perfectly appropriate.

Yes, I meant the whole Akhand Bharat.

I wasn't referring to any mythical entities, rather the various nations of South Asia.

Let's agree to disagree on that. You are an interested party to say that. While that doesn't make the argument invalid, it does make it motivated.

It will be like an Indian defining what Pakistan is or should be. Chances are it will be a motivated argument in line with his belief system.

Hogwash. This has nothing to do with 'interested parties'. The definition of nation fits all the entities that existed in the region prior to the British invasion and prior to the arrival of Islam.

This is a simple mater of looking at the facts, and the facts disprove your argument.

 

[Flintlock]

No, South Asians are there, but they don't belong there. South Asians are too bright and have too many historical achievements to belong to third world.

Yeah....screw negativity and self-flagellation. We are the best and that's that! No explanations needed!

 

[Vinod2070]

The identification is more with religious beliefs than with Arabs. And whether substantial numbers of Pakistanis identify themselves with Arabs or not I cannot say - some do, but there are no 'numbers', nor does that identification invalidate the arguments against the position that there was a 'ancient Indian nation'.

No, I am not talking of the religious affinity but ethnic affinity. But anyway I think debate on this point tends to get a bit rancorous, so I won't argue this point further.

The invaders were the militaries of the respective rulers who came to the subcontinent and conquered various Kingdoms. Once they settled in the land they were migrants.

That's where we may have a fundamental difference. We both agree English were foreigners and alien rulers. Their own attitude and the fact that they chose to go back after it was over, made it much more obvious.

In the case of Muslim invaders, many of them chose to stay in this land. This can be taken in two ways. Indians and Pakistanis may possibly take the opposite view on them. Both views may have their merits and demerits and I won't argue now for which one is correct.

The Arabs have multiple grievances - they argue that they were pushed out (Palestinian refugees) while Jews settled in from the outside and becaem a majority. There is no evidence that the peoples of Pakistan were all pushed out and the current population is primarily Arab.

Well, if we go back long enough we can see that there are no Hindus/ Buddhists left in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What happened to them? Did they all convert (voluntarily or otherwise) or a great calamity befell them? There are various theories. I am not sure the complete details are really available. I would really like to read the history of what really happened.

There are some links on the web which tell the origin of the name Hindukush and it is not pleasant at all.

No denigration has taken place here - except what you posted. The reference was to the corruption, backwardness and misery you find all over South Asia, and unless you are blind you can't deny it.

Well, I did misunderstand Assad's post. I agree to that.

But the point remains that ancient India can not be defined by Pakistanis. You are an interested party. It will be defined by Indians as per our belief system.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But the point remains that ancient India can not be defined by Pakistanis. You are an interested party. It will be defined by Indians as per our belief system.

Just on that point really quick - the idea of an 'ancient Indian nation' is a 'subjective view', one more of beliefs than facts. It is an attempt by modern nationalists to retrospectively argue the idea of a 'nation'.

And anytime your 'beliefs' end up imposing upon my land Pakistan and infringing upon my distinct identity (which this idea of 'ancient Indian nation' does), it will be argued against.

 

[Vinod2070]

Yeah....screw negativity and self-flagellation. We are the best and that's that! No explanations needed!

Was that a sarcasm?

Well I have interacted with a lot of foreigners from all parts of the world. I can assure you that I didn't find Indians second to anyone at all in capability.

Obviously we have a mountain to climb as we are in a deep pool of an extremely unpleasant substance now (a 1000 years of foreign rule does that. See Afghan after just a few decades of foreign invasions).

The achievements of the last few decades are a cause for optimism. Indians have got the confidence back. They are becoming successful at the world stage and the world is waiting for us to take our due place.

You won't believe that I met a taxi driver in the USA. That guy was from Eritrea (an African country). He told me that he is waiting for India to become a substantive power at the world stage. he had high hopes from the innate goodness of India and he believed in India being a force for the good as against the materialistic West and China.

I just hope India can really match up to that taxi driver's expectations when we reach that destination. We can again become the Jagat Guru and the not the World policeman.

 

[Flintlock]

Was that a sarcasm?

Not at all. Self-belief is the first step to success. You don't need a reason to believe in yourself.

You won't believe that I met a taxi driver in the USA. That guy was from Eritrea (an African country). He told me that he is waiting for India to become a substantive power at the world stage. he had high hopes from the innate goodness of India and he believed in India being a force for the good as against the materialistic West and China.

Indeed! Our nation is an inspiration for the world, has always been an inspiration and will remain so for many millenia.

It is not without reason that the word "India" means so many things to so many people around the world.

I just hope India can really match up to that taxi driver's expectations when we reach that destination. We can again become the Jagat Guru and the the World policeman.

We'll be better than that! We will prove that a nation does not need a past of coercion and totalitarianism to succeed. We will prove that understanding is better than conflict, and cooperation better than confrontation. We will prove that "unity in diversity" is not just an empty slogan but a liveable, workable model for the world to follow.