Islamic Monuments in India - Whose Legacy?
- Thread starter Flintlock
- Start date
Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
i don't think so
UnitedPak
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Its Muslim but not Pakistani.
Pakistani history is basically everything that took place on Pakistani land since thats where most Pakistanis have always lived. i.e Indus Valley, Ghandaran Kingdom, Porus Kingdom etc.
The Taj Mahal is Indian because it is in India, its Muslim because it was built by a Muslim ruler, who was Central Asian for the record.
Pakistanis however are proud of such monuments because they show the face of Muslim rule in India.
Religion doesnt change who your ancestors were. Having the same Religion doesnt give you right over land or history which didnt belong to your ancestors either.
Pakistani history is basically everything that took place on Pakistani land since thats where most Pakistanis have always lived. i.e Indus Valley, Ghandaran Kingdom, Porus Kingdom etc.
The Taj Mahal is Indian because it is in India, its Muslim because it was built by a Muslim ruler, who was Central Asian for the record.
Pakistanis however are proud of such monuments because they show the face of Muslim rule in India.
Religion doesnt change who your ancestors were. Having the same Religion doesnt give you right over land or history which didnt belong to your ancestors either.
India and Pakistan are inseparably connected when it comes to history but apart from that both are independant and souvereign nations.
No matter how much we'd love to claim Lal Qila or Taj Mahal or the abandoned city of Fatehpur Sikri, they were built on Indian soil and therefor they're 100% Indian property.
No matter how much we'd love to claim Lal Qila or Taj Mahal or the abandoned city of Fatehpur Sikri, they were built on Indian soil and therefor they're 100% Indian property.
Tiki Tam Tam
<b>MILITARY PROFESSIONALS</b>
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 9,330
- Reaction score
- 0
Why Indians of Islamic faith are not of the same faith?
They don't have the right to the land or history?
They belonged to which ancestor?
If for the record the person who built Taj Mahal was Central Asian, then how are the Pakistani getting pleased? Pakistan is Central Asia from where Shah Jahan's ancestors came?
UnitedPak
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
You failed to understand my post, and I have no idea what you are arguing.
My point being, All the history which took place on Pakistani land belongs to Pakistanis, and all the history which took place on Indian land belongs to Indians.
However a lot of North Indian Muslim history is shared with Pakistanis just like a lot of the Sikh history of Lahore is shared with North Indian Sikhs.
Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
because pak is not even think that time.pakistan is so late then these places
UnitedPak
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
This is about the Pakistani people. I am pretty sure they existed at that time.
Tiki Tam Tam
<b>MILITARY PROFESSIONALS</b>
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 9,330
- Reaction score
- 0
That is where you are wrong.
History of the past is common.
There is no us and them.
The Mogul history is history and cannot be wiped out from the history of Mogul Empire.
Flintlock
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,176
- Reaction score
- 0
Let me clear a few misconceptions here.
The vast majority of Islamic monuments in India were built by Indian architects, sculptors, calligraphy artists, workers, and funds.
Sure,the Taj Mahal involved people of different backgrounds, ranging from Iran to Arabia to South and North India.
It is not surprising that a building of such magnificence required an international effort.
The vast majority of Islamic monuments in India were built by Indian architects, sculptors, calligraphy artists, workers, and funds.
Sure,the Taj Mahal involved people of different backgrounds, ranging from Iran to Arabia to South and North India.
It is not surprising that a building of such magnificence required an international effort.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
I think the "pride" being referenced while talking about "Islamic Monuments", comes from the "Muslim" part of peoples identity.
Along this line of thinking, people would be just as proud of the Islamic architecture in Spain, Turkey, Pakistan, India etc. - this doesn't necessarily mean that those monuments belong to Pakistan - but they are an accomplishment of "Muslims", and people could argue that they "belong to "Muslims", and are a part of "Muslim history".
Personally, I don't care about "Muslim history" so much as "Pakistani history", which, as UP pointed out, is the history of the peoples of the lands comprising Pakistan, and its interplay and connectivity with the peoples of the lands comprising India.
roadrunner
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,696
- Reaction score
- 0
well, i wouldn't claim anything on Indian soil, even if it was Muslim. It belongs to India. Most people would not. However many Indians are trying to claim the IVC and most of the achievements of Pakistan (even the name India derives from Pakistan).
Simple. Everything in India is Indian, everything in Pakistan is Pakistani. All the history. That's what most Pakistanis will say.
Simple. Everything in India is Indian, everything in Pakistan is Pakistani. All the history. That's what most Pakistanis will say.
Tiki Tam Tam
<b>MILITARY PROFESSIONALS</b>
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 9,330
- Reaction score
- 0
What insight!
roadrunner
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,696
- Reaction score
- 0
vish
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 867
- Reaction score
- 0
Before you read this post, let me clarify a certain something. I've used the terms "India" and India (without the quotes) to refer to two separate entities.
I think India and Pakistan, as nation states, have been "derived" from one common intra-regional entity, which has always been known as "India." Before the advent of the British Empire, there were plenty of instances when both, present day India and Pakistan, were ruled by pan-"Indian" empires. Here I'm using the term "India" to refer to the "Indian Sub-continent." Mind you, it was always British "India" or the East "India" Company. Both these entities used the term "India" to refer to the "Indian Sub-continent." This "India," politically different from the current day nation state, was partitioned into the nation states of India and Pakistan.
The idea of Pakistan, which again I have nothing against except for its religious background, was born much later. Both our countries, including the other states in the sub-continent, have a common ancestry.
So stating that India lays "claim" to the Indus Valley Civilization is very naive. The Indus Valley Civilization is a part of our (people living in the sub-continent) history, not yours or mine, alone. Porus is as much an Indian legend as he is a Pakistani legend. My history textbooks never "claimed" the IVC as Indian, as in belonging to the present day nation-state. They also mention that Harrapa and Mohan-je-daro are in modern day Pakistan. But my books do mention that these are a part of "Indian" history, which does transcend national borders and goes back thousands of years. My history textbooks also mention the regional powers that ruled over present day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and Afghanistan, and also state that this is a part of our ("India's") history. Even Greco-Indian kingdoms are a part of "India's," India's, and Pakistan's history.
The idea of "Islamic Monuments in India belonging to Pakistan" is nothing but a lopsided point of view. Religion alone does not dictate history. Why do people forget that the current day region of Pakistan was once home to a lot of Hindus/Buddhists/Sikhs? There will be plenty of pre-Islamic monuments in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Does that mean that we (India/Hindus) possess them?
No. But can we state that these monument are a part of our history and heritage; yes.
History transcends regional/national borders; this is because borders are temporary. You think our present day borders will last a thousand years? Regardless of whether any sub-continent regional kingdom enjoyed "control" over Pakistan/part of Pakistan, Pakistan can claim that it is a part of its "history."
And what makes people think that just because "India's" rulers were Muslim, India or the then Indian elite was/were pre-dominantly Muslim? There must have been powerful non-Muslim power plays then too. Most Muslim rulers respected the religious/cultural diversity of "India." Even Aurangzeb was far tolerant of non-Muslims than what is stated. There was no "Islamic rule" of "India"; only "rule of kings who were Muslims."
There was a "Delhi Sultanate" (not "Muslim Sultanate") and then the "Mughal Empire" (not the "Islamic Empire"). These were not "Islamic empires;" these were "empires headed by Muslim kings."
I think India and Pakistan, as nation states, have been "derived" from one common intra-regional entity, which has always been known as "India." Before the advent of the British Empire, there were plenty of instances when both, present day India and Pakistan, were ruled by pan-"Indian" empires. Here I'm using the term "India" to refer to the "Indian Sub-continent." Mind you, it was always British "India" or the East "India" Company. Both these entities used the term "India" to refer to the "Indian Sub-continent." This "India," politically different from the current day nation state, was partitioned into the nation states of India and Pakistan.
The idea of Pakistan, which again I have nothing against except for its religious background, was born much later. Both our countries, including the other states in the sub-continent, have a common ancestry.
So stating that India lays "claim" to the Indus Valley Civilization is very naive. The Indus Valley Civilization is a part of our (people living in the sub-continent) history, not yours or mine, alone. Porus is as much an Indian legend as he is a Pakistani legend. My history textbooks never "claimed" the IVC as Indian, as in belonging to the present day nation-state. They also mention that Harrapa and Mohan-je-daro are in modern day Pakistan. But my books do mention that these are a part of "Indian" history, which does transcend national borders and goes back thousands of years. My history textbooks also mention the regional powers that ruled over present day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and Afghanistan, and also state that this is a part of our ("India's") history. Even Greco-Indian kingdoms are a part of "India's," India's, and Pakistan's history.
The idea of "Islamic Monuments in India belonging to Pakistan" is nothing but a lopsided point of view. Religion alone does not dictate history. Why do people forget that the current day region of Pakistan was once home to a lot of Hindus/Buddhists/Sikhs? There will be plenty of pre-Islamic monuments in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Does that mean that we (India/Hindus) possess them?
No. But can we state that these monument are a part of our history and heritage; yes.
History transcends regional/national borders; this is because borders are temporary. You think our present day borders will last a thousand years? Regardless of whether any sub-continent regional kingdom enjoyed "control" over Pakistan/part of Pakistan, Pakistan can claim that it is a part of its "history."
And what makes people think that just because "India's" rulers were Muslim, India or the then Indian elite was/were pre-dominantly Muslim? There must have been powerful non-Muslim power plays then too. Most Muslim rulers respected the religious/cultural diversity of "India." Even Aurangzeb was far tolerant of non-Muslims than what is stated. There was no "Islamic rule" of "India"; only "rule of kings who were Muslims."
There was a "Delhi Sultanate" (not "Muslim Sultanate") and then the "Mughal Empire" (not the "Islamic Empire"). These were not "Islamic empires;" these were "empires headed by Muslim kings."
