What's new

Islamic Monuments in India - Whose Legacy?

Do Islamic monuments in India belong to Pakistani history?


  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
I think there is a confusion.

SA, what exactly do you mean:

"Islamic Monuments in India belong to Pakistan?"

"Islamic Monuments in India belong to Pakistani history?"

Any which ways, I would say neither of the above two statements is true.

In my view "Historic Monuments in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka can be a part of the histories of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka."

This is because at one time or the other, there were intra-regional entities ruling these modern day nation states.
 
I think there is a confusion.

SA, what exactly do you mean:

"Islamic Monuments in India belong to Pakistan?"

"Islamic Monuments in India belong to Pakistani history?"

Well, I am sorry for the confusion.

What I mean is that Islamic Monuments in India belong to Pakistan OR that Islamic Monuments in India belong exclusively in Pakistani history.

In my view "Historic Monuments in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka can be a part of the histories of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka."

This is because at one time or the other, there were intra-regional entities ruling these modern day nation states.

That brings us to the never-ending debate:

How to cut the chocolate cake into little pieces.

On what basis. International Border? Ethnic Groups? Religion? Locations of the capitals of the empires?
 
Well, I am sorry for the confusion.

What I mean is that Islamic Monuments in India belong to Pakistan OR that Islamic Monuments in India belong exclusively in Pakistani history.

Again, in either case, no. Are these "Islamic monuments" part of Pakistan's history, yes; as much as they are a part of India's history. Similarly, pre-Islamic monuments in Pakistan do not belong to India nor do they belong exclusively to India's history. They are a part of India's history as much as they are a part of Pakistan's history.

That brings us to the never-ending debate:

How to cut the chocolate cake into little pieces.

On what basis. International Border? Ethnic Groups? Religion? Locations of the capitals of the empires?

Why should there be a cutting of the "chocolate cake?" Why seggregate something as wonderful as "history?" Why can't it be shared? Why can't we (the inhabitants of the sub-continent) agree to the notion that our (modern day nation states) history is overlapping and more common than not, and is not an exclusive legion of particular nation state solely due to geography?
 
In my view "Historic Monuments in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka can be a part of the histories of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka."

This is because at one time or the other, there were intra-regional entities ruling these modern day nation states.

One could equally say that Iran, Afghanistan, China, Uzbekistan, even Indonesia, UK, France etc were all part of the histories of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka on this basis. You have to draw the line. Whatever happened within Pakistan's borders is Pakistani history. If a civilization overlapped (Mayan Empire), then some of the Mayan Empire has a Pakistani history, some Indian history etc. On the IVC, both Afghanistan and India can claim parts of it, but Pakistan was the driving force behind it. One can say it's a Pakistani civilization with Indian/Afghani parts, not really it's an Indian one alone.
 
One could equally say that Iran, Afghanistan, China, Uzbekistan, even Indonesia, UK, France etc were all part of the histories of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka on this basis. You have to draw the line. Whatever happened within Pakistan's borders is Pakistani history. If a civilization overlapped (Mayan Empire), then some of the Mayan Empire has a Pakistani history, some Indian history etc. On the IVC, both Afghanistan and India can claim parts of it, but Pakistan was the driving force behind it. One can say it's a Pakistani civilization with Indian/Afghani parts, not really it's an Indian one alone.

Drawing the line is an individual prerogative. You can't generalize it. Why do we need to draw a line? I claim, think, and believe that the IVC is as much Indian as it is Pakistani; what can anybody do?

Iran and Afghanistan share more history with the subcontinent than the UK, France, and China. The origin of Buddhism is part of China's history as much as it is part of India's. The British Raj is as much a part of the subcontinent's history as it is of British history.

The IVC had no driving force behind it. It is as much Indian as it is Pakistani and Afghanistani. And I'm not saying it is an "Indian one alone."

Geography is a very limited way of "dividing history." The nation states of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Bhutan, and Nepal are very recent in terms of history. However, the term "India," used by the rest of the world to refer to the subcontinent, predates these nation states. This is because the terms sub-continent and "India" have by and large been used interchangeably. This "India" is different from the current nation state of India, though both do have a lot in common. The nation states are offsprings of this supra-regional entity known as "India."
 
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."

Well said.

Its a point I have made before as well. My argument is that the adoption of the name "India" by the political entity created in 1947 is what has caused this mess.

As you correctly point out, historically the region (or parts of the region, starting from the Western areas now comprising Pakistan under the Greeks) has been referred to as "India", British India, Indian subcontinent etc.

For historians to refer to the history of the region as "Indian" history makes sense using the commonly used identifier for the region, but with no distinction left between the current nation of India and the historical region of India, the impression is created that Pakistan has no history, or that its history is being usurped.

I had argued before that it would make sense for India and Pakistan to perhaps agree on referring to the history of the region as South Asian history - as such there is no question over it being common history, and there is no impression of one nation "usurping" history.
 
Well said.

Its a point I have made before as well. My argument is that the adoption of the name "India" by the political entity created in 1947 is what has caused this mess.

As you correctly point out, historically the region (or parts of the region, starting from the Western areas now comprising Pakistan under the Greeks) has been referred to as "India", British India, Indian subcontinent etc.

For historians to refer to the history of the region as "Indian" history makes sense using the commonly used identifier for the region, but with no distinction left between the current nation of India and the historical region of India, the impression is created that Pakistan has no history, or that its history is being usurped.

I had argued before that it would make sense for India and Pakistan to perhaps agree on referring to the history of the region as South Asian history - as such there is no question over it being common history, and there is no impression of one nation "usurping" history.

The term "India," the supra-regional entity, has been in use since millennia and there is hardly a manner in which it can be changed. Plus the term India has been derived from the term Indus (I may be wrong here). So it does have a certain amount of historic credibility.

The initial euphoria of nationalism during the British Raj did not call for a divided "India." They simply wanted British "India" to be changed to Independent India (comprising the many modern day nation states). The modern day India is seen as a continuation of "India" and everything "Indian;" I think this is justified. The creation of modern day Pakistan is seen as the partition of "India" and by many as the partition of India, as it (India) is a continuation of "India." This is where the confusion starts. This is solely because the idea of Pakistan took root much later than nationalism (India) in the subcontinent. Pakistan's history is a part of "India's" and to a certain extent India's.

There is no usurping of Pakistan's history. Pakistan's history is a part of "Indian" history. I honestly see no conflict. But perhaps I being an Indian, my views are not that unbiased and "real."
 
Drawing the line is an individual prerogative. You can't generalize it. Why do we need to draw a line? I claim, think, and believe that the IVC is as much Indian as it is Pakistani; what can anybody do?

Fine, so the Portuguese who ruled Goa for centuries can lay claim to the history of India also? And Afghanistan can lay claim also to many an Indian civilization, as can Iran, Greece, Turkey, Saudi Arabia? There has to be a line you draw.

Iran and Afghanistan share more history with the subcontinent than the UK, France, and China. The origin of Buddhism is part of China's history as much as it is part of India's. The British Raj is as much a part of the subcontinent's history as it is of British history.

Buddhism spent more time being developed in Pakistan than in India. Its origins are Nepalese.

So the British Raj is part of subcontinent history. Then Saudi Arabian history is also part of subcontinent history, Turkish history also is. The Greeks also etc.

The IVC had no driving force behind it. It is as much Indian as it is Pakistani and Afghanistani. And I'm not saying it is an "Indian one alone."

That's not true. The IVC was centred along the Indus River, and predominantly was in Pakistan. Take the example of the Saudi Arabians. We know they invaded parts of India about 1,000 years ago. Can the Saudi Arabians now claim some parts of Indian history as a greater Saudi Arabian history? Since parts of India were part of the Saudi Empire, why not? India in this case would have no history if everything was divided up like you're trying to divide up the IVC.

Geography is a very limited way of "dividing history." The nation states of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Bhutan, and Nepal are very recent in terms of history. However, the term "India," used by the rest of the world to refer to the subcontinent, predates these nation states. This is because the terms sub-continent and "India" have by and large been used interchangeably. This "India" is different from the current nation state of India, though both do have a lot in common. The nation states are offsprings of this supra-regional entity known as "India."

The term India was invented by ancient Pakistan for the region of the Indus. Some idiot Greeks that were poor at geography and thought "all dem people..duh..where the big river lies, dem folk all look same to me, dey Indian", should not have any influence on what was the real India, and what Indian history actually refers to.
 
That is seriously a narrow minded explanation. 1.6 billion people do not share the same history.

What happened on the land of Pakistan belongs to the people who have always lived there, i.e the people known as Pakistanis. You are blatantly using double meanings to credit the modern People of India the history of the entire subcontinent.

Actions that took place in Baluchistan do not belong to Indians, regardless of what year it was, same with actions that took place in every other Pakistani city. 1947 politics doesnt change ancient history. Lets try and talk sense here.

Sure there is some overlapping, Certain Muslim history in North India, certain Sikh history in Lahore. But try not and abuse this.

Events that became part of history had nothing to do with the confines of borders as we now know them. I suggest we raise our vision from our immediate past & look beyond. The connect will be apparent.

If for some reason it is not evident .. forget it.
 
The term "India," the supra-regional entity, has been in use since millennia and there is hardly a manner in which it can be changed. Plus the term India has been derived from the term Indus (I may be wrong here). So it does have a certain amount of historic credibility.

The initial euphoria of nationalism during the British Raj did not call for a divided "India." They simply wanted British "India" to be changed to Independent India (comprising the many modern day nation states). The modern day India is seen as a continuation of "India" and everything "Indian;" I think this is justified. The creation of modern day Pakistan is seen as the partition of "India" and by many as the partition of India, as it (India) is a continuation of "India." This is where the confusion starts. This is solely because the idea of Pakistan took root much later than nationalism (India) in the subcontinent. Pakistan's history is a part of "India's" and to a certain extent India's.

There is no usurping of Pakistan's history. Pakistan's history is a part of "Indian" history. I honestly see no conflict. But perhaps I being an Indian, my views are not that unbiased and "real."

Yes, we would disagree on some of the points you raised.

Even Historians will not use the term "Indian" to describe the people of Pakistan, though the peoples/descendants of peoples in the lands comprising Pakistan have been around perhaps as long as any other people in South Asia. If in fact the Human Migration Theory is correct, then the area comprising Pakistan would have been populated earlier than the areas further East in today's India, with the population eventually migrating and diffusing into India/Nepal/Sri Lanka/Bangladesh etc.

The name India,as has been pointed out, was also initially coined by the Greeks to primarily refer to the region comprising today's Pakistan.

Yet the association of the word "India" with the present political entity is so strong that it is not typically used for anything major related to anything but today's India.

There is a contradiction when we talk about a "region" called "India" (which you agreed to earlier), and then suggest that "the history of Pakistan is a part of India's" (in this context the only thing you could be referring to would be the current Indian State).

Since there was a larger region called "India" (called so not by the residents of South Asia, but rather foreign historians), then it only makes sense to argue that the history of today's India and Pakistan is a part of the history of "the Indian Subcontinent" or South Asia.

You could argue however that the history of Modern India is a part of Pakistan's history, and the history of Pakistan is a part of Modern India's history - and the histories of both are part of South Asian history.

Another point that causes some of this confusion is the suggestion that Modern India is a continuation of Ancient India. It is really only a continuation in name. No such entity existed historically.

Yes the historical cultures of ancient India have continued into Modern India, but they have also continued into Pakistan, and into Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka etc.

The history of all of these nations is a common South Asian history, and they are all a part of each others history. They are not part of "Modern India's" history alone.

Hence my argument that the history should be referred to as South Asian history to remove all this confusion and redundancy of names, and suspicion that Indians are fine with everyone else's history being a part of "modern India's history", but not with anyone else claiming the same.
 
Fine, so the Portuguese who ruled Goa for centuries can lay claim to the history of India also? And Afghanistan can lay claim also to many an Indian civilization, as can Iran, Greece, Turkey, Saudi Arabia? There has to be a line you draw.

Distinguish betwen "laying claim to history" and "being a part of history." The part of Portugese history that deals with Goa is "a part of" Indian history. Portugal, which is different from the "Portugal" then, cannot claim Indian history. Same goes for Iran, Greece, etc.

Buddhism spent more time being developed in Pakistan than in India. Its origins are Nepalese.

I disagree with your assessment with regard to development. With regard to origin, Buddhism originated in modern day India and Nepal. It's origins though are "Indian," because Nepal as an entity did not exist back then but "India" did.

So the British Raj is part of subcontinent history. Then Saudi Arabian history is also part of subcontinent history, Turkish history also is. The Greeks also etc.

Again distinguish betwen "laying claim to history" and "being a part of history." Some parts of Saudi Arabian history are parts of Indian history too.

That's not true. The IVC was centred along the Indus River, and predominantly was in Pakistan. Take the example of the Saudi Arabians. We know they invaded parts of India about 1,000 years ago. Can the Saudi Arabians now claim some parts of Indian history as a greater Saudi Arabian history? Since parts of India were part of the Saudi Empire, why not? India in this case would have no history if everything was divided up like you're trying to divide up the IVC.

Did the inhabitants of the IVC know what India and Pakistan are? No. The term "India" is derived from "Indus." The origin of the term "India" predates the origin of the term "Pakistan." Hence the world sees it is a part of "Indian" history. I'm not dividing IVC, I'm suggesting that it belongs to one and all equally.

The term India was invented by ancient Pakistan for the region of the Indus. Some idiot Greeks that were poor at geography and thought "all dem people..duh..where the big river lies, dem folk all look same to me, dey Indian", should not have any influence on what was the real India, and what Indian history actually refers to.

Nobody invented the term India. It slowly developed on its own over centuries. The term "Pakistan" came much later than the term "India."
 
AM:

Any disagreement is welcomed; I just hope it does not lead to animosity.

I am aware that the lands in the current day Pakistan were the first in the subcontinent to be populated. Then again the term "India" originated from the river "Indus." The term "Pakistan" originated much later. This is the reason why the term "Indian history" is more pre-dominant than "Pakistani history."

The term "India" might have been coinde by the Greeks, but again the term "India" predates the term "Pakistan." This does not imply that there is no Pakistani history; all I'm saying is that Pakistani history is more seen as a part of Indian history than vice versa. This is due to chronology. If the term "Pakistan" would have predated "India," reality would have been different now.

I've said that Pakistan history is part of Indian, the nation state, history because the idea of India, the nation state, predates the idea of Pakistan, the nation sate. India, the nation state, originally encompassed the lands that are now in Pakistan. It is a generally held view that India was partitioned between India and Pakistan. Herein, India is seen as a continuation of "India" and Pakistan an offshoot of "India" and to a certain extent India.

Even residents of "India" referred to their lands as "Hind." This term has less to do with "Hindu" and more to do with "Sindh" and "Ind," both referring to Indus. In fact the term "Hindu" was derived from "Hind," and not vice versa.

India as a nation state did not exist originally, but "India" as a region did. However, India is seen as a continuation of "India" largely due to its name, size, and the accompanying dominance. There are however numerous just reasons why this continuation is believed to be true. However, I do agree that the marginalization of the other states is uncalled for. But then again, I don't see any myself.

I agree that the cultural traditions have prevailed in modern day nation states. Again the term "India" is oldest among the terms Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc. The modern day nation state of India is seen as a continuation of "India," and consequently the histories of Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc are seen as offshoots of "Indian" and Indian history.

The term "Indian history" is quiet widespread and official action won't achieve much.
 
Distinguish betwen "laying claim to history" and "being a part of history." The part of Portugese history that deals with Goa is "a part of" Indian history. Portugal, which is different from the "Portugal" then, cannot claim Indian history. Same goes for Iran, Greece, etc.

portugal cannot lay claim to indian history. it cannot say for example that the the Mughal Empire was a Portuguese Empire simply because Vasco De Gama conquered some areas of the Mughal Empire. Likewise, one cannot say the IVC was an Indian civilization simply because India had a minority of IVC sites. Same with Afghanistan's IVC sites, one cannot say it was an Afghani civilization. IVC was centred on the Indus. It was an Indus Valley Civilization, and the Indus Valley is mainly located in Pakistan. So it must be an Ancient Pakistani civilization.

I disagree with your assessment with regard to development. With regard to origin, Buddhism originated in modern day India and Nepal. It's origins though are "Indian," because Nepal as an entity did not exist back then but "India" did.

Look, whatever happens within Nepal's borders is Nepalese history, it doesn't matter whether Nepal as a country entity existed then. You just want to say everything is Indian history, so that you can claim it for yourself. Don't you think you're trying to portray a fake version of history that is favourable towards India, when a lot of it never really occurred within the borders of modern day India?

Again distinguish betwen "laying claim to history" and "being a part of history." Some parts of Saudi Arabian history are parts of Indian history too.

See first reply.

Did the inhabitants of the IVC know what India and Pakistan are? No. The term "India" is derived from "Indus." The origin of the term "India" predates the origin of the term "Pakistan." Hence the world sees it is a part of "Indian" history. I'm not dividing IVC, I'm suggesting that it belongs to one and all equally.

This statement is complete nonsense.

Did the inhabitants of the IVC know what India and Pakistan are? No.
So what if they did not know what India and Pakistan were? We know what India and Pakistan are now, and we know what the IVC was. It was a civilization built primarily on Pakistani soil.

The term "India" is derived from "Indus." The origin of the term "India" predates the origin of the term "Pakistan." Hence the world sees it is a part of "Indian" history.

Exactly. So because Nehru intentionally stole the name India to steal all Pakistan's history, and fooled the world into believing this, it does not mean it is correct. It is up to Pakistanis to correct this impression, and one day, when someone bashes the radical Mullahs up, they will wake up and tell the world this. You will always have your alternative word for India, Bharat, to be used.

I'm not dividing IVC, I'm suggesting that it belongs to one and all equally.

I know you're suggesting this. My point is that the IVC does not belong to India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran equally. IVC belongs to Pakistan mainly (the driving force), then India, then Afghanistan, then Iranian history. But to mention IVC as Indian history (as in modern India), is a distortion of the truth. one cannot mention IVC without referring to Pakistan first.

Nobody invented the term India. It slowly developed on its own over centuries. The term "Pakistan" came much later than the term "India."

No, it did not. "India" derives from the Indus River, which in turn derives from Sindh, which in turn derives from Saptha Sindhu. Saptha Sindhu (literal, land of the seven rivers or the indus valley or Pakistan), was first coined 3,500 years ago by the people of the Rig Veda who were Ancient Pakistanis, not Indians though.
 
portugal cannot lay claim to indian history. it cannot say for example that the the Mughal Empire was a Portuguese Empire simply because Vasco De Gama conquered some areas of the Mughal Empire. Likewise, one cannot say the IVC was an Indian civilization simply because India had a minority of IVC sites. Same with Afghanistan's IVC sites, one cannot say it was an Afghani civilization. IVC was centred on the Indus. It was an Indus Valley Civilization, and the Indus Valley is mainly located in Pakistan. So it must be an Ancient Pakistani civilization.

All I said was the part of Portuguese history that deals with Goa is part of Indian history too and I'll stick to that. I do not understand your statements with regard to Vasco da Gama, so I'll request you to make it clearer.

The IVC is the Indus Valley Civilization, neither Indian nor Pakistani nor Afghanistani. The IVC is as much Indian as much as it is Pakistani. The cities of the IVC may be segregated on the basis of geography. The IVC is seen as a part of Indian history because India, as a term, predates Pakistan, as a term, by millennia. Pakistan's history is seen as part of Indian history because India was partitioned between India and Pakistan; at least this is the majority view. Ancient history cannot be segregated on the basis of modern day national borders.

Look, whatever happens within Nepal's borders is Nepalese history, it doesn't matter whether Nepal as a country entity existed then. You just want to say everything is Indian history, so that you can claim it for yourself. Don't you think you're trying to portray a fake version of history that is favourable towards India, when a lot of it never really occurred within the borders of modern day India?

It absolutely matters whether Nepal as an entity existed then or not. How can you say that the origins are Nepalese, if Nepal never existed then? Modern-day geography cannot be used to segregate history. I'm not trying to portray a fake version; you are not accepting the distinction between historical sites and abstract historical concepts. Indian history is synonymous with the sub-continent's history simply because the idea of India, both as a supra-regional entity and the nation state, predates Pakistan and other modern day nation states. A lot did occur within the borders of modern day India.

See first reply.

Seen and answered.

This statement is complete nonsense.

Uncalled for.

Did the inhabitants of the IVC know what India and Pakistan are? No.
So what if they did not know what India and Pakistan were? We know what India and Pakistan are now, and we know what the IVC was. It was a civilization built primarily on Pakistani soil.

This does not make it a Pakistani civilization, as Pakistan, as an entity, never existed then. This is the reason why Pakistani history is seen as an offshoot of Indian history and not vice versa. The IVC is part of Indian and Pakistani history equally. The sites of the IVC are a different matter.

The term "India" is derived from "Indus." The origin of the term "India" predates the origin of the term "Pakistan." Hence the world sees it is a part of "Indian" history.

Exactly. So because Nehru intentionally stole the name India to steal all Pakistan's history, and fooled the world into believing this, it does not mean it is correct. It is up to Pakistanis to correct this impression, and one day, when someone bashes the radical Mullahs up, they will wake up and tell the world this. You will always have your alternative word for India, Bharat, to be used.

Nehru had nothing to do with this. Some Muslims in India wanted a separate state and they decided to name their country "Pakistan." The freedom struggle always wanted an independent India; this is long before Nehru was born. My country's names are India and Bharat, and that will never change.

I'm not dividing IVC, I'm suggesting that it belongs to one and all equally.

I know you're suggesting this. My point is that the IVC does not belong to India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran equally. IVC belongs to Pakistan mainly (the driving force), then India, then Afghanistan, then Iranian history. But to mention IVC as Indian history (as in modern India), is a distortion of the truth. one cannot mention IVC without referring to Pakistan first.

IVC is equally Indian and Pakistani. Indian, the modern day nation state, history is a continuation of "Indian" history. Pakistani, the modern day nation state, history is seen as an offshoot of "Indian" history.

No, it did not. "India" derives from the Indus River, which in turn derives from Sindh, which in turn derives from Saptha Sindhu. Saptha Sindhu (literal, land of the seven rivers or the indus valley or Pakistan), was first coined 3,500 years ago by the people of the Rig Veda who were Ancient Pakistanis, not Indians. The culture later flowed East a bit.

Nobody invented the term "India;" the term evolved on its own. Again, the term "Pakistan" is much much more modern than the term "India." Hence, the Rig Vedic tribes are seen as Indian and not Pakistani.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom