Flintlock
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,176
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
They are a part of Pakistani history to the extent that Pakistan or Pakistanis was/were a part of the empire that built them...I guess that's the best statement I can come up with.
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?
It can be shared, and IMO it should.
However, Pakistanis today ( as you must have observed) are stuck with the conflicting notions that "their" history is described as "Indian history", a country which they don't have positive feelings towards, and the fact that that the term "India" originated due to the Indus river that flows bang through the middle of their country, so they think the name actually applies to their country, and their country alone.
The idea is to somehow wrench apart the history (and hence identity) of Pakistan from India.
You must have read about how bloody partition was. Think now of the intellectual bloodshed over the partition of history.
Obviously, the name India isn't going to change in a hurry, and I don't see Pakistan adopting the name "India" either.
Moreover, it will be a huge headache to wrench apart the history of the subcontinent along the current boundaries, so most historians prefer to stick with the phrase "India (now Modern Pakistan)", rather than use the term "Pakistan" outright.