Take this Portuguese person example again. He says "the Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese and half Indian civilization because we owned 2% of the Mughal Empire" - a minority part of an Empire claiming equal representation to a civilization.
Now take the Indian person and rephrase it. "IVC was half Indian and half Pakistan civilization because 20% of the buildings fell in Indian territory and 50% in Pakistani territory (along with the major cities) - where is the truth in that?
If the Portuguese ruled in Goa during the Mughal Empire, they can mention Goa when discussing Portuguese history. However they cannot claim that the Mughal Empire was anything near a Portuguese civilization. Neither can the minority Indians claim the IVC was equally Indian as it was Pakistani.
One could imagine it going on - "The IVC was an Indian civilization because IVC was known as an Indian civilization by the Greeks at the time" - where is the logic to that?
Firstly, modern day geography can never be the basis on which history is segregated. What Ive said is The part of history dealing with Portuguese rule over Goa is part of both Portuguese and Indian history. If Portuguese rule of Goa interferes with Mughal suzerainty of Goa then, in that case, yes the part of Portuguese history that deals with Goa or its (Portuguese) interaction with the Mughals is a part of Mughal history too. When did I say anything about percentages or claiming or controlling? Again, distinguish between being part of history, which is what Im suggesting, and claiming history, which I presume is what youre comprehending my argument to be.
What do you mean by the Indian person? Please enlighten me.
The IVC is an Indus Valley civilization; neither Indian nor Pakistani. The IVC is part of both Indian and Pakistani history equally. Indian and Pakistani histories are part of Indian, the pan-subcontinent pseudo-political entity, history. The IVC is an Indian, the pan-subcontinent pseudo-political entity that is distinct from modern day India, civilization.
IVC is not part of all 4 histories equally. The Iranians can mention one or two IVC sites were located within their borders. That's fine. But to say that the IVC was as much an Iranian civilization as it was a Pakistani civilization is inocorrect. It's probably better to use the term Indus Valley for this, but the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.
Again, can the Portuguese person claim that Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese civilization? No, even though Goa came under the suzeranity of the Mughals. The Portuguese made a small contribution to the Mughal civilization, but nothing like an equal contribution.
It just seems like your aim is to try and confuse people by claiming all history is shared and equal. It's not at all. You cannot claim the Inca civilization because 1 Indian happened to get lost in the Andes.
The IVC is a part of all the four countries history equally. Further, it seems that youve mistaken my views on Portuguese rule in Goa and its relationship with the Mughal Empire, which I've explained above, again. The Inca example is a very inappropriate analogy in our context.
My aim, which in this case I never knew existed, is none of your concern; refrain from making this personal.
I agree, it is PART of Greek and Pakistani history (it's not part of Indian history because Alexander never stepped foot into modern day India). However, Alexander's Empire is not or was not EQUALLY Pakistani as it was Greek.
All I said was that the part of Greek history dealing with Alexanders invasion of India is a part of Greek, Indian, Pakistani, and Indian history. Whatever happened in modern day Pakistan prior to 1947 is a part of Pakistani, Indian, and Indian histories. Whatever happened in modern day India prior to 1947 is a part of Indian, Pakistani, and Indian histories.
"All I'm saying is that Pakistan's and India's history are a part of India's and Pakistan's history"? So now Pakistan's history is India's history, and India's history is Pakistan's history? Thanks, but I think most Pakistanis would want Pakistan's history to be Pakistani history.
Ive already stated the distinction between India and India. Pakistani history is a part of Indian history.
You're missing the point on the German history. Looks like you're twisting it. Poland was invaded by Germany and ruled by Germany for a bit, so was Russia. Alright, but that has nothing to do with the example we're discussing about the IVC.
If my example (East Prussia) has nothing to do with the IVC, may I ask what do your examples (vis-à-vis Goa and Europe) have anything to do with the IVC?
Here is my question again. Answer it, don't twist.
"Say if in 100 years time, Germany calls itself Europe (UP's example), can Germany claim all French history because France was a part of Europe at one time? I think you'll find noone would accept this idea. Germany can only claim the history that occurred within its borders. It doesn't matter what name it changes to. Same with India. It doesn't matter what name it calls itself, it cannot claim history outside of its borders such as the history of Pakistan."
I did answer it; however, since you are not satisfied with my response Ill answer it again and Ill try not to twist it.
Why would Germany call itself Europe? What will happen to the original Europe then? Won't there be a clear distinction between this new Europe and old Europe?
Even if Germany did name itself Europe, the new formerly-Germany Europe can only claim German history; this German history will include parts of German history that deal with regions which were once in its sphere of influence but currently are not inside its borders.
Pakistan was the original India. Remember the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.
This argument is invalid for the idea of modern day nation state of Pakistan is predated by the idea of the modern day nation state of India, which is predated by India, which is predated by the IVC. Modern day geography is not the basis on which history can be segregated. Pakistan was a part of India, and theoretically speaking pre-partition India.
Let's rephrase your statement in 100 years time when Germany renames itself to Europe:
"French history is seen as German history simply because France was a part of "Europe, the supra-regional pan-continent entity that is the predecessor to the modern day nation state of Europe much more than to the other nation states, once."
Can you see how absurd this is? Can you see any French person accepting such an idea?
Ive already stated my stance on this issue. However, I do not see any parallel between the scenario that youve mentioned and the history of the subcontinent.
Churchill might have been a racist bigot, but it didn't mean his geography was inaccurate or that he was stupid. He, if anyone, knew the history of the subcontinent well.
Churchill is not a historian and consequently his argument is not that credible. Further, the context in which he made the concerned statement must also be taken into account.
I'm sure you do understand my point about the telescope. Let me rephrase it.
"Take the example of Germany calling itself Europe in 100 years time. Let's say the Germans claimed to have invented the telescope (according to official history Italian, Galileo, invented it), because Galileo was European and since Germany is now called Europe and Galileo was a European, then his invention was a European invention. Can you not see the confusion this creates, and the blatant stealing of the shining examples of other country's history that has occured?" - The telescope was a European invention, but Germany is called Europe now, and most people don't remember Europe ever being applied to a whole continent, making it look like the Germanic people invented the telescope. Confusion and blatant misdirection.
If Germany calls itself Europe, why would it claim the telescope to be a German invention? Wouldnt the new, formerly-Germany Europe claim the telescope to be a European invention? Further, wont there be a clear distinction between the Europe that we know now and the new, formerly-German Europe?
Let me rephrase the above for the Indian, this time 2,500 years ago:
"Take the example of Bharat calling itself India in 2,500 years time. Let's say the Indians claimed to have invented Sanskrit (according to official history Pakistani, Panini, invented it), because Panini was Indian and since Bharat is now called India and Panini was a Indian, then his invention was a Indian invention. Can you not see the confusion this creates, and the blatant stealing of the shining examples of other country's history that has occured?"
Bharat and India are one and the same. The IVC predates both these pseudo-political entities. How is it that Sanskrit is a Pakistani invention (if one can actually call the evolution and development of a language an invention) when the idea of Pakistan wasnt present then? Sanskrit is an Indian invention and since India is seen as a continuation of India, it is seen as an Indian invention.
The Roman Empire was part of Ancient Italian history. It was an civilization made up of the ancestors of modern day Italians. Therefore it can be described as an Ancient Italian civilization.
True, the Roman Empire is a part of Ancient Italian history. It, however, is not an ancient Italian civilization because the idea of Italy never existed then.
Incorrect. The term "India" originated from Saptha Sindhu. This is the recognized etymology of the word. It evolves into "India" from this origin.
Very true.
The seven rivers mainly flow in Pakistan, and it's definitely not referring to Punjab alone. The Rig Vedic origins lie most likely all over Pakistan (the Indus Valley). Even if you take the river system, hardly any of the rivers (perhaps only 1), runs into India. So, you can't claim Sapta Sindhu was equally an Indian civilization as a Pakistani one!!
Again, modern day geography is not the basis on which history can be segregated. The Sapta Sindhu region is the Punjab region, modern day India and Pakistan. The IVC is older than the initial culture of the Rig Vedic tribes.
That's incorrect also. Vedic tribes were inhabiting the Indus Valley, Sapta Sindhu (or Pakistan) almost exclusively. One or two broke away and migrated to the Gangetic plains to set up Hinduism.
The Rig Vedic tribes are different from the original inhabitants of the IVC. The Rig Vedic tribes came to India during the late-Harrapan period. The Rig Veda, the oldest text in Hinduism, was written and compiled across centuries and across regions which straddle both modern day India and Pakistan. Most historians do consider Hinduism to have many similarities to the religions practiced in pre-Rig Veda cultures and civilizations.