Kashmir Has Always Been a Part of Pakistan

[SirHatesALot]

Kashmiris wont agree with you

Dont care about them

 

[Joe Shearer]

So, you are equating Pakistan with the establishemnt of State of Pakistan in 1947.
Interesting; Pray tell me, what was before 1947. @Joe Shearer may shed some light on it.

Unfortunately, there are several views on this. Let me state them one after the other, without intending any priority or probability. My own interpretation, I should prefer to put into a separate post, to avoid introducing bias into this one.

The current thinking which can be encapsulated as the Aitzaz Ahsan school, is that the terrain, and the people who dwelt in that terrain, have always been there and always will. As is typical, each micro-geographic portion shades imperceptibly into the next: think Seraiki => Punjabi => Potohari => Hindko. This is about languages, but if you apply your minds to the cultures of those speaking those languages, the same shading off applies. However, after travelling several hundred kilometres, the minute changes add up to a lot. You might find Seraiki shading off into Punjabi, and being classified as a separate language by some linguists, and as a dialect by others, but nobody will link it to Hindko.

Ahsan goes on to argue that apart from cultural and linguistic affinity (a weak point, considering that the Sindh and Balochistan are also part of the same nation-state), there was also political affinity. He argues that what today constitutes Pakistan was never a strong, integral 'atoot ang' of what might be called the Gangetic political domain. He argues that even before Chandragupta and Ashok, the Maurya emperors, the right bank of the Indus was Persian, under the Achaemenids; Takshashila was a Persian outpost, and Greek subjects of the Great Emperor, traders and merchants, and navigators and geographers, presumably military men as well, all came to these easternmost parts of the empire, from the westernmost parts. He takes the link on to the period after the decline of the Mauryas, and points to the Sakas and then the Kushans and the Ephthalites as another period of political affinity. For most of history, according to him, these lands stayed together; this period under the invaders was followed by others, for instance, under the influence of the Arab expansion, Khorasan spilt over into these territories; successor kingdoms and empires included these as their eastern dominions. Without going into crushing detail, he points out that the periods when these lands were subject to either their own local potentate or to a greater empire in the west were much longer than their subjection to the powers of the Ganga-Yamuna delta.

So, to him, this was always a coherent political unit; when Islam came to India, its impact on the country (dagger quietly slipped in) was not uniform; the greatest impact was on those lands that were most often under the rule of Muslim rulers to the west, so they became Muslim majority. When finally Jinnah convinced the British that they needed to accept the Muslim case for a separate dispensation where their culture would remain intact, it was these Muslim-majority lands, the Muslim predominance not being accidental, but a natural consequence of their situation, it was these that became Pakistan. There was only one little aberration, and that was sorted out in 1971.

From that point of view, it was essentially these largely separate territories staying separate, without citing any terribly complex cultural issues, by taking refuge behind the shield of religious incompatibility.

This view also sees the Indus Civilisation as a predecessor. Where would the people of that culture have gone? Thousands of kilometres to the south? Or did they stay where they were, and learn a foreign language for what it was worth, abandoning their own, and moulding the western, Suraseni Prakrit to their languages - Sindhi, and Punjabi and their associated and allied dialects - and developing an alternative to the lost Indus Valley Civilisation?

But there was an opposing point of view.

Before going to that other point of view, I have to point out - oh, never mind, I'll do that in my separate post later.

 

[baajey]

So, you are equating Pakistan with the establishemnt of State of Pakistan in 1947.
Interesting; Pray tell me, what was before 1947. @Joe Shearer may shed some light on it.

as much as i know, there definitely was a dominion of india. how the term came into being is subject to discussion.

 

[Navin A]

Though I feel your sense of frustration no problems, what is preventing you from taking the rest of it?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Elaborate?

That was the slapping together of the Indus Valley territories with an end-of-the-river territory, east Bengal. A terrible mistake, which, in its earlier form, Jinnah's proposal for three 'homelands' under one single dominion, made perfect sense; in his forced fall-back position of a partitioned and independent Dominion, made no sense whatsoever.

When Suhrawardy, Netaji's brother, Sarat Chandra Bose and Kiran Shankar Roy, were discussing the possibility of Bengal - united - as a third Dominion, Jinnah more or less threw up his hands and told them to do what they liked. It was the severe displeasure of Patel, Nehru and Gandhi (expressed, it is rumoured, in pungent language at a meeting in Delhi between the first two active leaders and Sarat Bose and Roy) that scuppered this plan. If it had gone through, everyone would have felt better in the long run.

 

[Alternative]

Unfortunately, there are several views on this. Let me state them one after the other, without intending any priority or probability. My own interpretation, I should prefer to put into a separate post, to avoid introducing bias into this one.

Thank you for your post; There is nothing unfortunate about this, as there are multitude of opinion and observations on the concept/question of nation and nationality........; not just Pakistan specific.

The current thinking which can be encapsulated as the Aitzaz Ahsan school, is that the terrain, and the people who dwelt in that terrain, have always been there and always will. As is typical, each micro-geographic portion shades imperceptibly into the next: think Seraiki => Punjabi => Potohari => Hindko. This is about languages, but if you apply your minds to the cultures of those speaking those languages, the same shading off applies. However, after travelling several hundred kilometres, the minute changes add up to a lot. You might find Seraiki shading off into Punjabi, and being classified as a separate language by some linguists, and as a dialect by others, but nobody will link it to Hindko.

Ahsan goes on to argue that apart from cultural and linguistic affinity (a weak point, considering that the Sindh and Balochistan are also part of the same nation-state), there was also political affinity. He argues that what today constitutes Pakistan was never a strong, integral 'atoot ang' of what might be called the Gangetic political domain. He argues that even before Chandragupta and Ashok, the Maurya emperors, the right bank of the Indus was Persian, under the Achaemenids; Takshashila was a Persian outpost, and Greek subjects of the Great Emperor, traders and merchants, and navigators and geographers, presumably military men as well, all came to these easternmost parts of the empire, from the westernmost parts. He takes the link on to the period after the decline of the Mauryas, and points to the Sakas and then the Kushans and the Ephthalites as another period of political affinity. For most of history, according to him, these lands stayed together; this period under the invaders was followed by others, for instance, under the influence of the Arab expansion, Khorasan spilt over into these territories; successor kingdoms and empires included these as their eastern dominions. Without going into crushing detail, he points out that the periods when these lands were subject to either their own local potentate or to a greater empire in the west were much longer than their subjection to the powers of the Ganga-Yamuna delta.

So, to him, this was always a coherent political unit; when Islam came to India, its impact on the country (dagger quietly slipped in) was not uniform; the greatest impact was on those lands that were most often under the rule of Muslim rulers to the west, so they became Muslim majority. When finally Jinnah convinced the British that they needed to accept the Muslim case for a separate dispensation where their culture would remain intact, it was these Muslim-majority lands, the Muslim predominance not being accidental, but a natural consequence of their situation, it was these that became Pakistan. There was only one little aberration, and that was sorted out in 1971.

From that point of view, it was essentially these largely separate territories staying separate, without citing any terribly complex cultural issues, by taking refuge behind the shield of religious incompatibility.

This view also sees the Indus Civilisation as a predecessor. Where would the people of that culture have gone? Thousands of kilometres to the south? Or did they stay where they were, and learn a foreign language for what it was worth, abandoning their own, and moulding the western, Suraseni Prakrit to their languages - Sindhi, and Punjabi and their associated and allied dialects - and developing an alternative to the lost Indus Valley Civilisation?

But there was an opposing point of view.

Before going to that other point of view, I have to point out - oh, never mind, I'll do that in my separate post later.

This is alternatively() true for Indian-Subcontinent; If you take any place, as a reference point, your (or Atizaz Ahsan's) observation will be validated; Moreover, same will hold true for the rest of the world, Except where progression of cultures/societies etc. was cut-off/affected through War or any other mean.

My question to Indian posters, to whom I quoted, was that, if a State came into being at any given time in history, (in Pakistani case 1947), what was before that ? as posters wrote..... Kashmir was there for 5000 years, but no body explained, how was Kashmir there for 5000 Years and Pakistan only since 1947.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Thank you for your post; There is nothing unfortunate about this, as there are multitude of opinion and observations on the concept/question of nation and nationality........; not just Pakistan specific.





This is alternatively() true for Indian-Subcontinent; If you take any place, as a reference point, your (or Atizaz Ahsan's) observation will be validated; Moreover, same will hold true for the rest of the world, Except where progression of cultures/societies etc. was cut-off/affected through War or any other mean.

My question to Indian posters, to whom I quoted, was that, if a State came into being at any given time in history, (in Pakistani case 1947), what was before that ? as posters wrote..... Kashmir was there for 5000 years, but no body explained, how was Kashmir there for 5000 Years and Pakistan only since 1947.

That is what I was trying to explain.

There was an entity known as Kashmir - mainly the Vale - for thousands of years. There was no Pakistan, nor any single identification that could be said to be Pakistan, before 1947. This seeking of identity was necessary for Pakistan since the earlier Muslim identity was damaged by the separation of Bangladesh. So, to explain the rationale behind Pakistan, this Indus Man and other theories were promoted.

So there was Kashmir long before 47, there was no Pakistan before 47.

 

[Alternative]

as much as i know, there definitely was a dominion of india. how the term came into being is subject to discussion.

What time frame you are talking about?
There was no dominion of India, when British Enterprise was making an empire in Subcontinent.

 

[baajey]

What time frame you are talking about?
There was no dominion of India, when British Enterprise was making an empire in Subcontinent.

in that case, denial seems to be the best solution. more so for ur line of thinking.
have a nice day.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

Kashmir Has Always Been a Part of Pakistan

Over the past few months India has increased oppressing Kashmiris in an attempt to instill fear and forget about Pakistan. India’s tyranny has resulted in increased hatred by Kashmiris and their will to join Pakistan has become immutable.

For Full Story please visit below link;

https://politicalstagepk.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/kashmir-has-always-been-a-part-of-pakistan/

What kashmiri people achieved by throwing stones?? They are making life difficult for their own families. They can't fight with 1.5 million India army . What did they achieve from 4 months?? Hundreds are blinded, thousands in Jail. 100+ killed, Girls woman Getting assault by Indian forces. I feel pity for families. Kashmiri should accept reality, they will not get independence from india nor Pakistan kashmir is going anywhere as independent state. Jihad will bring nothing for kashmir, It's better they accept reality, live with peace and have mercy on kids and families.

 

[Alternative]

That is what I was trying to explain.

There was an entity known as Kashmir - mainly the Vale - for thousands of years. There was no Pakistan, nor any single identification that could be said to be Pakistan, before 1947. This seeking of identity was necessary for Pakistan since the earlier Muslim identity was damaged by the separation of Bangladesh. So, to explain the rationale behind Pakistan, this Indus Man and other theories were promoted.

So there was Kashmir long before 47, there was no Pakistan before 47.

What you are trying to do is not clear.................
Kashmir existed because some thousand of miles away, a culture refer to a place as Kasperia (for the argument sake lets assume it referred to Kashmir) about 300-400 B.C., same way, some referred to Indus and Indica in the same time frame to India;
So these are States or nations being referred or simply names of a geographical area?

in that case, denial seems to be the best solution. more so for ur line of thinking.
have a nice day.

Thanks for your greetings.
Please educate me .... how the dominion of India existed when British were carving an empire for themselves?

 

[baajey]

What you are trying to do is not clear.................
Kashmir existed because some thousand of miles away, a culture refer to a place as Kasperia (for the argument sake lets assume it referred to Kashmir) about 300-400 B.C., same way, some referred to Indus and Indica in the same time frame to India;
So these are States or nations being referred or simply names of a geographical area?


Thanks for your greetings.
Please educate me .... how the dominion of India existed when British were carving an empire for themselves?

its difficult to explain when u deny to see the obvious. however, i shall try as per my patience allows me.
before 1947, it was dominion of india (after the brits completed their conquests/treaties etc). before that it was a geographical entity (no more no less), there was no political unity (as the nationalists buffoons stress to be) excepting brief periods of gupta,mughal or sikh empires.
now returning to the original context, if kashmir did not belong to india (as it belongs to pak - ur idea), then it doesnt belong to pak either. because simply as a historical concept or a political one, india as a nation has more legitimacy than pak. by saying this i dont mean india has some de facto right over a plot of land called kashmir (of course if we bring the instrument of accession, we begin to play a fiff ball game). similarly, pak also cant claim any sovereignity over kashmir (esp after the love shown by the tribals on their behalf).
summarizing, one who is on the ground rules the land, rest of the naysayers can cry a river.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What you are trying to do is not clear.................
Kashmir existed because some thousand of miles away, a culture refer to a place as Kasperia (for the argument sake lets assume it referred to Kashmir) about 300-400 B.C., same way, some referred to Indus and Indica in the same time frame to India;
So these are States or nations being referred or simply names of a geographical area?

Actually, after reading your post, I am not clear.

When people talk about Kashmir having existed before 1947, what are you looking for, as distinct from what Pakistan's history was?

There was a state of Kashmir before 1947; there was no state of Pakistan before 1947. Does that work for you, or do you want to dig further?

Thanks for your greetings.
Please educate me .... how the dominion of India existed when British were carving an empire for themselves?

Since this question is addressed to @baajey , I don't want to discuss it, unless either or both of you want me to.

 

[baajey]

Actually, after reading your post, I am not clear.

When people talk about Kashmir having existed before 1947, what are you looking for, as distinct from what Pakistan's history was?

There was a state of Kashmir before 1947; there was no state of Pakistan before 1947. Does that work for you, or do you want to dig further?




Since this question is addressed to @baajey , I don't want to discuss it, unless either or both of you want me to.

u r very much welcome to put ur view on the table. whats the use of a forum if one has to ask ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

u r very much welcome to put ur view on the table. whats the use of a forum if one has to ask ?

Many thanks. Some are sensitive.

Back to your post for amplification.