Kashmir Has Always Been a Part of Pakistan

[JattPanjabi]

That actually is a good advice
a bit off topic you're a Punjabi from Indian side?

I'm Punjabi Sikh yeah

 

[Navin A]

In that case Kashmir was here before India as well. Before British imperialism "India" was just a collection of princely states and not a single entity... Try Again.

"try again" please elaborate on who your referring to?

 

[baajey]

If you have't noted before (or playing possum), my answer was to the quoted post of 'baajey', who also thanked you for above post. Go read the post if you have not, where in he wrote that there was Dominion of India right after British completed their conquest.
I misused the term "British Dominion" instead of "British Colony", thanks for pointing out.
If you are having irritation, drink a glass of gold water, and if irritation persist, try a ice pack on head, and still if condition persist, try a brain injection.



How your point is still relevant when basic premise of your argument was wrong, as you yourself acknowledged?

Do you even remember your own few previous posts in this thread?

bhai, i lay down my arms.
please take control of kashmir.
dont complain if the men in olive are not that welcoming

Exactly nitpicking won't work.

Your view is that the name 'India' came to existence in 1947 at same time when Pakistan came to existence.But not exactly.

As you mentioned the name India became more predominant after British conquest, especially after the 1857 rebellion. In fact 'Government of India Act 1858' was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to take control of the nation from East India Company and bring under the rule of the British Crown. So I can confidently say that in 1858 there is an official mention of India in an international forum (The Parliament of the United Kingdom in this case).

Pakistan was created in 1947 through 'Partition of India' based on Lahore Resolution in 1940 whereas India got independence in 1947 from the British. The British proposed to give independence by dividing 'India' (already existing) into three dominions. Already existing Indian dominion for Hindus, new dominion Pakistan for Muslims and the third for Princely States. India negotiated with the Princely states to convince them to join India include Kashmir. Doing so it became Republic in 1950.

ask him what he thinks of "Indian" ocean.
or is there any "pakistani" sea or bay in vicinity.

 

[Mansoon]

How is Kashmir part of Pakistan when it was not part of the partition plan?

Kashmir is an integral part of India..

No its neither Pakistani nor Indian

 

[Lil Mathew]

How is Kashmir part of Pakistan when it was not part of the partition plan?


No its neither Pakistani nor Indian

The Indian declared policy is " whole Kashmir is an integral part of India"..

 

[Mansoon]

The Indian declared policy is " whole Kashmir is an integral part of India"..

Kashmiris want freedom from Pakistan, India and China

 

[Lil Mathew]

Kashmiris want freedom from Pakistan, India and China

National interest come first against personal or community interests.. GoI should focus on Kashmiri people's problems and should rectify that.. That is the only solution as of now..

 

[Alternative]

Exactly nitpicking won't work.

Your view is that the name 'India' came to existence in 1947 at same time when Pakistan came to existence.But not exactly..

My view is that Dominion of India came into being in 1947, not the name of India, name came much earlier.

As you mentioned the name India became more predominant after British conquest, especially after the 1857 rebellion. In fact 'Government of India Act 1858' was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to take control of the nation from East India Company and bring under the rule of the British Crown. So I can confidently say that in 1858 there is an official mention of India in an international forum (The Parliament of the United Kingdom in this case).
.

I really don't understand what your are trying to convey; British conquest consolidated the different states/kindoms in a single state name India; to which royal and populace associated to form a Indian Nation.
There was no political unity or a nation before British conquest.

Pakistan was created in 1947 through 'Partition of India' based on Lahore Resolution in 1940 whereas India got independence in 1947 from the British. The British proposed to give independence by dividing 'India' (already existing) into three dominions. Already existing Indian dominion for Hindus, new dominion Pakistan for Muslims and the third for Princely States. India negotiated with the Princely states to convince them to join India include Kashmir. Doing so it became Republic in 1950.

Pakistan was created not based on but by the demand raised in Lahore Resolution in a conference of Muslim League...rest you wrote is correct.

 

[JOEY TRIBIANI]

Dont care about them

Good good . thats the attitude we want .

 

[Alternative]

That is how colonies were governed. From 1858 to 1947, India was not a nation-state, she was a colony.
It is not question of governance but of Identity.

If a nation already in existence, subjugated by an other, don't keep track of its identity by how Master is making entries in its legal books.

LOL.

Droll, very droll.

Keep laughing and slandering.....

The mention of da Gama was to remind you of the explicit mention of India at that time. Even though she had existed for nearly 2100 years by then.

Yes; Again you looking for reference in historical records/books of other nation......................
India was referred to as geographical area, not a Nation.

Because the name India was never used by Indians to describe themselves.

Finally, at last, a recognition...... but, alas, for a moment only.

They used Bharat first, Hindustan for the northern portions thereafter; India, and a variation, Hind, was the word used by the rest of the world for what an Indian would have called Bharat.

Who is "they" and what time frame you are talking about?

They... people at the time of Sapta Sindhu, occupying area roughly present day Pakistan, they called themselves Bharatas? No, simply not true. ... Further question that would entail, about the people that were occupying the northern,central, southern, and eastern subcontinent; what they called themselves?.......

They... at the time of Mahajanapada, 16 or so independent kingdoms,..... were they all a nation? no of-course not.; they were independent kingdoms.
Do these kingdoms called Bharatas themselves? No I think not; Its been a long time I read the MahaBharata, I don't remember any reference to any Kosla, Magada or any Maleecha kingdom referred itself as Bharata.
We all know that no 'historical' record exist from that period.
Again, what people residing in Southern India at that time called themselves? and further in the East.. Assam, Manipur?

They.... from the time of Greek Invasion to the time They called themselves Hindustani..... was subdivided into many independent states/kingdoms continually fighting to gain as much land possible, For a brief periods, creating huge empires but...
Did Bactrians call themselves Bharata? .....Ans No.
Did Takshakshila call themselves Bharata?.............Ans..No
Did Porus' people call themselves bharata?..........Ans..No.
Did Other Gaint Kindoms in Indian Subcontinent at that time called themselves Bharata? .........Ans. Not at all.

Were all above referred to were a single nation? .... Ans. Absolutely not.

They.... when were "they" called themselves Hindustani...............
Certainly, Arabs and Central Asians didn't called themselves Hindustani for a long time.....
If I remember correctly, Mughal's called their kingdom in India as "Saltanat-e-Gorgon" (am I correct...?)

Did Akber call himself Hindustani.... and .... Maharana Pratap Singh called himself....?
Did Auranzeb call himseff Hindustani .... and... Shivaji called himself......?
Are these characters were from a single Nation?........Absolutely not.

Further down....
All was wild goose f...k.........


IT must be clear now that Sapta Sindhu, Bharata, India, Mahajanapada, Indica, Hind etc. are names, designations of Geographical Areas, in different spots in time, in different eras; Not refer to a Nation.
India, same as, in general sense, is Central Asia or Europa etc. not a Nation,till British conquest.
Subcontinent, always been home to multitude of nations, ethnicity, cultures, groups,......................... but never was a Nation, till British conquest, when elite and general populace accepted the nomenclature of "Indian".

Yes, I have come across this and similar mistakes before.

What you have sent a link for is the record of archaeological discoveries spanning 5000 years in the territories that now constitute Pakistan. You must not make the elementary mistake of thinking that an administrator's use of a consolidation of a scientific field represents a country.

In this mistake, it seem that you are alone;

Where ever in world, where a name change of a territory took place, by what ever reason; History of that Area is attributed to that name; Google Search the "ancient Turkey" or " ancient America" or "Ancient Mexico", may be just may be... you may be able to correct your mistake.

Further, it is amusing that you are doing the same thing with word "India"; Ancient India, to describe every thing in antiquity, even.. the Manipura, Tripura, Assam,.......But no, no, no,... for Pakistan.

If you read the India Independence Act (not, it might be noted, the India and Pakistan Independence Act), you will find out for yourself.

I am sorry, that is only an 'addled' idea of what happened. Here a brain injection will not do, major neurological surgery, perhaps, as a last resort, lobotomy is called for.

1. There was no Sapta-Sindhu prior to the Indo-Iranian/Indo-Aryan time. If this is seen as a backward extension of the Mahabharata period, which belongs to proto-history, not to history, certainly; if this is intended to convey that the Indus Valley Civilisation, for instance, knew the great river as the Indus, the Sindhu or the Hindu, that is wrong.
2. There were several centuries at least, assuming Pargiter was correct, between the Mahabharata, assuming a date of between the 15th century BC and the 9th century BC for it, and the Mahajanapadas.
3. The Mahajanapadas spanned the Vindhyas, so why India south of the Vindhyas is considered distinct is not clear.
4. The people of the Mahabharata, if we assume for a moment that some history was involved in writing it, never called the lands they lived in anything but Bharata. Their geography extended to almost all of India, if we go by their internal king-lists.
5. The Persians came first, the Greeks came later. The Greeks came there as merchants and explorers for nearly a century before Alexander's armies turned up. The Persians, under the Achaemenids, were in Europe in the 5th century BC. Alexander's attack was a revenge attack, in the 4th century BC.
6. The Persian name for a river and the Indian name for the same river were identical; their pronunciation differed.
7. It was the Greeks, from the 5th century BC onwards, who started using the name Indika, giving rise to a European and generally western practice of calling the land India.
8. There were no nation-states in the 5th and 4th century BC, so it is not clear what point you are making. That there were political units is clear from Megasthenes. Since you seem to have done some cursory digging around with less than satisfactory results, you might have encountered this name; you might even have encountered the name of his description of his journeys.
9. Please try to get this clear: India was a name given by foreigners for what Indians themselves called Bharat. Bharat had several points of political coalescence, just like Persia did; Bharat was an entity with shifting boundaries, just like Persia; throughout the period, there was a recognizable separate culture, religious system, high language and shared literature throughout the extent of the country.
10. Bharat, that is India, went through colonial rule in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which brought the different political entities of that time into the same framework.
11. When independence came, the original unit reminded everyone that it was Bharat that is India. The same colonial act that gave India independence defined India as the Crown Colony that was India, except for the portions to be excluded, to be called Pakistan. And that was the first mention of Pakistan in legislation, after an undergraduate had proposed the name some years previously.

All these facts are verifiable. No injections needed for that purpose. Those injections come in useful at the time of understanding all this.

Oh, dear.
If you are going to respond to my post that was in the context of a quoted post by TOM M, reproduced below; then refer to the points in question; Otherwise, it serve no purpose to me. Idea was to explain the timeline involved; Hope you got the point.

As long as river Indus was/is flowing the land eastwards to it will be known as India, Indus , Al-Hind, Hindustan , Tianzhu, Tenjiku, Bharatavarsha, Aryavarta etc. All meaning one.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/kashmir-has-always-been-a-part-of-pakistan.457619/page-5#ixzz4OBPTKN6p

 

[Joe Shearer]

If a nation already in existence, subjugated by an other, don't keep track of its identity by how Master is making entries in its legal books.



Keep laughing and slandering.....



Yes; Again you looking for reference in historical records/books of other nation......................
India was referred to as geographical area, not a Nation.



Finally, at last, a recognition...... but, alas, for a moment only.



Who is "they" and what time frame you are talking about?

They... people at the time of Sapta Sindhu, occupying area roughly present day Pakistan, they called themselves Bharatas? No, simply not true. ... Further question that would entail, about the people that were occupying the northern,central, southern, and eastern subcontinent; what they called themselves?.......

They... at the time of Mahajanapada, 16 or so independent kingdoms,..... were they all a nation? no of-course not.; they were independent kingdoms.
Do these kingdoms called Bharatas themselves? No I think not; Its been a long time I read the MahaBharata, I don't remember any reference to any Kosla, Magada or any Maleecha kingdom referred itself as Bharata.
We all know that no 'historical' record exist from that period.
Again, what people residing in Southern India at that time called themselves? and further in the East.. Assam, Manipur?

They.... from the time of Greek Invasion to the time They called themselves Hindustani..... was subdivided into many independent states/kingdoms continually fighting to gain as much land possible, For a brief periods, creating huge empires but...
Did Bactrians call themselves Bharata? .....Ans No.
Did Takshakshila call themselves Bharata?.............Ans..No
Did Porus' people call themselves bharata?..........Ans..No.
Did Other Gaint Kindoms in Indian Subcontinent at that time called themselves Bharata? .........Ans. Not at all.

Were all above referred to were a single nation? .... Ans. Absolutely not.

They.... when were "they" called themselves Hindustani...............
Certainly, Arabs and Central Asians didn't called themselves Hindustani for a long time.....
If I remember correctly, Mughal's called their kingdom in India as "Saltanat-e-Gorgon" (am I correct...?)

Did Akber call himself Hindustani.... and .... Maharana Pratap Singh called himself....?
Did Auranzeb call himseff Hindustani .... and... Shivaji called himself......?
Are these characters were from a single Nation?........Absolutely not.

Further down....
All was wild goose f...k.........


IT must be clear now that Sapta Sindhu, Bharata, India, Mahajanapada, Indica, Hind etc. are names, designations of Geographical Areas, in different spots in time, in different eras; Not refer to a Nation.
India, same as, in general sense, is Central Asia or Europa etc. not a Nation,till British conquest.
Subcontinent, always been home to multitude of nations, ethnicity, cultures, groups,......................... but never was a Nation, till British conquest, when elite and general populace accepted the nomenclature of "Indian".




In this mistake, it seem that you are alone;

Where ever in world, where a name change of a territory took place, by what ever reason; History of that Area is attributed to that name; Google Search the "ancient Turkey" or " ancient America" or "Ancient Mexico", may be just may be... you may be able to correct your mistake.

Further, it is amusing that you are doing the same thing with word "India"; Ancient India, to describe every thing in antiquity, even.. the Manipura, Tripura, Assam,.......But no, no, no,... for Pakistan.





Oh, dear.
If you are going to respond to my post that was in the context of a quoted post by TOM M, reproduced below; then refer to the points in question; Otherwise, it serve no purpose to me. Idea was to explain the timeline involved; Hope you got the point.

As long as river Indus was/is flowing the land eastwards to it will be known as India, Indus , Al-Hind, Hindustan , Tianzhu, Tenjiku, Bharatavarsha, Aryavarta etc. All meaning one.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/kashmir-has-always-been-a-part-of-pakistan.457619/page-5#ixzz4OBPTKN6p

 

[Alternative]

That is a misunderstanding created by not knowing what is a nation and what is a nation-state, and what is a state.

Since there was no nation-state until a very recent time, it is a mistake to extend that modern term back into time, and try to find nation-states there.

In my post I never wrote nation-state; I wrote nation and/or state: nations or states or kingdoms have exited for a long long time. Don't try to create confusion.

That is precisely his point, that the term existed long before the British used it in India. But the term existed as a term for the nation used by outsiders; those who lived in that nation called themselves Bharatiya, and their nation Bharat; some of them called their nation Hindustan, and called themselves Hindustanis. This latter continues to be in use culturally, in poetry, in literature, in the cinema, and so on; but not legally.

Please refer to my previous post

Yea, go to sleep.... you need to have comfortable sleep to stay sane.

 

[RazaGujjar]

"try again" please elaborate on who your referring to?

Who i quoted. Read comprehensively before you type next time.

 

[Alternative]

bhai, i lay down my arms.
please take control of kashmir.
dont complain if the men in olive are not that welcoming

ask him what he thinks of "Indian" ocean.
or is there any "pakistani" sea or bay in vicinity.

You can ask me directly, no need to involve third party.
However, pray tell me, why sea adjacent to Karachi, Mumbai is called Arabia Sea?
Why not Indian Sea or Hind Sea?

 

[baajey]

You can ask me directly, no need to involve third party.
However, pray tell me, why sea adjacent to Karachi, Mumbai is called Arabia Sea?
Why not Indian Sea or Hind Sea?

because my dear sir, arabia, just like india, existed as a political/geographical entity.
ask urself the question, why a country such as bangladesh has a bay named after it, but pakistan, older than the former, still has nothing named after it.
btw, arabia is not equal to pakistan. arabs may find this idea amusing though.
regarding arabian sea near mumbai, who the frig cares when the only ocean named after any country is indian ocean.