Let the truce flag go up - Bluster should make way for peace initiatives with Pakistan

[Joe Shearer]

Go back and read #48 again. And edit your own post. Take it easy.

innocent soldiers...? What a logic. Hope you're doing well. A check up may over due.

What a useless character you are. Have some respect for the person you are addressing.

 

[El Sidd]

innocent soldiers...? What a logic. Hope you're doing well. A check up may over due.

There are no innocent soldiers. Just innocent wars.

 

[Khanate]

Like I said, it's purely coincidental that the Muslims of Hindustan were concentrated along the Indus River. Rehmat Ali himself clearly says Muslim before mentioning the region. Nobody put the major emphasis on ethnicity, unlike most new wave nationalists on this forum.

Tolstoy syndrome.

This is Choudhry Rahmat Ali.

Choudhry Rahmat Ali was asked about Bengal. Ch. Rahmat Ali stated that Muslims of Bengal should create their seperate state called Bangistan. This is reflected in the map. Again, this comes from the man who came up with the word Pakistan.

The First Proposed Map of Pakistan


I noticed you overlooked my question so I will ask again: Can you confirm that you learned the following in your Pakistan Studies class?

• P — Punjab
• A — Afghania (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa)
• K — Kashmir
• S — Sindh
• TAN — Balochistan

This is geography, not coincidence.

As for Muhammad Bin Qasim, Jinnah might have not been referencing him, but he's still considered the first Pakistani. Again, it's not Dulla Bhatti, Adina Beg or even powerful Muslim conquerors from Pakistan such as Sikander Butshikan or Ghazi Malik, but Muhammad Bin Qasim, an Arab.

Circular logic.

Again, the first Pakistani is polemics, not a fact.

To give you some background:

It is a leftover from a debate that happened prior to partition between British, Muslim and Hindu archeologist. The British colonialists, ever the masters of divide and conquer, claimed it was the invasion of Sindh that had fractured the subcontinent. There is virtually no proof for this claim.​

The Bigger Picture: What does the official designation even prove? Sindh is still a geographic location. Sindh is a province of Pakistan. And Pakistan is a federation of the regions in the Indus Basin.

Your point about Jinnah is a condescending one, you assume me to be uncivilised.

I never once thought of you as uncivilised.

The point about Jinnah is simple: Jinnah transformed. Ergo, Jinnah became the personification of the concept of Khudi (Self) that Allama Iqbal, whose picture you have in your profile, espoused in his book Asrar-i-Khudi (Secrets of the Self).

 

[kabooter_maila]

Go back and read #48 again. And edit your own post. Take it easy.



What a useless character you are. Have some respect for the person you are addressing.

Take it easy? What? The death of two rapists and murderers? Indians didn't take it easy while using pellet guns and turning scores of young boys into blind persons. If you want talking logical, then talk about illegal Indian occupation of J&K in continued violation of UN resolutions. But I know you'll never talk logically. Rather you are trying to portray bloody criminals as innocent soldiers and people fighting for their basic right of self-determination as terrorists. What a shame, man, what a shame. Think of yourself. Where you're standing as a useless character (There is absolutely no buyer of your non-sense in the whole world!)

 

[Hamza913]

Tolstoy syndrome.

This is Choudhry Rahmat Ali.

Choudhry Rahmat Ali was asked about Bengal. Ch. Rahmat Ali stated that Muslims of Bengal should create their seperate state called Bangistan. This is reflected in the map. Again, this comes from the man who came up with the word Pakistan.

The First Proposed Map of Pakistan


I noticed you overlooked my question so I will ask again: Can you confirm that you learned the following in your Pakistan Studies class?

• P — Punjab
• A — Afghania (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa)
• K — Kashmir
• S — Sindh
• TAN — Balochistan

This is geography, not coincidence.




Circular logic.

Again, the first Pakistani is polemics, not a fact.

To give you some background:

It is a leftover from a debate that happened prior to partition between British, Muslim and Hindu archeologist. The British colonialists, ever the masters of divide and conquer, claimed it was the invasion of Sindh that had fractured the subcontinent. There is virtually no proof for this claim.​

The Bigger Picture: What does the official designation even prove? Sindh is still a geographic location. Sindh is a province of Pakistan. And Pakistan is a federation of the regions in the Indus Basin.





I never once thought of you as uncivilised.

The point about Jinnah is simple: Jinnah transformed. Ergo, Jinnah became the personification of the concept of Khudi (Self) that Allama Iqbal, whose picture you have in your profile, espoused in his book Asrar-i-Khudi (Secrets of the Self).

You still haven't proven Pakistan's separation was an ethnic based one. It was primarily based on religion, hence why Bangladesh became a part of it.

I agree with Ali that they should have been separate, they were too far away and too proud of their ethnicity. They viewed being Bengali as being above Muslim (not all of them but a lot of them).

I know what Pakistan stands for, but that's irrelevant. It's purely coincidental that Pakistan consists of the provinces that it does, this country would have still been made if Muslims in Hindustan were concentrated in Bangalore instead of KPK or the Punjab.

It is fact. Think about this logically. Why does Pakistan exist? Because the Muslims of Hindustan demanded a separate homeland. Who was the first individual to spread Islam (in a major way) across the region? Muhammad Bin Qasim. Therefore, Muhammad Bin Qasim = The first Pakistani. Simple.

It was the invasion of Sindh that started the major spread of Islam across the region, therefore, yes, Muhammad Bin Qasim's invasions were the start of the divide between Hindus and Muslims of South Asia.

Still don't understand your last point.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Take it easy? What? The death of two rapists and murderers? Indians didn't take it easy while using pellet guns and turning scores of young boys into blind persons. If you want talking logical, then talk about illegal Indian occupation of J&K in continued violation of UN resolutions. But I know you'll never talk logically. Rather you are trying to portray bloody criminals as innocent soldiers and people fighting for their basic right of self-determination as terrorists. What a shame, man, what a shame. Think of yourself. Where you're standing as a useless character (There is absolutely no buyer of your non-sense in the whole world!)

The ones I portray as terrorists are Punjabis from Pakistan, trained and armed by the Pakistan Army. They have nothing to do with basic rights or with self-determination. As far as the first sentence was concerned, it was addressed to another member, not to you. You continue to be a potty-mouthed punk.

 

[Gufi]

The debate turned from a positive message to let's bash the negative voices. There is something really wrong when the positives can not be discussed, rather one must turn back to negatives to justify the evil within.
Religion is not to be debated on but the lessons learnt should be applied. There are examples where peace and dialogue was preferred to war, and when someone mentions peace we turn our heads to point out the hate. Why not rally around the peace, which in no way means to let our guard down, but to try our best to work towards a manageable peace through dialogue.
If one clings to the past, only thinking of war while remembering the dead it fosters new graveyards which will be inhabited by future generation. Being wary is acceptable with the past taken into account, but to say war is a given for the next 100 years is not the way to go.
And yes, the Indian media is excessive compared to our media, and it fosters hate much more then our news channels ever do, but what is the message given when all we debate is their news channels. One does not get down to the level of hate mongers just to prove they are hateful because that is their objective.

 

[Khanate]

You still haven't proven Pakistan's separation was an ethnic based one. It was primarily based on religion, hence why Bangladesh became a part of it.

I agree with Ali that they should have been separate, they were too far away and too proud of their ethnicity. They viewed being Bengali as being above Muslim (not all of them but a lot of them).

I know what Pakistan stands for, but that's irrelevant. It's purely coincidental that Pakistan consists of the provinces that it does, this country would have still been made if Muslims in Hindustan were concentrated in Bangalore instead of KPK or the Punjab.

Denialism.

Whether you agree or disagree with Ch. Rehmat Ali is irrelevant. His concept of joining Punjab, Sindh, KPK, Balochistan, and Kashmir is the framework that was used to formulate the demand for Pakistan. This isn't even up for debate.

If you like to live in a coincidental parallel universe then by all means go ahead. This is a classic case of Tolstoy syndrome.

It is fact. Think about this logically. Why does Pakistan exist? Because the Muslims of Hindustan demanded a separate homeland. Who was the first individual to spread Islam (in a major way) across the region? Muhammad Bin Qasim. Therefore, Muhammad Bin Qasim = The first Pakistani. Simple.

It was the invasion of Sindh that started the major spread of Islam across the region, therefore, yes, Muhammad Bin Qasim's invasions were the start of the divide between Hindus and Muslims of South Asia.

More denialism.

There is zero evidence for your theory/argument. I've already proven with sources that Muhammad Bin Qasim had no impact on the region. Moreover, he isn't the first Muslim, or even the first Arab, to have put his foot on the soil of Sindh. Either quote your sources or you're wasting my time.

 

[Hamza913]

Denialism.

Whether you agree or disagree with Ch. Rehmat Ali is irrelevant. His concept of joining Punjab, Sindh, KPK, Balochistan, and Kashmir is the framework that was used to formulate the demand for Pakistan. This isn't even up for debate.

If you like to live in a coincidental parallel universe then by all means go ahead. This is a classic case of Tolstoy syndrome.





More denialism.

There is zero evidence for your theory/argument. I've already proven with sources that Muhammad Bin Qasim had no impact on the region. Moreover, he isn't the first Muslim, or even the first Arab, to have put his foot on the soil of Sindh. Either quote your sources or you're wasting my time.

Are you joking? The whole concept of Pakistan was a Muslim nation in the Indian sub-continent. You can't honestly be this brain dead and think it was an ethnic movement, with religion taking a backseat. I'll say it again, it was called the Muslim league, not the Indus league. Religion was the primary motive. You know that very well. Stop trying to weasel out of it, you clearly can't (still haven't given any proof to your claims other than the name of Pakistan, which is purely coincidental).

You haven't proven anything. You've made claims without sufficient evidence backing them. Muhammad Bin Qasim had a substantial impact, he was the first to conquer large parts of Pakistan and spread Islam in significant numbers among its people. He hired many locals into his administration, and many joined his military (particularly Meds and Gujjars), not to mention how may Arabs came and settled down among the population, so even from your ethnic based point of view, Muhammad Bin Qasim was important as he changed the region immensely (for the better of course).

I'm done wasting my time with you. Either prove Pakistan was created based on ethnicity, or buzz off.

 

[Vapnope]

The article points out at a huge financial cost which might be needed to survive the onslaught on LOC. The hawks wont care about the cost or lost of life, because belief that "MY button is bigger than yours" is what dictating things on LOC, unfortunately.
Somewhere between 56" chest and Ghazwa e Hind there might lie a solution to avoid loss of life and property.

 

[Khanate]

Are you joking? The whole concept of Pakistan was a Muslim nation in the Indian sub-continent. You can't honestly be this brain dead and think it was an ethnic movement, with religion taking a backseat. I'll say it again, it was called the Muslim league, not the Indus league. Religion was the primary motive. You know that very well. Stop trying to weasel out of it, you clearly can't (still haven't given any proof to your claims other than the name of Pakistan, which is purely coincidental).

Resorting to personal attacks is a sign of intellectual weakness. There is no need for that.

My contention throughout our conversation has been consistent:

It is no coincidence that Ch. Rehmat Ali formulated the map the way that he did. He studied the history of the region in depth. Only then did he determine that a Millat has existed in the region of PAKSTAN (Punjab, Azad Kashmir, KPK, Sindh and Baluchistan), in one form or another, since The Dawn of History (Ch. Rehmat Ali's words). In fact, he was outraged when he found out that Bangladesh has been included in the PAKSTAN Millat.​

Source: Pakistan — The Fatherland of the Pak Nation (PDF)

The whole concept of Pakistan was a Muslim nation in the Indian sub-continent.

It's called Muslim nationalism which invariably leads to Pakistani nationalism. This is the paradigm in which you're currently lost.

You haven't proven anything. You've made claims without sufficient evidence backing them. Muhammad Bin Qasim had a substantial impact, he was the first to conquer large parts of Pakistan and spread Islam in significant numbers among its people. He hired many locals into his administration, and many joined his military (particularly Meds and Gujjars), not to mention how may Arabs came and settled down among the population, so even from your ethnic based point of view, Muhammad Bin Qasim was important as he changed the region immensely (for the better of course).

I'm done wasting my time with you. Either prove Pakistan was created based on ethnicity, or buzz off.

For the third time, can you kindly provide sources for these lofty claims?

Again,

In 731 when al-Hakim al-Kalbi was appointed governor of Sindh (some 20 years after Qasim’s death), he found a land where a majority of those who had converted to Islam (during Qasim’s stay here), had reverted back to being either Hindu or Buddhist. So much for Qasim’s Sindh being the genesis of Pakistan. (Source)
​

Another source,

Read: A Book of Conquest: The Chachnama and Muslim Origins in South Asia by Manan Ahmed Asif
​

While we are at it, I may as well introduce you to the Arabs who arrived prior to the arrival of Muhammad Bin Qasim:

Considering the above, it is not difficult to see why successive attempts were made to invade Sindh. Consequtantly, Jinnah carefully choose his words, i.e., first Muslim. This is a nod to the emissaries sent by Hazrat Umar (r. 634-644 CE) post Rida wars.

You've made claims without sufficient evidence backing them.

I've provided sources including maps. If you need a specific source for anything I said, please ask.

 

[Hamza913]

Resorting to personal attacks is a sign of intellectual weakness. There is no need for that.

My contention throughout our conversation has been consistent:

It is no coincidence that Ch. Rehmat Ali formulated the map the way that he did. He studied the history of the region in depth. Only then did he determine that a Millat has existed in the region of PAKSTAN (Punjab, Azad Kashmir, KPK, Sindh and Baluchistan), in one form or another, since The Dawn of History (Ch. Rehmat Ali's words). In fact, he was outraged when he found out that Bangladesh has been including in the PAKSTAN Millat.​

Source: Pakistan — The Fatherland of the Pak Nation (PDF)





It's called Muslim nationalism which invariably leads to Pakistani nationalism. This is the paradigm in which you're currently lost.




I'm done wasting my time with you. Either prove Pakistan was created based on ethnicity, or buzz off.

For the third time, can you kindly provide sources for these lofty claims?

Again,

In 731 when al-Hakim al-Kalbi was appointed governor of Sindh (some 20 years after Qasim’s death), he found a land where a majority of those who had converted to Islam (during Qasim’s stay here), had reverted back to being either Hindu or Buddhist. So much for Qasim’s Sindh being the genesis of Pakistan. (Source)
​

Another source,

Read: A Book of Conquest: The Chachnama and Muslim Origins in South Asia by Manan Ahmed Asif
​

While we are at it, I may as well introduce you to the Arabs who arrived prior to the arrival of Muhammad Bin Qasim:

Considering the above, it is not difficult to see why successive attempts were made to invade Sindh. Consequtantly, Jinnah carefully choose his words, i.e., first Muslim. This is a nod to the emissaries sent by Hazrat Umar (r. 634-644 CE) post Rida wars.





I've provided sources including maps. If you need a specific source for anything I said, please ask.[/QUOTE]

The Muslim nationalism does not lead to an ethnic nationalism. Again, it was the Muslim League, not Indus League. It was Muslim nationalism, not Indus nationalism. Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, despite it not being part of the ethnic groups along the Indus. You had Hindustani Muslims migrate during partition, even though they didn't come from the Indus.

Pakistan was created because of religion, not ethnicity. The words of one man doesn't change that.

I'm aware that Bin Qasim wasn't the first. If you read my posts carefully, you'd notice I said he was the first one to achieve major things, as proven by the fact that it was under his rule Arabs started settling in Sindh in significant numbers, that it was used his rule that many Pakistanis converted to Islam, that it was under his rule that many locals joined his army and administration, and it was under his rule that the Muslims of the region started to become a separate entity, destined to dominate Hindustan for a thousand years.

You cannot accurately gauge how many Muslims reverted back to paganism. Even if most of them did, a few of them would have still clutched onto Islam, and it paid off for those guys in the long run.

 

[Khanate]

The Muslim nationalism does not lead to an ethnic nationalism.

Nationalism is not a static entity. It morphs and evolves over time. We are talking about a distance of Allahu Akbar to Pakistan Zindabad.

Again, it was the Muslim League, not Indus League. It was Muslim nationalism, not Indus nationalism.

All India Muslim League (AIML) demanded many homelands for the Muslims of South Asia: Osmanistan, Siddiqistan, Faruqistan, Haideristan, Muinistan, Maplistan, Safistan, Nasaristan, etc. And of course, PAKSTAN — home of the Millat that existed in the Indus region since The Dawn of History.

Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, despite it not being part of the ethnic groups along the Indus.

Again, where is Bangladesh?

Now I doubt your Pakistan Studies book says much about Ch. Rahmat Ali so I urgue you to take the time to read his views on Pakstan and Bangistan union:

INTEGRATION OF PASTAN AND BANGISTAN INTO ONE COUNTRY

The integration of West Pakistan (Pastan) and East Bengal (Bangistan) has its advantages, but the losses far outweigh the gains. The danger of integration is so deceptive that it actually looks like deliverance, and is, therefore, all the more deadly.

Five elements in this relationship argue against the integration:

(a) At least 1,000 miles by air and 3,000 miles by sea separate the two wings. There have been in history, and still are, empires with far-flung colonies and dominions, but never a country with one half of its territory lying so far from the other. The iron laws of life show that to integrate into one country two such territories is so unsound and unsafe as to defeat the very purpose of their integration.

(b) Neither the shortest nor the longest route between the two wings runs through air or over land and seas that could be called neutral, let alone safe. Every inch of it runs through the Hindu-ruled air or territory, or over the Hindu-dominated seas. If an enemy invades any wing, though both will be automatically at war with him, yet they will not be able to co-ordinate their defence and give any effective aid to one another.

(c) The national capital of Bangistan is in Pastan, and for a country to have its national capital outside its own confines is dangerous both to itself and to its partner in whose territory that capital lies. The very fact of its supreme Government being outside its frontiers creates among its people the humiliating and subservient feeling that they are a colony of that other country.

(d) In spite of a community of religion between the two wings, there is not that complete identification of each with the other which is vital to their existence as one country. Their outlook, interests and economics, which ultimately determine the course of life of a people, are radically different, and this difference always leads to the rise of centrifugal forces.

(e) THE ULTIMATE DESTINIES OF PASTAN AND BANGISTAN LIE IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
Geography and history dictate that Bangistan turns towards the neighbouring Muslim countries to the north-east and Pastan towards those in the north-west. To ignore this dictate is to court disaster.

There are other elements of danger in the integration, but to refer to them here would be against the interests of the nation. The only way to meet this source of danger is to RECOGNIZE "PASTAN" AND "BANGISTAN" AS TWO SEPARATE DISTINCT COUNTRIES, EACH WITH A SUPREME GOVERNMENT OF ITS OWN, and, when that is done, to REUNITE THEM AS ALLIES by a comprehensive treaty on the basis of perfect equality. Such an alliance could secure all the advantages and, at the same time, eliminate all the disadvantages, of their present integration.​

Source: Pakistan or Pastan? Destiny or Disintegration? (Published: 28 Jan, 1950)

You had Hindustani Muslims migrate during partition, even though they didn't come from the Indus.

Indeed.

And this too enraged Ch. Rehmat Ali who envisioned seperate but indigenous homelands for Muslims of South Asia as evidenced by the map he created. Again, Ch. Rehmat Ali was proven right because migration turned out to be a bloodbath.

Pakistan was created because of religion, not ethnicity. The words of one man doesn't change that.

Denialism.

Dear boy, we have been through this exercise before. PAKSTAN is a geographic entity. It comprises of Punjab, Azad Kashmir, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh, and Balochistan, Gilgit-Baltistan. This is Pakistan Studies 101.

I'm aware that Bin Qasim wasn't the first. If you read my posts carefully, you'd notice I said he was the first one to achieve major things, as proven by the fact that it was under his rule Arabs started settling in Sindh in significant numbers, that it was used his rule that many Pakistanis converted to Islam, that it was under his rule that many locals joined his army and administration, and it was under his rule that the Muslims of the region started to become a separate entity, destined to dominate Hindustan for a thousand years.

For the 4th time, can you kindly provide sources for your lofty claims?

You cannot accurately gauge how many Muslims reverted back to paganism. Even if most of them did, a few of them would have still clutched onto Islam, and it paid off for those guys in the long run.

Again,

Read: A Book of Conquest: The Chachnama and Muslim Origins in South Asia by Manan Ahmed Asif


What part of "all inhabitants of Hind had reverted back" leaves any room for "cannot accurately gauge"?

This is history scribed by the Umayyad historian Aḥmad Ibn Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī. Unless you want to accuse al-Balādhurī of lying without a shred of evidence based entirely on your feelings, I would safely take his word for it.

 

[Hamza913]

Nationalism is not a static entity. It morphs and evolves over time. We are talking about a distance of Allahu Akbar to Pakistan Zindabad.





All India Muslim League (AIML) demanded many homelands for the Muslims of South Asia: Osmanistan, Siddiqistan, Faruqistan, Haideristan, Muinistan, Maplistan, Safistan, Nasaristan, etc. And of course, PAKSTAN — home of the Millat that existed in the Indus region since The Dawn of History.





Again, where is Bangladesh?

Now I doubt your Pakistan Studies book says much about Ch. Rahmat Ali so I urgue you to take the time to read his views on Pakstan and Bangistan union:

INTEGRATION OF PASTAN AND BANGISTAN INTO ONE COUNTRY

The integration of West Pakistan (Pastan) and East Bengal (Bangistan) has its advantages, but the losses far outweigh the gains. The danger of integration is so deceptive that it actually looks like deliverance, and is, therefore, all the more deadly.

Five elements in this relationship argue against the integration:

(a) At least 1,000 miles by air and 3,000 miles by sea separate the two wings. There have been in history, and still are, empires with far-flung colonies and dominions, but never a country with one half of its territory lying so far from the other. The iron laws of life show that to integrate into one country two such territories is so unsound and unsafe as to defeat the very purpose of their integration.

(b) Neither the shortest nor the longest route between the two wings runs through air or over land and seas that could be called neutral, let alone safe. Every inch of it runs through the Hindu-ruled air or territory, or over the Hindu-dominated seas. If an enemy invades any wing, though both will be automatically at war with him, yet they will not be able to co-ordinate their defence and give any effective aid to one another.

(c) The national capital of Bangistan is in Pastan, and for a country to have its national capital outside its own confines is dangerous both to itself and to its partner in whose territory that capital lies. The very fact of its supreme Government being outside its frontiers creates among its people the humiliating and subservient feeling that they are a colony of that other country.

(d) In spite of a community of religion between the two wings, there is not that complete identification of each with the other which is vital to their existence as one country. Their outlook, interests and economics, which ultimately determine the course of life of a people, are radically different, and this difference always leads to the rise of centrifugal forces.

(e) THE ULTIMATE DESTINIES OF PASTAN AND BANGISTAN LIE IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
Geography and history dictate that Bangistan turns towards the neighbouring Muslim countries to the north-east and Pastan towards those in the north-west. To ignore this dictate is to court disaster.

There are other elements of danger in the integration, but to refer to them here would be against the interests of the nation. The only way to meet this source of danger is to RECOGNIZE "PASTAN" AND "BANGISTAN" AS TWO SEPARATE DISTINCT COUNTRIES, EACH WITH A SUPREME GOVERNMENT OF ITS OWN, and, when that is done, to REUNITE THEM AS ALLIES by a comprehensive treaty on the basis of perfect equality. Such an alliance could secure all the advantages and, at the same time, eliminate all the disadvantages, of their present integration.​

Source: Pakistan or Pastan? Destiny or Disintegration? (Published: 28 Jan, 1950)





Indeed.

And this too enraged Ch. Rehmat Ali who envisioned seperate but indigenous homelands for Muslims of South Asia as evidenced by the map he created. Again, Ch. Rehmat Ali was proven right because migration turned out to be a bloodbath.





Denialism.

Dear boy, we have been through this exercise before. PAKSTAN is a geographic entity. It comprises of Punjab, Azad Kashmir, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh, and Balochistan, Gilgit-Baltistan. This is Pakistan Studies 101.





For the 4th time, can you kindly provide sources for your lofty claims?





Again,

Read: A Book of Conquest: The Chachnama and Muslim Origins in South Asia by Manan Ahmed Asif


What part of "all inhabitants of Hind had reverted back" leaves any room for "cannot accurately gauge"?

This is history scribed by the Umayyad historian Aḥmad Ibn Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī in 731 CE. Unless you want to accuse al-Balādhurī of lying without a shred of evidence based entirely on your feelings, I would safely take his word for it.

Using one man to support your claims is a rather poor way of arguing, especially when you consider his vision got scrapped.

It's not at all lofty, it's basic common knowledge. This is history 101, use Google. You'll find it easily.

Unless Al Baladhuri went around asking everyone in Sindh, you cannot take his claim as fact. Think about this logically.

 

[Khanate]

Using one man to support your claims is a rather poor way of arguing

"Show some respect", your words, to one of the Founders of Pakistan. After all, he is not an ordinary man. It was Ch. Rehmat Ali who founded the Pakistan National Movement in 1933. Pakistanis exist because of Ch. Rehmat Ali. Though he doesn't get his due in the Pakistan Studies books since he was a critical voice.

especially when you consider his vision got scrapped.

Have you seen the map of Pakistan?

It's not at all lofty, it's basic common knowledge. This is history 101, use Google. You'll find it easily.

Google is not a source. Google is a search engine.

For the 5th time, kindly provide sources for your lofty claims?

Unless Al Baladhuri went around asking everyone in Sindh, you cannot take his claim as fact. Think about this logically.

Aḥmad Ibn Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī, a historian, is a reliable source. His works are the basis for some of the most important works of history. He was closer to the action than you are with your lofty claims with no sources. Think about this logically.