Pakistan, Bharat, British India - What came first, what came after?

[Joe Shearer]

LoL putting words and expressions to another people, the height of hubris.

What is your objection to the post you have cited?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Austerlitz:

You assume all archealogists share the same view. you got to understand most of what they say is conjecture. nothing is absolute, so much is subjective and open to all sort of bias. Why don't you read up on Prof. Ahmad Hasan Dhani?

Also are you aware that Wikipedia is open contribution site? Therefore it is open to abuse, in particular over contentious issues. There nothing there for me or you to get hundreds of friends to edit and create bias. The quality of referance can be poor, lot of supporting links are broken or are false. Wiki is fine for general stuff as long as we are aware that it can be distorted and you know anything to do with India/Pak is going knock out any chance of impartiality.

Now consider the following from one of the links in the wiki:-


"strong presumption but lacking in evidence" This is typical, you can se what that means. This is from the Referances section of the Wiki article on Lothal by Lawrence Leshnick. Do read it to conform the quote I gave. Again I will ask you Lothal ( all it is few huts ) in the Indus Valley when Indian Gujrat falls well outside of Indus Valley?

And those dots on a map on the Wiki article mean nothing. Just because I put dots on a map does not mean anything.

Finally you do not have to be sorry about anything. Must go now.

Peace.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Whilst cat was away I can see the children have been playing!

There two type of fanatics here:-

The Pakistani fanatics.

They have had 65 years of being stuffed with this arty farty fairtale which runs something like this. Your Muslim, you dropped from the heavens in 1947 ( bit like the Jews from Europe settled in Isreal in 1947 ) and since then they established Pakistan, fort of Islam. Or alternatively they all were Arabs and landed with Bin Qasim in 9th century.

This is load of bollocks. With the exception of the migrants who moved from India to Pakistan in 1947 the rest of the people ( 95% ) are native to the land. No doubt over the millenia as happens with all populations invaders came and in time they melted into the general population. The Indus valley has been a mixing pot. This happens everywhere. The British people carry the blood of Celts who were the original inhabitants as well as the waves who came over time. The Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans. Today the British are a mix of all strains. Of course they had to wait last for the best wave, which was me !!! You can't unravel their mixed up ancestry.

The exact same process has been happening in the Indus Valley ( todays Pakistan occupies the majority of this valley ) ever since the time of Mohenjo Daro. Now this is a very simple and plausible suggestion I am making. I realise the fanatics in Pakistan are going to oppose this view because it conflicts with their worldview which has been informed by 63 years of Pakistan government sponsored propaganda because 'hey we are all Arabs'.

But I got news for these people. There is a natural law that if something does not fit with reality eventually the bubble will burst. It is going to take time but rest assured I say to these fanatics the people of Pakistan, one by one will eventually reconnect with their land and their forefathers - And before you Indian's pull your pants down and start masturbating ' Yeh but you guys will be just another India' if that happens I say 'Piss off'.

The Bengalis managed to get out of this bubble and I ask the Indian's go along and check the map and you will see a small blob fast sinking in the Bay of Bengal - What do you call that ........... Yes Bangladesh. So no they have not become another India. They have become very nationalist and gone to their roots as Bangali. Bravo to them. Of course they are still Muslims but they do not live in denial of their roots, that is Bengali.

But of course this process is going to take time for this tide unleashed since at least 1949 to recede. Of course being fanatics they are not open to reason or facts. If they had it their way some of the fringe would blow up all ancient ruins or history similar to the Taliban.

INDIAN FANATICS.

The Indian fanatics are no differant from the Pakistani and this thread has attracted them like flies to honey. They have been pressure pumped with all sort of garbage. Because the Mullah is missing on the Indian side they come across more progressive, modern but underneath the gloss they are same. They rewrite history and at times even geography, where rivers bursts out from the ground where there was desert before and mountains split apart. Then ample use of scripture ( just as on our side scripture is used ) as referance. It would appear Rig Vedic frequently smokes that pipe.

Everything suddenly becomes 'Hindu'. Of course the unity in diversity argument is propunded, if you have a square that does not fit into the circle. I mean the the Pygmy people of Africa must also be Hindu. Well they do have two legs, they do use their mouths to talk and would you believe it they even use their hands to eat. All attributes in common with Hindu of India. Ping!!!

I suppose that is the Muslim equivalent of the common held view that everybody is born a Muslim. That is why the term 'revert' is used for those who convert. So wild claims bordering fantasy where Harapans become Hindus. Or Proto-Hindus. I suppose you could argue that primitive man was also Proto-Hindu because some of them evolved into modern Hindus. I can see a Mullah screaming 'No he was born a Muslim.' The Indian fanatic saying no he was Proto-Hindu. Crazy!!!

I came across a article which claims that ( might be mistaken here ) that Lothal is part of IVC. Because they used the same measures. So desperate are the Indian fanatics that they will find the most pathetic reason as proof. Besides anything else the Lothal site is no where near the Indus Valley. Does anybody know what a valley is? Lothal falls well outside the Indus River catcment area thus it is not erven within the Indus Valley.

Of course you can claim that plate tectonic activity shifted the entire mantlepiece causing the gradient differantials. I used Google Earth as a rough guide. There is at least 300 feet plus elevation between Lothal site and the nearest riverine zone of the Indus in Sindh, Pakistan. Of course maybe the the gravity was pulling in reverse and the water gushed uphill is a possiblity.

And I checked Lothal site, all it is is a tiny site. The actual ruins are possibly hundred feet plus. Is that a joke? Is that what all the drama is about. If that is your golden site I wonder what rest are, just a footprint? You guys have made a mountain out of molehill. For comparison I checked Mohenjo Daro which is at least 15 times more extent. I will back to have more fun later.

I just like to ask the Indian's you crow on about secularism then you start peddling the same concept as the Mullahs. Hinduism creeps in. Yes, I am well aware of culture, civilization realm etc. Europe is an example of that in fact you could add modern day US, Canada as well.

Ciao.

Joe-S. I will get to your post after I have done some research. I think your post deserves some thinking. What you see here is just pulp for the masses.

RIG VEDIC: PLEASE READ THE ABOVE AND TELL ME WHERE AM I SAYING TO IGNORE ANYTHING?

I AM TRYING TO TELL MY COUNTRYMEN TO DROP THIS ARAB MYTH AND CLAIM EVERYTHING WITHIN YOUR OWN LAND, PAKISTAN AS YOURS, RIGHT FROM BEFORE HARAPPA, MOHENJO DARO ALL THE WAY TO TODAY. EVERY SINGLE THING WITHIN YOUR COUNTRY AND EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED THEIR SINCE TIME BEGAN

DO YOU COMPREHEND THIS? ARE YOU CAPABLE OF COMPREHENDING THIS?

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN.

1, CLAIM EVERYTHING ON EVERY SQUARE INCH OF PAKISTAN. CELEBTRATE IT. IT IS YOURS.
2. ACCEPT EVERY EVENT SINCE TODAY AND EVERY YEAR GOING BACK TO SINCE TIME BEGAN.

IS THAT SIMPLE? DO YOU SEE ANY DENIAL THERE?

 

[Rig Vedic]

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN.

1, CLAIM EVERYTHING ON EVERY SQUARE INCH OF PAKISTAN. CELEBTRATE IT. IT IS YOURS.
2. ACCEPT EVERY EVENT SINCE TODAY AND EVERY YEAR GOING BACK TO SINCE TIME BEGAN.

IS THAT SIMPLE? DO YOU SEE ANY DENIAL THERE?

If you acknowledge everything that came between the IVC and Muhammad bin Qasim, and more importantly, proudly acknowledge its identity as a part of the larger Indic civilization, then I say, more power to you!

 

[Developereo]

Might very well be a contributing factor. The way one sees us Pakistanis denouncing, rejecting and disowning our own history and then claiming part, by word and song, in the Fatimid, the Muslim Spanish and the Arab history makes our identity crisis quite apparent. However this phenomena is rampant in many minorities around the world. One could argue that it is a self-devised mechanism working against assimilation and towards safe guarding one's separate identity from that of the overwhelming majority. The irony, in our case, is that the very thing which is meant to be saved is in result being mutilated i.e. our identity.

This talk of 'identity crisis' is the vogue amongst the chattering classes, but I don't see what the fuss is about. I learned about Mohenjodaro and Ashoka in class, as well as Mohd. Bin Qasim and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Growing up in Karachi, we had Muslims, Christians and Parsis as friends; we even knew Hindus, including my dad's best friend.

To be a Pakistani, all you had to do was to be born in Pakistan. Nothing more was/is needed to define a Pakistani 'identity'.

Secondly, as for identifying with Fatimid or Moorish accomplishment, that is perfectly reasonable for the same reason that an American Christian takes pride in the accomplishments of Sir Francis Bacon, or an Ethiopian Jew might take pride in Albert Einstein. There is a cultural bond forged by religion.

Just like the Turks have nothing to do with the Holy Roman empire just because they currently control Istanbul (Constantinople).

Certainly they can claim Byzantine as part of their cultural heritage, just as Spaniards can claim the Moorish culture and Australians can claim the Aborigine cave paintings.

You are in no position to dictate to people what part of history they may and may not accept.

PS: Think of why you are not even able to give examples from the Muslim world.

Muslim examples have been given. Repeatedly. Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, to name but a few.

You seem to have a self-serving, simplistic view that Muslims across the globe are identical clones of some Arabian mold. If you bother to study the customs and rituals in Muslim communities, you will be amazed at the cultural diversity.

Does Pakistan follows this?

This particular canard as a prerequisite for cultural claim has been addressed. Refer to Buddhism in India, or 'pagan' religions in parts of Europe.

I guess only Pakistan consider the Indian civilization is synonymous to IVC only and so the sole property of Pakistan.

You misunderstand. We do not claim that Indian culture sprang fully formed from the IVC, merely that the lands of Pakistan were an integral part of the overall cultural heritage of the region, and the confusion over the word 'India' denies us the right to claim that heritage.

who told you that Islam makes people deny their roots

Some people need to prop up these straw-man arguments so they can sustain their erroneous claims against Muslims.

If we start calling India as Bharat will westerners suddenly think IVC only belongs to Pakistan?

No, but it will stop them from thinking that it lies in India.

Pak's only claim to IVC heritage is that it now controls the land where IVC once flourished.

See above. Pak's claim is that our lands and ancestors were instrumental in the early history of civilization and contributed to the cultural heritage of the region (and beyond).

Pakistan was founded because the Muslims of this sub-continent wanted to build up their lives in accordance with the teachings and traditions of Islam

"without fear of persecution". That last part is crucial because the motivating factor was freedom from persecution. There is nothing in that doctrine that requires renunciation of ancient history.

Those Pakistanis who feel the inadequacy of their Islamic identity, but still hate India, are the ones who clutch at the IVC as a drowning man clutches at straw, while ignoring everything in between the IVC and Muhammad bin Qasim.

That interpretation is not only incorrect, it contributes to the problem being discussed here. The idea that acceptance of IVC stems from an "inadequacy of Islamic identity" is flawed in the extreme. In fact, it is precisely self-assured confidence in our own Islamic identity which enables us to appreciate diversity in thought without feeling threatened.

Secondly, we are not jumping history. We, obviously, appreciate the parts of history which took place within the present geographical boundaries of Pakistan more than, say, something that happened in India's deep South.

 

[anonymus]

Well, technically speaking British India came first; then Pakistan (14th) and then India (15th).

Get your history correct........

India was the name given to land between Indus ,Himalyas and Indian Ocean by greek historian Herodotus.The detailed description of Indian Geography and History of those times by megasthnese in his book Indica.Megesthnese was an ambassador to chandragupta.Both India and Indus are greek worbs well for India and well Indus respectively. (Circa 300BC)



Bharat is the name of an Aryan tribe who fought a battle of 10 kings between 'Sudas (King of Bharat tribe) and confederacy of 10 well known tribes 5 Aryan ( Puru,Yadu,Turvasa,Anu,Druhu) and 5 local tribes at the bank of 'Parushani' ie Ravi river.Bharat emerged victorious in that battle and here lies the origin of name bharat........ (Circa 1200 BC)

Hindustan and sindhu is the name given to India and Indus by muslim Invaders. (Circa 700 AD)


Thus if you will try to decipher the order it is Bharat > India > Hindustan and lastly pakistan.

Do remember "India" existed only as part of the British Raj, and before that it was simply the name for the whole Subcontinent. "Bharat" also existed the name way, but not as a solid political entity.

In pakistan,Is it a crime to teach political science to students?

Do you people even understand the Nation is a 18th century concept which was first defined in treaty of Westphalia.Before it there were no nations even in the proud continent of Europe.So every nation was a loose political entity.

 

[Rig Vedic]

That interpretation is not only incorrect, it contributes to the problem being discussed here. The idea that acceptance of IVC stems from an "inadequacy of Islamic identity" is flawed in the extreme. In fact, it is precisely self-assured confidence in our own Islamic identity which enables us to appreciate diversity in thought without feeling threatened.

Secondly, we are not jumping history. We, obviously, appreciate the parts of history which took place within the present geographical boundaries of Pakistan more than, say, something that happened in India's deep South.

What I am looking for is a pride in the larger Indic civilization, and an acknowledgment that the areas that now comprise Pakistan were a part of it.

 

[Rafi]

What I am looking for is a pride in the larger Indic civilization, and an acknowledgment that the areas that now comprise Pakistan were a part of it.

Because there is no larger "indic" civilization, this region is varied and as different from one another, I as a Punjabi share no cultural affiliation to a Maharashtran or a Tamil to believe otherwise is a fallacy. Pakistani history will overlapping with indian history at times is unique.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Because there is no larger "indic" civilization ...

There we have it, Exhibit No. 1 for Joe Shearer.

I as a Punjabi share no cultural affiliation to a Maharashtran ...

That is because you have tried to purge the Indic culture of your ancestors, albeit with incomplete success. Your Punjabi language is as much based on Sanskrit as Marathi. Let me assure you, your ancestors, prior to their being subjected to conversion, would have had a lot of cultural commonality with a Maharashtrian, as do Punjabi Sikhs and Hindus today. Philosophy, Classical Music, Knowledge Systems such as Ayurveda, even historic blood relations as revealed by "Gotras" ... too many commonalities to list.

 

[Developereo]

Thank you for admitting the inherent problem in Pakistan claiming the Indic heritage

Let me try to explain it this way. We know that, in antiquity, there were any number of military conquests within the subcontinent itself. Some of these conquerors are now viewed as mythical heroes in India/Hinduism even though, at the time, the people they conquered were also Indian. We don't always know of the losing side's belief systems because it's lost in antiquity.

From our point of view, both the Muslim and local cultures are part of our heritage, so the conquests were between two parts of our heritage. Now you may say that we favor the more recent part of our heritage over the ancient part, but that is normal human behavior across the world. All cultures do that.

What I am looking for is a pride in the larger Indic civilization, and an acknowledgment that the areas that now comprise Pakistan were a part of it.

And yet you deny us the right to take pride in the larger Islamic civilization, decrying it as acting 'Arab'. Do you see the contradiction?

As for taking pride in pan-Indian culture, that is always a matter of degree. While we certainly appreciate the accomplishments of Indian culture as a whole, realistically, the affinity will diminish with distance, unless reinforced by other factors. For example, Pakistani Hindus would doubtless be more appreciative of Tamil Hindu scholars than Pakistani Muslims would, because the former's geographic bond is supplemented by religion. In the same way, Indian Hindus doubtless feel no emotional connection to Mecca as Indian Muslims do. This is not being dismissive; this is just the reality of human nature and it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise.

The same thing is doubtless true within India. South Indians would be more appreciate of South Indian accomplishments than, say, Bihari or Bengali accomplishments, and vice versa.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Some of these conquerors are now viewed as mythical heroes in India/Hinduism even though, at the time, the people they conquered were also Indian. We don't always know of the losing side's belief systems because it's lost in antiquity.

For the record - In India, there was no concept of warfare for imposition of belief systems.

And yet you deny us the right to take pride in the larger Islamic civilization, decrying it as acting 'Arab'. Do you see the contradiction?

As for taking pride in pan-Indian culture, that is always a matter of degree. While we certainly appreciate the accomplishments of Indian culture as a whole, realistically, the affinity will diminish with distance, unless reinforced by other factors. For example, Pakistani Hindus would doubtless be more appreciative of Tamil Hindu scholars than Pakistani Muslims would, because the former's geographic bond is supplemented by religion. In the same way, Indian Hindus doubtless feel no emotional connection to Mecca as Indian Muslims do. This is not being dismissive; this is just the reality of human nature and it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise.

This is mostly a fair statement.

The process of Islamization resulted in a loss (to a varying degree) of ancestral cultural identity, and the taking up of a newly imagined identity.

Let the game continue, identities are not static and fixed entities.

The same thing is doubtless true within India. South Indians would be more appreciate of South Indian accomplishments than, say, Bihari or Bengali accomplishments, and vice versa.

This is also a fair statement, but let me venture to add that in India, the sense of belonging to a common civilization is much greater than most Pakistanis might be able to appreciate, since they have cut themselves off (to a varying degree) from that part of their heritage.

 

[Vinod2070]

Certainly they can claim Byzantine as part of their cultural heritage, just as Spaniards can claim the Moorish culture and Australians can claim the Aborigine cave paintings.

Even if they were the ones who consider themselves (and actually are) descended from invaders who came to destroy exactly that empire?

And replaced Saint Sophia with a mosque?

I don't think so. And i am sure most Europeans don't as well.

You are in no position to dictate to people what part of history they may and may not accept.

I am just making humble suggestions. I have right to my opinions however much that may irk you.

Muslim examples have been given. Repeatedly. Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, to name but a few.

None of them fits.

You seem to have a self-serving, simplistic view that Muslims across the globe are identical clones of some Arabian mold. If you bother to study the customs and rituals in Muslim communities, you will be amazed at the cultural diversity.

I know of the diversity. That is because of the obvious fact that they are different people from very different cultures.

The official line has always been to make them a clone of the Arabs. The more the success in the degree of Arabization, the more Islamic the country is considered. Many countries even became Arabized in their language and script.

The difference in culture is despite the attempt to enforce uniformity by Islam, not because of Islam.

See above. Pak's claim is that our lands and ancestors were instrumental in the early history of civilization and contributed to the cultural heritage of the region (and beyond).

And it was exactly that Pakistan was meant to get away from. Mr. Jinnah's speech (among other facts) clearly points to that.

"without fear of persecution". That last part is crucial because the motivating factor was freedom from persecution. There is nothing in that doctrine that requires renunciation of ancient history.

"Hans ke liya tha Pakistan, lad ke lenge Hindustan" doesn't exactly denote "fear of persecution"!

In fact, in many of Mr. Jinnah's public meetings, slogans threatening of genocide of kaffirs were openly chanted. Look at the kind of slogans made by the league leaders before the "direct action day".

I am not saying the "fear of persecution" was not there at all. It was there among the masses and astutely used by the Muslim elites to whip passions and achieve their aims.

That interpretation is not only incorrect, it contributes to the problem being discussed here. The idea that acceptance of IVC stems from an "inadequacy of Islamic identity" is flawed in the extreme. In fact, it is precisely self-assured confidence in our own Islamic identity which enables us to appreciate diversity in thought without feeling threatened.

There are some who have reached the third stage as I mentioned in post 207.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...ame-first-what-came-after-14.html#post2925328

They are very very few in number.

Secondly, we are not jumping history. We, obviously, appreciate the parts of history which took place within the present geographical boundaries of Pakistan more than, say, something that happened in India's deep South.

Pakistan is not about location at all. It's location is just an accident.

Pakistan is about an idea and that idea brooks no such "appreciation".

 

[indushek]

Let me try to explain it this way. We know that, in antiquity, there were any number of military conquests within the subcontinent itself. Some of these conquerors are now viewed as mythical heroes in India/Hinduism even though, at the time, the people they conquered were also Indian. We don't always know of the losing side's belief systems because it's lost in antiquity.

From our point of view, both the Muslim and local cultures are part of our heritage, so the conquests were between two parts of our heritage. Now you may say that we favor the more recent part of our heritage over the ancient part, but that is normal human behavior across the world. All cultures do that.



And yet you deny us the right to take pride in the larger Islamic civilization, decrying it as acting 'Arab'. Do you see the contradiction?

As for taking pride in pan-Indian culture, that is always a matter of degree. While we certainly appreciate the accomplishments of Indian culture as a whole, realistically, the affinity will diminish with distance, unless reinforced by other factors. For example, Pakistani Hindus would doubtless be more appreciative of Tamil Hindu scholars than Pakistani Muslims would, because the former's geographic bond is supplemented by religion. In the same way, Indian Hindus doubtless feel no emotional connection to Mecca as Indian Muslims do. This is not being dismissive; this is just the reality of human nature and it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise.

The same thing is doubtless true within India. South Indians would be more appreciate of South Indian accomplishments than, say, Bihari or Bengali accomplishments, and vice versa.

Developreo let me make one thing clear, i have no problem with Pakistani's claiming the Indic heritage along with Muslim tradition as their own. However ur voice is a minority, majority take pride in the Arabic tradition heck i even seen people here linking their family to some Arab general and say that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Indian heritage.

They talk as if they were in control of low life hindus for centuries till the british came. If ghanznis and ghoris and bin kasims are reveled in by these people how do u think they would accept this age old culture?? It will be a big task for u to convince them than convincing me an Indian.

 

[vsdoc]

Developreo let me make one thing clear, i have no problem with Pakistani's claiming the Indic heritage along with Muslim tradition as their own. However ur voice is a minority, majority take pride in the Arabic tradition heck i even seen people here linking their family to some Arab general and say that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Indian heritage.

They talk as if they were in control of low life hindus for centuries till the british came. If ghanznis and ghoris and bin kasims are reveled in by these people how do u think they would accept this age old culture?? It will be a big task for u to convince them than convincing me an Indian.

That we have a thread like this here itself is a tectonic shift.

However, its not difficult to maintain perspective when we see how many Indians have participated here versus the number of Pakistanis.

But as they say - boond boond se darya banta hai.

 

[Vinod2070]

Developreo let me make one thing clear, i have no problem with Pakistani's claiming the Indic heritage along with Muslim tradition as their own. However ur voice is a minority, majority take pride in the Arabic tradition heck i even seen people here linking their family to some Arab general and say that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Indian heritage.

They talk as if they were in control of low life hindus for centuries till the british came. If ghanznis and ghoris and bin kasims are reveled in by these people how do u think they would accept this age old culture?? It will be a big task for u to convince them than convincing me an Indian.

Yes, the minuscule small minority that tries to claim this pre Islamic identity (and it is because just Islamic identity is never sufficient to form a sense of nationhood. This has been proven beyond doubt.) has its battle within the country, not outside.

It is precisely because they are helpless in fighting inside that they turn their attention to snatching the common heritage exclusively to make it more palatable inside Pakistan.

It probably is rational from their POV. Just that it defies reality and is therefor doomed to fail.

That we have a thread like this here itself is a tectonic shift.

However, its not difficult to maintain perspective when we see how many Indians have participated here versus the number of Pakistanis.

But as they say - boond boond se darya banta hai.

Actually these threads have been there on the forum since long.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...cient-history-not-appreciated-pakistanis.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...tions-behind-selecting-name-india-1947-a.html

Both these (and many more such threads) threads had many of the same arguments that we are seeing here.