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

[Indus Pakistan]

Please guy's come on! Can we stay focussed on the title of thread? Does it mention anything about ethnic composition of Pakistan?
I opened a serious thread and I don't have much time. There is ton of garbage on top of the serious posts that I need to handle and it wastes my time going through all the shite.

Joe-S: I will go through to the links and tackle the points you have brought up but I will say the UN is not a court. As you know very well its subject to world politics and things can go anyway as we know how Iraq/WMD was treated. Another example I doubt very much if the vote for or against the establishment of Isreal would go the way it did in 1948.

And I take it that 'humility' was a dig against me, yeh sure I am a arrogant bastard. Nothing to be ashamed of. Now on the subject of Jinnah (n gonna get killed for this ) we South Asian's have habit of elevating people to some godly status or we flog them. Fact is he was a human, fact is he made mistakes. He was not half as smart as his worshippers claim and not half as bad as his detractors would have us believe. He was right man at the right place at the right time.

Yes, I got annoyed not because I can't deal with anything you or anybody else throws here but because I don't have much time, when I get here I tend to be knackered and then I find pile of crap has been deposited on the thread. It annoys having to sift trough post after post of garbage. I reckon there is only about dozen posts here that are relevant and or making me scratch my head. Rest are just pea headed comments or even relevant. It is like trying to have a serious debate amidst hundreds of nutters continously interjecting.

I may take time but I wil reply to anything that shakes my argument. On another note another Indian mentioned Indian Defence Forum so I checked them out. Must admit it appeared very well organized and I was even thinking of joining asnd putting my ideas there but hell the 'Pakistan' section was full of abuse .......... Pak* this and Pak* that. Por*istan seems to another one. Those mods. there need to get a grip on people. Suddenly I did not feel too guilty about my propensity to be harsh.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Austerlitz: If the Sindhi's who live near Mohenjo Daro or the Punjabi's who live next to Harrapa are not the successors to the people who built them, with respect who is? The Eskimos? The Yakuts? Or possibly the inhabitants of Andaman Islands? It is plausible to assume that the people who in live in the Indus Valley ( that would mostly be Paklistan ) at present are the direct descendants of the original people of the Indus Valley unless or otherwise you have irrefutable proof that the the original population was en masse wiped out or moved out.

And which idiot's think that Bin Kasim et al boned every female in Indus Valley and thus are their fathers? A silly proposition, don't you think. If you bothered to read some of my previous posts I said something about evolution. Over 1,000 of years new blood is introduced into any population but the original sediment is still there. No doubt the Indus Valley has seen many invaders and of course they will have left their mark on the genetic pool.

Rubyjackass: Although I am struggling to understand what your saying but can I pay some respect to you in that at least you are trying to tackle the points I made. I will get back to you later.

 

[rubyjackass]

@Atanz:

You seem to be new on this kind of forum. You don't need to reply to everyone. Ignore trollers and move on. No need to make pleas to them in every post.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thread cleaned up

Stick to the topic please, Pakistan's ethnic composition is not the topic and neither is the content of its textbooks

 

[Developereo]

There was a reason they called it British INDIA and not British Pakistan or British China or British Argentina or British Moon or whatever.

Yes, they named it British INDIA because that was the European name for the region. Before them, we did not call ourselves Indian (except when communicating with Europeans).

The local use of the foreign term INDIA is a legacy of British rule. As long as you continue using that foreign name to describe yourself, you are perpetuating and embracing that legacy.

It is analogous to Sri Lanka v/s Ceylon, or Burma v/s Myanmar, or Japan v/s Nippon.

'How are u the descendants of mahenjo daro and mohd bin qasim,ghauri,ghaznavi at the same time?

Atanz already answered you but, to put it briefly, you confuse biological and cultural inheritance. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Ignited Mind]

Yes, they named it British INDIA because that was the European name for the region. Before them, we did not call ourselves Indian (except when communicating with Europeans).

The local use of the foreign term INDIA is a legacy of British rule. As long as you continue using that foreign name to describe yourself, you are perpetuating and embracing that legacy.

Aryavarta

Bharatvarsha

Bharat

India

Hindustan

We've been calling ourselves all of these over the centuries.

Why do we need to dissociate ourselves with the name 'India'? Just because it's a legacy of the British rule?

That is the essence of India. We assimilate all things from all over the world.

By your logic, we should also abandon our Mughal history as well.

That's no reason to abandon things. Try and come up with something better to convince me.

Why don't you yourself abandon the 'stan' in your 'Pakistan'? I hope you do know that 'stan' is a derivative of the Hindi/Sanskrit word 'Sthan' which means a place.

You should call yourself anything but P*A*K*I 'stan'.

 

[neutral_person]

Yes, they named it British INDIA because that was the European name for the region. Before them, we did not call ourselves Indian (except when communicating with Europeans).

The local use of the foreign term INDIA is a legacy of British rule. As long as you continue using that foreign name to describe yourself, you are perpetuating and embracing that legacy.

It is analogous to Sri Lanka v/s Ceylon, or Burma v/s Myanmar, or Japan v/s Nippon.



Atanz already answered you but, to put it briefly, you confuse biological and cultural inheritance. The two are not mutually exclusive.

He (Atanz) wants to claim IVC, Harrapa, Mohejan Daro etc. He isnt making just a biological claim on ancient non-Islamic civilizations of Pakistan. He is very much making both a Biological and Cultural claim on the ancient civilizations of Pakistan.

 

[Developereo]

Aryavarta

Bharatvarsha

Bharat

India

Hindustan

This is like one of those IQ test questions. Pick the odd one out.

Ans: India; all the others were locally derived names for the region.

Why don't you yourself abandon the 'stan' in your 'Pakistan'? I hope you do know that 'stan' is a derivative of the Hindi/Sanskrit word 'Sthan' which means a place.

When did we ever deny that Sanskrit is a part of our cultural heritage?

 

[Ignited Mind]

When did we ever deny that Sanskrit is a part of our cultural heritage?

Exactly!

The name 'India' HAS BECOME a part of OUR cultural heritage.

That is our culture. We incorporate stuff from all over the world. That's the great thing about our Indian culture. It is all-inclusive.

You conveniently skipped my post about the 'Mughal heritage' of India.

The name 'India' belongs to us as much as the Taj Mahal or the Red Fort or the Biryani.

All these things came from outside and were, over the centuries, incorporated into our inclusive culture.

Telling us to abandon the name 'India' is like telling the East Asians to abandon Buddhism.

There is no odd one. They are all the same thing.

Ask the Thai to remove the english 'land' from 'Thailand'.

 

[neutral_person]

This is like one of those IQ test questions. Pick the odd one out.

Ans: India; all the others were locally derived names for the region.



When did we ever deny that Sanskrit is a part of our cultural heritage?

Well I like the name India, so it stays. Frankly its a pretty silly debate going on here in terms of what India and Pakistan should call themselves, and nothing to do with the topic. Please stay on topic (to Indians as well).

The original topic that Atanz wanted to discuss was that why don't Pakistanis take more pride in their ancient non-Islamic past(Hindu/Buddhist/IVC, etc)? This was my reply to the topic that is meant to be discussed:

Firstly, IVC is a part of present day India as well. But Pakistan was the major player in IVC and should claim it as well. I think if Pakistanis claimed IVC, Harrappa, Mohejan Daro, then there would be no Pakistan, it would just have been another part of India.

Let me explain, the most basic part of Two Nation Theory:

The two-nation theory (Urdu: دو قومی نظریہ, Devanagari: दो क़ौमी नज़रिया, do qaumi nazariya) is the ideology that the primary identity of Muslims on the Indian subcontinent is their religion, rather than their language or ethnicity, and therefore Indian Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nationalities, regardless of ethnic or other commonalities.

You see, this is the foundation of Pakistan trying to forget Pre-Islamic history. The fact is, there was (and still is in many ways) a tremendous amount of similarity between Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent in terms of language, culture, "Mehendi" in your Nikkahs, ethnicity, passion for similar films(Bollywood), passion for similar sports (Cricket), etc. Bottom-line is, for Two Nation Theory to be legitimate, you had to essentially make up your own history completely different from the so called Hindu history. You cant really change much in terms of culture or ethnicity or language or shift from playing Cricket to playing Badminton in Pakistan to make it different from Hindu India, because its not feasible. History however, can be distorted/edited/parts can be left out and this is exactly what happened in Pakistan.

The result is in front of you to see. Most Pakistanis here in this forum claim to be descendants of Syeds from Arabia. They think that they were the Arabs/Turks that ruled North India and so on.

 

[Rafi]

^^^^^
BS Most Pakistanis are proud of their heritage, and the people claiming outside heritage have always been a minority, I am a Jatt and damn proud of my clan and it's exploits.

 

[Rafi]

The reason that Pakistan came into being, was that Mr Nehru and his friends refused to acknowledge our peoples legitimate rights of safeguards in a mutually agreed constitution.

 

[neutral_person]

^^^^^
BS Most Pakistanis are proud of their heritage, and the people claiming outside heritage have always been a minority, I am a Jatt and damn proud of my clan and it's exploits.

Maybe I should have put it better. Whenever topics like Moghuls or Arab invasion of Sindh is discussed, there are some Pakistanis who think as if they were the ones in charge of North India. I was merely trying to say that they were as much slaves to the Arabs and Moghul invaders as the rest of the non-Muslim Indians were.

 

[Rafi]

Well, according to your own countryman, you should abandon everything that came from outside, even your religion.

The have the right to their opinion, but it is not shared by the majority.

Maybe I should have put it better. Whenever topics like Moghuls or Arab invasion of Sindh is discussed, there are some Pakistanis who think as if they were the ones in charge of North India. I was merely trying to say that they were as much slaves to the Arabs and Moghul invaders as the rest of the non-Muslim Indians were.

Well no, my clan provided soldiers to the central authority - they did it for their interest - and have always been part of the ruling elite of the Punjab, for thousands of years.

The Jat made strong alliances with the Muslim Arabs and hailed the conquest of Muhammad bin Qasim an Arab general. Muhammad bin Qasim defeated the Hindu Raja Dahir in alliance with Jats and other Buddhist Rajas. On his arrival at the town of Brahmanabad between six and sixteen thousand men died in the ensuing battle. Buddhists and the Jat, Meds and Bhutto tribes hailed him as a rescuer from tyranny at the hands of Chach of Alor and his kin (regarded as usurpers of the Rai Dynasty).[1].
people of Hind wept for Qasim and preserved his likeness at Karaj Arabian chronicler Ahmad Ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri
—records the local sentiments upon Muhammad bin Qasims recall.

 

[neutral_person]

The have the right to their opinion, but it is not shared by the majority.



Well no, my clan provided soldiers to the central authority - they did it for their interest - and have always been part of the ruling elite of the Punjab, for thousands of years.

The Jat made strong alliances with the Muslim Arabs and hailed the conquest of Muhammad bin Qasim an Arab general. Muhammad bin Qasim defeated the Hindu Raja Dahir in alliance with Jats and other Buddhist Rajas. On his arrival at the town of Brahmanabad between six and sixteen thousand men died in the ensuing battle. Buddhists and the Jat, Meds and Bhutto tribes hailed him as a rescuer from tyranny at the hands of Chach of Alor and his kin (regarded as usurpers of the Rai Dynasty).[1].
people of Hind wept for Qasim and preserved his likeness at Karaj Arabian chronicler Ahmad Ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri
—records the local sentiments upon Muhammad bin Qasims recall.

Thanks for proving my point. When the British conquered the Indian subcontinent, most of their soldiers were us Indians and Pakistanis. When there was an armed rebellion, the British used their Indian Army (made up of Indians/Pakistanis) to check such things. Providing soldiers does not make you the ruler. It makes you a pawn.

Another example would be:

The "classic period" of the empire started in 1556 with the accession of Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar, better known as Akbar the Great. Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony. The Mughals also forged a strategic alliance with several Hindu Rajput kingdoms.

This does not make Hindu Rajputs rulers alongside Mughals.