Pakistan was created on the basis of group nationalism and not religion

[Developereo]

History cannot be changed, the status quo cannot be changed, so, why this animus?

Because there are people in India who want to prove that the creation of Pakistan was a mistake, and there are people in Pakistan who feel that patriotism can only be built on an anti-India platform.

Both these groups of people are wrong. The majority in both countries are perfectly happy with the way things are.

 

[53fd]

bilalhaider

Why I = Immigrants?

It should have been Mohajirs!

or M.

Because they immigrated from various parts of India (Hyderabad, UP, Bihar, Maharashtra & many other states) into a land that had no connection with them. Why do they use the term "Immigrant" here in the US? Why don't they use something like "settlers" or something?

 

[justanobserver]

Can you explain how, when none of the Indus Valley Civilization encompasses present day Bangladesh?

Gladly

The Indus culture dies out. Its people move east into Rajasthan and the Ganges watershed. Others head south to Gujarat, where the sea port at Lothal continues to flourish for a time before being abandoned too. Its inhabitants merge with the Stone Age tribes of the Deccan Plateau in central India and others in southern India. Squatters take over the abandoned citadels, living in slum dwellings, and village life continues in the countryside. The urban heritage is passed on to the east and engenders the emergence of cities in the Ganges valley and northern India, and the civilisation's reverence for animals is also passed on.

Kingdoms of South Asia - Indus Valley Culture

Ganges Watershed->parts of Bangaldesh.

That's why there were no empires based in the Indus Valley, because it had died out when the monsoons shifted. The people went to the Gangetic plains

 

[53fd]

Gladly



Kingdoms of South Asia - Indus Valley Culture

Ganges Watershed->parts of Bangaldesh.

That's why there were no empires based in the Indus Valley, because it had died out when the monsoons shifted. The people went to the Gangetic plains

I'm no expert on the Indus Valley Civilization to comment on it. I'm more in tune with recent issues, as well as issues from the 19th & 20th century. However, I will gladly let Pakistani members counter your arguments, because I've seen them counter such arguments before right here on this forum.

 

[T-Faz]

P: Punjab
A: Afghania (KPK + FATA)
K: Kashmir
I: Immigrant Muslims (Muhajirs)
S: Sindh
TAN: (BalochisTAN)

Anyways this is flawed because Pakistanis have no present connection to the Indus Valley civilization

All parts of Pakistan have connection to the Indus Valley Civilization. Ever heard of Moenje-Daro and Harrapa?[/QUOTE]

Its actually

P: Punjab
A: Afghania
K: Kashmir
S: Sindh
Tan: Balochistan

An 'I' was added later for ease of pronounciation, much like Afghanistan.

 

[justanobserver]

I'm no expert on the Indus Valley Civilization to comment on it. I'm more in tune with recent issues, as well as issues from the 19th & 20th century. However, I will gladly let Pakistani members counter your arguments, because I've seen them counter such arguments before right here on this forum.

Whenever this argument starts, all that is presented is a book by a Pakistani politician about the uniqueness of the Indus Civ and how it's completely different from the "Bharati" "Gangetic" civ

 

[53fd]

All parts of Pakistan have connection to the Indus Valley Civilization. Ever heard of Moenje-Daro and Harrapa?

Its actually

P: Punjab
A: Afghania
K: Kashmir
S: Sindh
Tan: Balochistan

An 'I' was added later for ease of pronounciation, much like Afghanistan.

I've also read stuff written by others that the "I" was added for immigrant Muslims, but you have the right to hold onto your opinion. To each their own.

 

[53fd]

Whenever this argument starts, all that is presented is a book by a Pakistani politician about the uniqueness of the Indus Civ and how it's completely different from the "Bharati" "Gangetic" civ

Well again, I am no person to comment on this, as I am not an expert on those issues, I'm happy to admit that; unlike many Indians that talk about certain things that they have no clue about in Pakistan.

 

[T-Faz]

I've also read stuff written by others that the "I" was added for immigrant Muslims, but you have the right to hold onto your opinion. To each their own.

No, why would they use the word 'immigrant' in our name, that does not make any sense.

Provide a refrence if you can.

 

[53fd]

You are absolutely right on that.

And that is why I am taken aback at the animus displayed.

This much I know and that is that the real history cannot be changed or wished away.

I also know that history can be twisted to suit political and religious agenda and I am not only meaning in Pakistan alone.

I also know that beyond these narrow divides that are created by vested interests, there is much bon homie when they meet, be it in India or in Pakistan or on neutral grounds.

History cannot be changed, the status quo cannot be changed, so, why this animus?

The fact of the matter is, that Pakistan & India (along with Bangladesh & other regions) were part of the Indian subcontinent prior to 1947. There was no such country called India or Pakistan before 1947. India & Pakistan both are artificial countries that only have a history of 63 years. The history of the various regions in India and Pakistan is old though, & that's a separate issue.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

The fact of the matter is, that Pakistan & India (along with Bangladesh & other regions) were part of the Indian subcontinent prior to 1947. There was no such country called India or Pakistan before 1947. India & Pakistan both are artificial countries that only have a history of 63 years. The history of the various regions in India and Pakistan is old though, & that's a separate issue.

That is your fact , the rest of the non - Pakistani world believes differently .

 

[53fd]

No, why would they use the word 'immigrant' in our name, that does not make any sense.

Provide a refrence if you can.

I can't find a link as of now, but when I do, I'll post it. I've definitely read it somewhere, I believe here on PDF.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Because they immigrated from various parts of India (Hyderabad, UP, Bihar, Maharashtra & many other states) into a land that had no connection with them. Why do they use the term "Immigrant" here in the US? Why don't they use something like "settlers" or something?

Since you are such an exponent of Islam may I remind you that Mohajir means

Muhajir or Mohajir (Arabic: مهاجر‎ muhāǧir) is an Arabic word meaning immigrant. The Islamic calendar Hejira starts when Muhammad and his companions left Mecca for Medina in what is known as Hijra. They were called Muhajirun. The Arabic root word for immigration and emigration is Hijrat.

Over centuries, the term has been applied to a number of other Muslim refugee and emigrant groups:

* Muhajir Khwarezm, the Muslim refugees that escaped Genghis Khan's Mongol invasion of Muslim lands in 13th century; they settled in other Muslim lands not touched by the conquerors. Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi fled Afghanistan and settled in Anatolia (modern Turkey) to escape the Mongol army

* Muhajir (Albania), Albanians that used to live in Serbia (near Nis and Prokuplje). Approximately 30,000 ethnic Albanians retreated from the captured areas (partly under duress)[citation needed], seeking refuge in Kosovo and Metohia, while tens of thousands of Serbs fled Kosovo and Metohia for Serbia ahead of unleashed bashibozouks, irregular auxiliaries of Ottoman troops. As a consequence, thousands of Albanians settled in Kosovo where they live today.

* Muhajir Crimean, the converted Muslim refugees of Crimean ancestry, Crimean Tatars, that settled in Ottoman Empire after the Russian Empire captured the Crimea from the Muslim Crimean Khanate.

* Muhajir (Caucasus), the Muslim population of Caucasus resettled in Ottoman Empire and Middle East after the Caucasian War

* Muhajir (Turkey), the Muslims of Balkan ancestry that settled in Turkey after the collapse of Ottoman Empire

* Muhajir people, people of Pakistan that were predominantly native Urdu speaking Muslims of British India in 1947

* Palestinian refugees, Arab refugees, mostly Muslim, who migrated from the territory that became Israel, and are now mostly in neighbouring countries

* Afghan refugees, Muslim muhajirs from Afghanistan who escaped the Soviet invasion in 1979 until the 2001 U.S. invasion in which the Taliban government was overthrown. The vast majority of them settled in Pakistan as well as in Iran

* Rohingya refugees, Muslim refugees from Burma in Bangladesh and Pakistan

Therefore, if it is acceptable as 'refugees' for others, why not for Indian Muslims and why take an alien word from an alien country?

To suit the convenience?

It reminds me of a Punjabi phrase to avoid controversy - Ai bhi Wah Wah, Tan bhi Wah Wah!!

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Whenever this argument starts, all that is presented is a book by a Pakistani politician about the uniqueness of the Indus Civ and how it's completely different from the "Bharati" "Gangetic" civ

That is their problem . Somebody needs to allow them access to international unbiased historians writings/books in Pakistan. Without that there is no point debating with them .

Pakistani books have turned most of them ( not all) into zombies with whom you can not have an intelligent debate .

 

[53fd]

That is your fact , the rest of the non - Pakistani world believes differently .

If there was a country called India in THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT prior to 1947, then why did India get its independence on August 15, 1947? The funny thing I've mentioned before is that Indians think their country's history is thousands of years old, whereas Pakistan's history is only 63 years old. A huge contradiction, coupled with the fact that these Indians want Pakistanis to "embrace their Indian values". How do you justify all that?