Pakistani kingdoms in mythical Mahabharat epic

[halupridol]

In megabharata,,,there is mention of a kingdom MahaPind,,land of martial ppl,

 

[scionoftheindus]

Beta you are bhil, aryans will cry in grave if they saw dasus claiming to be aryans.

From Rig Veda

[09-041] HYMN XLI. Soma Pavamana.
1. ACTIVE and bright have they come forth, impetuous in speed like bulls,
Driving the black skin far away.



Aryans if existed? blasphemy! Bibi you should be careful what you say. They came, they stole cattle. Remember even nomadic life style was way superior to Indians at that time. Only ancient Pakistanis in IVC were civilized.

Not ivc you better use the term sindhu saraswati civilisation.

 

[scionoftheindus]

In fact even today there was a yazna in shimla praying for Rain which is related to Indra.

But we keep pasha and Gaffor away from it as they are Mallecha.

Pasha and gaffoorrofl

 

[Pulsar]

Buhahahaa..
Man u're one genuine troll :-D

And you're a genuine moron as you answered my question by calling me a troll! That's because you have no answers.

 

[Rajesh12379]

Mahabaharat = Ancient Game of Thrones. Its a work of fiction, not an authentic historic document.

Yes, but Djinns do exist, the sun does set in muddy waters and the Satan does sit behind your ears.

No fiction about that.

 

[ZooZoo]

Mahabaharat = Ancient Game of Thrones. Its a work of fiction, not an authentic historic document.

So does Koran, Bible and other books...

The Mahabharata has 1 Lakh hymn/Shlokas, where as Jayam has only 8800. Mahabharata is derived from Jayam.. So it may be possible that the epic was added with new verses based on imagination...

It may be possible somthing like this would have happen.. Need research..

At least three redactions of the text are commonly recognized: Jaya (Victory) with 8,800 verses attributed to Vyasa, Bharata with 24,000 verses as recited by Vaisampayana, and finally the Mahabharata as recited by Ugrasrava Sauti with over 100,000 verses.

 

[Rajesh12379]

I think you don't know where I stand with religion ....
What has age got to with this...
Shall parrot you as a teenager ?

Edit: I never use religion to rationalize anything least of all history or any other temporal subject. You indian's regularly use religion to as a basis of history thus you open it to debate. You will regularly use Hinduism as a tool to claim IVC or remind us we were 'Indian' on account of our ancestors apparently being 'Hindu'.

You are just another stage-2 here. There have been others on the past and there will be more in future. I will quote something from elsewhere on this forum.

I somehow see the current thread as stage two in a three stage evolution of Pakistani thinking. This is a bit over simplified obviously.

Stage 1: Totally dissociate from the past. call it Jahiliyah. Don't even accept that you are native to the land. Call yourself Arab origin etc. Basically totally dissociate from your pre-conversion identity. Hate others who shared that identity with you.

Stage 2: Start to discover your pre-Islamic identity but violently deny that you share that with any non-Muslims. Try to claim that exclusively. This is still limited to a very small section of the population. Most folks are in stage 1.

Stage 3: Be totally comfortable with your Muslim identity as well as with your pre-Islamic history. No problem in accepting that the ancient history is a shared heritage and being able to take pride in it without necessarily having to first appropriate that exclusively. this stage has even lesser people than stage 2. But there are some who are here and many of the stage 2 people can gradually progress to this with a little more broadening of their horizons.

And a little digression here.

What is more important to the Pakistani friends here?

To have pride in their ancient history and accept it and get it accepted by the country at large by giving its due place in history books, national discourse etc.

OR

First making sure that this history is identified as an exclusively Pakistani history with no links to India whatsoever.

Sadly I see most people (certainly one honorable member with a lot of prejudices included) more interested in the 2nd part. It gives the feeling that more than actually being interested in any ancient history some people just want to make sure that it is denied to India.

While I am sure such an effort just can not succeed (because I don't think it really has legs to stand on. The ancient history is not nearly as cut and dry as the 60 years old Radcliffe line), it would be good to see some members trying to honestly discover the answers instead of coming through as the know-alls they pretend to be.

All your posts on "ancient Pakistani history" can be explained by stage-2 thinking. Objectivity is not a strong suit of such people.

 

[scionoftheindus]

[01-100] HYMN C. Indra.
The mighty Thunderer with his fair-complexioned friends won the land, the sunlight, and the waters. Rig Veda

lmao Now I get it why Rig Veda is hardly given importance among hindus.

Who are the dusky brood who were driven away by Aryans?weren't they the natives of present day Pakistan and people of Sindhi saraswati civilisation?If what you say is true (Pakistanis are for complexioned Aryans and indians are dark skinned dravidians)you people will not have even an iota of right over SSC..it entirely belongs to Indians who were driven to east.

 

[Force-India]

Pakistani now claiming to be a part of Indian religions

Pakistani now claiming to be a part of Indian religions

 

[Masoom_Darinda]

Quran, Bible (Both new and Old Test), Geeta, Granth Sahib, and recently the Book of Mormon. Blessing of being quad lingual is that i can read them with good understanding.

Dear Horus,
Could you please give me a link to download Rig Veda, Ramanaya and Mahabahat in easy language. I am very intersted in mythology but havent been able to find them in easy to understand language, all those I found were very confusing.
thanks in advance.

 

[ghoul]

Daradas seem to be the "Dards" or "dardic" peoples of northern Pakistan, like Shinas, Kohistanis, Kalaash etc. Also I wonder what the borders of Gandhara were.

There is nothing called Pakistani kingdom. The idea came into existence some 85 years ago and the country was created 68 years ago. After the creation of the country, the leaders pretended to be Arabs and Afghans and Turks. There is no connection between the history of the land and the state of Pakistan.

You're right. There was no Pakistan 67 years ago. Before that we were Punjab, Sindh(called Hind by the Arabs), Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Gandhara, Gilgit-Baltistan, Kashmir etc, which together form the "Indus states". Pakistan is an amalgamation of all the trans-Indus states. And no offense, but the peoples of Pakistan are ethnically, linguistically and even racially for the most part are different from majority of Indians.

And lol at the Arab, Afghan, Turk comment. Name one leader of Pakistan who claimed an Arab, Afghan or Turkish descent.

And btw, the ethnic Punjabis were called "bahlikas" in Indian sources. They were said to have abandoned "dharam" and, according to some, the rigidity of caste system.

Indians should not demean Hindu Mythology by mentioning the connection with present day Pakistan as we have nothing in common with present day Pakistanis as they are more close with Arabs both culturally and Racially as many Pakistani thinks of themselves as Arab Descent.

Yes we are Arabs and you guys are Scythians, white huns, Kushans etc. I once read an Indian author linking south Indian Bunts with ancient Spartans.

 

[nForce]

You're right. There was no Pakistan 67 years ago. Before that we were Punjab, Sindh(called Hind by the Arabs), Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Gandhara, Gilgit-Baltistan, Kashmir etc, which together form the "Indus states". Pakistan is an amalgamation of all the trans-Indus states. And no offense, but the peoples of Pakistan are ethnically, linguistically and even racially for the most part are different from majority of Indians.

And lol at the Arab, Afghan, Turk comment. Name one leader of Pakistan who claimed an Arab, Afghan or Turkish descent.

Isn't the propensity quite apparent from the naming of the weapons ?

See, my point is, one cannot simply cherry-pick when it comes to history. One cannot simply say I'm equivalent to Abdalis during the day and "khada peeta wahy da, baqi Ahmad Shahe da" during the night.

The leaders of Pakistan made that choice, now one should stick to that.

 

[Rajesh12379]

Daradas seem to be the "Dards" or "dardic" peoples of northern Pakistan, like Shinas, Kohistanis, Kalaash etc. Also I wonder what the borders of Gandhara were.



You're right. There was no Pakistan 67 years ago. Before that we were Punjab, Sindh(called Hind by the Arabs), Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Gandhara, Gilgit-Baltistan, Kashmir etc, which together form the "Indus states". Pakistan is an amalgamation of all the trans-Indus states. And no offense, but the peoples of Pakistan are ethnically, linguistically and even racially for the most part are different from majority of Indians.

And lol at the Arab, Afghan, Turk comment. Name one leader of Pakistan who claimed an Arab, Afghan or Turkish descent.

And btw, the ethnic Punjabis were called "bahlikas" in Indian sources. They were said to have abandoned "dharam" and, according to some, the rigidity of caste system.

Actually most of them. Musharraf claims to be a Syed in his book. Sharif would be another Syed. Your Ex-PM Gilani is supposedly of Persian origin, Zia was Arain and supposed Arab origin.

In fact, all the "Ashraf Muslims" are supposed to be invaders and the local converts are "Ajlaf musallahs" and they are looked down upon by the Ashrafs.

You are right in a way that the areas now called Pakistan had become a neglected and insignificant part of the Dharmic civilization a long time back, as long as at the time of Ramayana and Mahabharata.

 

[ghoul]

Isn't the propensity quite apparent from the naming of the weapons ?

See, my point is, one cannot simply cherry-pick when it comes to history. One cannot simply say I'm equivalent to Abdalis during the day and "khada peeta wahy da, baqi Ahmad Shahe da" during the night.

The leaders of Pakistan made that choice, now one should stick to that.

We do have c*****a people among our midst, and most of these retarded missile names were given by people like Abdul Qadir Khan, the biggest pos in my opinion.

And let me let you in on a little secret. Most "lower caste" converted tribes now claim a foreign origin. For example, mussalis, chamars, chuhras, etc who are thought to be descended from pre-Islamic dalit clans often use the surname "Qureshi" once they become rich. When they are not claiming an Arab origin, they use Rajput and Jatt surnames like "Gill", "Bhatti" etc. With that being said, most Pakistani do not claim an Arabic origin. Most of us from the Indo-Aryan speaking regions of Pakistan are Jatts, Gujjars, Rajputs, Tarkhans etc. Even Khatri converts, who use the Arabic title "Sheikh" now, proudly own their Khatri lineage.

Actually most of them. Musharraf claims to be a Syed in his book. Sharif would be another Syed. Your Ex-PM Gilani is supposedly of Persian origin, Zia was Arain and supposed Arab origin.

In fact, all the "Ashraf Muslims" are supposed to be invaders and the local converts are "Ajlaf musallahs" and they are looked down upon by the Ashrafs.

You are right in a way that the areas now called Pakistan had become a neglected and insignificant part of the Dharmic civilization a long time back, as long as at the time of Ramayana and Mahabharata.

There's no Ashraf or Ajlaf concept in Pakistan. It's a concept among Indian muslims only. We are still what we were before conversion for the most part. For example, where I'm from, what you call "Ashrafs" are, I dare say, the muslim Rajputs and Gakhars.

As for Geelani, he really is a Syed, what's wrong with that? Sufi missionaries, who were mostly Syed, have migrated to places around the world for years now. Gillani has a Syed origin, but he calls himself "Saraiki", not Arab. You have thousands of Syeds in Sindh as well, but that doesn't stop the local Sindhis from claiming using their "samma" surnames. Some of the sammas are feudal landowners.

 

[Rajesh12379]

There's no Ashraf or Ajlaf concept in Pakistan. It's a concept among Indian muslims only. We are still what we were before conversion for the most part. For example, where I'm from, what you call "Ashrafs" are, I dare say, the muslim Rajputs and Gakhars.

As for Geelani, he really is a Syed, what's wrong with that? Sufi missionaries, who were mostly Syed, have migrated to places around the world for years now. Gillani has a Syed origin, but he calls himself "Saraiki", not Arab. You have thousands of Syeds in Sindh as well, but that doesn't stop the local Sindhis from claiming using their "samma" surnames. Some of the sammas are feudal landowners.

The highlighted part is not true. The reason so many Muslim converts in Pakistan claim to be of foreign origin in because it is supposed to give them a higher status is society. Caste and Ashraf/Ajlaf/Arjal issues are very much a reality of Pakistan.

https :// reddiarypk.wordpress.co* /2009/08/25/caste-in-pakistan/

Anyway, let's not go too deep into this particular issue here. May be some other time in a more appropriate topic.