Pakistan's Identity Crisis: Can it explain itself without India?

[Novus ordu seclorum]

do you have scholarly sources for this, instead of just contextless verses? as far as I'm concerned, Bharat, India, Hindustan are the name for the same ancient entity. Indian identity is of the land of India, the subcontinent, not of migrating tribes. the name may very well be derived from some tribe, but that is not relevant. if the word refers to the same land, they're synonyms, even if the etymologies are different.

To you they maybe synonymous, not to me. That is the point. I am Hindustani by blood, not Bharati. The verses are not context less. They have time frames. Bharat identity originated from Hastinapur which was a little Scythian kingdom in Hindustan in the first millennium, or perhaps later. According to Mahabharath, Bharath was the son of King Dushyanta and Shakuntala. They were not original Vedic Kshatriya Deva [Sharif].

 

[magra]

Foundations of Pakistan were laid when Muhammed bin Qasim stepped out the south asian subcontinent with an unseathed sword.

Explanation accomplished without even mentioning "india"!

Does this mean you forsake all legacy of your area prior to Qasim's arrival?
No complaints if we consider prior history as solely Indian history?

It is incredible some Kala eastern gangadeshis are trying to claim or interject themselves into the history of Pak zameen

Does Islam teaches you to discriminate or ridicule based on skin color?

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Does this mean you forsake all legacy of your area prior to Qasim's arrival?
No complaints if we consider prior history as solely Indian history?

Does Islam teaches you to discriminate or ridicule based on skin color?

EVERYTHING that has happened in the area that is modern day Pakistan going back thousands of years belongs to the heritage of modern day Pakistanis as the vast majority have ancestry that is indigenous to this land. Virtually all modern day indians have 0 genetic, racial, or cultural links to the civilisations that existed over the centuries and millenia in the area that is modern day Pakistan. Stating otherwise is like saying modern day Egyptians have no links to Ancient Egypt as they do not belong to the religion of ancient Egypt and are Muslims. A ridiculous and preposterous claim.

 

[magra]

EVERYTHING that has happened in the area that is modern day Pakistan going back thousands of years belongs to the heritage of modern day Pakistanis as the vast majority have ancestry that is indigenous to this land. Virtually all modern day indians have 0 genetic, racial, or cultural links to the civilisations that existed over the centuries and millenia in the area that is modern day Pakistan. Stating otherwise is like saying modern day Egyptians have no links to Ancient Egypt as they do not belong to the religion of ancient Egypt and are Muslims. A ridiculous and preposterous claim.

My question was to @GumNaam since he believes Pakistan's history starts from Qasim's invasion.

 

[hussain0216]

sure, but they're not the identity. the country wasn't created on the basis of history or heritage. that wasn't why it exists. it was created, divided from the original land for *Indian* Muslims. and yes, that includes "kala gangus", who did migrate to Pakistan in large numbers. tell the "gangus" in Karachi about your views of them and their relationship to Pakistan. it's "Pakistan ka matalab kya, la ilaha illallah" not "Pakistan ka matalab kya, Indus valley and it's heritage unlike those dirty gangus". lol

It doesn't matter why it was created it still owns it's history and heritage


Someone can be utterly dismissive of history dosent mean it still not his/her history


And that history and heritage is unique to this Pak zameen

What we find offensive is foreigners from the east who used to live in jungles when civilization was thriving in Pak zameen trying to co-opt Pakistani history and heritage


It's like Africans in the Savannah trying to claim Egypt because they are all part of Africa, Indians cannot claim Pakistani heritage or history which is unique to this land

 

[Hiptullha]

I'm talking about the Greeco-Roman civilization that had distinctly pagan roots at their peak.

This only came after the renaissance and enlightenment. Europe was bound by the Christianity prior to that.

 

[AgnosticIndian]

LMAO pajeet brain at work here. This only came after the renaissance and enlightenment. Europe was bound by the Christianity prior to that.

read some history instead of mindlessly blabbering here. religion and culture/heritage/civilization are two different things. Christianity originated in Ancient Near East and spread as a religion in Europe through the ages. the real intellectual tradition of Europe is of the Greek and Roman heritage, they provided much of the philosphy on which Catholicism of the early church rested. Christianity didn't "bind" Europe in any sense, it has the same fighting empires and corrupt popes throughout the ages that later got thrown off by the Reformation. but in spite of all this, whatever was happening on the "top" with power grabs of organised religion and the Kings, the underlying civilization and culture was an unbroken chain with distinct Greek and Roman influence. through paganism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism, it was the underlying Greeco Roman civilization.

 

[El Sidd]

Who made this video??
A Pakistani??

Bipin is banking on clash of civilisations. In the video i saw a Pir and a Zada who are helping Bipin with 5th gen videos.

 

[AgnosticIndian]

Don't tell me to read books when we all know all you do is scroll through Whatsapp and share forwards from other nude poopjeets caked in cow dung.

stop spilling your culture on me and try to engage in good faith. and I thank you for the spelling corrections. but you've again missed the point of all this. it's about "civilization", the point of all these posts from the start. not what "binds" Europe together, since Europe was never "bound together" in the first place, as the late Wars of religion and earlier civil wars show. it's about European civilization, try to understand that. kingdoms and empires don't make civilizations in of themselves. it requires things like intellectual and cultural heritage, which religion alone does not provide, even if it makes up a part of it. again, Enlightenment is considered to be one of the cornerstones of *modern* Western civilization. and ancient classics didn't disappear during the middle ages like you imply. people throughout the ages were aware of the great philosophers of ancient Europe and took inspiration from them, including medieval Catholic theologians.
so, in summary, no, Christianity doesn't "bind" Europe together, it never did. Christianity is a lot bigger than Europe these days anyway. the culture and civilization of Europe, with roots in ancient Greece and Rome is what makes Europe "one".

 

[Hiptullha]

stop spilling your culture on me

I'm engaging in good faith. You're just fucking stupid and clearly no one has ever told you so. I'm helping you out here.

it requires things like intellectual and cultural heritage, which religion alone does not provide, even if it makes up a part of it. again, Enlightenment is considered to be one of the cornerstones of *modern* Western civilization. and ancient classics didn't disappear during the middle ages like you imply. people

Holy gobar man you're so in denial, I feel sad for you.

Europe's entire intellectual and cultural heritage was built on the back of Christianity. This is not up for dispute. It doesn't even make sense. Maybe to you, a gobarjeet who is personally embarrassed about his society's core beliefs and values built on fairy tales about super monkey men doing plastic surgeries on mutant elephant freaks and flying on spaceships, this isn't true, but anyone else will tell you that for most of human history, religion was the source of intellectual and cultural heritage. Hell, even the enlightenment which was supposed to be Europe's renunciation of religion, was just the logical conclusion of the reformation. Philosophers will tell you that the secular ideologies which came in the 18th and 19th century were strands of Christian humanism.

throughout the ages were aware of the great philosophers of ancient Europe and took inspiration from them, including medieval Catholic theologians.

Oye Gobarjeet have you ever wondered why the renaissance was called the renaissance? Why there is a long period in European history which was called the Dark ages by Enlightenment thinkers? Did Yogi Poopihardickesh not tell you about that in Whatsapp class?

since Europe was never "bound together"

Are you dense man? Where did I say that they were politically united? How the hell do you see the term "bound together" and think I meant that they were living together side by side in peace? Please guide me on your thought process, you stupid fucking negrojeet.

This is why I hate you people man. Honestly, please stop posting because if you're trying to somehow build some sort of cross border understanding by making your stupid fucking posts, it's not working. Every time you start with your pathar worship apologia, it just alienates us more. The stupid fucking arguments you use to promote pathar worship also do very little to help. PLEASE KYS IT'S NOT WORKING

 

[AgnosticIndian]

Europe's entire intellectual and cultural heritage was built on the back of Christianity.

this is quite dishonest. Christianity reached Europe and started spreading from 1st to 4th century CE. Europe's intellectual and cultural heritage was long established before this. the two greatest cultures in Europe were already well established and were in decline when Christianity reached Europe.

Every time you start with your pathar worship apologia

again, this isn't about paganism itself, I just mentioned it as the pre Christian religion of Rome and Greece. it could have been anything and it wouldn't have mattered, Buddhism, Manichaeanism, Zoroastrianism or whatever. the whole point is that religion was largely not relevant, what mattered is that their faith didn't discourage intellectual curiosity.

Why there is a long period in European history which was called the Dark ages by Enlightenment thinkers?

the long period of dark ages saw the *decline* of intellectual tradition due to various reasons, and arguably, but controversially, one reason was Christianity. but it was just a decline, not total wipeout. these texts still existed and we're continued to be preserved and passed down.

all in all, I once again request you to stop spilling your colorfully foul culture on me. the point was Europe's intellectual and cultural tradition had pre-Christian roots and are largely seperate from the religion. the pan-European civilizational link is of pre-Christian and largely non-Christian origin. this is not denial, I've put forward simple facts (that Greece and Rome were not Christian at their peak and that the Enlightenment made a clear secular break). all you've done is harp about Christianendom of the cultural and intellectual backwater period.

also, you can stop calling yourself liberal, secular, humanist etc if a mere mention of paganism sets you on fire this badly. try to think coolly, don't burn in hate. learn something from Canada, whose salt you eat. they try to show respect to *pagan* natives, while also accomodating vile and hateful people like you. have some shame for the land you live on, at least.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

As for river Indus, its a transboundary river originating in Tibet and flows through India to Pakistan.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this statement? Whether 3-4% of the Indus flows through China and disputed territory is irrelevant.

So is Pakistan's identity just a piece of geography? Real identity comes from ideology or a dream. What is Pakistan's ideology / dream?

Civilization is derived from geography.

Ideology comes and goes.

 

[magra]

Civilization is derived from geography.

Ideology comes and goes.

Without a strong core ideology, geography loses cohesion.

Indian ideology was not shared with followers of Muslim league, hence West & East Pak geography was lost.
TNT was not strong enough to keep East Pak.

Conversely, ideology of individual freedom and liberty was strong in formation of independent US with just 13 states. Later it expanded slowly to the present 50 states with the same core ideology.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Pakistan normally explains it's identity with either

• Arabian Continent (Saudia) (Religion, life style, simple life style (based on past)
• Iran (Gardens , Architecture , influence on Urdu, poetry, rice dishes )
• Turkey (Red wedding dress, Influence on Urdu, Architecture, Garments, Education centric society, hammams (sauna) till mughal society)
• China's influence now in present and future (chinese food , books and stories)

India ? Not really??

 

[AgnosticIndian]

The question is a simple one: can Pakistan explain itself without India?
there are two possible routes presented to answer this.

1. through ideology: not possible. the ideology of Pakistan necessarily refers to India.
2. through civilization (point of the video in OP): also not possible. between Persia and China, there is only one civilization, not two, the geography only allows one. any entity in this civilization cannot explain itself without reference to the civilization at large.

other options like religion either (1) come under ideology (a country for Indian Muslims), (2) are completely delusional (like Pakistan being part of Arab/Persian/Central Asian civilization/culture), or (3) are self-defeating (any claim about being part of an "Islamic civilization" , since India has more Muslims and it would include countries like Somalia).