PTV wants to be visible in India again

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Tell me, is there something called a Pakistani civilization?

Pakistan like the India of today, did not exist prior to 1947. However the history of the lands and peoples making up Pakistan are Pakistani history.

The confusion here is over the use of the word "Ancient India". It refers to the region of South Asia, and all the peoples and civilizations that inhabited the region, and not to any single "Indian civilization" or "India".

That usage has however been twisted by Hindutva apologists to validate this "Indian Civilization" narrative. This narrative would have no credence were it not for the modern Indian state.

 

[Flintlock]

Pakistan like the India of today, did not exist prior to 1947. However the history of the lands and peoples making up Pakistan are Pakistani history.

Well then what exactly are we arguing about? Pakistanis were converted to Islam by Islamic invaders, who were not originally from Pakistan.

Islam was alien to Pakistan, but not any more. I don't see what the argument is here.

The confusion here is over the use of the word "Ancient India". It refers to the region of South Asia, and all the peoples and civilizations that inhabited the region, and not to any single "Indian ivilization" or "India".

That usage has however been twisted by Hindutva apologists to validate this "Indian Civilization" narrative. This narrative would have no credence were it not for the modern Indian state.

We have discussed this before, and I am in no mood to go through the motions once more.

Why would somebody use the term "Indian Civilization" if he didn't define the term "Ancient India" first?

As far as "if this hadn't happened then what" arguments are concerned, I can say that If muslims hadn't invaded then Pakistan wouldn't exist. It works both ways.

I don't care what "hindutva apologists", whatever that means, have to say.

I am sure you didn't bother to correct "never" when he claimed that India has no history apart from the one created by Islamic invaders.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well then what exactly are we arguing about? Pakistanis were converted to Islam by Islamic invaders, who were not originally from Pakistan.

Islam was alien to Pakistan, but not any more. I don't see what the argument is here.

My argument is that any "ideology" or "culture" can be alien - if you go back far enough in time.

Why would somebody use the term "Indian Civilization" if he didn't define the term "Ancient India" first?

I don't have issues with "Civilizations of India (plural) - because here I can understand that the usage of the word "India" refers to South Asia.

I have issue with attempts to invent a "monolithic Indian civilization", with arbitrarily defined borders.

As far as "if this hadn't happened then what" arguments are concerned, I can say that If muslims hadn't invaded then Pakistan wouldn't exist. It works both ways.

And when did I say that it doesn't?

I am only saying that your definition of "foreign" is solely because of a particular narrative that has been invented to provide flawed validation to a historical "one India" concept. The Rajputs could just as easily be foreigners to Tamils or Bengalis.

I am sure you didn't bother to correct "never" when he claimed that India has no history apart from the one created by Islamic invaders.

Thats your job.

 

[Flintlock]

I would beg to say that you shouldn't "oversimplify" things.

Again, you cannot show conclusively that Hinduism was created in a vacuum - there are limitations to what we can know about various civilizations and developments as we go further and further back in time. Therefore to arbitrarily pick one spot in time - when Muslims came to the subcontinent, is flawed.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, therefore nothing is technically foreign.

Right, nothing is foreign. Dude..listen to what you are saying.

When we say that the earth is a sphere, we draw a line somewhere, because if we want to be really "truthful', the earth is irregular in shape.

Similarly, if we say that an American is a foreigner in India, we draw the line at the the international boundary of India, and anyone who enters India from outside that boundary is a foreigner.
Is there a logical explanation as to why that border should be drawn in that very spot, and not anywhere else? Perhaps not.
But that's the way things are.

Since India today is a country, we study Indian history from that perspective, just like Chinese history, or Korean history, or French history, even though these countries too never existed to their present extent.

So, if we compare the cultures that existed within the boundaries of modern India in ancient times with Islam, we find that Islam was foreign.
And its influence on India was far from beingn.

That is all i have to say on the matter.

And cherry picking makes for a biased and flawed definition, one that serves a particular agenda - in this case the Hindutva one.

Please elucidate what the agenda of Hindutva is?

If you are feeling insecure because Bal Thackeray might decide to "reconquer" Pakistan, then relax, it ain't gonna happen/

My point exactly - you are arbitrarily drawing the line to make the Muslim rulers "foreigners" because it suits your agenda, but that has always been how cultures evolve, and civilizations rise and fall. South Asia was no different.

Yes, I totally agree. My "agenda" is to interpret history from an Indian perspective.
If you consider that dangerous or dishonest or whatever, then that's your opinion.

If you have a right to define "Pakistani History" on your own terms, then even I have the right to define Indian history on my terms.

That is a modern narrative, created to give legitimacy to a Hindutva narrative (similar to Ummah), and to give legitimacy to the modern Indian State.

Well I can say that Islam is being misused to give legitimacy to the Pakistani state, even though the boundaries of Pakistan have no legitimacy whatsoever.
They divide Afghan and Baloch lands right across the middle, they include disparate ethnic groups (even "ethnic group" by the way is an arbitrary definition")
The only reason the Durand line exists is because Durand drew it!!

So why subvert my arguments when yours are mirror images.

 

[Flintlock]

My argument is that any "ideology" or "culture" can be alien - if you go back far enough in time.

I agree. Absolutely. But then we choose to define ourselves in ways that separates us from our neighbours and adversaries.

So you'll agree that Pakistanis, Indians, Greeks and French are all the same, since we all sprung from Africa anyways?

So why have nations states? Why fight over Kashmir and B'desh if we are all the same anyways?

I don't have issues with "Civilizations of India (plural) - because here I can understand that the usage of the word "India" refers to South Asia.

I have issue with attempts to invent a "monolithic Indian civilization", with arbitrarily defined borders.

What are the borders of the Greek civilization? What are the borders of the Persian civilization? Chinese civilization? Do we know?

What we do know, is that the Greek and Persian civilizations existed, and they had certain characteristics which differenciated them from other civilizations.

This is how we define civilizations.

And when did I say that it doesn't?

I am only saying that your definition of "foreign" is solely because of a particular narrative that has been invented to provide flawed validation to a historical "one India" concept. The Rajputs could just as easily be foreigners to Tamils or Bengalis.

And the Sindhis to the Punjabis as well

It is not my job to see what idea is being used by whom. The point is we define ourselves by our current situation, not the situations that existed beyond our memories.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I agree. Absolutely. But then we choose to define ourselves in ways that separates us from our neighbours and adversaries.

So you'll agree that Pakistanis, Indians, Greeks and French are all the same, since we all sprung from Africa anyways?

So why have nations states? Why fight over Kashmir and B'desh if we are all the same anyways?

In fact that is a view that I have often articulated - why do Indians get all bent out of shape trying to prove that "Indians and Pakistanis are the same", when one acn argue that all humans are the same.

If you recall, that was my argument with Logic, that he refused to accept. Somehow for him it was too hard to accept that all humans were the same, but easier to accept that Indians and Pakistanis were the same.

Why have nations? To protect a peoples interests of course, since people don't really look at each other equally, Blacks were slaves etc.

What are the borders of the Greek civilization? What are the borders of the Persian civilization? Chinese civilization? Do we know?

What we do know, is that the Greek and Persian civilizations existed, and they had certain characteristics which differenciated them from other civilizations.

This is how we define civilizations.

And I am arguing that various civilizations in South Asia had distinct characteristics that preclude lumping them into one civilization.

And the Sindhis to the Punjabis as well

Certainly, I have always argued that both India and Pakistan are a amalgamation of different peoples. In Pakistan the identity is formed out of a sense of shared nationhood and social consciousness.

It is not my job to see what idea is being used by whom. The point is we define ourselves by our current situation, not the situations that existed beyond our memories.

You define yourself by the views and beliefs you hold, and how you view the period of Muslim rule in South Asia.

Others do the same. Where you see "invaders", others merely see the natural evolution of history and cultures towards something better.

But we have gone off topic enough. Back to PTV.

 

[Flintlock]

In fact that is a view that I have often articulated - why do Indians get all bent out of shape trying to prove that "Indians and Pakistanis are the same", when one acn argue that all humans are the same.

If you recall, that was my argument with Logic, that he refused to accept. Somehow for him it was too hard to accept that all humans were the same, but easier to accept that Indians and Pakistanis were the same.

So, do you agree that Indians and Pakistanis are the same?

Why have nations? To protect a peoples interests of course, since people don't really look at each other equally, Blacks were slaves etc.

Exactly. And Indians definitely didn't look at Muslim invaders "equally" when they were being conquered.

And I am arguing that various civilizations in South Asia had distinct characteristics that preclude lumping them into one civilization.

Ok I think are getting confused here.

Tell me, when you look at a Chinese temple, a Greek temple and a Hindu temple, which three civilizations come to your mind?

Certainly, I have always argued that both India and Pakistan are a amalgamation of different peoples. In Pakistan the identity is formed out of a sense of shared nationhood and social consciousness.

And what is the reason for this shared consciousness? Why should this consciousness exclude the people of India and Iraq?

You define yourself by the views and beliefs you hold, and how you view the period of Muslim rule in South Asia.

Others do the same. Where you see "invaders", others merely see the natural evolution of history and cultures towards something better.

Wait, so Babur wasn't an invader?

He was the "natural" bringer of Islam to the lands of Pakistan, which is kinda strange because Islam was NOT foreign to Pakistan?

^^Do you realize how confused that sounds?

Dude, you are tying yourself up in knots.

Yeah, back to PTV and move this uselssness to some other thread.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

India was there before 1947.

Independent India wasn't.

Ideology and culture is different and of that there is no doubt. All the states of India have different culture and so do the states of Pakistan.

Pakistan has the advantage of an official religion as a binding factor, India cannot claim such luxuries!

Indeed the people of the subcontinent are all different, since language, culture, practises are all different. It is quirk of history that constitutes an Indian and constitutes a Pakistani. Therefore, one can claim any common platform of identity as a nation!!

The so called civilisation is but a mish mash of a variety of events in history that shaped the civilisation that is claimed and it encompassed the breadth of India before Partition.

To singularly anoint any nation or people as the sole legatee is a fallacy; almost like a pathetic attempt to invent an identity thrown up by the insecurity of the rootless!

 

[Always Neutral]

India was there before 1947.



Pakistan has the advantage of an official religion as a binding factor, India cannot claim such luxuries!

!

It also can be devisive factor as each person interprets the same religion in his own manner.

Regards

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Technically no.

Even though Islam is clear that it is a relationship between is each man and Allah and there are no interpretors (clergy) required.

But in reality, it is different!

The Clergy (mullahs) do have a clout and point the folks in the direction they want.

And then there are those who are labelled as scholars!

 

[Always Neutral]

Technically no.

Even though Islam is clear that it is a relationship between is each man and Allah and there are no interpretors (clergy) required.

But in reality, it is different!

The Clergy (mullahs) do have a clout and point the folks in the direction they want.

And then there are those who are labelled as scholars!

Technically No but Really YES. See any country with only one official religion and you will see chaos and strife. Pakistan avoided this pitfall in the past as they are quite liberal and happy people until Zia came and changed that path.

Regards

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Jinnah has become only a talking point!

They forget what he had said!!

 

[Always Neutral]

I wonder why PTV wants to enter India ? Indian Markets are already well developed thru private channels and whatever I have seen on PTV channels seem very mediocre.

Regards

 

[IceCold]

Jinnah has become only a talking point!

They forget what he had said!!

How did you come to this conclusion? I find it rather amusing to hear it from someone sitting somewhere in Delhi telling us about Jinnah becoming a talking point only.

 

[Flintlock]

I wonder why PTV wants to enter India ? Indian Markets are already well developed thru private channels and whatever I have seen on PTV channels seem very mediocre.

Regards

Pakistani establishment is worried about the spread of "Indian Propaganda".

Not to be left behind in the media war, the GOP is pushing hard to make PTV visible to Indians, even if in diluted form.