Tarek Fatah - India without SINDH, SINDHU is not INDIA

[Indus Pakistan]

It doesn't prove anything. But it's wrong to say that it's a cross-over from India in 1947. Do you realize the significance of the post this lady is holding? She is an army general NOT some model or actress. Why isn't she wearing salwar kameez? Air hostesses wear salwar kameez. Why not army generals?

You valid point but as I explained it is a crossover. No province in Pakistan had saree as it's regional dress. Not even Sindh. My assumption is in the formative years the army only took in females doctors/nurses. And with literacy rate in Pakistan being extremely low the only body of educated females was from the Indian migrants who came from urban areas. They of course used the saree and it stuck. Somewhat like we have Scottish bagpipers in Pakistan Army dressed as Scotish Highlanders.

ALL essentially civilizational Hindus.

That is a very, very convenient catch all. Contrived and self serving. You had a war in Sri Lanka between these 'civilizational buddies'*. Taken that way we are all civilizational human beings. It all depends which common denominator you use. I would proffer Sikhs are not leaving that asides you have Muslims and Christians to contend. And then if you use the ethnic cleaveage you have Dravidian. Austro-Aborginal, Indo-Aryan, Tibeto-Burmans etc.

And in Pakistan we are all "civilizational Muslims" or nearly 98%. That is far more homogenous entity then you ever will be. We only have ethinc and even then it is broadly just four. India on the other hand can be sliced, diced until the knife goes blunt.

*Nepal
*Sri Lanka
*Bali
*etc

Ps. The Sikhs are civilizational buddies but Nepali Hindus, Sri Lankan Hindu/Bhuddist, Bali Hindu, Burman Bhuddist are out are they? Divorced??

 

[Ahmad Sajjad Paracha]

haha I guess you got my point. India wasn't a mythical entity, it was very real. Only that, now it's one of the largest piece of land in the history of the subcontinent. It'll remain so in the foreseeable future.
And we did play our sides well both militarily, why so sour about it, these regions weren't going to be yours anyway.

Yes india was india and pakistan was pakistan since always and will remain there always inshallah. You be happy in our country and let us be happy in our country with no sense of superiority complex on either size.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Defence.pk mobile app

 

[MultaniGuy]

Do these Burmo-Mongolians share one particular common costume which is worn all over South Asia viz. saree? Google the pics. Why, even Pakistan's lady general's official uniform is saree and even President Ayub Khan's wife wore saree on official visit to USA.

I am totally against the wearing of sarees by Pakistani women.

Sarees are stupid.

 

[padamchen]

You valid point but as I explained it is a crossover. No province in Pakistan had saree as it's regional dress. Not even Sindh. My assumption is in the formative years the army only took in females doctors/nurses. And with literacy rate in Pakistan being extremely low the only body of educated females was from the Indian migrants who came from urban areas. They of course used the saree and it stuck. Somewhat like we have Scottish bagpipers in Pakistan Army dressed as Scotish Highlanders.

That is a very, very convenient catch all. Contrived and self serving. You had a war in Sri Lanka between these 'civilizational buddies'*. Taken that way we are all civilizational human beings. It all depends which common denominator you use. I would proffer Sikhs are not leaving that asides you have Muslims and Christians to contend. And then if you use the ethnic cleaveage you have Dravidian. Austro-Aborginal, Indo-Aryan, Tibeto-Burmans etc.

And in Pakistan we are all "civilizational Muslims" or nearly 98%. That is far more homogenous entity then you ever will be. We only have ethinc and even then it is broadly just four. India on the other hand can be sliced, diced until the knife goes blunt.

*Nepal
*Sri Lanka
*Bali
*etc

Ps. The Sikhs are civilizational buddies but Nepali Hindus, Sri Lankan Hindu/Bhuddist, Bali Hindu, Burman Bhuddist are out are they? Divorced??

War with Sri Lanka is not new. The Ramayana was essentially an India v Sri Lanka war. And Buddhism.and Hinduism have been at war, to varying degrees of heat, for eons now. Not new at all.

The ethnic and racial cleavage planes of India are not new. And they are so old, and genetic and theological intermingling so complete over thousands of years from Vedic to Puranic Hinduism admixed with native pagan animism that all have gotten bound together for thousands of years as one civilizational cultural and spiritual entity.

It's the same with China.

It's the same with Iran.

These are modem nation states built on ancient civilizations. Homogeneous culturally and spiritually.

Whether you would like to admit openly or not, Islam is too new and too recent to be superimposed as a common binding thread over such longstanding ancient deep-rooted identities of peoplehood.

Islam and Christianity are also proslitizing faiths that spread inorganically way away from their parent DNA.

Therefore there is no scope of common peoplehood or nationhood. And in fact, Islam (from what I understand) actively preaches against the concept of nation states and encourages in its place the oneness of the Ummah.

If you cannot make the Ummah work in Pakistan, then making it work across races and historical master-vassal equations in the ME is a surefire impossibility.

Cheers, Doc

 

[MultaniGuy]

You valid point but as I explained it is a crossover. No province in Pakistan had saree as it's regional dress. Not even Sindh. My assumption is in the formative years the army only took in females doctors/nurses. And with literacy rate in Pakistan being extremely low the only body of educated females was from the Indian migrants who came from urban areas. They of course used the saree and it stuck. Somewhat like we have Scottish bagpipers in Pakistan Army dressed as Scotish Highlanders.

That is a very, very convenient catch all. Contrived and self serving. You had a war in Sri Lanka between these 'civilizational buddies'*. Taken that way we are all civilizational human beings. It all depends which common denominator you use. I would proffer Sikhs are not leaving that asides you have Muslims and Christians to contend. And then if you use the ethnic cleaveage you have Dravidian. Austro-Aborginal, Indo-Aryan, Tibeto-Burmans etc.

And in Pakistan we are all "civilizational Muslims" or nearly 98%. That is far more homogenous entity then you ever will be. We only have ethinc and even then it is broadly just four. India on the other hand can be sliced, diced until the knife goes blunt.

*Nepal
*Sri Lanka
*Bali
*etc

Ps. The Sikhs are civilizational buddies but Nepali Hindus, Sri Lankan Hindu/Bhuddist, Bali Hindu, Burman Bhuddist are out are they? Divorced??

LOL, most Pakistani women do not wear Sarees.

Most Pakistani women wear Shalwar Kameez.

 

[Green Arrow]

I am totally against the wearing of sarees by Pakistani women.

Sarees are stupid.

It is not a hundred percent Saree actually. It is modified version of saree. If you look closely they wear a full dress and put a long shawl over their shoulder to look more elegant which look like saree apparently.

 

[padamchen]

As far as I.know, Pakistan ( in its current landmass format, at best very loosely), sans the trimmed away Bangladesh, only ever existed historically as the Lodi dynasty.

How long back was that? And how long did that last? In comparison to the larger history of that land mass?

Cheers, Doc

It is not a hundred percent Saree actually. It is modified version of saree. If you look closely they wear a full dress and put a long shawl over their shoulder to look more elegant which look like saree apparently.

It's a saree. 100%. And it is worn 100% like our lady officers wear it.Just different colours. Green Vs Khaki.

Cheers, Doc