The number zero was invented in Ancient Pakistan

[Pagla Dashu]

By modern political reality, I meant that foreigners generally talk of Indian food or music or dress, even though the actual item may come from Pakistan or Bangladesh, etc. Most foreigners lump south Asian culture into one bucket, generically referred to as 'Indian'.

That is a legitimate grouse you have. I have no bones to pick.

The claim is based on geography and historical artifacts. Genetics is only used to refute claims of mass population shifts.

Genetics can’t refute, neither can it confirm with utmost certainty, any ‘claims of mass population shifts’. What it can do is point in a general direction i.e. give an indication, of the origin of a group of people or may be the history of admixture. The science of genetics is many lightyears away from being able to establish with reasonable accuracy, how they ended up today in a certain geographical location from where their ancestors were located, thousands of years ago. We can only speculate.

And no, the claim that IVC is exclusive to Pakistan is not based on geography. It is a political claim. ‘Pakistan’ is the political identity of the region that Pakistan occupies today. Its geographical identity is ‘ancient India’.

Foreign scholars use the phrase 'ancient India' in deference to its use in historical texts which, as I have indicated, was sloppy wording by people throughout the ages. Certainly there were brief periods when these lands were united under common rule, but they were exactly that -- brief periods. For most of its history, the lands comprising modern Pakistan were not ruled by Gangetic rulers.

A few posts back I commented on this. Anyway, India has existed even couple of thousand years ago - not as a homogeneous political entity but as a geographical entity which later assumed this geo-political identity that it is today. That the region east of Indus had a distinctive geographical identity is attested by several foreign scholars who visited this region during those times, as part of any conquest or on purely scholarly pursuit. This geographical identity, 'India', was latter borrowed to create a political identity once the foreign invaders decided to set shop in this region.

What I’m saying is that ancient India is not a political identity but a _geographical_ identity. So it is irrelevant if ‘Gangetic rulers’ ever ruled the region that is Pakistan today.

Calling scholars ‘sloppy’ is probably not a wise thing to do, given our own credentials.

It's a matter of degree. The further away you go from the core cities of Harappa, Taxila and Mohenjo-daro, the less relevance IVC has to these cultures. Taking your own argument in reverse, the Dravidian refugees from Aryan invasions would form a miniscule percentage of the already established, indigenous population. Modern day Tamil Nadu laying claikm to IVC would be like USA laying claim to ancient Greek heritage because of a few thousand Greek-American migrants.

The analogy is red herring. USA was/is formed through migration, which is pretty recent, India wasn’t. Aryan migration in India happened so long ago that it is impossible to scientifically identify these Aryan migrants as separate group. A Mexican-American migrant can’t lay claim to Greek heritage by being co-citizens with the Greek emigrants, but a Bihari, for example, from India can claim his IVC heritage by being descendants of largely the same stock as the Tamils are. This is how a Pakistani can claim heritage, not because a segment of ruins of IVC are in Pakistan.

Whether IVC culture fades away and finally appears to disappear as one moves to the east, south or south east, is irrelevant. Culture is not static. It evolves with time. But the vestiges do remain as undeniable link to the past. The problem is with the basis of apportion of history. If it is the history of peoples’ we are talking, then it should ideally be based on cultural heritage. If it is the history of land we are talking, then it is of course geography. History, however, is generally the history of peoples’, not of land. Pakistan, in any case, can’t claim exclusivity to IVC on the basis of any of the two.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

70% of Indian are of Indo Aryan ethnicity.

Indo-Aryan peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
South Asian ethnic groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That doesn't really answer my question. Can these 70% Indo-Aryan ancestors claim IVC as part of their heritage?

 

[Jade]

That doesn't really answer my question. Can these 70% Indo-Aryan ancestors claim IVC as part of their heritage?

It is hard to answer you question…All people on this earth can be traced to a small group lived thousands of years of ago in Africa - at least that is what geneticists claim. If that is true than, yes, Indo-Aryan can claim IVC as part of their heritage. Anyway as history has witnessed a lot of interbreeding, the meanings of Indo Aryan and Dravidian have lost meaning in today’s India

 

[Developereo]

That is a legitimate grouse you have. I have no bones to pick.

It's not a grouse but an illustration of how foreigners lump all of south Asia as one group, even though there are distinct political entities. It is central to my argument that foreigners tend to be sloppy in their references to 'India', and such references should be taken with a grain of salt. The same sloppiness has existed throughout history. In fact, more so, because global communication and awareness was less in the past.

So, when an ancient historian talks about ancient 'India', what they mean is the region around the Indus river and possibly further south east. 'Indus' river is the operative word here.

Genetics can’t refute, neither can it confirm with utmost certainty, any ‘claims of mass population shifts’.

But genetics can refute claims of populations being completely different. You don't even need genetics; simply eyeblling will tell you.

And no, the claim that IVC is exclusive to Pakistan is not based on geography. It is a political claim.

Nobody is claiming that IVC is exclusively Pakistani. Modern borders are irrelevant in ancient history. The only claim is one of gradually decreasing relevance with distance -- a perfectly reasonable claim.

‘Pakistan’ is the political identity of the region that Pakistan occupies today. Its geographical identity is ‘ancient India’.

Once again, let's keep in mind the foreign confusion about the word 'India'. Ancient indigenous texts usually refer to the region is Bharat. It is only confused foreigners who refer to the whole region as the region of the Indus, i.e. India.

A few posts back I commented on this. Anyway, India has existed even couple of thousand years ago - not as a homogeneous political entity but as a geographical entity which later assumed this geo-political identity that it is today. That the region east of Indus had a distinctive geographical identity is attested by several foreign scholars who visited this region during those times, as part of any conquest or on purely scholarly pursuit. This geographical identity, 'India', was latter borrowed to create a political identity once the foreign invaders decided to set shop in this region.

Once again, it is Bharat that has existed indigenously. It is unfortunate that modern-day Bharat borrowed the terminology of confused foreigners to name itself.

Calling scholars ‘sloppy’ is probably not a wise thing to do, given our own credentials.

India was the colloquial name for the region and, in the absence of a defining political entity, was as good as any other name. It was shorthand for 'the lands of the Indus and beyond'.

The analogy is red herring. USA was/is formed through migration, which is pretty recent, India wasn’t.

All lands are populated by migrants; it's only a matter of time span. The point is that a host culture cannot lay claim to the ancient cultural heritage of a small group of migrans/refugees.

 

[Subramanian]

All the muslims and christians of the sub continent have no right to claim the heritage and history of the ancient civilization.

The moment people converted from the hindu faith which impresses the value of god residing in ones own heart(aham brahmasmi) and the idea of worshipping mother nature and the indian country in itself and took up bookish religions whose gods reside in their prophets from arabia and israel,they give up claims to the heritage and history.

All the intelligentsia of the IVC would have either been slaughtered or moved southwards to keep their faith rather than convert to another religion.

So,pakistanis can feel proud of all the muslim military conquests but sorry,no inetellctual pursuits.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

All the muslims and christians of the sub continent have no right to claim the heritage and history of the ancient civilization.

The moment people converted from the hindu faith which impresses the value of god residing in ones own heart(aham brahmasmi) and the idea of worshipping mother nature and the indian country in itself and took up bookish religions whose gods reside in their prophets from arabia and israel,they give up claims to the heritage and history.

All the intelligentsia of the IVC would have either been slaughtered or moved southwards to keep their faith rather than convert to another religion.

So,pakistanis can feel proud of all the muslim military conquests but sorry,no inetellctual pursuits.

Everybody has equal right..to claim..be it indian or pakistani, hindu, muslim, christian or atheist.
change of faith or partition of country is no reason to alienate anybody.

 

[Hindustani]

Everybody has equal right..to claim..be it indian or pakistani, hindu, muslim, christian or atheist.
change of faith or partition of country is no reason to alienate anybody.

People do have the right to claim their history with or without conversion.

However what pisses me off is when I see the name Muslim Rajput
I find that the biggest oxymoron, as you're either a sect of Islam or a sect of Hinduism..
Rajputs are a Kshatriyas varna caste of Hinduism. If Muslims don't believe in the caste system, why do they call themselves something that's associated to that?

It's like calling myself a Hindu Shia

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

People do have the right to claim their history with or without conversion.

However what pisses me off is when I see the name Muslim Rajput
I find that the biggest oxymoron, as you're either a sect of Islam or a sect of Hinduism..
Rajputs are a Kshatriyas varna caste of Hinduism. If Muslims don't believe in the caste system, why do they call themselves something that's associated to that?

It's like calling myself a Hindu Shia

I am hearing this for the first time. '' muslim rajputh''.
i guess people still wants to hold it like indian christains retain cultural symbols, traditions, rituals, beliefs which they followed. Or like lower cast hindu converted to christian is still treated as lower class christian..even if he wish to change his statues.

 

[jayron]

I am hearing this for the first time. '' muslim rajputh''.
i guess people still wants to hold it like indian christains retain cultural symbols, traditions, rituals, beliefs which they followed. Or like lower cast hindu converted to christian is still treated as lower class christian..even if he wish to change his statues.

Hamid Gul is a proud Muslim Rajput not kidding.

 

[Hindustani]

I am hearing this for the first time. '' muslim rajputh''.
i guess people still wants to hold it like indian christains retain cultural symbols, traditions, rituals, beliefs which they followed. Or like lower cast hindu converted to christian is still treated as lower class christian..even if he wish to change his statues.

Muslim Rajputs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still makes no sense to me.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

All the muslims and christians of the sub continent have no right to claim the heritage and history of the ancient civilization.

The moment people converted from the hindu faith which impresses the value of god residing in ones own heart(aham brahmasmi) and the idea of worshipping mother nature and the indian country in itself and took up bookish religions whose gods reside in their prophets from arabia and israel,they give up claims to the heritage and history.

All the intelligentsia of the IVC would have either been slaughtered or moved southwards to keep their faith rather than convert to another religion.

So,pakistanis can feel proud of all the muslim military conquests but sorry,no inetellctual pursuits.

This thread was just about a number zero and now I dont know where it is going.

and Subramanian, you can comment on the culture and heritage but please dont comment on someone's religion if you dont know about it.

bookish religions

I dont know why you used this word because you have religious books too. .

whose gods reside in their prophets

this is a misconception, because this is what differentiates Muslims from Christians and Jews. We follow the teachings of our Prophet but we dont consider him our God. Our God is ALLAH and you call Him EESHWAR. .

 

[LaBong]

Irrelevant.

As has been said, there is a world of difference between modern Greeks and ancient Greece, or modern Egyptians and ancient Egypt. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with geographical heritage. You guys are hung up on the word ancient 'Pakistani'. As others have pointed out, pick another word, call them ancient IVC or whatever, to soothe the knee-jerk aversion to the word 'Pakistani'.

And, like I said, people of Gujarat also have right to that heritage.

Like I said, the whole point of calling them ancient Pakistani is to somehow make them distinguished from Indians. I have no problem with modern days Pakistanis having claim on IVC, but that doesn't invalidate modern Indians claim on the same as well. Pre-1947 history is shared by Indians and Pakistanis.

There was no man made border before 47, but there was cultural and ethnic border between Iranian groups and Indic groups, both of which make up the present day Pakistan populace. The iranian groups of Pakistan have no/very less claim on IVC, Taxila, Gandhar etc etc

 

[LaBong]

But genetics can refute claims of populations being completely different. You don't even need genetics; simply eyeblling will tell you.

Actually strictly genetically speaking, the population of today's India and today's Pakistan(except Iranian groups) have no or ignorable difference between them genetically. Eyeblling has no relevance in genetics.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

@jayron and hindustani..
thanks for the info.rajput were very brave and proud people so it's natural they want to retain their cast name.
imo we should leave it to them..let them retain their cast names which they are proud of..let them be happy..Not a big deal.

 

[UnitedPak]

Like I said, the whole point of calling them ancient Pakistani is to somehow make them distinguished from Indians. I have no problem with modern days Pakistanis having claim on IVC, but that doesn't invalidate modern Indians claim on the same as well. Pre-1947 history is shared by Indians and Pakistanis.

There was no man made border before 47, but there was cultural and ethnic border between Iranian groups and Indic groups, both of which make up the present day Pakistan populace. The iranian groups of Pakistan have no/very less claim on IVC, Taxila, Gandhar etc etc

British Indian borders were man made. In fact they had to conquer 600 territories to create their Indian empire. Your theory of a united India once again ignores the countless of languages, cultures and people that are in the subcontinent.

The "Iranic border" claim is also ignorant. There is less difference between a Pashtun and a Punjabi than there is between a Punjabi and a Tamil or Assamese. There are many culture and language borders in the subcontinent, but you are simply promoting one to justify your Ancient Indian nation. Not to mention you are promoting yet another migration theory for Pashtuns to claim their history.