The Unexpected Origins Of The Name Pakistan

[Hamza913]

Pakistan was never around. The term Pakistan was coined in 1930s as shown in the OP video. The present day Pakistan was part of Ancient India, Bharatvarsh, Aryavarta or Hind-Hindustan. That's why Bin Qasim can never - NEVER - be called a first Pakistani.


Yes these discussions has happened a billion times and will happen billion times more as long as there is a confusing history on your part. But let's keep the discussion civil, that's all I ask. And thank you for honouring my request



The present day Pakistan was historically part of ancient India or Hindustan so it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the Hindus have always regarded Sindhu as a holy river. many religious text of Hinduism mention this very river. Kailash Mansarovar - where Sindhu originates - has been a place of pilgrimage to all the Hindus around the world. This is the holy river we get our name from and we are extremely proud of it.


Here is a paper from 2018 with 30+ authors from different countries, that concludes this:

• The primary population of the BMAC was largely derived from preceding local Chalcolithic peoples and had
little if any Steppe pastoralist ancestry of the type that is ubiquitous in South Asia today. Instead of being a source for South Asia, the BMAC received admixture from South Asia.

• By 1500 BCE, there were numerous individuals in the Kazakh Steppe with East Asian-related admixture, the
same type of ancestry that was widespread by the Scythian period (34). This ancestry is hardly present in the two primary ancestral populations of South Asia—ANI and ASI—suggesting that Steppe ancestry widespread in South Asia derived from earlier southward movements.

1. After exploring a wide range of models of present-day and ancient South Asia, we identify a unique class of models that fits geographically and temporally South Asians: a mixture of AASI, Indus_Periphery, and Steppe_MLBA. We reject BMAC as a primary source of ancestry in South Asians.

2. A population of which the Indus_Periphery samples were a part played a pivotal role in the formation of the two proximal sources of ancestry in South Asia, the ANI and ASI. Both ends of the Indian Cline had major components of Indus_Periphery admixture: ~39% for the ASI and ~72% for the ANI. Today there are groups in South Asia with very similar ancestry to the ASI and ANI.

You can find the report here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/03/31/292581.full.pdf



Lahore is in present day Pakistan , and this present day Pakistan was not there before 1947. This however doesn't mean that the history starts at 1947. This just means that before 1947, this region had different name(s). Hindustan, Bharatvarsh or Aryavarta or India is one of these.



What is this "Indus Valley" you are referring to exactly? Are you referring to the IVC? The IVC has appx. 1000 sites. India has 616 sites while Pakistan has 406 sites. The biggest site of the IVC till date is Rakhigarhi which is in India.

And no, I don't want to limit it to present day Pakistan, I wanna stick to my original stand that this region was Hindustan. The Mughals you are talking about themselves called this region as Hindustan which is just another name of India.

Yes it was. The name change is pretty much irrelevant.

Even by that logic, Qasim still counts as the first Pakistani at least spiritually. Pakistan was made as a separate homeland for Muslims, and who was the first major Muslim figure to visit a significant chunk of Pakistan? Qasim.

Since you're being so nice, I apologise for you calling you an idiot and a brick wall.

Right, and in Islam people like Qasim are highly revered as Ghazis. But you guys still mock us for liking Qasim. You can't have it both ways, apply the same logic for both of us. If the Indus River is yours, Qasim is ours.

Numerous other studies confirm what I say rather than what you say, even the one you cited:

"Kushans, and Huns, sometimes suggested as sources for the Steppe ancestry influences in South Asia today (17) - contributed to the majority of South Asians"

The ancestry we have from migrants during the Islamic era is minimal, but still there none the less as proven in other studies, and this one doesn't rule it out at all (especially since it used mostly pre-Islamic samples for Pakistan).

Alright, so we agree. The only point of contention is us using the term Pakistan, which is really irrelevant since as you said, the region has been given many names such as Khorasan, Hindustan, Pakistan, the Indus, etc.

The Indus Valley is pretty much the regions surrounding the Indus River, which includes some of eastern Afghanistan and north-west Hindustan. It's basically the core territories of IVC (mostly).

 

[TMA]

You are bang on.

Mother of Prince Salim (Jahangir) known as Mariam Zamani Begum was Jodhabai, a full-blooded Rajput princess.

Mother of Prince Khurram (Shahjahan) was another full-blooded Rajput; daughter of Raja Udai Singh of Jodhpur named Jagat Gosaine.

Hence Shahjahan was in fact only one-quarter Timurid. Even the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was the son of Akbar Shah II from his Hindu wife Lal Bai.

Fact is that by the time of later Mughal Emperors; Mughal blood had been diluted to such an extent that they were 'Timurid’ only because they were direct male descendants. Otherwise, they were completely devoid of the ferocious nature and bravery of the great Tamerlane.

Perhaps they should not have intermarried and thence kept their ferocity...?

By Ancient India , I also mean the geographical location and not in the sense of modern nation state. The concept of sovereign states is a recent phenomena. For example, the modern Egypt was declared a Republic in 1953, it doesn't mean there was no Egypt before 1953.



The word Sindhu predates the modern Republic of India. I never said it wasn't a case. But the river itself was named so by the people who resided in the same region now known as Indian Subcontinent.

Bharat is a term used in Hindu religious texts including the Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramayana and Puranas to refer to the Indian Subcontinent. It's a documented historical reference to this land. Why else do you think we call it Bharat anyway?

India on the other hand is a term derived from the Indus, which was derived from the Sanskrit word Sindhu. The people who used to reside in the present day Indian Subcontinent gave that name to this river which was considered holy by those very people.

For Hindustan, again it is based on the word Hindu, which in return is based on Sindhu. There are other names too, I already provided a link for it in my previous post.

So obviously this region has to be called India, Bharat or Hindustan etc.


And that's why I say that we all - the people of this region - are the successors of Ancient India. We both are on the same page here.



Pakistan as a matter of fact should've called itself West India (like East Germany - west Germany or two Korea's out there). This would've helped to avoid confusion and identify crisis really. Pakistanis would've known who they really are rather than claiming that they have nothing to do with Ancient India (you can see that in this very thread) which isn't a case, and I'm glad that we agree on this.



Again , the name Sindhu was given to it by the people of Ancient India. We the successor of that India (you too are the successor of that India but you don't wanna claim that, may be for political reasons?).



Absolutely correct, present day Pakistan was part of ancient India, it was always there. I never said otherwise (I'm sorry if any of my post implied that). I only said that the term Pakistan wasn't there which is a fact.


Again correct, except that you should call them Ancient Indians.


No you don't, Ancient Indians don't lose their heritage just because they converted to a different religion. They will remain what they were i.e. Ancient Indians.

Thumbs Up



I already provided a link for different names of India. It also has the sub-links for the historical documents (Hindu Religious texts) which refer to this land. And none of those documents refer to the present day Indonesia.

The Indonesians can call themselves whatever they want, it doesn't change the fact that this region was named after a river flowing in this region.

Also, for Indonesia, you'll find this helpful:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_India

So in conclusion, as you can see , we agree on most part, are on the same page and are saying the same thing. Thank you very much , I appreciate it

Look, today, post 1947, Pakistan has more right to the name India than Bharat. Pakistan is home to the Indus and its associated civilisations, just like Bharat is home to Ganges and its associated civilisations. Of course there has been cross cultural links like any civilisation.

Just because the word Pakistani is newer than the word India or Hindustan, does not mean one cannot rightfully use the term “Ancient Pakistan”. Remember we are not talking semantics, but rather substance. The Republic of India (Bharat really) is the same age as Pakistan. You cannot get away from that. Sanskrit is just as much our language (like you have said), the Vedas are just as much our book (in the historical sense not in the practical sense as we have accepted Islam now) if not more than Bharat’s as Ancient Pakistan was more influenced by the Vedas than any of the other religious books of Sanatum Dharm.

(One could argue that Pakistan is closer to the Vedas than Bharat by accepting Islam as both the Vedas and the Quran teach pure monotheism, whereas in the other books of Sanatum Dharm, pure monotheism has been “diluted”, but that is another discussion).

 

[Kuru]

The region has always been split into many smaller states and kingdoms each with their own names.

Yes, Punjab and Sindh have their own history, with different kingdoms for different duration of History. Does that mean that Punjab (Kushan Empire) and Sindh (Satraps) should be different countries ?

Indian subcontinent cannot be compared to Persia or Arabia in the sense that its populated by diverse people, not related to each other in the same way as Arabs or Persians

Sir I was giving an example? It was just to show that the term Indian Subcontinent, Bharatvarsh, Hind or Hindustan refers to this land of South Asia and not Arabia and Persia. I never compared anything?

anything, Sindhis are the "original" Indians and the term was misapplied to everyone else since then.

Sindhis get their name from the river Sindhu. This river is mentioned hundreds of times in Hindu Vedic texts by ancient Indians. And Hindus have been following those texts for thousands of years. And people of Indian Subcontinent were Hindus anyway. Indians and Hindus are one people. It doesn't matter if those Indians now follow a different religion. I wish them well.

Pakistan is the successor of the geographic region called Indus Valley. Anything suggesting that modern India is a successor of this region, is grossly inaccurate, something it seems you are happy to assume because it benefits your modern nation.

I've already mentioned this before, The Indus Valley Civilisation has appx. 1000 sites. India has 616 sites while Pakistan has 406 sites. The biggest site of the IVC till date is Rakhigarhi which is in India. So on what basis you are trying to discredit India is beyond me. But like I told you a couple of times, we can disagree respectfully, yes?

If you have such a big issue with the name of Pakistan, then read it out like an acronym of the ancient names that it represents. Same difference as far as I am concerned.

Please don't misquote me Sir. I never said I have a problem with the term Pakistan. I only said that the term Pakistan is a recent one which - by the way - is exactly what the OP video itself is taking about.

Yes it was. The name change is pretty much irrelevant.

That's why I said present day Pakistan was historically part of Ancient India. You can name your country whatever you like, but won't change the fact that Pakistan was part of ancient India.Thats all.

Even by that logic, Qasim still counts as the first Pakistani at least spiritually. Pakistan was made as a separate homeland for Muslims, and who was the first major Muslim figure to visit a significant chunk of Pakistan? Qasim.

Right, and in Islam people like Qasim are highly revered as Ghazis. But you guys still mock us for liking Qasim. You can't have it both ways, apply the same logic for both of us. If the Indus River is yours, Qasim is ours.

As far as I understand it, Indians mock you for liking Qasim because he killed your ancestors and you still call him first Pakistani. Now that you've converted to Qasim's religion Islam, you regard him as a Hero. Indians see it as Stockholm Syndrome.

Had Qasim come with a message of Peace and converted a large number of people there, then it would've been a different story. But it's a documented fact that Qasim had come to India for invasion and not to spread peace or an Islamic message.

Does that make sense ?

If the Indus River is yours, Qasim is ours.

Sindhu didn't come from far away place and invaded our land and killed our people. So there is a difference and hence it can't be compared with Qasim's invasion.

Since you're being so nice, I apologise for you calling you an idiot and a brick wall.

Hey don't worry about it. I never wanted an apology but you did it anyway. It just shows you're a humble person and you have my respect for it

Numerous other studies confirm what I say rather than what you say, even the one you cited:

"Kushans, and Huns, sometimes suggested as sources for the Steppe ancestry influences in South Asia today (17) - contributed to the majority of South Asians"

The ancestry we have from migrants during the Islamic era is minimal, but still there none the less as proven in other studies, and this one doesn't rule it out at all (especially since it used mostly pre-Islamic samples for Pakistan).

The source I cited says this:

Steppe communities mixed genetically with peoples of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) whom they encountered in Turan (primarily descendants of earlier agriculturalists of Iran), but there is no evidence that the main BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians.

Link:https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/31/292581

But I agree with you in a way. Obviously some contacts with the people you cite may have had taken place. But the percentage should be minimum and that's my guess.

Alright, so we agree. The only point of contention is us using the term Pakistan, which is really irrelevant since as you said, the region has been given many names such as Khorasan, Hindustan, Pakistan, the Indus, etc.

Alright that makes sense as long as we are referring to the same region Ancient India. but I repeat again, I do not have a problem with the term Pakistan; all I was saying that this term is fairly new one.

The Indus Valley is pretty much the regions surrounding the Indus River, which includes some of eastern Afghanistan and north-west Hindustan. It's basically the core territories of IVC (mostly).

The IVC sites have been found as far as present day Indian state of Maharashtra. And I guess the sites in Afghanistan were the trading sites only and not the residential ones. But I could be wrong though.

Look, today, post 1947, Pakistan has more right to the name India than Bharat. Pakistan is home to the Indus and its associated civilisations, just like Bharat is home to Ganges and its associated civilisations. Of course there has been cross cultural links like any civilisation.

The Ganges Brahmaputra and Sindhu all mentioned in Hindu religious texts. We are the land of these civilizations. the Indus valley civilization has more sites in present day republic of India than in present day Pakistan. I never claimed that just because India has more IVC sites should mean that India alone is the successor of Indus Valley Civilization. so I don't know why you think that only Pakistan is the successor of ivc.

The Republic of India (Bharat really) is the same age as Pakistan. You cannot get away from that.

Yes that is right I already agreed we are talking about ancient India which covers the present day modern Nation States of India and Pakistan.

Sanskrit is just as much our language (like you have said), the Vedas are just as much our book (in the historical sense not in the practical sense as we have accepted Islam now) if not more than Bharat’s as Ancient Pakistan was more influenced by the Vedas than any of the other religious books of Sanatum Dharm.

that's right Sanskrit and Vedas belong to Ancient India and any country falling into the region which is ancient India can claim these texts as their own.

We do it and you should do it too. But strangely Pakistanis today want to be associated with Central Asia rather than this region. That's when the problem arises and results in identity crisis.

Like I said we agree on most part so I have nothing more to add really. Have a good day sir

 

[TMA]

Yes, Punjab and Sindh have their own history, with different kingdoms for different duration of History. Does that mean that Punjab (Kushan Empire) and Sindh (Satraps) should be different countries ?




Sir I was giving an example? It was just to show that the term Indian Subcontinent, Bharatvarsh, Hind or Hindustan refers to this land of South Asia and not Arabia and Persia. I never compared anything?



Sindhis get their name from the river Sindhu. This river is mentioned hundreds of times in Hindu Vedic texts by ancient Indians. And Hindus have been following those texts for thousands of years. And people of Indian Subcontinent were Hindus anyway. Indians and Hindus are one people. It doesn't matter if those Indians now follow a different religion. I wish them well.


I've already mentioned this before, The Indus Valley Civilisation has appx. 1000 sites. India has 616 sites while Pakistan has 406 sites. The biggest site of the IVC till date is Rakhigarhi which is in India. So on what basis you are trying to discredit India is beyond me. But like I told you a couple of times, we can disagree respectfully, yes?



Please don't misquote me Sir. I never said I have a problem with the term Pakistan. I only said that the term Pakistan is a recent one which - by the way - is exactly what the OP video itself is taking about.



That's why I said present day Pakistan was historically part of Ancient India. You can name your country whatever you like, but won't change the fact that Pakistan was part of ancient India.Thats all.



As far as I understand it, Indians mock you for liking Qasim because he killed your ancestors and you still call him first Pakistani. Now that you've converted to Qasim's religion Islam, you regard him as a Hero. Indians see it as Stockholm Syndrome.

Had Qasim come with a message of Peace and converted a large number of people there, then it would've been a different story. But it's a documented fact that Qasim had come to India for invasion and not to spread peace or an Islamic message.

Does that make sense ?


Sindhu didn't come from far away place and invaded our land and killed our people. So there is a difference and hence it can't be compared with Qasim's invasion.


Hey don't worry about it. I never wanted an apology but you did it anyway. It just shows you're a humble person and you have my respect for it



The source I cited says this:

Steppe communities mixed genetically with peoples of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) whom they encountered in Turan (primarily descendants of earlier agriculturalists of Iran), but there is no evidence that the main BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians.

Link:https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/31/292581

But I agree with you in a way. Obviously some contacts with the people you cite may have had taken place. But the percentage should be minimum and that's my guess.


Alright that makes sense as long as we are referring to the same region Ancient India. but I repeat again, I do not have a problem with the term Pakistan; all I was saying that this term is fairly new one.


The IVC sites have been found as far as present day Indian state of Maharashtra. And I guess the sites in Afghanistan were the trading sites only and not the residential ones. But I could be wrong though.



The Ganges Brahmaputra and Sindhu all mentioned in Hindu religious texts. We are the land of these civilizations. the Indus valley civilization has more sites in present day republic of India than in present day Pakistan. I never claimed that just because India has more IVC sites should mean that India alone is the successor of Indus Valley Civilization. so I don't know why you think that only Pakistan is the successor of ivc.


Yes that is right I already agreed we are talking about ancient India which covers the present day modern Nation States of India and Pakistan.


that's right Sanskrit and Vedas belong to Ancient India and any country falling into the region which is ancient India can claim these texts as their own.

We do it and you should do it too. But strangely Pakistanis today want to be associated with Central Asia rather than this region. That's when the problem arises and results in identity crisis.

Like I said we agree on most part so I have nothing more to add really. Have a good day sir

The origin of the IVC is Pakistan not Bharat. The heartland is Pakistan not Bharat. The IVC had more links with Central Asia and Persia than South or East Bharat!
And about Central Asia, it is true as tribes and empires came from that region so naturally there is an affinity. Indeed North West Pakistan in the mountains like Chitral and Hunza regions are more Central Asian than South Asian. This does not lower the claim that Pakistan is the heart of the IVC. And it is not strange given the history.
The division of the illegitimate colonial entity know as British India was done incorrectly. If all of Punjab and all of Kashmir and even parts of Gujarat were given to Pakistan as per the map of Chaudhary Rehmat Ali, then that would be a better reflection of the true India or Hindustan.
But the division has occurred and still the majority of “India” is part of Pakistan.
Ancient India ought really to refer to Pakistan and the North West part of Bharat. South and East Bharat ain’t “India”. Most of Bharat was never part of the of the IVC.

Anyways a man more knowledgeable than I on this subject is @IndusPriest, if he is still around.

 

[Hamza913]

That's why I said present day Pakistan was historically part of Ancient India. You can name your country whatever you like, but won't change the fact that Pakistan was part of ancient India.Thats all.



As far as I understand it, Indians mock you for liking Qasim because he killed your ancestors and you still call him first Pakistani. Now that you've converted to Qasim's religion Islam, you regard him as a Hero. Indians see it as Stockholm Syndrome.

Had Qasim come with a message of Peace and converted a large number of people there, then it would've been a different story. But it's a documented fact that Qasim had come to India for invasion and not to spread peace or an Islamic message.

Does that make sense ?


Sindhu didn't come from far away place and invaded our land and killed our people. So there is a difference and hence it can't be compared with Qasim's invasion.


Hey don't worry about it. I never wanted an apology but you did it anyway. It just shows you're a humble person and you have my respect for it



The source I cited says this:

Steppe communities mixed genetically with peoples of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) whom they encountered in Turan (primarily descendants of earlier agriculturalists of Iran), but there is no evidence that the main BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians.

Link:https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/31/292581

But I agree with you in a way. Obviously some contacts with the people you cite may have had taken place. But the percentage should be minimum and that's my guess.


Alright that makes sense as long as we are referring to the same region Ancient India. but I repeat again, I do not have a problem with the term Pakistan; all I was saying that this term is fairly new one.


The IVC sites have been found as far as present day Indian state of Maharashtra. And I guess the sites in Afghanistan were the trading sites only and not the residential ones. But I could be wrong though.

We have always been a part of the Indian sub-continent, but to act as if the the modern day country called India is older than Pakistan is odd. Both our nations were conceived at the same time.

Qasim couldn't have killed my ancestors, because then I either wouldn't be alive or I'd be living in an Arab country, descended from some Indus slaves who got shipped to the region. Since I'm alive and quite clearly not from an Arab country, Qasim quite clearly did not kill or enslave my ancestors.

Also, many people from Pakistan fought in his army, as has been established numerous times before, and many Pakistanis are descended from people who migrated to the region during his conquests, as has also been established many times before.

Even people from my tribe (Gujjars), fought alongside Muhammad Bin Qasim:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Qasim#The_campaign

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...cAhWQa8AKHYh2DiMQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Anyway, even if he did, irrelevant. As I said before, in Islam, your devotion towards the religion comes before all else. Rasulullah (Peace Be Upon Him) regularly fought against his own tribesmen (the Quraysh), and had people from all sorts of places work for him, e.g Abyssinian's, Romans, Persians, etc. We are also all considered in Islam to be the sons of Adam (Peace Be Upon Him), and as said before we have the concept of being a Ghazi (i.e someone who fought for Muslims/Islam). We are literally Islamically obliged to support Qasim.

So no, it still doesn't make any sense.

Hinduism came with the Aryan migrations (as has been rigorously established), and originally integrated with the indigenous people of northern Pakistan and Hindustani Punjab:

After that, they invaded the rest of the region and yes they most probably did do a fair bit of killing since we know how violent the Indo-Aryans were. The caste system also attests to their blatant racism towards natives, as do other historical sources from them.

The percentage is minimal for most Hindustanis, but for Pakistanis and Hindustanis from Kashmir and the Punjab as well as some Bramins, it gets more significant. For people from Afghanistan it becomes even more significant.

And I agree with you.

The sites further out in Afghanistan were trading outposts, but the ones in eastern Afghanistan were genuine settlements.

 

[UnitedPak]

Does that mean that Punjab (Kushan Empire) and Sindh (Satraps) should be different countries ?

Despite rarely ever having a border between them, Punjab and Sindh are two distinct identities. Yes, we respect that, but you want to dilute everything down to a single artificial identity. Like I said, the people of the subcontinent are nothing like Arabs, Persians or Chinese. We are too diverse. Pakistan represents the Indus region which has a much stronger basis as a single identity than lumping together the entire subcontinent.

I've already mentioned this before, The Indus Valley Civilisation has appx. 1000 sites. India has 616 sites while Pakistan has 406 sites. The biggest site of the IVC till date is Rakhigarhi which is in India. So on what basis you are trying to discredit India is beyond me. But like I told you a couple of times, we can disagree respectfully, yes?

Factually wrong, but it's not a numbers game especially not when Indians admittedly "felt compelled to find new sites". And who said anything about IVC????

I said Indus Valley REGION. It's a geographic area of the Indus river and its tributaries, from Kabul river to Sutlej. This region was the single original area to be named after the Indus river, specifically Gandhara, Punjab and Sindh, named after Sindh/Sindhu/Indus river. i.e the Bulk of Pakistan. Ganges and the rest of modern India were completely unknown to Europeans at this point.

 

[Kuru]

The origin of the IVC is Pakistan not Bharat.

The origin of IVC is Ancient India. Pakistan is a part of Ancient India.

The IVC had more links with Central Asia and Persia than South or East Bharat!

Lord Shiva & Swastika (from IVC) is culturally linked with central Asia and Persia? Are you sure ?

The worship of Shiva/Pashupatinath:
The Swastika symbol:

Indeed North West Pakistan in the mountains like Chitral and Hunza regions are more Central Asian than South Asian.

Again, are you sure ?

1. The first recorded ruler of Chitral is Kanishka, a Buddhist Ruler in 3rd century BC.
2. Ganish Village is the first recorded settlement in the Hunza Valley. The name Ganish Village means the 'Village of Lord Ganesha' (according to Shashtras, Ganesha is the son of Lord Shiva).

Don't do this Sir. You have such a rich ancient culture yourself, why you want to look outside?

If all of Punjab and all of Kashmir and even parts of Gujarat were given to Pakistan as per the map of Chaudhary Rehmat Ali, then that would be a better reflection of the true India or Hindustan.

Or may be vice versa? If entire Sindh and Punjab were given to Republic of India , it would have been a better reflection of Ancient India? See, we both can play such games so let's not do that. Whatever happened, has happened. We cannot change that but we can at least connect with our own-historical-selves, yes?

But the division has occurred and still the majority of “India” is part of Pakistan.
Ancient India ought really to refer to Pakistan and the North West part of Bharat. South and East Bharat ain’t “India”.

I am sorry, India is not Indus Valley Civilization only. You are only considering the IVC region. But India is Sindhu (North West), Ganga (East) Kaveri (South) and Brahmaputra (North East).

When I say Ancient India, I don't mean IVC only. I mean the Indian Subcontinent. This means that I am not trying to discredit you of anything at all.

Anyways a man more knowledgeable than I on this subject is @IndusPriest, if he is still around.

Maybe I will learn something from him. I will look forward to that thank you

We have always been a part of the Indian sub-continent, but to act as if the the modern day country called India is older than Pakistan is odd. Both our nations were conceived at the same time.

Firstly how did you change your name? It's a lot better than the old one really.

Secondly I never said that India is an old country and Pakistan is a new one. I am actually linking both of these countries to Ancient India. Meaning that both of these countries (present day India and present day Pakistan) are as old as humanity.

Qasim couldn't have killed my ancestors, because then I either wouldn't be alive or I'd be living in an Arab country, descended from some Indus slaves who got shipped to the region. Since I'm alive and quite clearly not from an Arab country, Qasim quite clearly did not kill or enslave my ancestors.

I wasn't talking about your ancestors specifically when I said 'ancestors'. I was talking about the people of Sindh. The people killed were the locals, the descendents of Ancient Indians , and hence I can call them my people. You should call them your people too.

Now picture this: An outsider had come and invaded Sindh and killed the people there. The remaining people (or most of the remaining people) gets converted to the Invader's religion, and that very invader suddenly becomes a hero!

I do not find it convincing to be honest but if you do - because of your religion - then just leave it there. Let's respect everyone's religious views here.

Also, many people from Pakistan fought in his army, as has been established numerous times before, and many Pakistanis are descended from people who migrated to the region during his conquests, as has

Obviously some people may have joined bin Qasim against the locals. But those who joined - still local - should not be more than 1% of the entire Sindh population of the time, yes? Maybe not even one percent. Or, do you seriously believe that majority (let's say 50%-80%) of the Sindh population joined Bin Qasim against Raja Dahir?

As I said before, in Islam, your devotion towards the religion comes before all else. Rasulullah (Peace Be Upon Him) regularly fought against his own tribesmen (the Quraysh), and had people from all sorts of places work for him, e.g Abyssinian's, Romans, Persians, etc. We are also all considered in Islam to be the sons of Adam (Peace Be Upon Him), and as said before we have the concept of being a Ghazi (i.e someone who fought for Muslims/Islam). We are literally Islamically obliged to support Qasim.

That's what I said you converted to Qasim's religion and now you are literally and islamically obliged to support bin Qasim even though he had invaded and killed Indians - your own people!

But you know what Taimur, let's leave bin Qasim for now. because it is linked to your religion and let's not talk about religion at all.

The percentage is minimal for most Hindustanis, but for Pakistanis and Hindustanis from Kashmir and the Punjab as well as some Bramins, it gets more significant. For people from Afghanistan it becomes even more significant.

Again, the latest study for the genetics of the people of Indian subcontinent says this:

• The primary population of the BMAC was largely derived from preceding local Chalcolithic peoples and had little if any Steppe pastoralist ancestry of the type that is ubiquitous in South Asia today. Instead of being a source for South Asia, the BMAC received admixture from South Asia.

• By 1500 BCE, there were numerous individuals in the Kazakh Steppe with East Asian-related admixture, the same type of ancestry that was widespread by the Scythian period (34). This ancestry is hardly present in the two primary ancestral populations of South Asia—ANI and ASI—suggesting that Steppe ancestry widespread in South Asia derived from earlier southward movements.

I've already given the link in my previous post.

Let me remind you, these are 92 named authors who conducted this study, including scholars from Harvard, MIT, the Russian Academy of Science, the Birbal Sahni Institute of Paleosciences in Lucknow, the Deccan College, the Max Planck Institute, the Institute for Archaeological Research in Uzbekistan and the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad.

These are not some random guys really.

And I agree with you.

The sites further out in Afghanistan were trading outposts, but the ones in eastern Afghanistan were genuine settlements.

Cool.

Despite rarely ever having a border between them, Punjab and Sindh are two distinct identities. Yes, we respect that,

There was no concept of 'International border' then as we know today. There were Kingdoms or princely states. Punjab belonged to a different Kingdom and Sindh belonged to a different Kingdom.

And I'm glad you want to respect such distinctive identities. I really hope that you will be consistent with this approach.

but you want to dilute everything down to a single artificial identity. Like I said, the people of the subcontinent are nothing like Arabs,

Yeah but all the Arabs do not have one single country. so what is the use of this singular identity anyway? Singular identity cannot form a country. Maybe it requires a collective history of thousands of years. Atleast that's how I look at it.

We are too diverse

Indeed we are. And I love this diversity. If we talk about present day Pakistan then Balochis (Iranic) are different than Punjabis (non-Iranic). and even among others, there are Sindhis, Punjabis, Kashmiris and Gujaratis with distinct identity and language. Unity in diversity, that's the way to go.

Pakistan represents the Indus region

Pakistani represents Ancient India.

Factually wrong, but it's not a numbers game especially not when Indians admittedly "felt compelled to find new sites".

I'm sorry but you know how do you sound like here? You sound like, "Hey look at those Indians, they are 'inventing' and 'finding' new IVC sites and trying to claim IVC from Pakistan!"

Common you can do better than that. You sound like an intellectual so why do you want to ruin it by believing in some wild conspiracy theory?

I said Indus Valley REGION. It's a geographic area of the Indus river and its tributaries, from Kabul river to Sutlej. This region was the single original area to be named after the Indus river, specifically Gandhara, Punjab and Sindh, named after Sindh/Sindhu/Indus river. i.e the Bulk of Pakistan.

Yep that's Ancient India we are talking about. Present day Pakistan is part of Ancient India.

 

[PashtunBradar]

The origin of IVC is Ancient India. Pakistan is a part of Ancient India.



Lord Shiva & Swastika (from IVC) is culturally linked with central Asia and Persia? Are you sure ?

The worship of Shiva/Pashupatinath:
The Swastika symbol:


Again, are you sure ?

1. The first recorded ruler of Chitral is Kanishka, a Buddhist Ruler in 3rd century BC.
2. Ganish Village is the first recorded settlement in the Hunza Valley. The name Ganish Village means the 'Village of Lord Ganesha' (according to Shashtras, Ganesha is the son of Lord Shiva).

Don't do this Sir. You have such a rich ancient culture yourself, why you want to look outside?



Or may be vice versa? If entire Sindh and Punjab were given to Republic of India , it would have been a better reflection of Ancient India? See, we both can play such games so let's not do that. Whatever happened, has happened. We cannot change that but we can at least connect with our own-historical-selves, yes?



I am sorry, India is not Indus Valley Civilization only. You are only considering the IVC region. But India is Sindhu (North West), Ganga (East) Kaveri (South) and Brahmaputra (North East).

When I say Ancient India, I don't mean IVC only. I mean the Indian Subcontinent. This means that I am not trying to discredit you of anything at all.


Maybe I will learn something from him. I will look forward to that thank you


Firstly how did you change your name? It's a lot better than the old one really.

Secondly I never said that India is an old country and Pakistan is a new one. I am actually linking both of these countries to Ancient India. Meaning that both of these countries (present day India and present day Pakistan) are as old as humanity.



I wasn't talking about your ancestors specifically when I said 'ancestors'. I was talking about the people of Sindh. The people killed were the locals, the descendents of Ancient Indians , and hence I can call them my people. You should call them your people too.

Now picture this: An outsider had come and invaded Sindh and killed the people there. The remaining people (or most of the remaining people) gets converted to the Invader's religion, and that very invader suddenly becomes a hero!

I do not find it convincing to be honest but if you do - because of your religion - then just leave it there. Let's respect everyone's religious views here.



Obviously some people may have joined bin Qasim against the locals. But those who joined - still local - should not be more than 1% of the entire Sindh population of the time, yes? Maybe not even one percent. Or, do you seriously believe that majority (let's say 50%-80%) of the Sindh population joined Bin Qasim against Raja Dahir?



That's what I said you converted to Qasim's religion and now you are literally and islamically obliged to support bin Qasim even though he had invaded and killed Indians - your own people!

But you know what Taimur, let's leave bin Qasim for now. because it is linked to your religion and let's not talk about religion at all.



Again, the latest study for the genetics of the people of Indian subcontinent says this:

• The primary population of the BMAC was largely derived from preceding local Chalcolithic peoples and had little if any Steppe pastoralist ancestry of the type that is ubiquitous in South Asia today. Instead of being a source for South Asia, the BMAC received admixture from South Asia.

• By 1500 BCE, there were numerous individuals in the Kazakh Steppe with East Asian-related admixture, the same type of ancestry that was widespread by the Scythian period (34). This ancestry is hardly present in the two primary ancestral populations of South Asia—ANI and ASI—suggesting that Steppe ancestry widespread in South Asia derived from earlier southward movements.

I've already given the link in my previous post.

Let me remind you, these are 92 named authors who conducted this study, including scholars from Harvard, MIT, the Russian Academy of Science, the Birbal Sahni Institute of Paleosciences in Lucknow, the Deccan College, the Max Planck Institute, the Institute for Archaeological Research in Uzbekistan and the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad.

These are not some random guys really.


Cool.


There was no concept of 'International border' then as we know today. There were Kingdoms or princely states. Punjab belonged to a different Kingdom and Sindh belonged to a different Kingdom.

And I'm glad you want to respect such distinctive identities. I really hope that you will be consistent with this approach.


Yeah but all the Arabs do not have one single country. so what is the use of this singular identity anyway? Singular identity cannot form a country. Maybe it requires a collective history of thousands of years. Atleast that's how I look at it.


Indeed we are. And I love this diversity. If we talk about present day Pakistan then Balochis (Iranic) are different than Punjabis (non-Iranic). and even among others, there are Sindhis, Punjabis, Kashmiris and Gujaratis with distinct identity and language. Unity in diversity, that's the way to go.


Pakistani represents Ancient India.



I'm sorry but you know how do you sound like here? You sound like, "Hey look at those Indians, they are 'inventing' and 'finding' new IVC sites and trying to claim IVC from Pakistan!"

Common you can do better than that. You sound like an intellectual so why do you want to ruin it by believing in some wild conspiracy theory?


Yep that's Ancient India we are talking about. Present day Pakistan is part of Ancient India.

All wrong

 

[Kuru]

All wrong

Ok.

 

[UnitedPak]

I'm sorry but you know how do you sound like here? You sound like, "Hey look at those Indians, they are 'inventing' and 'finding' new IVC sites and trying to claim IVC from Pakistan!"

After India's independence, both the major Harappan cities together with the Indus became a part of Pakistan and Indian archaeologists were compelled to intensify the search for Harappan sites in India. Amlānand Ghosh (Ex. Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, or ASI) was the first person to recognise this site as Harappan and marked it out for excavations.[6] Shri Krishna Ojha, Elements of Indian Archaeology, p.115.

I am glad you find that equally ridiculous

Yep that's Ancient India we are talking about. Present day Pakistan is part of Ancient India.

Pakistani represents Ancient India.

The origin of IVC is Ancient India. Pakistan is a part of Ancient India.

Nobody has ever called themselves "ancient Indian". This is another artificial term that you are choosing to apply and you are choosing not to acknowledge any other name because it would take away from your modern nation, which is petty and sad.

Indus Valley is the geographic name based on the river that was the main reference point for Greeks, Arabs, Persians who each had their own pronunciations/versions of the region, with Sindhu being the oldest reference.
Punjab, Sindh, Gandhara, Khyber are the local/actual ancient names
Pakistan is the modern name, also an acronym of the ancient names
India, the English pronunciation, is a misnomer, now applied to the entire subcontinent and does not represent the Indus region. We are under no obligation to use this term.

 

[Hamza913]

Firstly how did you change your name? It's a lot better than the old one really.

Secondly I never said that India is an old country and Pakistan is a new one. I am actually linking both of these countries to Ancient India. Meaning that both of these countries (present day India and present day Pakistan) are as old as humanity.



I wasn't talking about your ancestors specifically when I said 'ancestors'. I was talking about the people of Sindh. The people killed were the locals, the descendents of Ancient Indians , and hence I can call them my people. You should call them your people too.

Now picture this: An outsider had come and invaded Sindh and killed the people there. The remaining people (or most of the remaining people) gets converted to the Invader's religion, and that very invader suddenly becomes a hero!

I do not find it convincing to be honest but if you do - because of your religion - then just leave it there. Let's respect everyone's religious views here.



Obviously some people may have joined bin Qasim against the locals. But those who joined - still local - should not be more than 1% of the entire Sindh population of the time, yes? Maybe not even one percent. Or, do you seriously believe that majority (let's say 50%-80%) of the Sindh population joined Bin Qasim against Raja Dahir?



That's what I said you converted to Qasim's religion and now you are literally and islamically obliged to support bin Qasim even though he had invaded and killed Indians - your own people!

But you know what Taimur, let's leave bin Qasim for now. because it is linked to your religion and let's not talk about religion at all.



Again, the latest study for the genetics of the people of Indian subcontinent says this:

• The primary population of the BMAC was largely derived from preceding local Chalcolithic peoples and had little if any Steppe pastoralist ancestry of the type that is ubiquitous in South Asia today. Instead of being a source for South Asia, the BMAC received admixture from South Asia.

• By 1500 BCE, there were numerous individuals in the Kazakh Steppe with East Asian-related admixture, the same type of ancestry that was widespread by the Scythian period (34). This ancestry is hardly present in the two primary ancestral populations of South Asia—ANI and ASI—suggesting that Steppe ancestry widespread in South Asia derived from earlier southward movements.

I've already given the link in my previous post.

Let me remind you, these are 92 named authors who conducted this study, including scholars from Harvard, MIT, the Russian Academy of Science, the Birbal Sahni Institute of Paleosciences in Lucknow, the Deccan College, the Max Planck Institute, the Institute for Archaeological Research in Uzbekistan and the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad.

These are not some random guys really.


Cool.

You can find it on your profile page, in the username section.

Thank you for the compliment.

I do agree that we come from the same region (obviously), but I dislike lumping us all together since we are genetically and culturally fairly different, and have been ruled by different people for much of history. Even different communities among our own nations are pretty distinct from one another.

I think it would make perfect sense. If you literally believe someone is spreading God's message. It would be pretty stupid to hate such a person, especially if you know that without them, you may have never discovered what you believe is the truth.

Also, the number of locals working for Qasim was fairly substantial, the book I cited literally describes Qasim's army as swelling with locals.

Ancestry can get diluted to the point of not showing up if only a small number of your ancestors carried such genes. It happens.

The archaeological and linguistic evidence is far too strong, and there are nunerous other scientific articles supporting the Aryan migrations. Even yours doesn't really disprove it, it just proves the genetic contribution to Hindustanis is minimal (which I agree with).

 

[salam.pakistan]

Again, are you sure ?

1. The first recorded ruler of Chitral is Kanishka, a Buddhist Ruler in 3rd century BC.

Where is your source?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The origin of IVC is Ancient India. Pakistan is a part of Ancient India.

Based on what source. Please?