The wonder that was Pakistan

[Sine Nomine]

The name of India is a corruption of the word Sindhu. Neighbouring Arabs, Iranians uttered‘s’ as ‘h’ and called this land Hindu. Greeks pronounced this name as Indus.

Sindhu is the name of the Indus River, mentioned in the Rig-Veda, one of the oldest extant Indo-European texts, composed in the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent roughly between 1700-1100 BC. There are strong linguistic and cultural similarities with the Iranian Avesta, often associated with the early culture of 2200-1600 BC.


The English term is from Greek Ἰνδία (Indía), via Latin India. Iindía in Byzantine ethnography denotes the region beyond the Indus (Ἰνδός) River, since Herodotus alluded to "Indian land". Ἰνδός, Indos, "an Indian", from Avestan Hinduš refers to Sindh and is listed as a conquered territory by Persian emperor Darius I (550-486 BC) in the Persepolis terrace inscription.

The name India was known in Old English (between at least the mid-5th century and the mid-12th century AD) and was used in King Alfred's translation of Orosius. The name was, under French influence, replaced by Ynde or Inde. It went into Early Modern English (the latter half of the 15th century to 1650 AD). Thus, Indie appeared the first edition of the King James Bible and the works of William Shakespeare - both belong to the late phase of Early Modern English. The name India then came back to English usage from the 17th century onwards, may be due to the influence of Latin, or Spanish or Portuguese.

Here is a timeline of the name beginning with the ancient Persian dynasty:
Date Name Source Definition
c. 486 BC Hidush Naksh-i-Rustam "Says Darius the King: By the grace of Ormazd these (are) the countries which I have acquired besides Persia. I have established my power over them. They have brought tribute to me. That which has been said to them by me they have done. They have obeyed my law. Medea... Arachotia (Harauvatish), Sattagydia (Thatagush), Gandaria (Gadára), India (Hidush)...."
c. 440 BC India Herodotus "Eastward of India lies a tract which is entirely sand. Indeed, of all the inhabitants of Asia, concerning whom anything is known, the Indians dwell nearest to the east, and the rising of the Sun."
c. 300 BC India/Indikē Megasthenes "India then being four-sided in plan, the side which looks to the Orient and that to the South, the Great Sea compasseth; that towards the Arctic is divided by the mountain chain of Hēmōdus from Scythia, inhabited by that tribe of Scythians who are called Sakai; and on the fourth side, turned towards the West, the Indus marks the boundary, the biggest or nearly so of all rivers after the Nile."
c. 140 AD Indoi, Indou Arrian "The boundary of the land of India towards the north is Mount Taurus. It is not still called Taurus in this land; but Taurus begins from the sea over against Pamphylia and Lycia and Cilicia; and reaches as far as the Eastern Ocean, running right across Asia. But the mountain has different names in different places; in one, Parapamisus, in another Hemodus; elsewhere it is called Imaon, and perhaps has all sorts of other names; but the Macedonians who fought with Alexander called it Caucasus; another Caucasus, that is, not the Scythian; so that the story ran that Alexander came even to the far side of the Caucasus. The western part of India is bounded by the river Indus right down to the ocean, where the river runs out by two mouths, not joined together as are the five mouths of the Ister; but like those of the Nile, by which the Egyptian delta is formed; thus also the Indian delta is formed by the river Indus, not less than the Egyptian; and this in the Indian tongue is called Pattala. Towards the south this ocean bounds the land of India, and eastward the sea itself is the boundary. The southern part near Pattala and the mouths of the Indus were surveyed by Alexander and Macedonians, and many Greeks; as for the eastern part, Alexander did not traverse this beyond the river Hyphasis. A few historians have described the parts which are this side of the Ganges and where are the mouths of the Ganges and the city of Palimbothra, the greatest Indian city on the Ganges. (...) The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name; each of these is greater than the Nile of Egypt and the Scythian Ister, even were these put together; my own idea is that even the Acesines is greater than the Ister and the Nile, where the Acesines having taken in the Hydaspes, Hydraotes, and Hyphasis, runs into the Indus, so that its breadth there becomes thirty stades. Possibly also other greater rivers run through the land of India."
c. 590 AD Hind Istakhri "As for the land of the Hind it is bounded on the East by the Persian Sea (i.e. the Indian Ocean), on the W. and S. by the countries of Islām, and on the N. by the Chinese Empire. . . . The length of the land of the Hind from the government of Mokrān, the country of Mansūra and Bodha and the rest of Sind, till thou comest to Kannūj and thence passest on to Tibet, is about 4 months, and its breadth from the Indian Ocean to the country of Kannūj about three months."
c. 650 AD Five Indies Xuanzang "The circumference of 五印 (Modern Chinese: Wǔ Yìn, the Five Indies) is about 90,000 li; on three sides it is bounded by a great sea; on the north it is backed by snowy mountains. It is wide at the north and narrow at the south; its figure is that of a half-moon."
c. 944 AD Hind, Sind Masudi "For the nonce let us confine ourselves to summary notices concerning the kings of Sind and Hind. The language of Sind is different from that of Hind. . . ."
c.1020 AD Hind Al-Birūnī "Hind is surrounded on the East by Chín and Máchín, on the West by Sind and Kábul, and on the South by the Sea."-
1205 AD Hind Hasan Nizāmī "The whole country of Hind, from Peshawar in the north, to the Indian Ocean in the south; from Sehwan (on the west bank of the Indus) to the mountains on the east dividing from China."
1298 AD India the Greater
India the Minor
Middle India Marco Polo "India the Greater is that which extends from Maabar to Kesmacoran (i.e. from Coromandel to Mekran), and it contains 13 great kingdoms. . . . India the Lesser extends from the Province of Champa to Mutfili (i.e. from Cochin-China to the Kistna Delta), and contains 8 great Kingdoms. . . . Abash (Abyssinia) is a very great province, and you must know that it constitutes the Middle India."
c. 1328 AD India Friar Jordanus "What shall I say? The great- ness of this India is beyond description. But let this much suffice concerning India the Greater and the Less. Of India Tertia I will say this, that I have not indeed seen its many marvels, not having been there. . . ."
1404 AD India Minor Clavijo "And this same Thursday that the said Ambassadors arrived at this great River (the Oxus) they crossed to the other side. And the same day . . . came in the evening to a great city which is called Tenmit (Termez), and this used to belong to India Minor, but now belongs to the empire of Samarkand, having been conquered by Tamurbec."
https://www.ancient.eu/article/203/etymology-of-the-name-india/

 

[peagle]

Bharat was the name of a king in Rig Veda who was later mythologized in the later quasi-historical epic of Mahabharata...(which according to Harvard Historians a retelling of the Battle of Ten Kings, a real historical battle) This epic was spread throughout India as history during the Gupta Empire from 320 AD along with the Ramayana...Most people started having a national self-consciousness because of that epic...This is the reason why the Islamic Empire stopped at the gates of France and India...because the Franks and the Indians had a fierce sense of national identity......other people from Spain to Sindh welcomed the Arab invasion because they lacked a sense of national identity and were hungry for the civilization, language,script, culture and religion that the Arabs were bringing..

Arrian's Anabapsis contains that definition and that book is considered Holy Grail when it comes to Alexander and his campaigns




I would compltely agree with you his timeline is off and the map is grossly exaggerated...proper accredited academic historical mappers like Schwartzberg give Chach a much smaller area...I liked the map because it was aesthetic and clean and OP gave his own reasons for the borders

The Arab Caliphate was well on the borders of Sindh bearing down by 644 AD

Battle of Rasil

after this Sindh would be permanently out of Hindu control other than a successful raid in 860 AD by the Kalachuris to finance their war with the Gurjara Pratihara kingdom

What did you just write? sorry to say but it is a bunch of nonsense. So far your contributions made some sense, but this is pure fantasy.

You just answered my statement by repeating what I said. The Rig Vida and Mahabharata are religious literature, and cannot be used as historical fact. So Bharat is a religious methodological figure being claimed by a secular country.

Historically, people did not have a national identity or they would be speaking a single language, language is the basis of any ethnic identity. They were concerned with their caste, ethnic and linguistic identity etc, just like Europe. There is a wider European cultural identity but not a National European identity. There was no Hindu identity, as Hindu is also a foreign name. You were known by your caste, not by the Hindu religion, Hindu is a new identity adopted in the modern age.

Seriously, you guys need to come out of this fantasy, once this happens, we can start to live with our shared cultural identity while accepting a factual past. The Islamic empire ruled over the Indian region for nearly a thousand years, what do you mean they stopped. The Franks speak the same language, and have an actual ethnic identity, YOU DO NOT.

Even after 70 years of modern Indian nationhood, the Dravidian South does not accept Hindi as a single language and fiercely protect their separate identity, as does North-East India, as do the Maratha, the Gujarati, the Bengali, and the Adivasi tribes and few others I could mention. If you don't have a clear national identity now, how can you make a claim to a historical identity, especially one that is based on loose facts?

Please accept facts, only then we can move towards a peaceful shared future. This fantasy thinking is breeding hatred in India and you are seeing the results. Just look at Europe as an example, they had peace only when they started to accept each other based on facts, not personal prejudice.

 

[Sine Nomine]

.This is the reason why the Islamic Empire stopped at the gates of France and India...

Bus kar dai bahi kitna Jhoot boley ga,Islam is religion of almost 40% poplation of South-Asia.

because the Franks and the Indians had a fierce sense of national identity......

Franks were saved by the fact that Muslim storms were already coming to halt and by 750 AD Arabs were done with wars.
Mate cook stories which have some value,this region was first called India by Euros,this nationalism was dead during hundred years of Turko-Iranian and Brit ruling but came to life after Brits gave Hindus something to cailm known as India and brag about it after 1947.

Historically, people did not have a national identity or they would be speaking a single language, language is the basis of any ethnic identity.

Funny thing is that,this nationalism was pretty dead from 700 AD to 1947 AD.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

What did you just write? sorry to say but it is a bunch of nonsense. So far your contributions made some sense, but this is pure fantasy.

You just answered my statement by repeating what I said. The Rig Vida and Mahabharata are religious literature, and cannot be used as historical fact. So Bharat is a religious methodological figure being claimed by a secular country.

Historically, people did not have a national identity or they would be speaking a single language, language is the basis of any ethnic identity. They were concerned with their caste, ethnic and linguistic identity etc, just like Europe. There is a wider European cultural identity but not a National European identity. There was no Hindu identity, as Hindu is also a foreign name. You were known by your caste, not by the Hindu religion, Hindu is a new identity adopted in the modern age.

Seriously, you guys need to come out of this fantasy, once this happens, we can start to live with our shared cultural identity while accepting a factual past. The Islamic empire ruled over the Indian region for nearly a thousand years, what do you mean they stopped. The Franks speak the same language, and have an actual ethnic identity, YOU DO NOT.

Even after 70 years of modern Indian nationhood, the Dravidian South does not accept Hindi as a single language and fiercely protect their separate identity, as does North-East India, as do the Maratha, the Gujarati, the Bengali, and the Adivasi tribes and few others I could mention. If you don't have a clear national identity now, how can you make a claim to a historical identity, especially one that is based on loose facts?

Please accept facts, only then we can move towards a peaceful shared future. This fantasy thinking is breeding hatred in India and you are seeing the results. Just look at Europe as an example, they had peace only when they started to accept each other based on facts, not personal prejudice.

Hinduism is an ethnic marker not a religious marker..there are crores of irreligious Hindus..I am an atheist Hindu..Hinduism has provisions for atheism...Hinduism is more like Judaism,Shinto--->it's an ethnic religion...It's damn near impossible to convert into Hinduism..just like it's completely impossible to convert into Zoroastrianism

Hinduism just means the aggregrate culture of the people of the subcontinent..that's it...and as far as Islamic conquest of India is concerned it was 1000 years for Sindh...but for the parts of India that had a strong cultural identity and felt no need for the Arab civilizing project it was much less....Islamic empires in India never gained stability till Akbar..and that too only in North India..South and the far East continued the glorious resistance ...till the rise of the Marathas when Hindus finally sacked the Mughal Capital in 1737

It was a much bigger version of the Reconquista played out over a much larger territory....We have called the land Bharata Varsha in our literature since time immemorial...but if you still want a date then the bhuvan Kosha section of each of the Puranas which date from 200 BC to 500 AD

The land and its people have been well defined for at least 2,200 years

Now please do tell me what did the Pakistanis self designate themselves as pre-Islam or heck even post Islam
What common language were they speaking pre -Islam as well as post Islam

 

[peagle]

Hinduism is an ethnic marker not a religious marker..there are crores of irreligious Hindus..I am an atheist Hindu..Hinduism has provisions for atheism...Hinduism is more like Judaism,Shinto--->it's an ethnic religion...It's damn near impossible to convert into Hinduism..just like it's completely impossible to convert into Zoroastrianism

Hinduism just means the aggregrate culture of the people of the subcontinent..that's it...and as far as Islamic conquest of India is concerned it was 1000 years for Sindh...but for the parts of India that had a strong cultural identity and felt no need for the Arab civilizing project it was much less....Islamic empires in India never gained stability till Akbar..and that too only in North India..South and the far East continued the glorious resistance ...till the rise of the Marathas when Hindus finally sacked the Mughal Capital in 1737

It was a much bigger version of the Reconquista played out over a much larger territory....We have called the land Bharata Varsha in our literature since time immemorial...but if you still want a date then the bhuvan Kosha section of each of the Puranas which date from 200 BC to 500 AD

The land and its people have been well defined for at least 2,200 years

Now please do tell me what did the Pakistanis self designate themselves as pre-Islam or heck even post Islam
What common language were they speaking pre -Islam as well as post Islam

Seriously, you guys need to stop drinking bhang, it is starting to show. In which RSS/BJP/HINDU fantasy does this make sense, do you not hear yourself before making these claims.

There are two Hindu identities, a modern one which is very clear and obviously a religious identity, a religious marker, recognized as one of the world religions. So only applies to people who profess a certain belief system, which includes idol worship, castism, and reincarnation, etc...

The second, an ANCIENT HINDU identity, in actuality THERE WAS NONE, as the name Hindu was created by foreigners, to refer to a group of people who had no self-identified name for themselves. Historically, Hinduism was a set religious belief without a central authority so never developed a unitary self till the modern age. It was not a marker or identity or anything of the kind.

I refuse to answer your other fantasies as seriously you guys need help, so shamelessly spewing out lies as history. Your constitution recognizes Sikhs as Hindus, I know so many Sikhs and they hate you for it. They hate being recognized as Hindus. Please stop your fantasies.

With regards to your questions about Pakistan. The first question just does not make sense. Human society has always been in the process of evolution, both in the religious sense and secular sense. Clearly there was a period when people of the Indus region were not aware of Islam, and when they became aware. they adapted it. So the pre and post reference applies to the period before Islam and after. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? Or do you prefer to stick with fantasies?

Unlike you lot, we are not stuck in our fantasies, we deal with facts. We have never claimed an ethnic Pakistani identity, we make a claim to National Identity and a shared historical identity.

UNLIKE INDIA, ALL THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED UDRU AS A UNITARY LANGUAGE, IN A HUNDRED YEAR OR SO, WE WILL BE ABLE TO CLAIM AN ETHNIC PAKISTANI IDENTITY AS WELL. Because URDU WOULD HAVE ENTRENCHED ITSELF AMONG THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN, ADDING TO OUR SHARED CULTURAL and RELIGIOUS VALUES. Language, Culture and Religious dogma once established lay the basis of ethnic identity. Pakistan is far ahead of creating this ethnic identity then India.

People do not wake up one day and decide they are Bengali, Punjabi or Tamil. That identity is solidified over time with a shared language, culture, and religious values. It is a process, and Pakistan is far ahead in this process than India. You have no modern shared identity, how do you lot make claims to a historical one?

Please leave you fantasies

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Seriously, you guys need to stop drinking bhang, it is starting to show. In which RSS/BJP/HINDU fantasy does this make sense, do you not hear yourself before making these claims.

There are two Hindu identities, a modern one which is very clear and obviously a religious identity, a religious marker, recognized as one of the world religions. So only applies to people who profess a certain belief system, which includes idol worship, castism, and reincarnation, etc...

The second, an ANCIENT HINDU identity, in actuality THERE WAS NONE, as the name Hindu was created by foreigners, to refer to a group of people who had no self-identified name for themselves. Historically, Hinduism was a set religious belief without a central authority so never developed a unitary self till the modern age. It was not a marker or identity or anything of the kind.

I refuse to answer your other fantasies as seriously you guys need help, so shamelessly spewing out lies as history. Your constitution recognizes Sikhs as Hindus, I know so many Sikhs and they hate you for it. They hate being recognized as Hindus. Please stop your fantasies.

With regards to your questions about Pakistan. The first question just does not make sense. Human society has always been in the process of evolution, both in the religious sense and secular sense. Clearly there was a period when people of the Indus region were not aware of Islam, and when they became aware. they adapted it. So the pre and post reference applies to the period before Islam and after. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? Or do you prefer to stick with fantasies?

Unlike you lot, we are not stuck in our fantasies, we deal with facts. We have never claimed an ethnic Pakistani identity, we make a claim to National Identity and a shared historical identity.

UNLIKE INDIA, ALL THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED UDRU AS A UNITARY LANGUAGE, IN A HUNDRED YEAR OR SO, WE WILL BE ABLE TO CLAIM AN ETHNIC PAKISTANI IDENTITY AS WELL. Because URDU WOULD HAVE ENTRENCHED ITSELF AMONG THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN, ADDING TO OUR SHARED CULTURAL and RELIGIOUS VALUES. Language, Culture and Religious dogma once established lay the basis of ethnic identity. Pakistan is far ahead of creating this ethnic identity then India.

People do not wake up one day and decide they are Bengali, Punjabi or Tamil. That identity is solidified over time with a shared language, culture, and religious values. It is a process, and Pakistan is far ahead in this process than India. You have no modern shared identity, how do you lot make claims to a historical one?

Please leave you fantasies

so this means you donot have an identity and use an Indian language to impose it...you mean to say people won't be using pashtun, baloch,punjabi,hindko anymore? why would you wipe out native languages and impose an artificial language that uses Hindu grammar

 

[peagle]

so this means you donot have an identity and use an Indian language to impose it...you mean to say people won't be using pashtun, baloch,punjabi,hindko anymore? why would you wipe out native languages and impose an artificial language that uses Hindu grammar

Seriously when will the stupidity stop, honestly please I am very worried about you guys.

Identity comes in different forms, cultural, religious, linguistic, national, regional, local, I could go on. Pakistan has all of the above except, now please pay attention, except for ethnic identity. This identity is developing and entrenching and becoming stronger with time. Like I said we deal with facts not fantasies like you.

Are you seriously going to tell me being an Indian is an ethnic identity? India does not have an ethnic identity, linguistic identity, a religious identity. WHAT DO YOU HAVE EXCEPT FANTASIES. You only have a national identity based on English (foreign language) as that is the only language everyone will accept.

Again stupidity at work, when did I say people will stop using Punjabi, Balochi or otherwise, I clearly said when Urdu becomes entrenched, what form it may take I do not know as I do not know the future nor do I deal with fantasies, I leave that you guys.

In my wider family, I have Punjabi, Pathan, Kashmiri, and Sindhi members who all accept Urdu as part of their identity while being able to speak Punjabi, Pasto, Kashmiri, and Sindhi.
Urdu came from Mughal heritage and heritage of Muslims of South Asia, it has never been, nor is it today foreign to us.

Hindu Grammer?????????????????????????????????????? you are clearly out of your mind.

 

[El Sidd]

Glorious second Pakistani Empire, Zweites Pakistanisches Reich ---->before being overrun by enemies

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Are you going to vote for AfD?

 

[halupridol]

@Juggernaut_is_here

What r u upto man?

I mean what is so glorious??

Perhaps u mean,,glorious like to rajput bhayyes

BTW yes,,I whole heartedly agree,,it needs one to be extraordinarily "brave" n "ghairatmand" above n beyond average human capacity to be subjugated by each n every other aira ghaira natthu khaira on horseback for milleniums.
Absolutely especial.

Bharat was the name of a king in Rig Veda who was later mythologized in the later quasi-historical epic of Mahabharata...(which according to Harvard Historians a retelling of the Battle of Ten Kings, a real historical battle) This epic was spread throughout India as history during the Gupta Empire from 320 AD along with the Ramayana...Most people started having a national self-consciousness because of that epic...This is the reason why the Islamic Empire stopped at the gates of France and India...because the Franks and the Indians had a fierce sense of national identity......other people from Spain to Sindh welcomed the Arab invasion because they lacked a sense of national identity and were hungry for the civilization, language,script, culture and religion that the Arabs were bringing..

Arrian's Anabapsis contains that definition and that book is considered Holy Grail when it comes to Alexander and his campaigns




I would compltely agree with you his timeline is off and the map is grossly exaggerated...proper accredited academic historical mappers like Schwartzberg give Chach a much smaller area...I liked the map because it was aesthetic and clean and OP gave his own reasons for the borders

The Arab Caliphate was well on the borders of Sindh bearing down by 644 AD

Battle of Rasil

after this Sindh would be permanently out of Hindu control other than a successful raid in 860 AD by the Kalachuris to finance their war with the Gurjara Pratihara kingdom

Lolz just stop it.
U r implying wht normally one expects frm north indians,,i.e. We was defiant n bravely secured other Indians frm invaders.
When the truth is our bhayyas had no qualms cleaning foreign tatti for hundred years alongside martial race.
Invader tatti was prasad for thm,,,i think,shayad do rupaye jyada dete honge invaders,,isiliye.
Its somthng like how the neighbours claim being martial,arab,turkic,persian,central asian,neaderthal farmers n such,,,,,despite there "glorious" past.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Are you going to vote for AfD?

I am Atheist Leftist

@Juggernaut_is_here

What r u upto man?

I mean what is so glorious??

Perhaps u mean,,glorious like to rajput bhayyes

BTW yes,,I whole heartedly agree,,it needs one to be extraordinarily "brave" n "ghairatmand" above n beyond average human capacity to be subjugated by each n every other aira ghaira natthu khaira on horseback for milleniums.
Absolutely especial.


Lolz just stop it.
U r implying wht normally one expects frm north indians,,i.e. We was defiant n bravely secured other Indians frm invaders.
When the truth is our bhayyas had no qualms cleaning foreign tatti for hundred years alongside martial race.
Invader tatti was prasad for thm,,,i think,shayad do rupaye jyada dete honge invaders,,isiliye.
Its somthng like how the neighbours claim martiality despite there "glorious" past.

well Ahom,Vijaynagaris,Marathas drove the reconquest...with the only notable North Indian Reconquista being from the Sikhs

 

[halupridol]

I am Atheist Leftist




well Ahom,Vijaynagaris,Marathas drove the reconquest...with the only notable North Indian Reconquista being from the Sikhs

I am Atheist Leftist




well Ahom,Vijaynagaris,Marathas drove the reconquest...with the only notable North Indian Reconquista being from the Sikhs

Hey come on,,other thn Sikhs nobody martial,,,afterall only bhayya martial,,non bhayya only understand culture,ghairat n stuff,,,after brave martials showed it to thm after consuming invader prasad.
Ps- what about cholas,,,the true conquerors from south asia.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Seriously when will the stupidity stop, honestly please I am very worried about you guys.

Identity comes in different forms, cultural, religious, linguistic, national, regional, local, I could go on. Pakistan has all of the above except, now please pay attention, except for ethnic identity. This identity is developing and entrenching and becoming stronger with time. Like I said we deal with facts not fantasies like you.

Are you seriously going to tell me being an Indian is an ethnic identity? India does not have an ethnic identity, linguistic identity, a religious identity. WHAT DO YOU HAVE EXCEPT FANTASIES. You only have a national identity based on English (foreign language) as that is the only language everyone will accept.

Again stupidity at work, when did I say people will stop using Punjabi, Balochi or otherwise, I clearly said when Urdu becomes entrenched, what form it may take I do not know as I do not know the future nor do I deal with fantasies, I leave that you guys.

In my wider family, I have Punjabi, Pathan, Kashmiri, and Sindhi members who all accept Urdu as part of their identity while being able to speak Punjabi, Pasto, Kashmiri, and Sindhi.
Urdu came from Mughal heritage and heritage of Muslims of South Asia, it has never been, nor is it today foreign to us.

Hindu Grammer?????????????????????????????????????? you are clearly out of your mind.

I am sorry your wider fam ain't Pakistan...you strike me as a Pakistani Urdu Speaker...Urdu is a language that is not native to the land of Pakistan...just stop it

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-...of-punjab-by-the-british-colonialists.641767/

your Pak brethrens donot like Urdu, its a Gangu construct for them...100 years back no urdu in Pakistan...you might as well use English,German or Mandarin....

 

[El Sidd]

I am Atheist Leftist

What has this to do with the below quoted question?

Are you going to vote for AfD?

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Hey come on,,other thn Sikhs nobody martial,,,afterall only bhayya martial.
Ps- what about cholas,,,the true conquerors from south asia.

they came up to West Bengal..defeated the Palas..colonized Andamans...had established dominance over a significant chunk of maritime SE Asia

What has this to do with the below quoted question?

Nein. Kein AfD für mich

 

[El Sidd]

Nein. Kein AfD für

What is your obsession with 1000 year and Reich?

Son of soil or native versus foreigner ideology seems to be something you have common with AfD.

Maybe it's just Indira in you that make you say something and act differently