And what do you think the people in modern day Pakistan were before the advent of Islam??
If not Hindus or Buddhists.....what else were they??
The people of modern-day Pakistan prior to the advent and introduction of Islam primarily followed forms of Buddhism that were heavily influenced by both foreign and indigenous traditions/beliefs.
Did Muhammad bin Qasim conquer Mars or Hindu Sindh??
Sindh was not Hindu during the invasion of Muhammad bin Qasim.
Though the dynasty that ruled Sindh during this era was Hindu, the first and only Hindu dynasty of Sindh; lasting only around 80 years, and gaining power by usurping the Buddhist Rai King, the people were overwhelmingly Buddhist. Their attempts to impose the caste system and Brahmanism was met with fierce opposition and their rule was defined by constant revolts.
Hence why during the invasion of Muhammad bin Qasim, his army was inflated by locals who flocked to join him in overthrowing this oppressive dynasty.
what that land was called, its a good question. i dont have any answer.. from arab perspective, it was hind.
but others - i would like to know
conclusion - land before pakistan was never hindustan
There was no standard name for the Indus region, it had many terms that varied throughout time. Meluha, Sapta Sindhava, Aratta, Sind, etc... are among many.
Ganga...undefined by the Greeks....as far as I know.
The Gangetic region was typically referred to as Gangaridai by later Greek and Roman geographers who came to know of the region.
And what did Sindhis practice before Islam??? They practiced Hinduism so they're Hindus.
As I stated before, the people of Sindh prior to Islam's introduction were primarily Buddhist.
Buddhism came after Hinduism....please stop spreading bs...Buddhism and Hinduism co-existed in modern day Pakistan in ancient times.....and what do you think being a pagan means???
Although there were various eras and instances in which Buddhism and Hinduism coeval to each other within modern-day Pakistan. It is wrong to make the blanket assumption that they co-existed together.
Even though Hinduism in modern-day Pakistan was quite insignificant and minuscule compared to Buddhism, there were still religious tensions that were often violent. An example being the Alchon King Mihirakula, who converted to Hinduism and destroyed over a thousand stupas in Gandhara alone.
thats why you are not in this league dude..buddhism was here from before As A RELIGION....whereas hinduism existed as a CULTURE before it.
which included many things like caste and roles.
Hinduism never existed as culture.
Prior to Buddhism our ancestors primarily followed early Vedism which is distinct and even conflicting to Hinduism.
Regarding the caste system, this social structure has always been rejected by our ancestors; as seen in various historic sources. From the times of the Rigveda to the modern era, our social structure has always been centered on extended kinship with no defined or static hierarchy.
"Gangadesh" means nothing to me, me being someone from the Deccan. Even though I am an Internationalist I am irritated by someone attaching to me the badlands of UP.
So you are perfectly fine with 'India', a term originating from the Indus river. But have qualms with 'Gangadesh', referring to a region and river that is significantly closer in proximity and culture to South India?
but he wrongly says Sapta Sindhu means land of seven rivers, but it simply means "seven rivers" or more specifically the tributaries of Indus
'Sapta Sindhu' is a mistranslation and grammatically wrong, as 'Sindhu' is not plural. The correct term is 'Sapta Sindhava' and most certainly defined a geographic area.
Just as 'Punjab' today means 'Land of the Five Rivers', despite it's literal definition as 'Five waters/rivers'.
Sapta-Sindhava was used in reference to the region that held the 'Seven Rivers': Sarasvati/Haraxvati (Helmand River), Kubha (Kabul River) and the tributaries of the Indus; Shutudri/Sutlej, Parushni/Ravi, Ashikni/Chenab, Vitasta/Jhelum, Vipasha/Beas.
Vedic clans never knew anything about Punjab, or Panchanada (actual name of Punjab) this name came nearly a thousand years later.
Punjab was included under 'Sapta Sindhava' by the early Vedic Aryans; I'm not sure what you mean by 'Vedic clans never knew anything about Punjab', this is a gross fallacy.
Sindhu, Kashmira and Kambojas were not vedic Clans, Kambojas were considered 'mlecha' or outcastes.
That simply depends on what source you look at.
The divergence between the original Vedic Aryans that inhabited the Indus Region, and several of the frontier tribes (late Vedic period) that migrated into the Gangetic region, adopting much of the culture/traditions of the natives as well as mixing with them, birthed contradictory and conflicting views.
As the followers of the later 'Gangetic Vedism' had a new and different definition of what constituted 'Vedic'. The tribes of the Indus region were no longer 'Vedic' to them.
As seen in this excerpt:
“that (region) where these five rivers, emerging from the mountains flow, this Aratta (country) is called Balhika where the Arya should not stay even for two days”.
"The regions are called by the name of Aratta. The people residing there are called the Vahikas. (VIII.30.47) The lowest of brahmanas also are residing there from very remote times. They are without the Veda and without knowledge, without sacrifice and without the power to assist at other's sacrifices. They are all fallen and many amongst them have been begotten by Shudras upon other peoples' girls. The gods never accept any gifts from them. The Prasthalas, the Madras, the Gandharas, the Arattas, those called Khasas, the Vasatis, the Sindhus and the Sauviras are as blamable in their practices.'" (VIII.30.74) "
All the tribes named in that quote were the major tribes of the Indus Region. Prasthalas were located in East Punjab, Madras were based in North Punjab, Gandharas were based primarily around KPK but also extended to Afghanistan and Punjab, the Arattas is the collective name for all these peoples, the Khasas resided in Kashmir, Sindhus inhabited West Sindh and South Punjab, Sauviras made up east of Sindh and we do not know much about the Vasatis.
Carefully missed Megasthenes (290BC), who approximated the shape of India to be a close quadrilateral with sea surrounding it. Besides the Persians never determined the Boundary of their version of H or I ndia. They just considered people living beyond the River as Hindu.
As I stated before, there was no standard term; each geographer had their own definition of the region(s).
What is your confusion? Pakistan was partitioned from British India. There was no Pakistani before 1947.
Indeed, we got our independence from a product of foreign imperialism.
Though you are correct that 'Pakistani' as a nationality was non-existent prior to 1947; the name itself was conceived as a blanket term for the regions known as;
Punjab
Afghania
Kashmir
Sindh
balochis
TAN
Regions which hold thousands of years of history. To say that we 'randomly poofed' into existence in 1947, with no history or heritage, is simply fallacious.
We are the result of a federation of peoples and regions, held together by a loose affinity of culture, heritage, history, religion, geography, etc... stemming millenniums; that decided to not be a part of a 'forceful marriage', contracted by foreigners (the British).
This reply on reddit sums it up quite well.
So called Indus-Pakistanis are free to migrate to India and start practicing idol worships over their just like their pagan ancestors did.
We love our deen and there is absolutely nothing wrong in reclaiming our heritage. It's quite ironic to see psuedo-Islamists, who seven decades ago, fought tooth and nail against the creation of Pakistan and referred to Muhammad Ali Jinnah as 'Kafir e Azam' are telling us to migrate to India.
There is nothing to be proud of ancient Indus Vally which could be seen as an icon of ancient 'Jahilyat'. Not civilization.
There is everything to be proud of our heritage. You do not even recognize them as a civilization, yet they had a better sewage system than our current modern state and that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Indeed although he never used the name 'India' which is a English. In Megasthenes time even the English language hade not evolved. Also he defined a region, a geography rather than a country as we understand it today. Something like Magreb, Balkans, Europe etc
The issue is not the name or even the etymology. I only have a problem with this when citizens of the modern state Bharat use the tag 'India' to claim anything and everything that name carried from the past. That is mental gymnastics intended to apporopriate the heritage/history of a entire geography as belonging to the Bharat Republic.That is the issue. It's simple cheating.
It would be like modern Romanians claim everything Roman because they carry the name 'Roman-ia' and then tell the Italians they did not even exist 150 years ago.
Fantastic analogies.
And FYI Taxila was ruled by Ambhi who literally surrendered in front of Alexander ..so surrender seems to be genetic
Referring to Ambhi's alliance with Alexander as 'surrender' is irrational and it is quite odd and illogical to see people chastise him for doing so.
There was absolutely no way a city-state would be able to stand against the most powerful Empire of it's time, nor was there any tactical reasoning in doing so.
Taxila aligning with the Macedonians was a well-calculated and strategic move, not only did they realize that there was no attainable objective in fighting the Macedonians and even if they were able achieve victory in the slim chance, they would be at a significantly weaker footing against their adversaries to the East, they also saw the Macedonians as an opportunity to quell the unruly tribes beyond the Jhelum river.
I don't see anything wrong in doing what they had to do.
Based on Plutarch's evidence, historians state Sandrokottas Maurya(belonged to the Ashvaka (q.v.) or Assakenoi clan of Swat/Kunar valley (modern
Mer-coh or
Koh-I-Mor — the
Meros of the classical writings).
Dr D.B. Spooner, the official excavator of
Pataliputra (
Bihar),also believes that Mauryas (Chandragupta, Ashoka) were Iranians ( Journnal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1915, (Pt.II) , p.406, Dr D.B. Spooner).
Dont target the messenger.. the problme is this will destroy the akhand bharat project therefore it brings criticism from UP folks but no counter narrative.
Tipu was mixed blood his forefathers migrated to south from east punjab area.
also believes that Mauryas (Chandragupta, Ashoka) were Iranians ( Journnal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1915, (Pt.II) , p.406, Dr D.B. Spooner).
These are primarily fringe theories and there is no scholarly consensus supporting them. We shouldn't do what the Indians are doing and claim the heritage of the other country.
