We are a part of India: Bangladeshi finance minister Mustafa Kamal

[SABRE]

In historical times a Pathan was no longer regarded as Pathan once he crossed the three Khaibar, Bolan and Gulan pass. It was more so when he crossed attock. He became a Hindustani. The words India or Hindustan are interchangeable and the British did not invent India.

Probably reading Megasthenes will let you know about the name of India during the time of Alexander.

The word India was used by Greeks to refer to the lands where Indus flows, which is modern day Pakistan in its entirety. They actual terminology was Indika, driven from Sanskrit word Sindhu = Indus River. Alexander's army never crossed over from Indika (modern day Pakistan) into what is now Bharat (using this terminology for distinction sake). Even the Greeko-Bactrians and Indo-Greeks seldom marched beyond the lands of Indus.

When Darius-I of Achaemenid empire conquered the Indus basin he further twisted the words Indus/Sindhu to Hindus or Hindush and added 'stan' to it, thus Indus/Sindhu became Hindustan.

The Arabs made a slight variation. They used the term Hind-wa-Sindh as mentioned in Chachnama, with Sindh encompassing Sindh pronvince+South Punjab/Siraki belt+large chunks of Balochistan, and Hind being regions around Sindh. Much like the Greeks and Persians the Arab armies limited their operations to Sindh & Hind (modern day Pakistan). They seldom crossed over, if ever.

Based on the above, Pakistan is the actual India and Hindustan. Modern day India is neither India/Indika/Sindhu nor Hindustan. The largely unified state of India that exists today only came to be under the British. Thus, going by this logic, Bangladeshis can be Bharatis but not Indians or Hindustanis. On the other hand, after fighting Pakistan both politically and militarily to preserve their identity Bangladeshis suddenly want to give it up for becoming Bharatis? (I am asking this out of genuine curiosity. No malice or sarcasm intended).

 

[Old School]

In historical times a Pathan was no longer regarded as Pathan once he crossed the three Khaibar, Bolan and Gulan pass. It was more so when he crossed attock. He became a Hindustani. The words India or Hindustan are interchangeable and the British did not invent India.

Probably reading Megasthenes will let you know about the name of India during the time of Alexander.

Historical India was loosely regarded a geographic area without a well defined boundary. It was not a political entity. Neither a state.

 

[bluesky]

N

The word India was used by Greeks to refer to the lands where Indus flows, which is modern day Pakistan in its entirety. They actual terminology was Indika, driven from Sanskrit word Sindhu = Indus River. Alexander's army never crossed over from Indika (modern day Pakistan) into what is now Bharat (using this terminology for distinction sake). Even the Greeko-Bactrians and Indo-Greeks seldom marched beyond the lands of Indus.

When Darius-I of Achaemenid empire conquered the Indus basin he further twisted the words Indus/Sindhu to Hindus or Hindush and added 'stan' to it, thus Indus/Sindhu became Hindustan.

The Arabs made a slight variation. They used the term Hind-wa-Sindh as mentioned in Chachnama, with Sindh encompassing Sindh pronvince+South Punjab/Siraki belt+large chunks of Balochistan, and Hind being regions around Sindh. Much like the Greeks and Persians the Arab armies limited their operations to Sindh & Hind (modern day Pakistan). They seldom crossed over, if ever.

Based on the above, Pakistan is the actual India and Hindustan. Modern day India is neither India/Indika/Sindhu nor Hindustan. The largely unified state of India that exists today only came to be under the British. Thus, going by this logic, Bangladeshis can be Bharatis but not Indians or Hindustanis. On the other hand, after fighting Pakistan both politically and militarily to preserve their identity Bangladeshis suddenly want to give it up for becoming Bharatis? (I am asking this out of genuine curiosity. No malice or sarcasm intended).

ames of a land changes with time. You just cannot attribute a single name for a particular land. There was a time when India was used to any point south of the Himalayas that also included present south-east Asia. But, you are talking of many agaes with many names. The last time present India (Bharat), Pakistan and Bangladesh were combinedly called Hindustan or India was before the partition of 1947. We must refer to this point and not going after many different definitions.

How about the name Saudi Arabia as if it is a personal fiefdom of the Saud family? If you go back to history you will see many areas were called in different names which have value only in history and not with the present. But, to deny Pakistan was a part of greater India is a myth you guys are trying without a base. Especially, Punjab was ruled by a Sovereign only during the time Ranjit Singh.

Historical India was loosely regarded a geographic area without a well defined boundary. It was not a political entity. Neither a state.

However, there was no land in historical times that was called Pakistan that encompasses the present land. East of the three mountain passes was always called Hindustan (not Bharat or India) by the people living in their west in Central Asia and Afghanistan. How can you deny it?

Similarly, the land east of Tiliagiri and Sakragiri Pass was regarded as Bengal even though this part was also regarded as Hindustan by others. And boundary always changed or is still changing. If we go back too far behind everything goes fuzzy and misty.

 

[Old School]

N

ames of a land changes with time. You just cannot attribute a single name for a particular land. There was a time when India was used to any point south of the Himalayas that also included present south-east Asia. But, you are talking of many agaes with many names. The last time present India (Bharat), Pakistan and Bangladesh were combinedly called Hindustan or India was before the partition of 1947. We must refer to this point and not going after many different definitions.

How about the name Saudi Arabia as if it is a personal fiefdom of the Saud family? If you go back to history you will see many areas were called in different names which have value only in history and not with the present. But, to deny Pakistan was a part of greater India is a myth you guys are trying without a base. Especially, Punjab was ruled by a Sovereign only during the time Ranjit Singh.


However, there was no land in historical times that was called Pakistan that encompasses the present land. East of the three mountain passes was always called Hindustan (not Bharat or India) by the people living in their west in Central Asia and Afghanistan. How can you deny it?

Similarly, the land east of Tiliagiri and Sakragiri Pass was regarded as Bengal even though this part was also regarded as Hindustan by others. And boundary always changed or is still changing. If we go back too far behind everything goes fuzzy and misty.

Bengal came into being during Bengal Sultanate while the name Hindustan took official status during emperor Akbar. yet, Bengal never implied Bengali speakers' homeland. it was also a geographic entity. Prior to Muslim conquest , neither Sena nor Pala dynasties used the name Bengal as a political entity.
The current Indian and Bengali identities are undoubtedly creation of Fort William in Calcutta which were assisted by local Hindu upper castes.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, the Muslims of East Bengal actively took part in the Pakistan movement.

 

[Adonis]

The IVC per se, WAS NOT in the area that is modern day india as the River Indus runs through Pakistan. Not india. That was another civilisation that existed around the time of the IVC but WAS NOT a part if it.

Please refer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation

Excerpt from the above link
"The Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) extended from Pakistan's Balochistan in the west to India's western Uttar Pradesh in the east, from northeastern Afghanistan in the north to India's Gujarat state in the south.[24] The largest number of sites are in Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir states in India,[24] and Sindh, Punjab, and Balochistan provinces in Pakistan.[24] Coastal settlements extended from Sutkagan Dor[37] in Western Baluchistan to Lothal[38] in Gujarat. An Indus Valley site has been found on the Oxus River at Shortugai in northern Afghanistan,[39] in the Gomal River valley in northwestern Pakistan,[40] at Manda, Jammu on the Beas River near Jammu,[41] India, and at Alamgirpur on the Hindon River, only 28 km from Delhi.[42] The southern most site of the Indus valley civilisation is Daimabad in Maharashtra. Indus Valley sites have been found most often on rivers, but also on the ancient seacoast,[43] for example, Balakot,[44] and on islands, for example, Dholavira.[45]".

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

In historical times a Pathan was no longer regarded as Pathan once he crossed the three Khaibar, Bolan and Gulan pass. It was more so when he crossed attock. He became a Hindustani

Wrong, there are no differences with Pukhtoons (Pathan is not the proper term) on both sides of the border. They don't magically become another race by crossing some mountain passes.

People of Hazara, of which Attock is a part, are largely Hindko speakers (mixed Punjabi-Pukhto dialect.)

Hindustani is only an archaic term for Urdu and its butchered successor, Hindi.

Don't speak about things you don't know.

N

ames of a land changes with time. You just cannot attribute a single name for a particular land. There was a time when India was used to any point south of the Himalayas that also included present south-east Asia. But, you are talking of many agaes with many names. The last time present India (Bharat), Pakistan and Bangladesh were combinedly called Hindustan or India was before the partition of 1947. We must refer to this point and not going after many different definitions.

How about the name Saudi Arabia as if it is a personal fiefdom of the Saud family? If you go back to history you will see many areas were called in different names which have value only in history and not with the present. But, to deny Pakistan was a part of greater India is a myth you guys are trying without a base. Especially, Punjab was ruled by a Sovereign only during the time Ranjit Singh.


However, there was no land in historical times that was called Pakistan that encompasses the present land. East of the three mountain passes was always called Hindustan (not Bharat or India) by the people living in their west in Central Asia and Afghanistan. How can you deny it?

Similarly, the land east of Tiliagiri and Sakragiri Pass was regarded as Bengal even though this part was also regarded as Hindustan by others. And boundary always changed or is still changing. If we go back too far behind everything goes fuzzy and misty.

Please stop talking about Pakistani history when you have no idea about what you are talking about.

Prophet Muhammad saws referred to Pakistan as Sindh and modern India as Hind. The Arabs knew the distinction between the two.

Even for Hindu brahmans of modern India before Islam, they were forbidden to reside in modern Pakistan/Afghanistan for more than a few days due to us being Aryans/Iranics who rejected the caste system and consumed beef.

Not even to mention our lineage from Scythians. Hepthalites, Greeks, Persians, Turks which we do not share with Indians.

 

[killerx]

Not sure if this thread was created to ask a question? we knew the answer since the creation of Pakistan.

 

[doorstar]

@bluesky its best to let history revisionists cope however they want to with seeing the 90,000 surrender (after big mard-e-momin promises of 1000 year pak-reich in bengal) and get marched into aukat lessons (tail between legs) in the Dhaka maidans. It plays in their head every day and is entrenched there now.

That is what fundamentally shapes and controls their sad bitter and worthless psyche now....so why try too hard to shake them out of their delusional state?....its a coping mechanism in the end....they will cling to it no matter what.

They absolutely hate (and deny and reject) what the published peer-reviewed literature says on the matter for a reason....and thus they have to life their life under these wretched conditions where they are mocked if they surface anywhere of note for actual debate on the matter. Please spare them some pity. They have pavlovian response at root, its why they did operation searchlight in first place. Then on top they are blind to their own hypocrisy when giving sermons to others on whatever "oppression" related matter.

hm... so all Pakistanis are Pavlov's dogs? had I said something half as bad about bharat, BD, turkey or Iran, The Eagle would be here like lightening (unless some even speedier but anonymous mod erases the post before he can get here.

 

[Nilgiri]

hm... so all Pakistanis are Pavlov's dogs? had I said something half as bad about bharat, BD, turkey or Iran, The Eagle would be here like lightening (unless some even speedier but anonymous mod erases the post before he can get here.

You can make whatever connections and extrapolations you want to.

I was addressing the revisionist psyche and coping mechanism among some. Where did I assert that applies to an entire nation of people?

 

[Super Falcon]

Tjan let hindus hungry rape ur mothers and sisters

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Please refer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation

Excerpt from the above link
"The Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) extended from Pakistan's Balochistan in the west to India's western Uttar Pradesh in the east, from northeastern Afghanistan in the north to India's Gujarat state in the south.[24] The largest number of sites are in Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir states in India,[24] and Sindh, Punjab, and Balochistan provinces in Pakistan.[24] Coastal settlements extended from Sutkagan Dor[37] in Western Baluchistan to Lothal[38] in Gujarat. An Indus Valley site has been found on the Oxus River at Shortugai in northern Afghanistan,[39] in the Gomal River valley in northwestern Pakistan,[40] at Manda, Jammu on the Beas River near Jammu,[41] India, and at Alamgirpur on the Hindon River, only 28 km from Delhi.[42] The southern most site of the Indus valley civilisation is Daimabad in Maharashtra. Indus Valley sites have been found most often on rivers, but also on the ancient seacoast,[43] for example, Balakot,[44] and on islands, for example, Dholavira.[45]".

Can you provide a genuine, credible, reliable and honest source to justify your claims? Wikipedia is prone to being edited with false facts by 100s of millions of indians.

 

[bluesky]

hm... so all Pakistanis are Pavlov's dogs? had I said something half as bad about bharat, BD, turkey or Iran, The Eagle would be here like lightening (unless some even speedier but anonymous mod erases the post before he can get here.

Was @Nilgiri answering to your whimper? Why unhappy and what makes you reporting instead of becoming an English tiger that your pretentious flags show. Better talk like a man and answer @Nilgiri's comments. Is not it a discussion forum?

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

@bluesky its best to let history revisionists cope however they want to with seeing the 90,000 surrender (after big mard-e-momin promises of 1000 year pak-reich in bengal) and get marched into aukat lessons (tail between legs) in the Dhaka maidans. It plays in their head every day and is entrenched there now.

That is what fundamentally shapes and controls their sad bitter and worthless psyche now....so why try too hard to shake them out of their delusional state?....its a coping mechanism in the end....they will cling to it no matter what.

They absolutely hate (and deny and reject) what the published peer-reviewed literature says on the matter for a reason....and thus they have to life their life under these wretched conditions where they are mocked if they surface anywhere of note for actual debate on the matter. Please spare them some pity. They have pavlovian response at root, its why they did operation searchlight in first place. Then on top they are blind to their own hypocrisy when giving sermons to others on whatever "oppression" related matter.

@waz @Dubious @WAJsal @Horus @Irfan Baloch

Please note the trolling. The hyper-ugly little weiner men are at it again.........

 

[bluesky]

@waz @Dubious @WAJsal @Horus @Irfan Baloch

Please note the trolling. The hyper-ugly little weiner men are at it again.........

No, @Nilgiri is defending the historical truth when some other posters are trying to deviate from the truth. You better ask them not to troll and lie without thinking that everyone else knows the truth.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

No, @Nilgiri is defending the historical truth when some other posters are trying to deviate from the truth. You better ask them not to troll and lie without thinking that everyone else knows the truth.

The truth of 50,000 Pakistani troops obliterating 3 million bengalis and raping 10 million bengali women in 6 weeks in 1971 as per indian/bengali claims...................do you have ANY evidence to back up those "truths".........