What is 'Civilizational Continuity'?

[Rig Vedic]

I note with great appreciation the significant improvement in your basic research. Rather than depend on a combined team of a mathematician, a mountebank and a banker, you are now on a higher plane. Might one dare to describe it as a higher astral plane, since you have now summoned the stars to your support? So we have an eminent astrophysicist teaching us history. One of these days, you will persuade an historian to promote your ideas if you keep on at this promising rate.

Abhayankar makes one mention of Agastya vis-a-vis the Rg Veda, that Agastya is the Author (no ifs, buts or maybes) of twenty-five hymns in the First Mandala of the Rg Veda. And that is it. The article is worth reading in detail, just to see how the author ties himself up in knots reconciling the irreconcilable. But that is it. A bland statement, one sentence, in an article on astrophysics in a science journal, and there it is. Case proven.

Looking up our learned author's other publications is an interesting exercise, left to the reader.

My good man, again you spend all your time attacking somebody or the other. Read the relevant verses, find Agastya in the hoary Rig Veda itself. The implications I will not repeat, you may go back and read what was spelled out earlier.

And hello, not amounting to anything ecumenical, restricted to Hindu, not referenced by - did I say this before? - Buddhist, Jain or Sikh. The purpose of using Indic is to indicate the dichotomy between Semitic and other faith system; originating in, or rooted in India, has a perfectly good word in English, which is Indian.

Who says the word Indic can only be used in the context of religion?

Irrelevant points like the movement out of India, or out of Central Asia having occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago? Interesting. You do realize that the record of these conversations are there for all to see.

The estimates you cite may or may not be well founded. The point is that there has been no impact on the Indian gene pool from any reverse flow from Central Asia (apart from the relatively small Muslim Ashraf caste, I suppose).

 

[Joe Shearer]

Where is the scientific evidence that the people of IVC picked up and shifted en masse to the south?

In the absence of conclusive genetic evidence to the contrary, the logical approach is to treat any group as static, albeit with immigrant infusions over time. We also have absolutely no issue with having incorporated various waves of migration. That is the norm in human civilizations.

It was VSDoc himself who pointed out that there was a genetic 'event' sometime in the period 3500 to 1200 BC., or am I getting senile?

It appears that there was a clash of peoples; that one language system, Dravidian, was displaced permanently by another, Vedic Sanskrit; that some people, it may be surmised, may have moved away, others may have stayed on, but this part is pure speculation, we really do not know. The first two clauses are fact, though, from what we know, and should be our working hypothesis until some different facts are established.

You are arguing backwards from a predetermined conclusion. Political boundaries are always fluid and have changed numerous times over the millenia. Modern political boundaries do not constrain history. Whatever justifications were or were not made for this particular setup is irrelevant. We are not saying we are inheritors of IVC because we are Muslim -- that claim is just as wrong as the claim that we can't be. We are making that claim because the land is where it is; the people are who we are; and the history of the land and the people remains inviolate regardless of shifting political boundaries.

You are right, it just so happens that the current State of Pakistan happens to encompass most of the ancient IVC and the land of Panini, etc. But so what? We are the people who have lived here for millenia. That history is ours and would be ours regardless of political boundaries. Just as the history of ancient Tamils belongs to the Tamil people in perpetuity, whether they are part of India or a separate country.

Quite clearly, the controversial element here is the religious element.

It is agreed that the bulk of the archaeological remains fall within the national boundaries of Pakistan. This, to me, is argument enough; possession is nine points of the law.

In addition, the present inhabitants may be wholly or partially descended from the people who built the civilisation. The likeliest possibility is that the majority stayed on, some moved away. Another speculative element is about the ruling classes. Much has been written about the IVC being egalitarian and fairly free. This is highly unlikely, given that early efforts at building cities were centrally directed, by a central and strong ruling class, which could assemble both the additional labour as well as the additional capital to build civic infrastructure - be it nothing more than a wall and soldiers to man the wall.

This may be the right time to point out that the probable cause of the decline of the civilisation is thought to have been climate change, not defeat and devastating enemy action. It is likely that dominant elements moved away first, to lands that were not deteriorating so rapidly in ecological terms. Here, too, there is nothing to say that those whose labour built these vast cities should not be considered heirs of the remains, through their descendants.

Before turning to the question of disqualification due to religion, one more issue remains for settlement. Is this heritage exclusive?

The difficulty is that its links with later south Asian civilisation cannot be established with certainty. We know about the independent growth of the PGW culture. It was apparently independent of the IVC. Did the IVC influence later Indian and south Asian culture? All our conclusions must be tentative, as indeed is always the case with protohistory (I am using this term in it's strictest sense).

On the other hand, we have clear evidence (Atanz calls it fragmentary, but evidence it is) that the IVC lay largely, but not wholly within the national boundaries of Pakistan. That residual portion lying outside clearly entitles Indians to claim some part of the heritage, which is ironic in view of the fact that the IVC does not seem to have contributed materially to later Indian civilisation. This point of contact may lead to friction, if either side gets jingoistic about it.

Lastly, the proposition that a people may lose its heritage due to a change in religion is difficult to understand. Stonehenge, Macchu Pichu, Borobodur, Roman remains in Gaul, in Britain, in Pannonia, in Helvetia, Greek remains on Asia Minor, Greek remains at Delphi, for that matter, or Athens, all contradict that proposition. It has been said that Islam was a crushing force which permitted no shadow of the past. That may be true, but it is moot if what the Christian Catholic Church did in south America, or in Goa, is a shade less complete in its ferocity. So why have special pleading for the IVC?

 

[Developereo]

Luckily for me, in the immediately preceding post, Joe has saved me the trouble and articulated the case for joint heritage better than I could have done.

All I will do is to address a couple of points. Sorry for not quoting the relevant posts.

-- The fact that the whole subcontinent has been genetically homogenous for a long time does not make a statement either way about full displacement of the IVC people. Specifically, it does not prove the Indian claims of genetic discontinuity; quite the opposite. The only conclusion from the repeated invasions and new cultural influences (Sanskrit, Vedas) is that the descendants of the IVC people incorporated newer genes and ideas.

-- The IVC links with Dravidian language, dancing girl, etc. again do not prove physical displacement of populations; all they show is cultural influence, like the 'proto-Vedic' influences. We know the IVC was trading with Mesopotamia, why not the South as well?

-- The analogy with the Roman Empire would be as follows: the seat of the IVC empire was Mohenjodaro/Harappa; the outlying provinces were the cities in NW India. I don't really want to pursue that analogy because it was just a silly thought and will lead to nothing fruitful.

-- Finally, the most ironic part of this debate is that the entire argument of the Indian exclusivists can be summed up by vsdoc's comment, "What is a man without faith". The secular Indians are intent on reducing a person's identity to their religion, while the supposedly religion-obsessed Pakistanis are arguing for the exact opposite!

 

[Bang Galore]

Lastly, the proposition that a people may lose its heritage due to a change in religion is difficult to understand. Stonehenge, Macchu Pichu, Borobodur, Roman remains in Gaul, in Britain, in Pannonia, in Helvetia, Greek remains on Asia Minor, Greek remains at Delphi, for that matter, or Athens, all contradict that proposition. It has been said that Islam was a crushing force which permitted no shadow of the past. That may be true, but it is moot if what the Christian Catholic Church did in south America, or in Goa, is a shade less complete in its ferocity. So why have special pleading for the IVC?

I think our friend KS did make a very pertinent point on this subject. It wasn't about Islam in general, just the creation of Pakistan on a specific religious ground where the founder happened to make some remarks about culture & history being different from the "other" people. That point would also lead to a repudiation of all pre-Islamic culture especially if that culture shared strands with the Hindu culture. Which is why many Pakistanis feel the need to question the religious orientation of any culture that they may seek to claim? Pakistan as a state can lay claim to geographical location of IVC but will, because of political history find it a stretch to claim the cultural inheritance without rejecting Hindu claims on the same. Pakistanis on the other hand, as both AM & Developereo have stated are as much claimants to the cultural inheritance as anyone in India

None of the other places mentioned was created on the basis of religion & therefore the present religious orientation of their people does not matter. The closest example to Pakistan is Israel. Israel may be the possessor of many important Muslim & Christian landmarks but can hardly be called a cultural inheritor of the same. The difference lies that in Pakistan, the people can make that claim while in Israel, they mostly cannot.

 

[Rig Vedic]

The secular Indians are intent on reducing a person's identity to their religion, while the supposedly religion-obsessed Pakistanis are arguing for the exact opposite!

I think most Indians, even on this thread, welcome Pakistani efforts to reclaim their pre-Islamic heritage.

In India we cherish the unique local flavour of not only of our region, but also of all the other regions. At the same time we deeply appreciate the common civilizational foundations. It is like a bouquet of flowers, with each flower being happy with itself and also appreciating the other flowers.

There is no reason why (west) Punjabis and Sindhis should not participate in the celebration.

This attitude of cherishing the unique regional flavours as well as the common foundations is nicely expressed by Rabindranath Tagore's song "Jana Gana Mana". The song was written before the partition and was meant for the entire subcontinent, though it did later become India's national anthem.



jana gana mana All vocals and lyrics in three languages - YouTube

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir after reading some of your comments it seems to me that u have great debating skills....... i just want to ask u if we consider IVC..... most of the historians believe it to be associated with the DRAVIDIAN..... the statue of dancing girl and the bust of the priest have always indicated the dravidian phenotype..... even the script has been linked to dravidian script.... coming to religion seal can be connected to lord pashupathi and mother godess to maa shakti..... even u will believe that history is built upon joining the links and clues and only assumptions can be made.... If IVC is linked to anyone then it should be DRAVIDIAN INDIA.... even the indo aryan theory states the migration of indus valley people towards south...... i dont think IVC has any links to pakistanis even north indians can be considered as they follow a similar culture

Dear Sir,

Rather than make a categorical statement, I would like to present to you all the facts, and leave you to decide for yourself.

My apologies for the late reply; this post had not come to notice earlier. It is not a good time to participate in these somewhat abstruse discussions, as I find myself perpetually sleepy and very slow to grasp things.

Your statement that I seems to have great debating skills made me cringe. Please consider that it is more a question of having been unfortunately educated in a discipline that is central to these discussions. Further things tend to stick to my mind, and it seems reasonable and proper to assemble these to address a point under discussion.

Coming to your points.

Yes, personally, I am of the view that the IVC was a Dravidian speaking culture. Judging by the dancing girl and the priest-king is dangerous; what one learns very early in Indian history, or in any branch of academic discussion connected to India, is not to go by racial stereotyping. Those two figures may look Dravidian. On the other hand, there are Santhal, and Oraon women who might have posed for the dancing girl. There are UP Brahmins who resemble the priest-king. So rather than depend on some uncertain racial resemblance, it is preferrable to address the core issues.

The consensus of learned opinion is that present day Indian, or more accurately, south Asian languages in the northern part of the sub-continent, are based on variants of Indo-Aryan languages' descended from Vedic Sanskrit, or the Indian variant of Indo-Iranian, through various developments of Prakrit. It is also felt that there is a sub-strate, an underlying layer, of Dravidian language. Words are borrowed, grammatical constructions are emulated, and place names are of older origin rooted in Dravidian. Details of those original Dravidian languages can only be guessed, as all this happened some three thousand five hundred or three thousand years ago.

To confuse matters, experts believe that there is a hidden layer beneath the hidden layer. They believe that there may be traces of Austro-Asian languages under the Dravidian layer, and that the Dravidiqn layer itself had replaced the original Austro-Asian layer.

This has been found true throughout north India, and the languages in the IVC geography follow this rule.

The languages followed in the valley hinterland today are Indo-Aryan in nature, with a layer of Dravidian language below each; linguists find that this is quite marked in the case of Marathi and Gujarati, but less so in the case of Sindhi. These remain, however, rather more influenced by Dravidian than other languages in north India.

Another element of confirmation that the language spoken in the IVC was Dravidian by classification is the existence of pockets of Brahui in Baluchistan. Brahui is a distinctly Dravidian language. Other such candidates exist. It is difficult to understand how Brahui, a Dravidian language, came to be spoken in isolated pockets in the north-west, other than if some groups of Brahui speakers managed to reach those present locations and then found themselves stranded there, or unless these pockets are what remains of an entire region speaking that or similar languages.

That shows us that the balance of the evidence is that the inhabitants of the IVC spoke a Dravidian language. What about the script? That is not proven. The closest that research has got to it has been a pattern matching exercise carried out on the symbols used on IVC seals, by a team of mathematical researchers, who found a very close match with patterns of characters used in sentence construction in Tamil. However, that is in no way a proof, only evidence towards a hypothesis.

I have nothing to say about two or three seals which believers have taken to be depictions of Pasupatinath. This is extremely, dangerously speculative.

Does this lead to a link between present-day Dravidians in the southern part of the sub-continent and the IVC? Is there any link between the IVC and present day dwellers of the same region? Is there any link between the IVC and present day north Indians, including citizens of Pakistan?

These are difficult questions.

What happened to the original inhabitants? We do not know with certainty. We only know that genetically, the population after the final decline of the IVC in 1300 or 1200 BC was the same as the population before the decline, except that there was an infusion of central Asian genes some time between 3500 BC and 1200 BC. This is associated with the incursion of Indo-Aryan speakers from central Asia. The people were the same, but immigrants had joined them.

What about present day Dravidians in south India and the IVC?

They certainly spoke the same language, but were they the same genetic stock? Difficult to prove beyond doubt. The genetic variation between most Indians is very low. About the only differentiator is the trace of immigrant blood in the people still living in the Indus Valley. There is no evidence that there was a mass migration, which is most unlikely, considering that the IVC may have collapsed over decades, if not centuries, due to ecological devastation.

On balance, it seems that there is no genetic connection between the present day residents of south India and the original inhabitants of the IVC, only a linguistic connection.

What about present day dwellers in the same regions and the IVC?

They are genetically a combination of the same genetic composition as built the IVC and newcomers fro central Asia, or perhaps from Iran. They have a perfectly good right to be considered the genetic descendants, in part, of the IVC people.

Finally, what about the general mass of north Indians, and the sub-section of Pakistanis who belong to it?

They have the same genetic composition as the people living around the ruins, since the Vedic Sanskrit speaking incoming groups had the same encounter with Dravidian speaking original dwellers, but it is not at all clear that they are connected in any way. On the contrary, their pottery style, PGW, co-existed with IVC pottery, and they may have had their parallel culture.

With this information, it is hoped you can navigate your way around.

 

[vsdoc]

Why merely ' pick a point'? This 'cherry picking of historical points of time' to bolster ones claim of 'continuity of civilization' is something I have argued against.

Its always relative and linked to the time-space continuum. Nothing in human history occurs in vacuo. You cannot compare millenia to a few centuries, less so to a few decades, and if you must, you should also be open that the link of continuum is not always a given between the two.

Shifts do happen. Breaks. Divergence.

Things change.

Given enough time, you could well have a new Pakistani civilizational entity - because as things have developed over the past 6 decades and how we have moved on our respective paths, you are surely not Indian anymore. Even and increasingly especially when compared to our own Muslims.

You and we therefore could well be witnessing the cusp of two civilizations - on the erosion of an old one and vucuum before something else sufficiently dominant and enduring comes in and replaces the void. Or we may see reversion and widespread acceptance of the old mother civilization.

I would argue that modern day Pakistanis are a continuation of the history of the human race, going back to the Human Migration out of Africa, the IVC, Gandhara, Muhammed Bin Qasims, Durranis and so on till the present.

And you would be right in your own way. But you need to see the difference between anthroplogy, evolution, different ages of humankind, and separate civilizations. For each epoch of that human migration, the unique confluence of blood, faith, and soil made you part of a unique civilization.

Sure, Islam is a way of life, but Pakistanis still wear Shalwar Qamiz and, occasionally, Saris (not Arab robes), wear indigenous headgear (native turbans and hats, instead of the Arab headdress).

Pakistanis speak Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Pushto and various other native languages (and not Arabic).

Pakistani music, poetry and art is different from that of the Arabs.

Pakistani food is distinctly different from Arab food - Islam has banned certain kinds of food (pork and alcohol) and issued instructions on how to slaughter animals (to make them halal), but are you seriously going to argue that a lack of consumption of pork and alcohol indicates some sort of 'tectonic civilizational shift'?

So how exactly would you argue that the 'Islamic way of life' has 'homogenized Muslim culture' across the world to that of 'Arabia/one culture distinct from native cultures'?

The problem with your arguments remains the same - conflating religion with civilization/culture. Religion certainly has an impact on culture, but culture also has a strong propensity to mold religion to fit it, and Pakistan would be an excellent example of that.

Excellent points. For a section of your society (albeit the dominant one culturally and numerically). But its early days yet. What is 60years? But are we not already seeing a distinct change in the soceity of Pakistan and that of India at large? Are we not seeing in fact a change in the flavor of Pakistani soceity and Indian Muslim soceity when you go deeper? Why is that the case? Are the two groups of Muslims practicing their religions differently? Or are other factors, weights, and counter weights, at play in both communities, at a soceital and cultural level?

So if this continues, and I do not see how it would not, do you not see Pakistan slowly and irrevocably moving further away from the civilization and culture some Pakistanis recognise, accpt, and want to re-embrace?

I say re-embrace, because post Partition, I believe blood has only now cooled sufficiently (in addition to other forces within your country unfortunately) and new generations sufficiently distanced temporally to be able to actually even think in such a direction, notwithstanding what Jinnah may or may not have said or actually meant during his championing of the cause for a different state for different people.

By your own argument, 'India, as a state, is politically [or constitutionally] secular. Not culturally', the 'identity of the Indian State' does not support or negate the argument of 'continuity of civilization'. This is yet another example of trying to create an argument by cherry picking 'metrics', and then finding out that the same metrics can also be used to disassociate your own nation from 'civilizational continuity'.

So, no, just as the contemporary Indian Republic's 'constitutionally secular identity' (distinct from a religious Vedic identity, as you claim) does not affect the argument of 'civilizational continuity' for Indians, Pakistan's theocratic identity does not affect the argument of 'civilizational continuity' for Pakistanis, since, as you argued above, it is 'culture' we are concerned with, and not the 'Political/Constitutional State'.

Please understand the difference between a modern political state newly formed, and an ancient civilization, still true to its roots and thriving, with the thread of continuity intact.

Political India is a secular state belonging to no faith in particular.

Ancient Indian civilization, continuing to this day, and one that ALL modern Indians regardless of their faith are also very equally a part of, and voluntarily so, can never be split from the Hindu civilization, or Hinduism as a way of life.

That is Hindutva. That is who we are as a people. Regardless of the faith we now follow.

It is what makes us Indian. It colors every aspect of our life and collective unconscious. It is the dominant unbroken cultural thread of millenia.

It is also what allows each one of us the flexibility, the space, the freedom, and the environment, to practice differing faiths, while still recognising each other as brothers and sisters and as one people.

It is the cornerstone of us as a people, as tolerance and secularism is that of modern political India. Neither are contradictory for the vast majority of us.

Just as Islam is that of modern political Pakistan - as well as for you as a people. For the vast majority of you.

 

[vsdoc]

If you take the trouble to read my comments, that is precisely the situation. I have pointed out that the language spoken in the IVC was probably Dravidian; I have pointed out that VSDOC's position about a clash of civilisations is partly supported by genetic studies showing that there was an infusion of external genes in the people of north India between 3500 BC and 1200 BC, and this fits well with the surmise of Indo-Aryan speakers having encountered Dravidian speakers.

I have also supported Pakistan's claims to the IVC, for the simple reason that the ruins lie within the territory of that nation. Also, the local people are probably the descendants of the original individuals belonging to that civilisation, since genetic results (taking VSDOC's idea to it's logical end) show that there was an immigrant segment which mingled with an autochthonic segment. Unless the entire population marched away to south India, their descendants must still be living thereabouts. What was replaced was the language, not the people.

What is bothering you? The fact that I made my points without raising my voice?

If high school history serves me correctly (I remember making a papier mache model of the great bath as a term project ), Aryan migration and displacement was just one of the possibilities put forward.

Another very plausible reason was climatic changes and the drying up of the river Saraswati (?), making most of the region uninhabitable and forcing the population to drift south in search of sustenance.

Coincidentally, one could merge this thread here

http://www.defence.pk/forums/member...killed-harappan-civilization.html#post2991579

Either way, most historians are agreed that for such an advanced civilization of the Bronze age, sudden and complete disappearance, without any trace of the seals, statuettes, pottery, script, town planning, or architecture popping up elsewhere.

The IVC just suddenly up and disappeared. In toto! No thread. No link. Its as if the earth swallowed it up.

That to me is difficult to explain except for a catclysmic populational shift. Or genocidal eradication. Whichever way your current bread is buttered.

I did a little reading as well. Are such total population displacements or shifts or even disappearances unheard of in recorded history of mankind? Not at all. I cannot comment authoratively on the statistical parameters of whether such would be outliers or de rigeur as my good friend Developer seems to be convinced of - but the possibility exists and the signs to corroborate such are there.

If not signs, at least one would concede that there are questions - to which there are no other plausible answers, be they learned conjecture and extrapolation at best.

 

[Developereo]

I think most Indians, even on this thread, welcome Pakistani efforts to reclaim their pre-Islamic heritage.

But there's always a fine print disclaimer attached, as in the following post:

But are we not already seeing a distinct change in the soceity of Pakistan [...] slowly and irrevocably moving further away from the civilization and culture some Pakistanis recognise, accpt, and want to re-embrace?

The choice given is either-or: if you embrace your Islamic identity, then you must relinquish your ancient history. It is this elaborate twist of logic to deny of our multifaceted identity that we reject.

We accept that Republic of India has it easy: your current spiritual identity aligns with your ancient history but, on the global stage, that is a rarity. The Pakistani situation is by far the more common one.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Given enough time, you could well have a new Pakistani civilizational entity - because as things have developed over the past 6 decades and how we have moved on our respective paths, you are surely not Indian anymore. Even and increasingly especially when compared to our own Muslims.

I believe the point made here is really the one I have the most difficulty understanding, and have attempted to argue against, in an attempt to understand the reasoning behind it ...

As I argued in response to KS, I do not see the 'modern Political Nation State' as either supporting or negating the argument of 'civilizational continuity' - whether secular or theocratic, the 'modern Political Nation State' provides a constitutional framework of laws preventing the nation from sliding into 'lawless chaos' - KS himself argued that there was a distinction between the 'modern Nation State' and 'culture', with the latter being more indicative of 'civilizational continuity'.

So, returning to your point quoted above, what part of modern Pakistani culture somehow represents a 'tectonic civilizational shift', outside of religion?

That to me is difficult to explain except for a catclysmic populational shift. Or genocidal eradication. Whichever way your current bread is buttered.

But, from a genetic perspective, if the majority of the IVC population had shifted East, the genes of the current inhabitants of the Indus Valley would be significantly distinct from those to the East, would they not?

Ancient Indian civilization, continuing to this day, and one that ALL modern Indians regardless of their faith are also very equally a part of, and voluntarily so, can never be split from the Hindu civilization, or Hinduism as a way of life.

How do you tangibly define 'Hinduism as a way of life', for the multiple and disparate religious communities in India?

 

[vsdoc]

Quite clearly, the controversial element here is the religious element.

Its the big elephant in this thread's room.

And I am its mahout.

In addition, the present inhabitants may be wholly or partially descended from the people who built the civilisation. The likeliest possibility is that the majority stayed on, some moved away.

It is one of the possibilities, though not the likeliest. Known and accepted history says different. The features of the girl and the priest say different.

Most Pakistanis from what I have seen here would be aghast at even the thought of being the natural gentic inheritors of those lips, the nose, and those cheekbones. And would point west instead with great chest thumping and thumbing of their aquiline "Aryan" noses.

Before turning to the question of disqualification due to religion, one more issue remains for settlement. Is this heritage exclusive?

Certainly not. The number of Indians on this thread should disabuse over-enthusiastic Pakistanis of those fleeting deluded hopes - present company largely excluded.

The difficulty is that its links with later south Asian civilisation cannot be established with certainty.

South Asia is a modern political term. It is also a term of refuge, of convenience for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis not comfortable with links to anything Indian - though still wanting their share of heritage pie.

Any Indian using such must do so at the altar of political correctness - cause I cannot fathom any other reason to so readily forfeit one's civilizational birthright.

There is no such South Asian culture of civilization. It is Indian and/or Hindu and it has nothing whatsover to do with first mover advantage.

Lastly, the proposition that a people may lose its heritage due to a change in religion is difficult to understand. Stonehenge, Macchu Pichu, Borobodur, Roman remains in Gaul, in Britain, in Pannonia, in Helvetia, Greek remains on Asia Minor, Greek remains at Delphi, for that matter, or Athens, all contradict that proposition. It has been said that Islam was a crushing force which permitted no shadow of the past. That may be true, but it is moot if what the Christian Catholic Church did in south America, or in Goa, is a shade less complete in its ferocity. So why have special pleading for the IVC?

We are discussing the continuity of civilizations here. Not exactly culture. You could be living 8000 miles away in the US of A as expats and practice Indian culture. That does not make the US a part of the ancient Indian civilization. Not even if tomorrow, most of the 300 million Americans were transplanted by 300 or more million Indians - and Hindus at that.

Religion is a BIG part of any civilization. Be it organized, or be it simply a faith/belief system. It deply colors the collective unconscious of the people over time. In everything they do.

Hinduism is an integral part of the Indian civilization. As are other dharmic religions born on the same soil, of the same people.

Islam is not. It came from outside and as such is extra-civilizational when talking of the Indian civilization. NOT the modern Indian state.

Nor for that matter is Christianity. Or Judaism. Or Zoroastrianism for that matter.

Modern India's unbroken continuity and link to its ancient civilzational roots that live and thrive today are because we still have 850 million (overwhelming majority) practicing Hindus amongst us.

The day that changes, if it changes, like in Pakistan with an overwhelming extra-civilizational faith, that continuum will be forever lost over time. As happened with Iran.

Its that simple and barebone when you get down to it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As an aside, I wonder if the learned Pakistanis here have the courage to hear what most of their more racist compatriots would say with regard to the lips, the nose, and the cheekbones and them as the natural inheritors.

Would you like the Pakistanis to then question the 'learned Indians' here on the xenophobic and racist (or ethnically derogatory) views seen on various Indian fora and the comments section of various online Indian news sites?

Please, as I have pointed out already, overt or covert attempts at taunting/denigrating Pakistanis are not going to be tolerated - your comment (along with the taunts of 'identity crisis) have no relevance or place in this discussion.

 

[vsdoc]

Would you like the Pakistanis to then question the 'learned Indians' here on the xenophobic and racist (or ethnically derogatory) views seen on various Indian fora and the comments section of various online Indian news sites?

Please, as I have pointed out already, overt or covert attempts at taunting/denigrating Pakistanis are not going to be tolerated - your comment (along with the taunts of 'identity crisis) have no relevance or place in this discussion.

I've edited that part to make it more palatable. You are a smart guy. So I won't ask you to agree or disagree with what I say. I haven't been to any other fora. This is the only one, and briefly the World Affairs Board.

 

[vsdoc]

-- Finally, the most ironic part of this debate is that the entire argument of the Indian exclusivists can be summed up by vsdoc's comment, "What is a man without faith". The secular Indians are intent on reducing a person's identity to their religion, while the supposedly religion-obsessed Pakistanis are arguing for the exact opposite!

I had saved this post of yours as a separate window since morning for when I had the time to put in a proper response. I believe I have already done so in my previous posts.

But let me add.

A civilization is a group of people through a time-space continuum.

Faith is a very important part of what makes a man, and collectively a society, colors its collective culture, and over time gives a collective identity to the larger civilization they all are component parts of.

Indians are Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Jews, Parsis, Bahais, etc. but the civilization we are part of is Hindu.

We cannot escape from that nor do we want to nor need to.

Pakistan on the other hand is now a separate entity. Only Muslims (well almost). And you have been living in sugh monocular isolation for over 6 decades now.

During that same time, our Muslims, almost the same in number as you guys, have been living in a multi-faith soceity along with the Hindu majority.

You and we have gone different ways, and by the look of things, in such a short time (historically and civilizationally speaking) the changes have been very marked and very quick.

You are well on your way to cutting the umblical cord to your ancient civilization and moving towards as yet uncharted societal waters.

Its not so much what we allow you or what you would like to apportion to yourselves and hold on to.

It what is happening.

And it adds muscle to my theory.

A civilization is an unbroken thread of

BLOOD

FAITH

SOIL

 

[Rig Vedic]

The choice given is either-or: if you embrace your Islamic identity, then you must relinquish your ancient history. It is this elaborate twist of logic to deny of our multifaceted identity that we reject.

We accept that Republic of India has it easy: your current spiritual identity aligns with your ancient history but, on the global stage, that is a rarity. The Pakistani situation is by far the more common one.

See, it's a work in progress.

In 1947, in a new nation, created on the basis of the Islamic identity, and with a Bengali majority, the notion of Pakistan as a successor of the Indus Valley civilization would have appeared quite far-fetched.

This inner struggle between conflicting identities will continue, that is the cross you have to bear. You are not the same as you were in 1947, and doubtless in another couple of decades, you will not be where you are today. The changes are a cumulative result of the thoughts and choices of millions of individuals.