What is 'Civilizational Continuity'?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is the part of your heritage that you lost when you underwent conversion.

But in that case, the modern day Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians are in the same boat as Pakistanis, in that the metric of 'religious continuity' is broken. In fact, as has been argued already, there is little evidence that even Hinduism in its modern form (as a 'religion' practiced by most in South Asia) is a continuation of the 'faith' of the IVC.

So 'conversion' in itself is not a significant enough metric to argue loss of heritage.

 

[Rig Vedic]

But in that case, the modern day Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians are in the same boat as Pakistanis, in that the metric of 'religious continuity' is broken.

The Iranians don't have to worry about any political challenge from the Zoroastrians so they can embrace their heritage more freely. Though you do find the odd Ayatollah fulminating about Nawroz and other such pre-Islamic practices.

In Pakistan's case the problem is more difficult, since the founding premise of the country was that the converts rejected the ancestral civilization and embraced a new identity.

Jinnah, being the grandson of a Gujarati Hindu, is the prototypical case study. This is what he said in his All India Muslim League presidential address delivered in Lahore, on March 22, 1940 -

The Hindus and Muslims ... belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.

Two-Nation Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you see the rejection of the civilization that his family was a part of a mere two generations back.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Iranians don't have to worry about any political challenge from the Zoroastrians so they can embrace their heritage more freely. Though you do find the odd Ayatollah fulminating about Nawroz and other such pre-Islamic practices.

I am not sure what a 'challenge from Zoroastrians' has to do with the fact that the Persians no longer practice the faith of the ancient Persian Civilization? There situation is in fact, in terms of the religion metric, identical to that of Pakistanis.

In Pakistan's case the problem is more difficult, since the founding premise of the country was that the converts rejected the ancestral civilization and embraced a new identity.

You are conflating religion and civilization again - conversion to a new faith indicates a rejection of the old faith, not a rejection of one's entire history, ancestry and heritage.

Jinnah, being the grandson of a Gujarati Hindu, is the prototypical case study. This is what he said in his All India Muslim League presidential address delivered in Lahore, on March 22, 1940 -

In terms of religion, yes, he was correct - the use of the term civilization was inaccurate.

However, as argued previously, religion is but one metric that has been offered to argue continuity, and it cannot be said with certainty that even modern day Hinduism is necessarily a continuation of the faith/philosophy of the IVC, just as modern day Islam and Christianity are not necessarily a continuation of the faith/philosophies of Ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece or IVC.

So you see the rejection of the civilization that his family was a part of a mere two generations back.

No, I see a rejection of a religion that his family practiced, not of a civilization, and I see a rejection of the idea of the creation of a single political entity out of the colony of British India.

 

[LaBong]

Thanks. I'll remember that example when someone claims that zero was invented in India. The inventor was from Multan but worked in present-day India.

Unless you're hinting that, back in days of AryaBhatta, people from Multan and people from say Kannauj had differences that can match the difference between a British and Bengali, I'm not sure how are you drawing a parallel.

We have to constrain it by the accepted boundaries of the IVC. I never denied that NW India was part of it.

What is the boundary of IVC, do you have a MAP or something? Was it a physical boundary like Himalya which divides Indian civilization and Chinese civilization, wast it a political boundary like Republic of India and Islamic Republic of Pakistan has. How far a place has to be from say Harappa or Mahenjodaro for not being in IVC. And how do you know that the infulence of IVC hasn't been spread but constrained only inside the mythical boundary that Pakistanis propose for IVC.

Yes you say the NW India shares IVC, but according to you NW India only can claim those sites which is now situated in Republic of India and not those which are in Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Considering both are political entity, I find your logic hogwash.

There is a difference. The African migrations happened as hunter gatherers and there was mass migration of tribes. Eventually, after agriculture, people put a stake in the ground and formed permanent settlements with distinct civilizations, albeit influenced. The criteria I am using are no different than the ones used (and accepted) for Brits, Greeks, Egyptians, Swedes, etc.

That doesn't explain why people further migrated from fertile crescent. Also according to your logic, just because Mekkah and Madina is situated in KSA, people from Qatar or UAE can't claim it's history as their own and soon Baharins will be able to claim it after it's union with KSA.

 

[Rafi]

We are going around in circles. Let me clarify the situation.

Fact :- The vast majority of the IVC is in the boundaries of Pakistan.

Fact :- Until proven other wise, the vast majority of Pakistanis are the direct descendants of the people of the IVC.

Fact :- The IVC civilization has no similarity with modern india, neither religion, eating habits, burial rights, language, culture etc.

These facts are undeniable - so therefore Pakistan has a very strong link and claim to their ancient forefathers.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I would like to remind everyone that while the debate over the IVC was the subtext for initiating this discussion, I would like to avoid going in the direction of the earlier existing thread that was solely the subject of arguments on Pakistan/Indian ownership of the IVC.

Please try and keep the discussion more general, in terms of discussing broader civilizational continuity, though using the IVC and other civilizations as examples to argue a point is welcome.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That doesn't explain why people further migrated from fertile crescent. Also according to your logic, just because Mekkah and Madina is situated in KSA, people from Qatar or UAE can't claim it's history as their own and soon Baharins will be able to claim it after it's union with KSA.

Recalling Vinod's earlier post, I think one could argue that there are, broadly, two types of 'human migration'.

One would be 'human migration as the result of some cataclysmic event' (the settlement of the Americas, Australia etc.), while the other would be 'natural human migration', as a result of expanding populations and a need/desire to seek out new pastures etc. (the human migration theory out of Africa etc.).

I do not see any reason why, in the absence of any cataclysmic event, there would not have been any natural migration between the IVC and surrounding areas (to both East and West). I also do not see any reason why the regions to the East of the IVC would ave been unpopulated at the time the IVC existed.

The Gulf Arabs have a strong cultural, linguistic and religious homogeneity - yet even the Arabs no longer speak or use the ancient Arabic that the Quran was written in.

 

[NALANDA]

We are going around in circles. Let me clarify the situation.

Fact 1:- The vast majority of the IVC is in the boundaries of Pakistan.

Fact 2:- Until proven other wise, the vast majority of Pakistanis are the direct descendants of the people of the IVC.

Fact 3:- The IVC civilization has no similarity with modern india, neither religion, eating habits, burial rights, language, culture etc.

These facts are undeniable - so therefore Pakistan has a very strong link and claim to their ancient forefathers.

My post no.60 ignored and above post deleted. Anyway, will just raise few questions.

1) Above Fact 2 from our point of view will be:

Until proven other wise, the vast majority of Pakistanis are the direct descendants of the people who caused destruction and migration of original IVC descendents to current northern India.

2) While few Pakistani posters are trying to claim the heritage of IVC etc on this forum , they will not be able to convince the majority paksitani on it ( who see theself as Arab). It will be wsie that first internall they should debate whether they wan to associate themselves as the invaders or as inheritor of the Great Civilization. Consequences will be damning for teh very foundation of Pakistan.


I can understand the frustertation as India claims the legacy of Tajmahal / Akbar /Jehangir / Tipu Sultan which is in India and other similar heritage and acheivements of Msulims (we have more muslims than Pakistan) as well as IVC (cilizational continuity of erstwhile Hindus) etc which is mainly in Pakistan.

World endorses this, majority of Pakistani endorses it and you will have to learn to live with this as to the fact that you will remain another country to the West of India in the wider scheme of things.

 

[Vinod2070]

But in that case, the modern day Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians are in the same boat as Pakistanis, in that the metric of 'religious continuity' is broken. In fact, as has been argued already, there is little evidence that even Hinduism in its modern form (as a 'religion' practiced by most in South Asia) is a continuation of the 'faith' of the IVC.

So 'conversion' in itself is not a significant enough metric to argue loss of heritage.

I had answered this earlier.

You are missing the point of "cataclysmic events". Europe was spared that during conversion to Christianity. It was not spread by invaders there and was not accompanied by mindless destruction on a massive scale.

Almost everywhere in the contiguous Islamic bloc today, this simple fact doesn't hold true. They lost their ancient civilization and culture almost overnight, a "cataclysmic event" that broke the continuity.

I think the outward changes (like dress habits, evolving usage of language etc.) are not an impediment to 'civilizational continuity'.

It gets impacted only by cataclysmic events, not gradual and natural evolution.

E.g. USA and Australia being invaded by Europeans would fall in that category. There is certainly no 'civilizational continuity' in USA or Australia as far as the existing natives of that land are concerned.

But I would say, Europe more or less maintained the 'civilizational continuity' despite the adaption of Christianity after it was co-opted by Constantine and made a state religion.

Even some Muslim countries have been able to maintain it better than most others. E.g. Indonesia.

 

[Vinod2070]

Of course, now many of these Islamic countries are trying to go back to their roots. Iran being the biggest example but also Egypt and a small number of Pakistanis.

This tide will only increase and some may likely completely revert to their roots. Iran may be the first one to do that.

Life coming back full circle, I guess.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Almost everywhere in the contiguous Islamic bloc today, this simple fact doesn't hold true. They lost their ancient civilization and culture almost overnight, a "cataclysmic event" that broke the continuity.

How did the spread of Islam destroy the 'ancient civilizations almost overnight'? Certainly non-Islamic religious institutions were attacked in many cases, but religion alone is not civilization.

My post no.60 ignored and above post deleted. Anyway, will just raise few questions.

1) Above Fact 2 from our point of view will be:

Until proven other wise, the vast majority of Pakistanis are the direct descendants of the people who caused destruction and migration of original IVC descendents to current northern India.

You are getting ahead of yourself - one has to first show that the IVC was destroyed and the majority of its people migrated under invasion.

2) While few Pakistani posters are trying to claim the heritage of IVC etc on this forum , they will not be able to convince the majority paksitani on it ( who see theself as Arab). It will be wsie that first internall they should debate whether they wan to associate themselves as the invaders or as inheritor of the Great Civilization. Consequences will be damning for teh very foundation of Pakistan.

That is completely irrelevant - whether a majority of Pakistanis believe one way or another is not the subject of discussion, and there certainly is no empirical data in support of your position.

World endorses this, majority of Pakistani endorses it and you will have to learn to live with this as to the fact that you will remain another country to the West of India in the wider scheme of things.

I don't believe the world endorses your argument that Pakistanis are the descendants of the invaders that destroyed the IVC and forced its residents to migrate to what is today India.

 

[Vinod2070]

You are conflating religion and civilization again - conversion to a new faith indicates a rejection of the old faith, not a rejection of one's entire history, ancestry and heritage.

You are beating the wrong horse here.

Your statement is correct that "conversion to a new faith indicates a rejection of the old faith, not a rejection of one's entire history, ancestry and heritage".

However, this has not been historically true of converts to Islam. I would like to leave it at this for now unless you want to discuss this further.

No, I see a rejection of a religion that his family practiced, not of a civilization, and I see a rejection of the idea of the creation of a single political entity out of the colony of British India.

No. It was a complete rejection of his identity. It can't get any more clear than this.

The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap.

Now one can understand change of faith. This is certainly going beyond and changing one's entire identity, philosophies, social customs, litterateurs, civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions, aspect on life and of life, epics, heroes, and episodes. All these are by Mr. Jinnah.

Now either you can say that Pakistan has evolved beyond Mr. Jinnah and what he said is no longer true (or was never true). That will be a new and refreshing discussion.

How did the spread of Islam destroy the 'ancient civilizations almost overnight'? Certainly non-Islamic religious institutions were attacked in many cases, but religion alone is not civilization.

That is exactly the point!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You are beating the wrong horse here.

The response was to Nalanda ...

Your statement is correct that "conversion to a new faith indicates a rejection of the old faith, not a rejection of one's entire history, ancestry and heritage".

However, this has not been historically true of converts to Islam. I would like to leave it at this for now unless you want to discuss this further.

I would like you to elaborate on how the 'converts to Islam' differ from 'converts to Christianity' (Greek, Roman Empires) or 'converts to Hinduism' (the religion as it is practiced today, compared to the IVC, for example).

No. It was a complete rejection of his identity. It can't get any more clear than this.

Now one can understand change of faith. This is certainly going beyond and changing one's entire identity, philosophies, social customs, litterateurs, civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions, aspect on life and of life, epics, heroes, and episodes. All these are by Mr. Jinnah.

Now either you can say that Pakistan has evolved beyond Mr. Jinnah and what he said is no longer true (or was never true). That will be a new and refreshing discussion.

No, it was a re-definition of his identity in the context of his faith. The differences he pointed out are valid, but that said, he did not argue that Muslim/Pakistani identity no longer recognized its ancestors or heritage going back to the IVC, while Hindus were a continuation of that heritage. His comments need to be seen in the context of contemporary British India, referring to two contemporary communities of Pakistani Muslims and Indian Hindus.

That is exactly the point!

By which yardstick merely practicing Hinduism, as a religion, is not, and should not be, a valid metric to claim continuity of civilization.

 

[KS]

Pakistan is an unique experiment of history.

Those arguing that Pakistan has claim over any pre-Islamic heritage or did not suffer from any civilizational break just because of their location and by handing out examples of Egypt, Persia, Greece are fooling no one.

Egypt, Persia, Greece etc were not formed on the sole basis of religion. Pakistan was. The only raison d` etre of Pakistan is Islam and it's supposed incongruity with the native faiths.Faiths that are inseparably intertwined with the civilizations that dotted this land. These are not my claims, but the reasons handed out by the father of Pakistan Muhammed Ali Jinnah.

'converts to Hinduism' (the religion as it is practiced today, compared to the IVC, for example).

'Converts to Hinduism'. That is hilarious.

Hinduism or the way of life the Persians called 'Hinduism' evolved. It doesn't mean the faith itself changed completely. We still worship Pasupathi [another name for Lord Shiva, whose seals were discovered in IVC sites].Hinduism is not your average organized religion with one founder, founding place, founding date to ascribe those notions. It was a way of life which the Persians called Hinduism and that 'way of life' is most representated by modern day Dharmics.

Do you think Islam in 21st century is practiced exactly the same way it was practiced in 7th century in tribal Arabia ? So does that mean people convert to a new Islam every few centuries and have no claim on the 7th century version of it ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan is an unique experiment of history.

Those arguing that Pakistan has claim over any pre-Islamic heritage or did not suffer from any civilizational break just because of their location and by handing out examples of Egypt, Persia, Greece are fooling no one.

Egypt, Persia, Greece etc were not formed on the sole basis of religion. Pakistan was. The only raison d` etre of Pakistan is Islam and it's supposed incongruity with the native faiths. These are not my claims, but the reasons handed out by the father of Pakistan Muhammed Ali Jinnah.

The basis for the foundation of a nation has nothing to do with civilizational continuity, unless you now wish to introduce such a metric into the debate, and explain why such a metric is relevant.

'Converts to Hinduism'. That is hilarious.

Hinduism or the way of life evolved. It doesn't mean the faith itself changed.

Bangalore and others have argued that the early 'Vedic Civilization' was atheistic/agnostic - if that was indeed the case, my argument is that modern day Hindu 'Religion' (as signified by the worship of deities and temples for worship) is distinctly different from the faith practiced by the majority of those in earlier civilizations. Therefore, those practicing contemporary 'Hindu Religion' would be 'converts' from the agnostic/atheistic faiths of civilizations past.

Do you think Islam in 21st century is practiced exactly the same way it was practiced in 7th century in tribal Arabia ? So does that mean people convert to a new Islam every few centuries and have no claim on the 7th century version of it ?

Islam, as a religion, is the same in terms of having a single God as its basis, now and when it was first taught.

But by arguing 'atheism/agnosticism', a distinct difference comes up between Hinduism as a religion, and Hinduism (or Vedism or whatever). Those two, atheism/agnosticism vs polytheism/monotheism, are entirely different schools of thought.