Who built Red fort in Delhi???

[Levina]

Do read my post. I said "irrespective" of being Hindu or Muslim they are Indian and of no import to us. That vermillion thing does not mean ditt. Jamaican's dress like English, speak English and have significant Anglo Saxon culture traits however non of that entitles them to claim Stonehenge.

5,000 years is a long time. Things evolve. Modern Italians neither speak the original Latin and are followers of a Semitic religion but that does not divorce them from Ancient Rome. The same applies to modern Eygptians. They speak Arabic, are Muslim mostly, use Arabic characters. That does not divorce them either.

Yes 5000 years is a long time. But the vermilion is still used by our women and the shell bangles are still part of our ritualistic practises. Unforunately you can't claim any of it.

Oh I forgot to tell you that use of palm leaf manuscript in present day India was also passed down from IVC/SSC.
Treat India as a cultural space and not a geo-political one.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

My full post for your reference

Your post is contradictory. The first part is in deep contrast to the other. You have attempted a diplomatic compromise. But it's not what you or I think will assuage hurt feelings. What happened has happened. And they are marked in stone.

Yes 5000 years is a long time. But the vermilion is still used by our women and the shell bangles are still part of our ritualistic practises. Unforunately you can't claim any of it.

Oh I forgot to tell you that use of palm leaf manuscript in present day India was also passed down from IVC/SSC.
Treat India as a cultural space and not a geo-political one.

This is a typical PDF issue. Most regular Pakistanis will readily give up IVC because of its non Muslim roots. Have you seen any movement or any such social stand? Nope. Only highly educated people like Atanz*, who CAN think beyond religion and who HAVE adopted nationalism as the primary force harp on this 'owning history' thing. It's a very very rare phenomenon and for most average Pakistanis, their history starts from 712 AD.

*I can bet that he won't agree with 'Pakistan ka matlab kya - La ilaha il...'

 

[Spectre]

Your post is contradictory. The first part is in deep contrast to the other. You have attempted a diplomatic compromise. But it's not what you or I think will assuage hurt feelings. What happened has happened. And they are marked in stone.

Depends on PoV. What was India before 1947?

A whole different can of worms, i have no wish of opening.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Depends on PoV. What was India before 1947?

A whole different can of worms, i have no wish of opening.

India/Hindustan are both foreign constructs. Open as many cans as you wish to. Aryavarta or Bharata are as ancient as history of this land dates back to. If you don't wish to go that far back, the responsibility is solely yours. Not ours.

There is no PoV on this. All historiographies agree that Bharat was an unique entity spanning what today is known as the Indian subcontinent. Pakistanis may have issues with it, but the terms have been used for eons now.

 

[Spectre]

India/Hindustan are both foreign constructs. Open as many cans as you wish to. Aryavarta or Bharata are as ancient as history of this land dates back to. If you don't wish to go that far back, the responsibility is solely yours. Not ours.

That is the key point isn't it, how far back do we really go? 1947 or 1200 AD or 1500 BC or 3000 BC.

What about Dravidians who predate Bharata and Aryavarta, do they have more of a claim to India?

The further we go back, murkier things get due to paucity of credible and verifiable information.

 

[Levina]

This is a very interesting point, I have to agree with you here.

Not agreeing with you would make the entire world history extremely messy and schizophrenic.

At the risk of sounding idealistic, the better thing would be to attribute everything to our combined heritage as who knows who was what in those ancient times

@levina your opinion?

@Atanz had asked me not to claim any of Pakistan's history. I didn't!
I just reminded him that IVC/SSC survives through us.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

@Atanz had asked me not to claim any of Pakistan's history. I didn't!
I just reminded him that IVC/SSC survives through us.

You can't claim Pakistani history. Because it does not exist prior to 1947. Just like Republic of India has no history prior to 1947.

 

[Spectre]

@Atanz had asked me not to claim any of Pakistan's history. I didn't!
I just reminded him that IVC/SSC survives through us.

True, that is the greatness of India we don't exclude but assimilate Everyone is welcome unless you are ....

 

[Levina]

True, that is the greatness of India we don't exclude but assimilate Everyone is welcome unless you are ....

Lol
Complete it.

You can't claim Pakistani history. Because it does not exist prior to 1947. Just like Republic of India has no history prior to 1947.

Sarthak
I wasn't talking about Republic of India.
You know that.

Though orignal fort was built before mughals it's unclear whether Prithviraj built as it's the only viable place in Delhi to construct a fort due to only water source yamuna river.

If not Pritviraj Chauhan then who??

 

[Spectre]

Lol
Complete it.

Well i left it open as we all have prejudices individually, like my mother would never let me marry X but as a society we are pretty inclusive relatively.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

What about Dravidians who predate Bharata and Aryavarta, do they have more of a claim to India

You are going to pre-history.

There is a distinction between history and pre history. The subtle difference is crucial. Go through it first.
Secondly, the Dravidians, then Aryan invasion - etc are all theories - because no historical evidence has provided conclusive proof of their existence. We know Ashoka ruled - because we have his edicts, the famous Stambhs. Greeks and Mauryas had their plaques and so on. There is NOT one description of a Dravidian civilization distinct from an Aryan civilization. Check with contemporary historians, the Aryan Invasion Theory has been all but refuted. Even Marxist historiography accepts that of late.

As for how far back we need to go - the answer is simple... to the time of human civilization, the time when people grew conscious about their unique identity, the time when people gave an identity to the land where they settled down. It is quite simple really. These are basic definitions.

If not Pritviraj Chauhan then who??

He may have started the construction. Or he may have built on someone else's work. It was not as Mughal as we think it to be - perhaps. Now it is Indian, for example. Like IIT Kharagpur was a colonial jail. But we don't say that today, do we?

 

[Levina]

Like IIT Kharagpur was a colonial jail. But we don't say that today, do we?

News to me.

 

[Spectre]

You are going to pre-history.

There is a distinction between history and pre history. The subtle difference is crucial. Go through it first.
Secondly, the Dravidians, then Aryan invasion - etc are all theories - because no historical evidence has provided conclusive proof of their existence. We know Ashoka ruled - because we have his edicts, the famous Stambhs. Greeks and Mauryas had their plaques and so on. There is NOT one description of a Dravidian civilization distinct from an Aryan civilization. Check with contemporary historians, the Aryan Invasion Theory has been all but refuted. Even Marxist historiography accepts that of late.

As for how far back we need to go - the answer is simple... to the time of human civilization, the time when people grew conscious about their unique identity, the time when people gave an identity to the land where they settled down. It is quite simple really. These are basic definitions.

Does not hold water, this is a logical fallacy saying since I have never seen a giraffe as a proof that they do not exist.

Intellectually your points have some merit but oral history and sundry archaeological evidences though scant in their revelations cannot be ignored.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

@Atanz had asked me not to claim any of Pakistan's history. I didn't!
I just reminded him that IVC/SSC survives through us.

It does not survive through anybody please. Like I said this reminds me of those idiots I come across nowe and then who carry the surname "Moghul", are Muslim, claim Central Asia heritage. By your logic all of the Moghul heritage in India including Taj Mahal belongs to them. I don't agree with this silly logic although there is alone 300 years time gap.

Yet you want me to accept 5,000 yeats. Are you kidding me? Another thing. You Indian's appear to change the rules as you go along. When it comes to the Moghul heritage in South Asia you guy's are quite happy to claim it. Suddenly the religious. culture differance makes no differance. However when it comes to Harappa out pops another set of rules so you can claim that as well.

Very. very contrived I think.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Does not hold water, this is a logical fallacy saying since I have never seen a giraffe as a proof that they do not exist.

Intellectually your points have some merit but oral history and sundry archaeological evidences though scant in their revelations cannot be ignored.

Nope. Even if I say giraffes don't exist, some other anthropologist will submit a paper proving they do. Oral history is considered that - ORAL. Myth, hearsay etc. Archaeological evidence is something that is tangible and beyond a shred of doubt. If oral history was taken into account, the Ram Mandir debate would not even arise. Hindus had oral history of destroyed temple and all. But the ASI had to (rightly) dig in and do the thing. Else, the matter would remain just that - hearsay. There are rumors that Taj Mahal was a temple. Are we to accept that because oral history suggests that?

It does not work like that. Unilateral views, however tempting they may be, are not accepted into history books (unless you are writing Pakistan studies). Go through the right winger Sita Ram Goel's historical research. Marxist historians hated him (hate him), but were unable to refute his points scientifically. That is what counts. Not mythology, not hearsay.

News to me.

But true story nevertheless. This was around the Do or Die movement. They ran out of space and decided on a new isolated compound for hardened fighters.

When it comes to the Moghul heritage in South Asia

Not true. The architecture is NOT called Indian architecture. It's called Indo Saracenic, or Indo Islamic etc architecture.
For example - Indo-Islamic architecture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia