Why is great philosopher Kautilya not part of Pakistan’s historical consciousness?

[Rusty]

Comprehension issues? I never said killing anybody over beef or pork is halal.

But isn't it rich for somebody who gets worked up with pork as much, if not more, as Hindus for beef?

Banning beef is absurd in the 21st century, but you guys conveniently ignore your own absurdity when it comes to eating pork! How is that for a mirror?

If some good-for-nothings killed somebody for beef, there are several instances of Muslims killing people for eating pork or those that are suspected of feeding them pork. In any case, you guys don't even need somebody to be eating beef to lynch him. Just a mere allegation of some kind of blasphemy is enough for the heads to roll - literally.

So get off your high horse.

It's not my comprehension, you actually make you sense.
How the hell are you making a comparison with pork and Beef?
There are no Muslims who go around killing people for eating pork. You can actually buy pork in many Muslim countries. Hell you can buy alcohol in many Muslim countries.

Meanwhile in India http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/...-transporting-cows-india-170405135636103.html

the fact that you even though to compare the two shows your rock bottom IQ.

My choice to not eat pork is not absurd, it's my human right.
your choice to KILL ME for eating beef, however, is absurd and shows how Hinduism is so backwards in this regard.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

It's not my comprehension, you actually make you sense.
How the hell are you making a comparison with pork and Beef?
There are no Muslims who go around killing people for eating pork. You can actually buy pork in many Muslim countries. Hell you can buy alcohol in many Muslim countries.

Meanwhile in India http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/...-transporting-cows-india-170405135636103.html

the fact that you even though to compare the two shows your rock bottom IQ.

My choice to not eat pork is not absurd, it's my human right.
your choice to KILL ME for eating beef, however, is absurd and shows how Hinduism is so backwards in this regard.

I love how you guys masquerade your own religious absurdities as personal preferences and human rights when we all know what human rights and individual freedom mean to Muslims and Muslim countries!

What's next? Calling forced circumcision of innocent & helpless young kids as their own personal preferences and their lifestyle choices?

The fact that your religion prohibits eating pork, just as absurdly as Hinduism prohibits eating beef, is out of date and out of touch with reality. Nothing to do with your human right.

The only difference is Hindus (most, anyway) don't eat beef because they consider cows as sacred animals and you guys seem to somehow deduce that pork meat is not clean! In any case, Indian laws don't allow slaughter of cows. If the law itself was enforced properly, there would be no cow vigilantism. It is that simple!

And you guys are just as eager to take to violence for serving pork! And this was after the school staffers had warned the pupils in advance that there was pork on the menu and asked the Muslim pupils to not eat it!
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/tension-in-kerala-village-as-school-serves-pork/

Again, get off your high horse! If it ever came to comparing religious absurdities, eagerness to indulge in violence and extremism and intolerant ideas, you guys beat the rest of the humanity combined - hands down!

Just one fact that you promise to offer the gullible, 72 virgins for doing your dirty work itself should make any civilized person bow his head in shame! And you guys have the nerve to call others backwards?

 

[Rusty]

I love how you guys masquerade your own religious absurdities as personal preferences and human rights when we all know what human rights and individual freedom mean to Muslims and Muslim countries!

What's next? Calling forced circumcision of innocent & helpless young kids as their own personal preferences and their lifestyle choices?

The fact that your religion prohibits eating pork, just as absurdly as Hinduism prohibits eating beef, is out of date and out of touch with reality. Nothing to do with your human right.

The only difference is Hindus (most, anyway) don't eat beef because they consider cows as sacred animals and you guys seem to somehow deduce that pork meat is not clean! In any case, Indian laws don't allow slaughter of cows. If the law itself was enforced properly, there would be no cow vigilantism. It is that simple!

And you guys are just as eager to take to violence for serving pork! And this was after the school staffers had warned the pupils in advance that there was pork on the menu and asked the Muslim pupils to not eat it!
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/tension-in-kerala-village-as-school-serves-pork/

Again, get off your high horse! If it ever came to comparing religious absurdities, eagerness to indulge in violence and extremism and intolerant ideas, you guys beat the rest of the humanity combined - hands down!

Just one fact that you promise to offer the gullible, 72 virgins for doing your dirty work itself should make any civilized person bow his head in shame! And you guys have the nerve to call others backwards?

Your can small the desperation in your comments a mile away.

Since you people don't seem to understand basic human concepts, let me explain again.

Modern human rights say that I have a right to eat any kind of food I want and also have the right to not eat any kind of food I don't want. If I want to eat beef and not want to eat pork, that is my right as a human.

Unfortunately, Hindus don't seem to understand that. I think it's because their faith is inherently fascist, they think they have a right to TELL me what foods I can and can't eat. In their minds it's morally okay to KILL ME because I chose to eat beef. That is a fascist ideology.

And you trying to make a comparison with Muslims and pork is laughable. Even the article you gave shows that the Muslims were upset that they were served pork. They didn't care that Christians were eating it. And they certainly didn't kill anyone over it.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

Your can small the desperation in your comments a mile away.

Since you people don't seem to understand basic human concepts, let me explain again.

Modern human rights say that I have a right to eat any kind of food I want and also have the right to not eat any kind of food I don't want. If I want to eat beef and not want to eat pork, that is my right as a human.

Unfortunately, Hindus don't seem to understand that. I think it's because their faith is inherently fascist, they think they have a right to TELL me what foods I can and can't eat. In their minds it's morally okay to KILL ME because I chose to eat beef. That is a fascist ideology.

And you trying to make a comparison with Muslims and pork is laughable. Even the article you gave shows that the Muslims were upset that they were served pork. They didn't care that Christians were eating it. And they certainly didn't kill anyone over it.

Lol, I like how you ignore everything else that I say about forced circumcision and the offer of 72 virgins and steer the conversation back to beef? The only desperate person here, is you. And you know it - that's why you keep coming back to beef!

Hinduism didn't ask that those that eat beef be killed. Indian laws don't permit to kill anyone, let alone for eating beef. But I will tell you what is TRULY fascist! It is when you, as a law (as it actually happens in many Muslim countries), close down all the eateries during Ramzan during day time and force even the non-Muslims to go hungry or go underground to eat their own food! Isn't it punishable by law to eat ANY KIND of food in the open during Ramzan? And you have the gall to call Hinduism fascist?

And if you cared to read the full article and many on the similar lines, you will see that nobody force-fed pork to the Muslims. In fact they were duly warned. Yet the Muslim mobs would have thrashed the teachers to death had they not been rescued in time! If it was up to them, they would like to punish ANYBODY eating ANYTHING during Ramzan during day time!

Yet we have apologists like you trying to defend that absurdity!

 

[Rusty]

Lol, I like how you ignore everything else that I say about forced circumcision and the offer of 72 virgins and steer the conversation back to beef? The only desperate person here, is you. And you know it - that's why you keep coming back to beef!

Hinduism didn't ask that those that eat beef be killed. Indian laws don't permit to kill anyone, let alone for eating beef. But I will tell you what is TRULY fascist! It is when you, as a law (as it actually happens in many Muslim countries), close down all the eateries during Ramzan during day time and force even the non-Muslims to go hungry or go underground to eat their own food! Isn't it punishable by law to eat ANY KIND of food in the open during Ramzan? And you have the gall to call Hinduism fascist?

And if you cared to read the full article and many on the similar lines, you will see that nobody force-fed pork to the Muslims. In fact they were duly warned. Yet the Muslim mobs would have thrashed the teachers to death had they not been rescued in time! If it was up to them, they would like to punish ANYBODY eating ANYTHING during Ramzan during day time!

Yet we have apologists like you trying to defend that absurdity!

Not much to really say.

 

[wiseone2]

According to my personal opinion the main reason we can't or don't claim our old heritage is Islam and philosophies related to our old past has no relevance in Islam.

I may add according to your interpretation of Islam

 

[Joe Shearer]

Kushans are (possibly the earliest) ancestors of Pakhtuns. They made Gandhara aka Peshawar the Capital, and expanded to become a large empire encompassing all the territory of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and chunks of India. There's a strong argument that they were the very first Pakhtun empire.

Please punju, stop trying to steal heritage. Stop acting like Gangadeshis. I'm sure you have something that you can brag about, without trying to rip off your superiors.



This is actually accurate, but not in contradiction with Islam. Islam says there were messengers before Muhammad (PBUH). The messages got corrupted, and he was there to deliver the final message.

While the origins of the Kushans is reasonably understood, their relationship to the Pashtun is not. This is really a bit of kite-flying. Further, Gandhara was a region, not a city; for the old name of Peshawar, Olaf Caroe provides some possibilities.

It is strange to read that the Tocharians expanded their empire from Peshawar; their origins, from which they were driven in two successive waves by the Hiung Nu, were in Gansu. Their imperial foundations came to rest on Peshawar pretty late in their career; by then, they had (again, for the second time) driven before them their predecessors, the Scythians and the Pahlavas, down to southern Afghanistan, where the Scythians displaced the earlier name of the province with their own, Sakasthan, now Seistan.

@Joe Shearer

Give life a break for a bit and come back.

Things seem to be looking up ....

Cheers, Doc



Of course.

That is just plain (or wilful) ignorance.

Cheers, Doc

Thanks, but No, thanks.

Very good posts, Doc. Have you read about the prolonged Persian resistance, finally confined to the high mountains, to the Arabs?

 

[padamchen]

While the origins of the Kushans is reasonably understood, their relationship to the Pashtun is not. This is really a bit of kite-flying. Further, Gandhara was a region, not a city; for the old name of Peshawar, Olaf Caroe provides some possibilities.

It is strange to read that the Tocharians expanded their empire from Peshawar; their origins, from which they were driven in two successive waves by the Hiung Nu, were in Gansu. Their imperial foundations came to rest on Peshawar pretty late in their career; by then, they had (again, for the second time) driven before them their predecessors, the Scythians and the Pahlavas, down to southern Afghanistan, where the Scythians displaced the earlier name of the province with their own, Sakasthan, now Seistan.



Thanks, but No, thanks.

Very good posts, Doc. Have you read about the prolonged Persian resistance, finally confined to the high mountains, to the Arabs?

Yes Joe. 300 years on from Al Qadissiya (sp?) till all of Persia finally converted to Islam around 1000 AD.

While the Parsis hung on in Gujarat, preserving lineage and the holy Atash.

Waiting and hoping to return to a reclaimed Zoroastrian Persia.

From what was initially and always supposed to be a temporary flight to protect the flame.

Thank you for the appreciation. I often wish I studied history instead of medicine ....

Cheers, Doc

 

[Stephen Cohen]

While the Parsis hung on in Gujarat, preserving lineage and the holy Atash.

A word of Apprecition ; Gratitude and Respect for Hindus is in order

Where would Parsis be without Hindus

 

[padamchen]

A word of Apprecition ; Gratitude and Respect for Hindus is in order

Where would Parsis be without Hindus

I believe the Parsis have done all of the above through action and conduct, without simple empty words.

They are way more Indian than Sanghis ever were or will ever be.

Don't lecture Parsis. They will give you lessons in ethics loyalty faith guts bravery and nationalism completely alien to your being.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Stephen Cohen]

They will give you lessons in ethics loyalty faith guts bravery and nationalism completely alien to your being.

Says somebody whose ancestors abandoned their country and sought refuge in Hindustan and were saved and nurtured by Hindus

 

[padamchen]

Says somebody whose ancestors abandoned their country and sought refuge in Hindustan and were saved and nurtured by Hindus

You need to go back in time and discuss that with Jadi Rana and Zoroastrian ancestors.

Modern day Parsis are Indians.

Have been for 1300 years.

Have fought and bled for this land.

Something only a handful of "indigenous" Hindu people have.

I mark indigenous in quotes because the Vedic Hindu bloodlines come from us.

And were also foreign when they invaded and butchered and then intermingled with native Dravid bloodlines.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Stephen Cohen]

You need to go back in time and discuss that with Jadi Rana and Zoroastrian ancestors.

Modern day Parsis are Indians.

Have been for 1300 years.

Have fought and bled for this land.

Something only a handful of "indigenous" Hindu people have.

I mark indigenous in quotes because the Vedic Hindu bloodlines come from us.

And were also foreign when they invaded and butchered and then intermingled with native Dravid bloodlines.

Cheers, Doc

FINE ; then instead of pontificating ; lecturing and preaching to us the
virtues of tolerance ; ask us WHEN were we intolerant in the first place

Tolerance has been and is being construed as our weakness

 

[Narcissist]

While the origins of the Kushans is reasonably understood, their relationship to the Pashtun is not. This is really a bit of kite-flying.

Not entirely. Only certain aspects of their origins will count as reasonably understood. Opinions by scholars range from Tocharian, Iranian/Iranic, or Indo-European. They were pastorial and nomadic, and the general geographic region where they came from is somewhat understood.

Their relationship with Pashtuns may not be 100% understood, which is why we're presenting our theories. That said, I'm certainly not the only one who's thought of this. Gankovsky believes Pashtuns to be a mix of Kushans and Hepthalites.

Further, Gandhara was a region, not a city; for the old name of Peshawar, Olaf Caroe provides some possibilities.

Read any book that makes reference to Gandhara, and it will be as a synonym for Peshawar region..

It is strange to read that the Tocharians expanded their empire from Peshawar; their origins, from which they were driven in two successive waves by the Hiung Nu, were in Gansu. Their imperial foundations came to rest on Peshawar pretty late in their career;

We don't know if they're Tocharians, or of Tocharian descent. Kushans made Peshawar their base for a few centuries (2-3, if I'm not mistaken). Wouldn't say it was late in their career, wouldn't say it was early in their career... I'd say it was their career.

I think you're conflating 2 different things.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Not entirely. Only certain aspects of their origins will count as reasonably understood. Opinions by scholars range from Tocharian, Iranian/Iranic, or Indo-European. They were pastorial and nomadic, and the general geographic region where they came from is somewhat understood.

Unnecessary obfuscation.

The Scythians, who lived on the fringelands of imperial Iran, are already known to be Iranian (Iranic, if you prefer). The Yueh Chi came into direct conflict with them; unless it is sought to be represented that it was an internal battle between two sections of the Scythians themselves, it is difficult to identify them as Iranian/Iranic. Indo-European? Was ist los? Only the Tocharian language, a Centum anomaly within the Satem belt.

Their relationship with Pashtuns may not be 100% understood, which is why we're presenting our theories. That said, I'm certainly not the only one who's thought of this. Gankovsky believes Pashtuns to be a mix of Kushans and Hepthalites.

That mix is a possibility; their springing like Pallas Athena from the forehead of Zeus and finding imperium in Peshawar is a trifle unlikely, no?

Read any book that makes reference to Gandhara, and it will be as a synonym for Peshawar region..

And what is the distinction between what any book that makes reference to Gandhara and what I stated?

We don't know if they're Tocharians, or of Tocharian descent. Kushans made Peshawar their base for a few centuries (2-3, if I'm not mistaken). Wouldn't say it was late in their career, wouldn't say it was early in their career... I'd say it was their career.

Why are they not allowed to be clearly considered as the closest historical narrative considers them? The Moon Clan, the Yueh Chi, or Kushan (Moon Clan in Tocharian), driven out of their original residences in Gansu? Impacting the Scythians on the Indo-Greek kingdom borders and forcing these neighbours into those kingdoms, at a clearly demonstrated point of time, in the 2nd century of the Current Era? Pushing down further through the fabled bleeding horse country of Ferghana in the second flight before the inexorable pressure of the Hiung Nu, and driving the Scythians further south?

It was at the end of this second push that they found themselves astride the former Indo-Greek kingdoms, and of the Gandhara region, and what later came to be known as Peshawar. By then, they had passed through and kept in conquered condition the entire region that we call Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and Balkh and Kabul. It was demonstrably and provably after this that they penetrated the mountain barriers in force, not in presence in Peshawar and the surroundings alone, and left memorials in Saket and other locations in the eastern and middle Gangetic Doab.

I cannot understand your inability to accept that it was at a mature phase of their imperium (their career? complete with cv?), considering that they had traversed the entire region from Gansu to the banks of the Oxus and Jaxartes, and further down as well. If there is a political point to this reluctance, that is quite different, and does not belong to an academic discussion, and the field is indisputably yours, in such a case.

I think you're conflating 2 different things.

I think not. But then, it's a free world.