History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedPakistan and Hindustan

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Iftikhargul View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iftikhargul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Nov-2005 at 19:39
I agree with some of your comments. But remember that Gandhi and Nehru of India had rejected muslims as outsiders, decendents of muslim invaders, as I had explained earlier and had told them that no federation with India is possible. One and half million(1.5M) muslims were massacred during partition (1947) by Hindu mobs and they were forced to leave India. Because of that they have no love left for that land any more, so I do not blame them either.  Also Baloch's and Pathan's have nothing in common with Indian culture but are "Afghans" by historical facts. So what can you do under those circumstances. Well, you make a compromise and use religion as a binding force which is the muslim world in the west. If you take religion out of the four group of nations making up Pakistan, that country would disintegrate overnight. so it is very important for the leadership to keep telling people who they are, even at the expense of overdoing it.  At the same time, I do not believe that Pakistanies are trying hard to be Persians or Arabs, but are simply saying that there future lies in better alignment with the muslim world. It is a strategic survival strategy, nothing else, because no one can change the historical facts.  As a side note, if Afghans could be united, than off course the dynamics of that region will change for ever. and than there would be no such excuse. However, it is a sad fact that Afghanistan today is an occupied land and the occupiers (Americans and their allies) have the full blessings of people in power (the puppets) and the old Afghan spirit is completely dead. My point being that afghans of Pakistan (baloch, Pathans) have no choice but to ask for a compromise and be part of the free muslim world than that of anybody else across the borders. As far as that lady is concerned, she obviously believes in what she has been taught but common people do what they are told and she obviously can not change the facts, though she can believe in them as true because of indoctrination. I would not read too much into what she says, however, you should also not genralize it.
Back to Top
tubo View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 06-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 57
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tubo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Nov-2005 at 22:01

iftikhargul,

 

man stop your pakistani propaganda...read books for a change.the mad man jinnah wanted more muslim representation than the hindus even when the hindus outnumbered them.the pork eating jinah had this thing about the caliphate of india...

IMHO it is good riddance to bad rubbish when the pakis and bongs were seperated from india.otherwise we would all be beirdo weirdos like them and acting all arab and claiming descent from arabs/iran/rest of the world.lol........and the funny thing is that they are proud of it.these people are totally brainwashed wannabe arabs.no wonder indians have contempt for them.

Back to Top
PrznKonectoid View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PrznKonectoid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Nov-2005 at 22:27
off-topic, but does anyone know what the Indus Valley inhabitants looked like ??
Want to know more on ancient Iran?
http://www.parsaworld.com
or join our forums
FORUM
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Nov-2005 at 22:44
Originally posted by PrznKonectoid PrznKonectoid wrote:

off-topic, but does anyone know what the Indus Valley inhabitants looked like ??



(this image of a priest has often been compared with Sumerians)




 
(this "dancer" instead with Dravidians)





NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
OSMANLI View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2004
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 741
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote OSMANLI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 03:41

tubu, your comments have been put across in an offensive manner.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah to many is a hero, whether you like or not you must have respect to other peoples historical leaders.

The use of the word 'Paki' has already been established in a prior topic as offensive (thanks to the immature British), also i take it that when you say 'Bong' you meen Bangali, again just have courtesy for other nations.

BTW. I suppose you think that there is some sort of 'Pan-Indian' race then do you, then by all meens try to prove your self. For my self and others have shown our reasons for saying that Pakistani's are a unique people thanks to integration with many diffrent races. Arab is one of them, however iam NOT saying that the Pakistani's are Arabs. read the prior posts to get the the full info as well as other topic concerning the Pakistani's


"Freedom for the right of the Headscarf"
Back to Top
tubo View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 06-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 57
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tubo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 12:41
Originally posted by OSMANLI OSMANLI wrote:

tubu, your comments have been put across in an offensive manner.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah to many is a hero, whether you like or not you must have respect to other peoples historical leaders.

The use of the word 'Paki' has already been established in a prior topic as offensive (thanks to the immature British), also i take it that when you say 'Bong' you meen Bangali, again just have courtesy for other nations.

BTW. I suppose you think that there is some sort of 'Pan-Indian' race then do you, then by all meens try to prove your self. For my self and others have shown our reasons for saying that Pakistani's are a unique people thanks to integration with many diffrent races. Arab is one of them, however iam NOT saying that the Pakistani's are Arabs. read the prior posts to get the the full info as well as other topic concerning the Pakistani's



why was my post offensive?
jinnah really did eat pork and was completely secular.if he had lived longer he would had done a ataturk...i just wanted to point the power hungry individual who divided india into seperate communal nations.i am actually quite a big fan of him as with pakistan and bangladesh would be overkill to indian union.so many fundoos  would surely nmake life totally different.i am speaking as a tibetan refugee living in india and have never been discriminated in anyway.i am so tired of fundoo muslim whine blaming hindus for their poverty.

india is a not a country belonging to any race or religion.we are all indians here.we dont need  any arab/persian/chinese or any foreign blood for prestige unlike pakistanis and we are not slaves to any foreign doctrine.i think we are doing pretty well.thank you.

psaki is just shortform for pakistani in india and bangladeshis are called  bongs or bd.no racism anywhere.they are all roughly the  same people.
Back to Top
Iftikhargul View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iftikhargul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 12:43
Jinah was the best indian leader of that time. He was well educated lawyer He had become fully westernized and unlike Gandhi who was more cunning and who pretened to be poor Indian to play on the fears of Indian, Jinah did not think it was an honourable to adopt and remained fully westernized while fighting for the rights of Indian muslims. Gandhi, on the other hand, was a good actor and obviously a hypocrate as well as an extremely arrogant person. His attire of half naked, bare footed person with cheap glasses, was more of a worst hypocracy in demonstration than reality because he had an army of people looking after his every need. His arrogrance was evidanced when he refused to acknowledge Indian muslim leadership and when he realized that he had no choice but to accept them, he decided to ask for the division of Indian nation than to accept the federation. Do not tell me to read history books written by Indians but read the archives in British library. It will open up your narrow mind. Instead of personal attacks, you do not have any solid proofs and convincing arguments to prove me wrong.
Back to Top
tubo View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 06-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 57
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tubo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 13:30
Originally posted by Iftikhargul Iftikhargul wrote:

Jinah was the best indian leader of that time. He was well educated lawyer He had become fully westernized and unlike Gandhi who was more cunning and who pretened to be poor Indian to play on the fears of Indian, Jinah did not think it was an honourable to adopt and remained fully westernized while fighting for the rights of Indian muslims. Gandhi, on the other hand, was a good actor and obviously a hypocrate as well as an extremely arrogant person. His attire of half naked, bare footed person with cheap glasses, was more of a worst hypocracy in demonstration than reality because he had an army of people looking after his every need. His arrogrance was evidanced when he refused to acknowledge Indian muslim leadership and when he realized that he had no choice but to accept them, he decided to ask for the division of Indian nation than to accept the federation. Do not tell me to read history books written by Indians but read the archives in British library. It will open up your narrow mind. Instead of personal attacks, you do not have any solid proofs and convincing arguments to prove me wrong.


exactly and jinnah was no exception.all the leaders had huge ego problem and wanted their own way.poor jinnah the innocent wanted muslim dominance in india and nehru wanted his primeministry so gandhi had to agree to partition.and thank god for it.

ps:gandhi was a fool but no bigot.compared to jinnah he was a apostle.jinnah the psycopath was directly resposible for millions that died in partition.the only good about him was that he took lots of fundoos away with him.good riddance.
Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1031
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 18:45
I can't remember if it was this topic or another, but i quite like the idea of using the Indus as a marker (in the unlikely event that part of Pakistan does reunite with the subcontinent). Of course i think using the actual line of  the Indus river would be giving away too much land. Giving most Baluchistani inhabited areas their own country or to Afghanistan would be better in my opinion.  More similar to this map but with a few differences:
http://www.gl.iit.edu/govdocs/maps/Afghanistan-Pakistan%20 border.gif

Quite alot of the Pakistani's  I know are culturally similar and i can actually communicate with a few of their parents in Urdu. What really gets to me though is how some are deadest against India and Indian culture. Some would rather learn Islamic history rather than their own when quite obviously they're more similar to the rest of north Indians (judging from the part of Pakistan they come from).

I actually donít like any of the 3 politicians, they all have messed us around. Nehru's government had some of the worst economic policies Iíve ever seen, Jinah split our country back up and Gandhi was just a public icon who would have had India going in the completely wrong direction had he been in power. I feel as if he's role has been heavily over played and that his generation completely ruined the Indian image in the world by proclaiming that it was the Indian way to be "non-violent" and having double standards by admitting that all races are equal, and then go on about how they're version of Indian culture was superior.

And Iftikhargul, Iím sure you didnít intend to, but you give the impression that Hinduís were the only ones killing on the border.  Hindu's died too at Muslim hands.


and for the record there has been pan Indian empires e.g. Maurya.


OSMANLI, our best jobs are taken by Muslims. For example, our film industry's best actors are khans e.g. Shah Rukh Khan, Amir Khan Salman Khan, (prince) Saif Ali Khan. Then thereís cricketers e.g. Azhurudin, Zaheer Khan, Mohammad Kaif etc. Then don't forget our president Doctor Abdul Kalam.



Edited by Anujkhamar
Back to Top
Iftikhargul View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iftikhargul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 20:17
I agree there was violence on both sides and millions of lives were ruined.
I also believe that the world is changing very fast and wars and conflicts are outdated concepts. What matters today is the well being of individuals and as a result of it national boundaries across the world are dissolving pretty fast. The world as a whole is moving towards a giant trading block and with time India and Pakistan will have to come to terms with the realities that they must also end hostilities if their people are to make progress. 
Back to Top
Jazz View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 29-Mar-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 410
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jazz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 21:29
Originally posted by Anujkhamar Anujkhamar wrote:

I can't remember if it was this topic or another, but i quite like the idea of using the Indus as a marker (in the unlikely event that part of Pakistan does reunite with the subcontinent). Of course i think using the actual line of  the Indus river would be giving away too much land. Giving most Baluchistani inhabited areas their own country or to Afghanistan would be better in my opinion.  More similar to this map but with a few differences:
http://www.gl.iit.edu/govdocs/maps/Afghanistan-Pakistan%20 border.gif
....


By "marker" do you mean border?  (Also your link is not working)
If this were to happen (I agree it is not likely) I would use the linguistic border between the Indo-Ayran group and the Iranian group.  Assuming that Pakistan is like India where the provincial boundaries mirror linguistic borders, this would put the Pakistani provinces of Punjab and Sindh as the Indo Aryan extension within Pakistan.  Thus, Baluchi, Pashto and the rest of the Iranian group would be on the other side....
Back to Top
ScythianEmpire View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04-Nov-2005
Location: Pakistan
Status: Offline
Points: 105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ScythianEmpire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 16:36

Most of what you lot have said is complete nonsense.

Afghanan, I dont know why you go on about this Pakistani lady you know. Perhaps she has a point and is right, and you are not!!

Quote Differences between Pakistanis and Indians


Language/linguistics:

About 75% of languages spoken in Pakistan are Indo-Aryan and 24%
are Iranian, both part of the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European
family of languages. All languages of Pakistan are written in the
Perso-Arabic script, with significant vocabulary derived from Arabic
and Persian. Punjabi, Seraiki, Sindhi, Pashto, Urdu, Balochi,
Kashmiri, etc. are the languages spoken in Pakistan. 

About 70% of languages spoken in India are Indo-Aryan, 25% are
Dravidian, and 5% are Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic, all distinct
family of languages. Most languages in India are written in Brahmi-
derived scripts such as Devangari, Gurmukhi, Tamil, etc. Hindi,
Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Assamese,
Punjabi, and many others are the mother-tongue languages spoken in
each of India's states.

As you can see both countries have distinct linguistic identities.
Even in the case of Punjabi, while it is the mother-tongue of a
majority in Pakistan, it represents the mother-tongue of only 2%
Indians. Besides, Pakistani Punjabi (Western Punjabi) is distinct in
its vocabulary/dialect and writing script when compared to Indian
Punjabi (Eastern Punjabi).

In the case of Urdu/Hindi, while Hindi is the mother-
tongue of a majority in India, Urdu is the mother-tongue of only 8%
Pakistanis. Besides, they both are distinct languages, Urdu has a
writing script and strong vocabulary derived from Arabic and
Persian, whereas Hindi has strong vocabulary derived from Sanskrit
and is written in Devangari script.
Most Pakistanis can understand
English and watch American/Brit movies but that does not make them
British/American, same is the case with Hindi.

 



Back to Top
ScythianEmpire View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04-Nov-2005
Location: Pakistan
Status: Offline
Points: 105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ScythianEmpire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 16:53
Originally posted by Jhangora Jhangora wrote:

Originally posted by Afghanan Afghanan wrote:

Pakistanis try very hard to cling to the Persian world, while their roots and language bring them more to the East towards Hindustan.

I agree Afghanan.I came across a Pakistani website which tries to prove that Pakistan has always been a separate political n cultural entity n throughout history Pakistan has had its face towards West Asia n back towards India.

I wish my Pakistani brothers n sisters good luck n hope they'd be fully integrated with the West Asian nations in a few decades.

It is a historical fact that Pakistan has not been part of the entity you term "India/Hindustan/Bharat" for any susbstantial period of time in the last 5 millenia. "India" was actually coined by the British. It never existed before the 18th century or thereabouts.

If you look at the history of the subcontinent, you will see clearly that Pakistan has never been a major part of India or Hindu rule

Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present:


1. Indus Valley Civilization: 3000-1500 B.C. i.e. about 1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire.

4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.

5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.

6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

7. Saka-Parthian period: 100 B.C.- 70 A.D. i.e. about 170 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

8. Kushan rule (1st phase): 70-250 A.D. i.e. about 180 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.

9. Kushan rule (2nd phase): 250-450 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Independent, separate from India. Also, a major part under Sassanian empire for some time, not part of India.

10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st phase): 450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.

11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India. Also, a major portion under Arab Ummayyad and Abbasid empires for some time, not part of India.

12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D. i.e. 177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.

13. Ghorid and Qubacha periods: 1187-1227 A.D. i.e. about 40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

14. Muslim period (Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.

15. Nadir Shah and Abdali periods: 1739-1800 A.D. i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.

16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan: 1800-1848 A.D. i.e. about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.

17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e. about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.

18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan: 1947-present. Independent, not part of India.


The above table reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian 'claim' that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west or becoming independent. This is true both commercially and culturally.

Back to Top
ScythianEmpire View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04-Nov-2005
Location: Pakistan
Status: Offline
Points: 105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ScythianEmpire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 16:56

Originally posted by Gubook Janggoon Gubook Janggoon wrote:

Many countries, if divided, want to be reunited again...IE, North and SOuth korea, China and Taiwan, and ect...
What is the sentiment about Pakistan and Hindustan?

Nope, Pakistan and India dont have much in common. Not even Punjab and Sindh in my opinion. Punjabis are very pro Pakistani and so are Sindhis. NWFP has always been loyal to Pakistan and had at least two military rulers of the country.

Back to Top
ScythianEmpire View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04-Nov-2005
Location: Pakistan
Status: Offline
Points: 105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ScythianEmpire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 16:57
Originally posted by warlord warlord wrote:

The partition of India was the best thing that ever happened.

Agreed.

Back to Top
ScythianEmpire View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04-Nov-2005
Location: Pakistan
Status: Offline
Points: 105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ScythianEmpire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 17:03

Originally posted by Anujkhamar Anujkhamar wrote:

OSMANLI, our best jobs are taken by Muslims. For example, our film industry's best actors are khans e.g. Shah Rukh Khan, Amir Khan Salman Khan, (prince) Saif Ali Khan. Then thereís cricketers e.g. Azhurudin, Zaheer Khan, Mohammad Kaif etc. Then don't forget our president Doctor Abdul Kalam.

This is of course a gross misrepresentation, but most can see the underrepresentation of Muslims in positions of power, such as the Indian parliament as one example, though there's many more.

Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1031
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 19:28
You know you can reply in one post, or is this a new tactic to increase post count.

And for the record on this forum we are against plagerism. If your going to copy and past tables from about (i've found 5 so far) pakistani websites then atleast give a source for them:
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/periods.html

And which punjabis have you been talking to? The majority i know are pro-indian, but that doesnt matter, just out of curiousity.

On another note, ok fine so parts of Pakistan have been a seperate entity, but i don't think of our countries like that. I tend to think of them more as states in the subcontinant which were grouped together to form two larger countries (later three).

Also, when i speak of India historically, i do regurlarly call the subcontinant india, or "in what is now modern day pakistan" like most scholars do.

And to the table:
1) Indus valley civilisation - How exactly was it not Indian? So it's not within our current boundries, as i said above, its in the subcontinant, follewed hinduism/a predecessor etc.
2) Aryan period - separate from india? If the majority of Indians arn't Aryans then what are they exactly?
3) Part's of present day pakistan were under Indian control at the time, ok some was controlled by the Iranians.
4) OK, for these 26 years i'll give the greeks pakistan (not sure whether all of modern day pakistan was under greek control though.
5) Part of India - does it even matter if it's bhuddist? Since when has religion been an isue to this? And if it is Bhuddism = indian religion and hindu's don't care.
6) OK, bactrian
7) OK, saka
8) Kushan, ok fine i'll give you number 9 too.
9) look at 8)
10-15) ok foreign rule
16) I'm sorry to burst your bubble, sikhs......they're indian last time i checked. Ok fine, there are pakistani sikhs, but do you find any books that firmly state that sikhism is a pakistani religion? No, they'll say it originated in Talwindi, near Lahore in modern day pakistan. Also, there are more sikhs in India
17) British empire, united with India. Ok fine, not part of india, but surely part of an Indian subcontinent. People then didn't fight for "pakistan" they either fought for themselves or for their country ie Punjab etc. Back then there was no movement to create an islamic state.
18) 1947- present, OK. For the first time in history, Pakistan excists. It fights various wars with india, invades Kashmir, and then sells parts of it to the Chinese.

To the comment under the table which isnt even your own writting:
Once again, Bhuddists are Indian, it is a religion of Indian origin. People didnt care if they had a Bhuddist emporer like Asoka. When Asoka made his empire, he was a hindu. But either way, it was an empire built on land politics and economic power. Not for the expansion of religion. Becasue it is not a hindu empire does not make it non-indian.

Lets face it, our history is yours. Our land is yours. Your history is ours. Your land is ours.

And what i wrote isn't a misconception. Everyone in that list is muslim and Indian. Yes, muslims are underrepresented in the country, i wouldnt argue otherwise, that list was just me proclaiming joy to my fellow muslim countrymen.
Back to Top
Iftikhargul View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iftikhargul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 21:06
I agree with Anujkhamar that religion should not be an issue when discussing nations. There are Indian Muslims , Indian Christians and Indian Hindus just as there are Pakistani Hindus, Pakistani Sikhs and Pakistani Christians etc. etc. and no one has the right to consider the others irrelevent as far as their classification as a people is concerned.  Historically, there are only two nations defined on the basis of religion, Pakistan and Israel and they both have similar problems when it comes down to defing there minorities and there rights. All nations based on religion eventually fail.

  In general, as I said earlier, the Indus river in general has acted as a natural boundary between the western nations and the Indian subcontinent, regardless of how you further subdivide the people of Indian subcontinent. Even today, one sees sharp contrast in the culture of people living across that boundary within Pakistan.

  Pakistan, though, was created on the basis of religion, it has become a very secular country, further deminishing importance of that division. Pakistan Army in recent times has fought with its own people (in WANA with local population, or with Al Qaeda) who associate with other people on the basis of religion.  In Israel, ther is also great deal of friction between Middle eastern Jews, African Jews and  European Jews. The African and Middle eastern Jews have always complained of being treated as second class citizens. On the otherhand, Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims have fought together as a team against Jews and as a result they are identified as Palestinians and not as muslims or christians.

  In summary, religion has nothing to do with nationalism and nationalism based on religion, eventually, almost always fails as it's influence over people errodes with time.

Back to Top
ScythianEmpire View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04-Nov-2005
Location: Pakistan
Status: Offline
Points: 105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ScythianEmpire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 04:37

Originally posted by Anujkhamar Anujkhamar wrote:

You know you can reply in one post, or is this a new tactic to increase post count.

And for the record on this forum we are against plagerism. If your going to copy and past tables from about (i've found 5 so far) pakistani websites then atleast give a source for them:
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/periods.html 

I can give sources for them all if someone asked. It's highlighted in red anyway to symbolize it's a copy and paste job.

Quote

And which punjabis have you been talking to? The majority i know are pro-indian, but that doesnt matter, just out of curiousity.

This isnt true. Punjabis are the biggest Pakistani nationalists around. Even the Muhajirs consider themselves Punjabi. The Punjabis have the most power in Pakistan, you could call them the ruling elite. If they's a province that wouldnt be pro-Pakistan you'd have to look at the poorer ones ; Punjab and even Sindh are not them.

Quote
On another note, ok fine so parts of Pakistan have been a seperate entity, but i don't think of our countries like that. I tend to think of them more as states in the subcontinant which were grouped together to form two larger countries (later three).

?????? Isnt the US the same, a group of states bunched together? You consider California to be a country?

Quote
Also, when i speak of India historically, i do regurlarly call the subcontinant india, or "in what is now modern day pakistan" like most scholars do.

You calling the subcontinent "India" does not give make the subcontinent have an "Indian" past. When the Greco-Bactrians ruled from 200 BC-100 BC, the people growing up during that period also probably called the subcontinent "Bactria", it didnt have a "Bactrian" history though.

Quote
the table:

1) Indus valley civilisation - How exactly was it not Indian? So it's not within our current boundries, as i said above, its in the subcontinant, follewed hinduism/a predecessor etc

The Indus Valley Civ was before the Aryan invasion that probably brought Hinduism into the region. It was probably the Harrapa culture. It was based in modern day Pakistan. Nothing to do with India!!

Quote
2) Aryan period - separate from india? If the majority of Indians arn't Aryans then what are they exactly?

Most Indians are Dravidian (indigenous population) with some Aryan mixing.

Aryan Civilization In or about 1500 B.C., the Aryans descended upon the Punjab and settled in the Sapta Sindhu, which signifies the Indus plain. They developed a pastoral society that grew into the Rigvedic Civilization. The Rigveda is replete with hymns of praise for this region, which they describe as "God fashioned". It is also clear that so long as the Sapta Sindhu remained the core of the Aryan Civilization, it remained free from the caste system. The caste institution and the ritual of complex sacrifices took shape in the Gangetic Valley. There can be no doubt that the Indus Civilization contributed much to the development of the Aryan civilization.

Here's the source, just for you

http://www.infopak.gov.pk/public/govt/history.html 

Sapta Sindhu (Nation of seven rivers), obviously refers to the Indus, which is where they settled and ruled from (Indus region is modern day Pakistan). The Gangetic region (India) was also settled, a completely different area to the Indus.

Quote

5) Part's of present day pakistan were under Indian control at the time, ok some was controlled by the Iranians.

When was Pakistan under Indian control? It hardly ever was!!

Quote

4) OK, for these 26 years i'll give the greeks pakistan (not sure whether all of modern day pakistan was under greek control though.
5) Part of India - does it even matter if it's bhuddist? Since when has religion been an isue to this? And if it is Bhuddism = indian religion and hindu's don't care.

Well yeah, I agree religion isnt an issue. But the fundamentalism amongst Hindus is as bad, if not worse than Islamic fundamentalism in that region. The BJP were a far right government example of this fundamentalism.

Quote
6) OK, bactrian
7) OK, saka
8) Kushan, ok fine i'll give you number 9 too.
9) look at 8)
10-15) ok foreign rule
16) I'm sorry to burst your bubble, sikhs......they're indian last time i checked. Ok fine, there are pakistani sikhs, but do you find any books that firmly state that sikhism is a pakistani religion? No, they'll say it originated in Talwindi, near Lahore in modern day pakistan. Also, there are more sikhs in India

Sikhs ruled the states in Pakistan they had from Pakistan, not from India. There was no control from "India", or a government based in what is now called India. But even so, it's a minor point. Sikhs only ruled these territories for 48 years.

Quote
7) British empire, united with India. Ok fine, not part of india, but surely part of an Indian subcontinent. People then didn't fight for "pakistan" they either fought for themselves or for their country ie Punjab etc. Back then there was no movement to create an islamic state.

The rule of India and Pakistan was from London, not anywhere in the subcontinent. Pakistan was a part (I should say colony) of Britain then. Nothing to do with India.

Quote

1947- present, OK. For the first time in history, Pakistan excists. It fights various wars with india, invades Kashmir, and then sells parts of it to the Chinese.

Also it's the first time "India" exists too. Before that it was known as "British India" and before that by a variety of names. The Kashmir issue is another topic, one which I can readily debate with you, but you will lose the argument, as the legitmacy lies with Pakistan more so than India. However independence of the people is what they want.

Quote

Comment under the table which isnt even your own writting:
Once again, Bhuddists are Indian, it is a religion of Indian origin. People didnt care if they had a Bhuddist emporer like Asoka. When Asoka made his empire, he was a hindu. But either way, it was an empire built on land politics and economic power. Not for the expansion of religion. Becasue it is not a hindu empire does not make it non-indian.

Islam didnt originate in Pakistan. Same with Buddhism. Being a Buddhist doesnt make you Indian or even from the subcontinent. However, I think you've read the table wrong. It says that Buddhist rule was a part of Indian rule. It actually gives it you, if you read it.

"5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.

Quote

Lets face it, our history is yours. Our land is yours. Your history is ours. Your land is ours.

And what i wrote isn't a misconception. Everyone in that list is muslim and Indian. Yes, muslims are underrepresented in the country, i wouldnt argue otherwise, that list was just me proclaiming joy to my fellow muslim countrymen.

.. 

I dont think you can disagree with the table which I so villainously lifted from a website (which should have been obvious as it was in red writing). The authority of the region of Pakistan was never under Indian rule.



Edited by ScythianEmpire
Back to Top
ScythianEmpire View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04-Nov-2005
Location: Pakistan
Status: Offline
Points: 105
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ScythianEmpire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 04:49

Originally posted by Iftikhargul Iftikhargul wrote:

I agree with Anujkhamar that religion should not be an issue when discussing nations. There are Indian Muslims , Indian Christians and Indian Hindus just as there are Pakistani Hindus, Pakistani Sikhs and Pakistani Christians etc. etc. and no one has the right to consider the others irrelevent as far as their classification as a people is concerned.  Historically, there are only two nations defined on the basis of religion, Pakistan and Israel and they both have similar problems when it comes down to defing there minorities and there rights. All nations based on religion eventually fail.

  In general, as I said earlier, the Indus river in general has acted as a natural boundary between the western nations and the Indian subcontinent, regardless of how you further subdivide the people of Indian subcontinent. Even today, one sees sharp contrast in the culture of people living across that boundary within Pakistan.

  Pakistan, though, was created on the basis of religion, it has become a very secular country, further deminishing importance of that division. Pakistan Army in recent times has fought with its own people (in WANA with local population, or with Al Qaeda) who associate with other people on the basis of religion.  In Israel, ther is also great deal of friction between Middle eastern Jews, African Jews and  European Jews. The African and Middle eastern Jews have always complained of being treated as second class citizens. On the otherhand, Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims have fought together as a team against Jews and as a result they are identified as Palestinians and not as muslims or christians.

  In summary, religion has nothing to do with nationalism and nationalism based on religion, eventually, almost always fails as it's influence over people errodes with time.

Pakistan was created as a secular Islamic state. If you read Jinnah's statements on Pakistan formation you'll see he clearly envisioned a secular state. It was formed out of necessity to give what now would have been a third of a billion indidenous people, political rights.

In fact, the religious folk were against the formation of Pakistan.



Edited by ScythianEmpire
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.