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   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedPakistan and Hindustan

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
OSMANLI View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 741
Post Options Post Options   Quote OSMANLI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Pakistan and Hindustan
    Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 06:35

Is it not true that Jinnah (and at present Parvez Musharaf), look upon the Turkish Republic and Kemalizm as their model basis for Pakistan?

However the majority of the population would like to the name of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Pakistan to be true rather than an illusion. When Zia ul Haq came to power he democratically was going to change Pakistan into a Shariet, however a mysterios death came about. Hmm how suspicios!!!

"OSMANLI, our best jobs are taken by Muslims. For example, our film industry's best actors" These actors are Muslim by name, they have clearly sold themselves for fame and fortune. Pfcousre the Indian government will promote such people. How ever iam sure that you must have forgotton to mention about the poor Muslims in the Gujarat, even worse the unhumane regime that you have in place for your Muslim citizens living in Jammu Kashmir


"Freedom for the right of the Headscarf"
Back to Top
ScythianEmpire View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04-Nov-2005
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
Post Options Post Options   Quote ScythianEmpire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 06:59
Originally posted by OSMANLI

Is it not true that Jinnah (and at present Parvez Musharaf), look upon the Turkish Republic and Kemalizm as their model basis for Pakistan?

No is the simple answer. Turkey is trying to get into the EU and has taken a stance on Islamic issues such as Hijab, Pakistan has not.

However the majority of the population would like to the name of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Pakistan to be true rather than an illusion. When Zia ul Haq came to power he democratically was going to change Pakistan into a Shariet, however a mysterios death came about. Hmm how suspicios!!!

I dont think so again. Zia introduced some unimplementable laws that  were rushed through without the approval of the Senate and as such have never been used.

In my opinion, Pakistan doesnt contravene any Islamic law, in its laws, so it can be called an Islamic state. There's no reason why it's not an Islamic state (and secular at the same time). Shariat is not a uniform code for all aspects, it sets the rules, the rest is open to interpretation.

 

Back to Top
Iftikhargul View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote Iftikhargul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 11:20
 I have already said that muslims including Jinah were against the creation of a separate country till 1946 but Nehru , Gandhi and others in congress party were opposed to federation of a muslim state with India. Pakistan was created for muslims of India as an Islamic country and that was the reason behind the unity of the masses irespective of what Jinah said. You can see clearly that the country is becoming extremly unstable and sectarian in nature as Islam continues to lose it's grip on the masses. At present in Pakistan every one is fighting with everyone else simply because of the trend towards western culture and flight from Islamic culture (see Pakistani dramas, haff of the conversation is in English, not urdu->the language of unity). Sectarian violance in Sind, religious violance against Christians and state violance against Pathans and Baloch's in Balochistan etc. etc. is a testament to what I am saying. Statements by leaders or documents stating certain text do not mean anything unless they are backed up by the people, therefore, forget about what Jinah said or what Zia tried to do.
Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1031
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 16:38
Originally posted by OSMANLI

Is it not true that Jinnah (and at present Parvez Musharaf), look upon the Turkish Republic and Kemalizm as their model basis for Pakistan?

However the majority of the population would like to the name of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Pakistan to be true rather than an illusion. When Zia ul Haq came to power he democratically was going to change Pakistan into a Shariet, however a mysterios death came about. Hmm how suspicios!!!

"OSMANLI, our best jobs are taken by Muslims. For example, our film industry's best actors" These actors are Muslim by name, they have clearly sold themselves for fame and fortune. Pfcousre the Indian government will promote such people. How ever iam sure that you must have forgotton to mention about the poor Muslims in the Gujarat, even worse the unhumane regime that you have in place for your Muslim citizens living in Jammu Kashmir

 

what about the poor hindu's in Gujarat? They died too. I just happen to be a Gujarati hindu with muslim friends. And the government does nothing of the sort to promote a "pro-muslim" stance. As i said above, i was merely stating my favourite Indian muslim heroes (apart from Azhurudin)

 

A longer reply coming for ScythianEmpire's posts coming up soon......



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

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1031
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 18:32
Originally posted by ScythianEmpire



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.


Well a good chunk of the Indian army is either sikh or of punjab descedance. So in that case they're playing both sides arn't they?
Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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.



Once again, historically the areas east Afganistan are known as Indian (historically speaking). When Pakistan was formed they were under the impression that (what was supposed to be) the hindu southern kingdom would adopt a name like "hindustan" and drop the name given to the subcontinant. We didn't so officially we're now known as Indian.
Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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


By my definition of what India was back done, yes it does have something to do with India. It's our predecessor state, our, not mine, not your's.


Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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

According the this site 72% of Indians are Aryans:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html

Ethnic groups: 
Indo-Aryan 72%, Dravidian 25%, Mongoloid and other 3% (2000)

Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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


One example of an Indian kingdom back then, Paurava (Porus's kingdom). Indian culture, placed part in Pakistan part in India.

Originally posted by ScythianEmpire



 if not worse than Islamic fundamentalism in that region. The BJP were a far right government example of this fundamentalism.


No ned to get started on this. I was against the BJP from the beginning (actually im against congress too....but lets not get into politics).
Originally posted by ScythianEmpire



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.


Just to add to my sikhs are indian comment, the Golden Temple, in India.

Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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.


Didn't say it was. All i said was people were united against a common enemy then, and that people didn't identify themselves as Indian or Pakistani (ok some identified themselves as Indian).

Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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.

 The name came from calling it the Indies, which trailed its way through history through the river Indus (surprise! it's in Pakistan!).

Keep in mind that comment on Kashmir was a joke, but yeh, if you want to discuss it im more than happy to. I'm just waiting for enoguh Indians and Pakistanis to join the fourm first, then i'll start the topic, would be interesting though.

Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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.


But bhuddism did originate in india.......
I do apoligise for reading this part of the table wrong though. However, I can't help but think that this table was created more as anti-hindu than anti-indian.

Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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.


I actually had no problem with not giving a link, i've jsut seem some people on the forum discredit stuff without links, i was just warning you thats all.

Also, on most other websites that table has been completely discredited. It reminds me of a fowards (mails) that used to go around proclaiming that India has done this and why we're legends. Ended up in my trash can.




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

Joined: 04-Nov-2005
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
Post Options Post Options   Quote ScythianEmpire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 23:22

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

Originally posted by ScythianEmpire



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.


Well a good chunk of the Indian army is either sikh or of punjab descedance. So in that case they're playing both sides arn't they?

Punjab is the smallest state in India, the second largest province in Pakistan. I doubt that Indian Punjabis form most of the Indian Army. They do form most of Pakistan's Army though.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar


Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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.



Once again, historically the areas east Afganistan are known as Indian (historically speaking). When Pakistan was formed they were under the impression that (what was supposed to be) the hindu southern kingdom would adopt a name like "hindustan" and drop the name given to the subcontinant. We didn't so officially we're now known as Indian.

No no. This is nonsense, yet you persist. The area East of Afghan was coined "British India" by the British in 1857. This then became known as India and Pakistan in 1947. Pakistan has been known as "British India" for a total of less than 100 years out of its ENTIRE history, and that rule was from London, not Delhi. I dont also see why you put so much emphasis on the nomenclature that was given by the British, yet you seem to disregard their acknowledgement that India and Pakistan are two very seperate areas with distinct histories and people.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar


Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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


By my definition of what India was back done, yes it does have something to do with India. It's our predecessor state, our, not mine, not your's.

The Harrappa civilization was located on the Indus. The people of the Harrappa probably had no relation to the people today in Pakistan, the only commonality is that they occupied the same region. But that's more commonality than anything India has for the Harrappa civilization. There's also a major Pakistani city along the Indus named Harrappa after this civilization. Is there a place called Harrappa in India?  


Originally posted by Anujkhamar


Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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

According the this site 72% of Indians are Aryans:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html

That cant be ethnicites. Perhaps that refers to Indo-European speakers, Dravidian speakers but that isnt ethnicity. It's pretty obvious looking at the majority of Indian they're not Aryan.


Originally posted by Anujkhamar


Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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


One example of an Indian kingdom back then, Paurava (Porus's kingdom). Indian culture, placed part in Pakistan part in India.

Again, Porus's kingdom had it's capital in Lahore, Pakistan, and he himself was a Punjabi I think, so whether he'd be classed as a Pakistani or an Indian in the modern sense is up for debate. He ruled his kingdom from Pakistan though.


Originally posted by Anujkhamar


Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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.

 The name came from calling it the Indies, which trailed its way through history through the river Indus (surprise! it's in Pakistan!).

Keep in mind that comment on Kashmir was a joke, but yeh, if you want to discuss it im more than happy to. I'm just waiting for enoguh Indians and Pakistanis to join the fourm first, then i'll start the topic, would be interesting though.

The name India was formally given to the subcontinent by the British in 1857. Before that the area was always divided between different kingdoms. However, I think that using the naming of regions to signify commonality is weak, for example, there is a place in Kerala state called Moscow, that would make Russia Indian territory according to your logic (or the other way round). It's a weak point, but one which could be extended to Pakistan ownership of Punjab, since Punjab means "Land of 5 rivers" in Persian (obviously a statement that Punjab belongs to the land where the Indus is located). 'panj' (پنج )meaning five, and 'āb' (اب ). 

Go right ahead with Kashmir. I'll start the topic if I have time.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar


Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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.


I actually had no problem with not giving a link, i've jsut seem some people on the forum discredit stuff without links, i was just warning you thats all.

Also, on most other websites that table has been completely discredited. It reminds me of a fowards (mails) that used to go around proclaiming that India has done this and why we're legends. Ended up in my trash can.

I havent seen it discredited, and you dont appear to be able to.



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

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1031
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Nov-2005 at 14:57
Originally posted by ScythianEmpire

Punjab is the smallest state in India, the second largest province in Pakistan. I doubt that Indian Punjabis form most of the Indian Army. They do form most of Pakistan's Army though.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_India_by_area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_India_by_popu lation

This shows otherwise. I will give you them forming alot of pakistan's army though. The numbers of punjabi's are roughly equal on either side of the border though (there are slightly more in pakistan).

What our problem is, and the root of our disagreements is on what we define as an Indian state. By your definition you are correct in the sense that Pakistan has excisted as a seperate entity. However, to me all historic Pakistani states (apart from the arab and turkish ones) are Indian states, because they fall under the Indian subconitant. What i'm saying is by giving the subcontinent the name, the Indian subconitnant, i am therefore giving Pakistani states the title of an Indian state. Not becasue they are part of, or have anything to do with present day India, but becasue they lie in the subcontinant.

And for the record, the Indus valley civilistation wasnt retained to the area covered by modern day Pakistan,  there were parts in Gujarat, Rajastan and Indian Punjab (in what is now....). OK most of it was around the River Indus but a part of it was in modern day india. I'm sure you know that, it's just a common misconception some people make.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Nov-2005 at 15:45
Originally posted by Anujkhamar

Originally posted by ScythianEmpire


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

According the this site 72% of Indians are Aryans:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html

Ethnic groups: 
Indo-Aryan 72%, Dravidian 25%, Mongoloid and other 3% (2000)



The CIA factbook is hardly any any valid reference when making ethnology. While it's obvious that most Indians speak Indo-Aryan languages it is not so clear that they have pure or even significatively mixed Indo-Aryan blood (whatever this means). Anyhow this can apply largely to Pakistan too.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Afghanan View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Durr e Durran

Joined: 12-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1076
Post Options Post Options   Quote Afghanan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2005 at 13:52
Originally posted by ScythianEmpire

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!!

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.

 



Scythian Empire, there is no question, I am right.  Hindi and Ordo are pretty much the same languages.  The only difference between them is that Ordo has many more Arabic and Persian loan words than Hindi, and its written in Perso-Arabic script.   They are relatively mutually intelligible languages and any Pakistani who claims otherwise is in denial.

The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak
Back to Top
khalid bin walid View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Post Options Post Options   Quote khalid bin walid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2005 at 16:58
Originally posted by Anujkhamar

Originally posted by S




 The numbers of punjabi's are roughly equal on either side of the border though (there are slightly more in pakistan).


 

 

   Pakistan PUNJAB pop.= approx.   75million

   Indian    PUNJAB pop. = approx. 25million

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab,_Pakistan

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_India_by_popu lation

 

 



Edited by khalid bin walid
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2005 at 18:40
Originally posted by khalid bin walid

Originally posted by Anujkhamar

Originally posted by S




 The numbers of punjabi's are roughly equal on either side of the border though (there are slightly more in pakistan).


 

 

   Pakistan PUNJAB pop.= approx.   75million

   Indian    PUNJAB pop. = approx. 25million

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab,_Pakistan

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_India_by_popu lation

 


You are ignoring that the historical Indian Punjab includes not just the modern state of Punjab (a majoritarian Sikh state) but also Haryana, Delhi and Chandigahr. This makes Indian Punjab to have aprox. 60 million people.


NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Jhangora View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 02-Oct-2005
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1067
Post Options Post Options   Quote Jhangora Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2005 at 00:37
Maju I guess Indian punjab was divided into punjab,haryana n himachal pradesh in  mid sixties of the 20th century.Delhi didn't used to be a part of Indian punjab n chandigarh {union territory} continues to be the capital of both punjab n haryana.
Jai Badri Vishal
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2005 at 08:21
I forgot about Himachal Pradesh. But I think Delhi was only separated from Punjab at independence (as all-India capital territory). In colonial times it used to be part of the Punjab - I think. 

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1031
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2005 at 13:42
Yes it was part of Punjab Maju. http://hometown.aol.com/mahapunjab/punjab.html


Edited by Anujkhamar
Back to Top
amir khan View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 03-Nov-2005
Location: Congo
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 143
Post Options Post Options   Quote amir khan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2005 at 20:23
Originally posted by Maju

[QUOTE=khalid bin walid

 

   Pakistan PUNJAB pop.= approx.   75million

   Indian    PUNJAB pop. = approx. 25million

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab,_Pakistan

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_India_by_popu lation

 

You are ignoring that the historical Indian Punjab includes not just the modern state of Punjab (a majoritarian Sikh state) but also Haryana, Delhi and Chandigahr. This makes Indian Punjab to have aprox. 60 million people.

 

Even if one excepts your figure(!), the difference is still 15 million people which is a lot.

 Anyhow, one can never accept Delhi as a punjabi city!Historically, culturally or geographically. Unlike, say Lahore, Multan or Amritsar, ludhiana which are classic punjabi cities. Delhi just is not Punjab(though nice if it was)

Even Hariyana isnt really punjab for the purists, who would argue that the ethinicity and culture differences between the two, are quite large, which warrented the seperation in the first place. 

Remember, Punjab is the "land of the five rivers", a very distinct region of the subcontinent. And Culturally, only the Sikhs are true Indian Punjabis.

On the Pakistan side, One can inflate the figures by adding the NWFP(17mil), which was seperated from punjab in 1901, and the Pathan tribes only migrated there in the last 700 years. Saraiki lands in Sind can be added as they are migrants from Punjab, as can other areas(indeed whole of sind, maybe(personally,I dont think so)

http://www.answers.com/topic/north-west-frontier-province-pa kistan

To avoid any confusion, the best comparisons are of the two modern Punjab states, which correspond to Classic, true Punjab heartlands, for which I gave the figures.

Normally, I would never challange India on Population numbers, they will take on allcomers! but with Punjab, Pakistan:India ratio to land mass and population is about 2:1

 

(I reiterate, I accept there is a case for Hariyana, but in my opinion, it is not any more Punjabi then say Rajestan.)

 

 

 



Edited by amir khan
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2005 at 21:28
Himachal Pradesh, that I didn't count, has 6,000,000 people. That makes the total for historical Indian Punjab over 66 million, with a diference on 9 million only, which is only a small fraction of the total.

NW Frontier may have belonged briefly to Punjab but is historically and Afghan province. I am taking the colonial reference only because that was the Punjab before Indo-Pakistani rivalry arose. I think it is fair.

According to Wikipedia:


The Indian state of Punjab was created in 1947, when the Partition of India split the former Raj province of Punjab between India and Pakistan. The mostly Muslim western part of the province became Pakistan's Punjab Province; the mostly Sikh and Hindu eastern part became India's Punjab state. Many Hindus and Sikhs lived in the west, and many Muslims lived in the east, and so the partition saw many people displaced and much intercommunal violence. Several small Punjabi princely states, including Patiala, also became part of India. In 1950, two Punjab states were created; Punjab included of the former Raj province of Punjab, while the princely states were combined into a new state, the Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU). Himachal Pradesh was created as a union territory from several princely states and Kangra District. In 1956, PEPSU was merged into Punjab state, and several northern districts of Punjab in the Himalaya were added to Himachal Pradesh.

The capital of undivided Punjab province, Lahore, ended up in Pakistan after partition, so a new capital for Indian Punjab state was built at Chandigarh. On November 1, 1966, the mostly Hindu southeastern half of Punjab became a separate state, Haryana. Chandigarh was on the border between the two states, and became a separate union territory which serves as the capital of both Punjab and Haryana. Chandigarh was due to transfer to Punjab alone in 1986, but the transfer has been delayed.



NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
amir khan View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 03-Nov-2005
Location: Congo
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 143
Post Options Post Options   Quote amir khan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2005 at 22:06

 

I dont know which history you are talking about and how long back, as I said before, the afghans started moving into the area in relativly recent times. Anyway, not important to our discussion, as culturally and ethnically,it is different as is Haryana,which was my point.

Indo-pak rivallery may exist, but even most Indian sikhs would not consider Haryana as true Punjab.

Another way to look at the issue is to look at Punjabi speakers.

Western punjabi(pakistan)-61 million (could add saraiki 14 million)

Eastern punjabi (28million)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_language

Again, these figures correspond to my original ratios of pakistani:indian Punjabis.

The Haryana case you present applies to NWFP also (both are weak cases).

Whether you look at culture, ethnicity, linguistics or geography, majority of the Land of five rivers falls in Pakistan, as do majority of its people.

Its like the Portugal/Galacia issue in a way.

 

 

 



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

Joined: 04-Nov-2005
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
Post Options Post Options   Quote ScythianEmpire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2005 at 23:41
Originally posted by Afghanan

Originally posted by ScythianEmpire

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!!

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.

 



Scythian Empire, there is no question, I am right.  Hindi and Ordo are pretty much the same languages.  The only difference between them is that Ordo has many more Arabic and Persian loan words than Hindi, and its written in Perso-Arabic script.   They are relatively mutually intelligible languages and any Pakistani who claims otherwise is in denial.

 

Urdu might have a similar origin or grammar as Hindi (though the writing systems are totally different), but Hindi and Urdu (it's not Ordo which has a Turkish meaning) have more differences than just the scripting, many Hindi words come from Sanskrit, many Urdu words come from Persian. Hindi script is Devangari, Urdu scripting is Arabic (reflecting the need to communicate with  Arabs and Persians).

"Following the Mughal conquest of India and the resulting vast Islamic empire, especially in the northern and central regions of the subcontinent, a hybrid language of Arabic, Persian, and local dialects began to form around the 10th and 11th centuries CE, one that would eventually be known as Urdu (from a Turkish word meaning "tent", in allusion to the army barracks of visiting troops). It grew from the interaction of (often Persian-speaking) Muslim soldiers and native peoples. Soon, the Persian script and Nasta'liq form of cursive was adopted, with additional figures added to accommodate the Indian phonetic system, and a new language based on the subcontinent's grammar with a vocabulary largely divided between Persian (and indirectly some Arabic) and local Prakrit dialects. Elements peculiar to Persian, such as the enclitic ezâfe, and the use of the takhallus, were readily absorbed into Urdu literature both religious and secular.

While much of Urdu's vocabulary draws on Arabic and Persian, its grammar stems from its origins among the Prakrit-based Apabhramsa languages of the native peoples of India. Most of the basic vocabulary of Urdu, including grammatical particles, pronouns, and auxiliary verbs, developed in conjunction with Hindi from Prakrit precursors. Although Urdu and Hindi are separated by two completely different writing systems (Perso-Arabic script and Devanagari script, respectively) and formal vocabularies, the two language communities have been continuously connected by commerce and culture."

There's little doubting the Persian and Arabic influence on the Urdu language, as well as the Apabrahmsa origins (similar to Hindi origins). It's more an amalgamation of languages. I wouldnt class Urdu as Persian or Arabic, or Hindu/Sanskrit, it's just a mixture. But there is definitely significant Persian and Arabic input in it, anybody who does not agree is also in denial.  

 

 

Devangari Script Sanskrit

 

 

 

Perso-Arabic Script Urdu

 

 

 

 

Arabic script

 

 

 

Devangari script Bengali

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Edited by ScythianEmpire
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2005 at 09:13
Originally posted by amir khan

Another way to look at the issue is to look at Punjabi speakers.

Western punjabi(pakistan)-61 million (could add saraiki 14 million)

Eastern punjabi (28million)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_language


Sounds fine to me: another viewpoint.


Its like the Portugal/Galacia issue in a way.



I don't see the relationship: Portugal was originally the southern region of Galicia (but expanded further south and then overseas) and they speak the same language, with dialectal differences only.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
ScythianEmpire View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04-Nov-2005
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
Post Options Post Options   Quote ScythianEmpire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2005 at 10:57
Originally posted by amir khan

Even if one excepts your figure(!), the difference is still 15 million people which is a lot.

 Anyhow, one can never accept Delhi as a punjabi city!Historically, culturally or geographically. Unlike, say Lahore, Multan or Amritsar, ludhiana which are classic punjabi cities. Delhi just is not Punjab(though nice if it was)

Even Hariyana isnt really punjab for the purists, who would argue that the ethinicity and culture differences between the two, are quite large, which warrented the seperation in the first place. 

Remember, Punjab is the "land of the five rivers", a very distinct region of the subcontinent. And Culturally, only the Sikhs are true Indian Punjabis.

On the Pakistan side, One can inflate the figures by adding the NWFP(17mil), which was seperated from punjab in 1901, and the Pathan tribes only migrated there in the last 700 years. Saraiki lands in Sind can be added as they are migrants from Punjab, as can other areas(indeed whole of sind, maybe(personally,I dont think so)

http://www.answers.com/topic/north-west-frontier-province-pa kistan

To avoid any confusion, the best comparisons are of the two modern Punjab states, which correspond to Classic, true Punjab heartlands, for which I gave the figures.

Normally, I would never challange India on Population numbers, they will take on allcomers! but with Punjab, Pakistan:India ratio to land mass and population is about 2:1

(I reiterate, I accept there is a case for Hariyana, but in my opinion, it is not any more Punjabi then say Rajestan.)

Pakistani Punjab is no doubt bigger than Indian Punjab and has more people (55%:45%) at partition, but it's not a very important point.

But the NWFP was never a part of Punjab, at least not for any substantial time. The NWFP was loaned(!) by the Afghan king to the British in 1893, and has always been located to the left of the uppermost branch of the Indus. Punjab has never crossed the uppermost branch of the Indus. At most you can say there was 8 years of NWFP and Punjab being joined, but historically NWFP has been Afghan.

I'm also not sure how you work out Pathans have only been in the NWFP for the last 700 years.

 



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

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.079 seconds.