# Islamic Monuments in India - Whose Legacy?



## Flintlock

This isn't the first time I'm hearing stuff of this kind. 

How many people here think that buildings such as Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Fatehpur Sikri etc. belong to Pakistan?


----------



## Imran Khan

i don't think so

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UnitedPak

Its Muslim but not Pakistani.

Pakistani history is basically everything that took place on Pakistani land since thats where most Pakistanis have always lived. i.e Indus Valley, Ghandaran Kingdom, Porus Kingdom etc.
The Taj Mahal is Indian because it is in India, its Muslim because it was built by a Muslim ruler, who was Central Asian for the record.

Pakistanis however are proud of such monuments because they show the face of Muslim rule in India.

Religion doesnt change who your ancestors were. Having the same Religion doesnt give you right over land or history which didnt belong to your ancestors either.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Neo

India and Pakistan are inseparably connected when it comes to history but apart from that both are independant and souvereign nations. 

No matter how much we'd love to claim Lal Qila or Taj Mahal or the abandoned city of Fatehpur Sikri, they were built on Indian soil and therefor they're 100% Indian property.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

UnitedPak said:


> Pakistanis however are proud of such monuments because they show the face of Muslim rule in India.
> 
> Religion doesnt change who your ancestors were. Having the same Religion doesnt give you right over land or history which didnt belong to your ancestors either.



Why Indians of Islamic faith are not of the same faith?

They don't have the right to the land or history?

They belonged to which ancestor?

If for the record the person who built Taj Mahal was Central Asian, then how are the Pakistani getting pleased? Pakistan is Central Asia from where Shah Jahan's ancestors came?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UnitedPak

Salim said:


> Why Indians of Islamic faith are not of the same faith?
> 
> They don't have the right to the land or history?
> 
> They belonged to which ancestor?
> 
> If for the record the person who built Taj Mahal was Central Asian, then how are the Pakistani getting pleased? Pakistan is Central Asia from where Shah Jahan's ancestors came?




You failed to understand my post, and I have no idea what you are arguing.

My point being, All the history which took place on Pakistani land belongs to Pakistanis, and all the history which took place on Indian land belongs to Indians.
However a lot of North Indian Muslim history is shared with Pakistanis just like a lot of the Sikh history of Lahore is shared with North Indian Sikhs.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Imran Khan

because pak is not even think that time.pakistan is so late then these places

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

imran khan said:


> because pak is not even think that time.pakistan is so late then these places



This is about the Pakistani people. I am pretty sure they existed at that time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

UnitedPak said:


> You failed to understand my post, and I have no idea what you are arguing.
> 
> My point being, All the history which took place on Pakistani land belongs to Pakistanis, and all the history which took place on Indian land belongs to Indians.
> However a lot of North Indian Muslim history is shared with Pakistanis just like a lot of the Sikh history of Lahore is shared with North Indian Sikhs.



That is where you are wrong.

History of the past is common.

There is no us and them.

The Mogul history is history and cannot be wiped out from the history of Mogul Empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Flintlock

Let me clear a few misconceptions here. 

The vast majority of Islamic monuments in India were built by Indian architects, sculptors, calligraphy artists, workers, and funds.

Sure,the Taj Mahal involved people of different backgrounds, ranging from Iran to Arabia to South and North India. 
It is not surprising that a building of such magnificence required an international effort.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> Let me clear a few misconceptions here.
> 
> The vast majority of Islamic monuments in India were built by Indian architects, sculptors, calligraphy artists, workers, and funds.
> 
> Sure,the Taj Mahal involved people of different backgrounds, ranging from Iran to Arabia to South and North India.
> It is not surprising that a building of such magnificence required an international effort.



I think the "pride" being referenced while talking about "Islamic Monuments", comes from the "Muslim" part of peoples identity.

Along this line of thinking, people would be just as proud of the Islamic architecture in Spain, Turkey, Pakistan, India etc. - this doesn't necessarily mean that those monuments belong to Pakistan - but they are an accomplishment of "Muslims", and people could argue that they "belong to "Muslims", and are a part of "Muslim history".

Personally, I don't care about "Muslim history" so much as "Pakistani history", which, as UP pointed out, is the history of the peoples of the lands comprising Pakistan, and its interplay and connectivity with the peoples of the lands comprising India.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## roadrunner

well, i wouldn't claim anything on Indian soil, even if it was Muslim. It belongs to India. Most people would not. However many Indians are trying to claim the IVC and most of the achievements of Pakistan (even the name India derives from Pakistan). 

Simple. Everything in India is Indian, everything in Pakistan is Pakistani. All the history. That's what most Pakistanis will say.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

roadrunner said:


> well, i wouldn't claim anything on Indian soil, even if it was Muslim. It belongs to India. Most people would not. However many Indians are trying to claim the IVC and most of the achievements of Pakistan (even the name India derives from Pakistan).
> 
> Simple. Everything in India is Indian, everything in Pakistan is Pakistani. All the history. That's what most Pakistanis will say.



What insight!


----------



## roadrunner

Salim said:


> What insight!



Not as insightful as virgin mountains

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vish

Before you read this post, let me clarify a certain something. I've used the terms "India" and India (without the quotes) to refer to two separate entities.

I think India and Pakistan, as nation states, have been "derived" from one common intra-regional entity, which has always been known as "India." Before the advent of the British Empire, there were plenty of instances when both, present day India and Pakistan, were ruled by pan-"Indian" empires. Here I'm using the term "India" to refer to the "Indian Sub-continent." Mind you, it was always British "India" or the East "India" Company. Both these entities used the term "India" to refer to the "Indian Sub-continent." This "India," politically different from the current day nation state, was partitioned into the nation states of India and Pakistan. 

The idea of Pakistan, which again I have nothing against except for its religious background, was born much later. Both our countries, including the other states in the sub-continent, have a common ancestry. 

So stating that India lays "claim" to the Indus Valley Civilization is very naive. The Indus Valley Civilization is a part of our (people living in the sub-continent) history, not yours or mine, alone. Porus is as much an Indian legend as he is a Pakistani legend. My history textbooks never "claimed" the IVC as Indian, as in belonging to the present day nation-state. They also mention that Harrapa and Mohan-je-daro are in modern day Pakistan. But my books do mention that these are a part of "Indian" history, which does transcend national borders and goes back thousands of years. My history textbooks also mention the regional powers that ruled over present day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and Afghanistan, and also state that this is a part of our ("India's") history. Even Greco-Indian kingdoms are a part of "India's," India's, and Pakistan's history.

The idea of "Islamic Monuments in India belonging to Pakistan" is nothing but a lopsided point of view. Religion alone does not dictate history. Why do people forget that the current day region of Pakistan was once home to a lot of Hindus/Buddhists/Sikhs? There will be plenty of pre-Islamic monuments in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Does that mean that we (India/Hindus) possess them?
No. But can we state that these monument are a part of our history and heritage; yes.

History transcends regional/national borders; this is because borders are temporary. You think our present day borders will last a thousand years? Regardless of whether any sub-continent regional kingdom enjoyed "control" over Pakistan/part of Pakistan, Pakistan can claim that it is a part of its "history."

And what makes people think that just because "India's" rulers were Muslim, India or the then Indian elite was/were pre-dominantly Muslim? There must have been powerful non-Muslim power plays then too. Most Muslim rulers respected the religious/cultural diversity of "India." Even Aurangzeb was far tolerant of non-Muslims than what is stated. There was no "Islamic rule" of "India"; only "rule of kings who were Muslims." 

There was a "Delhi Sultanate" (not "Muslim Sultanate") and then the "Mughal Empire" (not the "Islamic Empire"). These were not "Islamic empires;" these were "empires headed by Muslim kings."

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

roadrunner said:


> Not as insightful as virgin mountains



Glad that you realise it.


----------



## cactuslily58

Of all the topics I have read discussions on this forum, I think this topic is easily the most stupid & irr-relevant. Someone seems to have run out of ideas or is simply attempting to stoke a fire.

History belongs to the land where the events took place or the people that were affected by it.

What shall we discuss next ? " Does the wind that blows that over India from the west belong to Pakistan "?


----------



## MIG_ACE

Ok. 2 people seem to have voted "Yes". Whoever it is please present your views and reasons here.


----------



## vish

I just noticed one thing:

The poll title and the thread title are different.


----------



## UnitedPak

cactuslily58 said:


> Of all the topics I have read discussions on this forum, I think this topic is easily the most stupid & irr-relevant. Someone seems to have run out of ideas or is simply attempting to stoke a fire.
> 
> *History belongs to the land where the events took place or the people that were affected by it.
> *
> What shall we discuss next ? " Does the wind that blows that over India from the west belong to Pakistan "?



Exactly, so why does Pakistani history belong to the people of India according to most Indians on this board?

I completely agree with AgnosticMuslim and RoadRunner on this matter.


----------



## BATMAN

Stealth Assassin said:


> Let me clear a few misconceptions here.


I think better suited words would be 'let me raise some controversy'



> The vast majority of *Islamic monuments* in India were built by Indian architects, sculptors, calligraphy artists, workers, and funds.


Why did Indian sculptors suddenly stoped building similar monuments ?
How many funds are allocated for building Islamic monuments in the budget of Y-2008?


----------



## shrivatsa

BATMAN said:


> How many funds are allocated for building Islamic monuments in the budget of Y-2008?



Indian government does not allocate money to build any religious structures.
Why should it?


----------



## shrivatsa

BATMAN said:


> Why did Indian sculptors suddenly stoped building similar monuments ?
> of Y-2008?



No mate they r really busy ,if u want i can post some pics of recent constructions


----------



## cactuslily58

UnitedPak said:


> Exactly, so why does Pakistani history belong to the people of India according to most Indians on this board?
> 
> I completely agree with AgnosticMuslim and RoadRunner on this matter.



Events / actions that took place before 1947 belonged to Indians , Pakistanis & Bangladeshis. We were all affected by it.

History is like our parents or ancestory..and cannot be divided, only shared.The memories may or maynot be pleasant.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UnitedPak

cactuslily58 said:


> Events / actions that took place before 1947 belonged to Indians , Pakistanis & Bangladeshis. We were all affected by it.
> 
> History is like our parents or ancestory..and cannot be divided, only shared.The memories may or maynot be pleasant.



That is seriously a narrow minded explanation. 1.6 billion people do not share the same history.

What happened on the land of Pakistan belongs to the people who have always lived there, i.e *the people known as Pakistanis.* You are blatantly using double meanings to credit the modern People of India the history of the entire subcontinent.

Actions that took place in Baluchistan do not belong to Indians, regardless of what year it was, same with actions that took place in every other Pakistani city. 1947 politics doesnt change ancient history. Lets try and talk sense here.

Sure there is some overlapping, Certain Muslim history in North India, certain Sikh history in Lahore. But try not and abuse this.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Flintlock

BATMAN said:


> Why did Indian sculptors suddenly stoped building similar monuments ?



Because the Brits came and dismantled the Mughal empire. You need an empire to build monuments. I think that much is obvious.

When was the last "similar" Islamic Monument built in Pakistan?



> How many funds are allocated for building Islamic monuments in the budget of Y-2008?



The government of India does not allocate any funds for the building of religious monuments. 
All funding is used for secular public structures and maintaining the heritage structures.

Seriously, where are you from buddy?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Actually, the events and monuments which were built during the course of history belongs to the rulers who ruled then.

That apart, by the yardstick of convoluted logic on show, one could say Lahore or the area from Khyber Pass to Jammu and Sindh to Tibet etc captured by the Ahluwalia Msl belongs to the Sikhs?

Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia

Forgotten hero: Jassa Singh Ahluwalia - DiscoverSikhi.Com

Or that India and Pakistan and all its monuments belong to the UK if indeed one goes by the title.

I am aware that it is hardly logical, but then with the logic of the title of the thread, anything would and should logical!!


----------



## Flintlock

cactuslily58 said:


> Of all the topics I have read discussions on this forum, I think this topic is easily the most stupid & irr-relevant. Someone seems to have run out of ideas or is simply attempting to stoke a fire.
> 
> History belongs to the land where the events took place or the people that were affected by it.
> 
> What shall we discuss next ? " Does the wind that blows that over India from the west belong to Pakistan "?



It is neither stupid nor irrelevant. There are quite a few Pakistanis who think that they are the inheritors of all the real estate in India with Allah's name on it, Webmaster included.

What I want to know, is why.


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Exactly, so why does Pakistani history belong to the people of India according to most Indians on this board?
> 
> I completely agree with AgnosticMuslim and RoadRunner on this matter.




You have to realize that history isn't a chocolate cake to be cut in to wedges and distributed. 

However, we are forced to do it, because of prevailing nationalist attitudes.

Salim and Cactuslilly have the right idea.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

Stealth Assassin said:


> It is neither stupid nor irrelevant. There are quite a few Pakistanis who think that they are the inheritors of all the real estate in India with Allah's name on it, Webmaster included.
> 
> What I want to know, is why.



And would I be wrong to believe that they believe that Indians of the Islamic faith are irrelevant to the issue and are inconsequential and only relevant when something unfortunate happens in India?

I would like to add that Pakistan is not the sole inheritors of Islam of undivided India. The Indians of Islamic faith and also the Bangladeshis are also of the Islamic faith and very relevant!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vish

I think there is a confusion.

SA, what exactly do you mean:

"Islamic Monuments in India belong to Pakistan?"

"Islamic Monuments in India belong to Pakistani history?"

Any which ways, I would say neither of the above two statements is true.

In my view "*Historic Monuments in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka can be a part of the histories of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka*."

This is because at one time or the other, there were intra-regional entities ruling these modern day nation states.


----------



## Flintlock

vish said:


> I think there is a confusion.
> 
> SA, what exactly do you mean:
> 
> "Islamic Monuments in India belong to Pakistan?"
> 
> "Islamic Monuments in India belong to Pakistani history?"



Well, I am sorry for the confusion.

What I mean is that Islamic Monuments in India belong to Pakistan OR that Islamic Monuments in India belong _exclusively _ in Pakistani history.



> In my view "*Historic Monuments in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka can be a part of the histories of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka*."
> 
> This is because at one time or the other, there were intra-regional entities ruling these modern day nation states.



That brings us to the never-ending debate: 

How to cut the chocolate cake into little pieces.

On what basis. International Border? Ethnic Groups? Religion? Locations of the capitals of the empires?


----------



## vish

Stealth Assassin said:


> Well, I am sorry for the confusion.
> 
> What I mean is that Islamic Monuments in India belong to Pakistan OR that Islamic Monuments in India belong _exclusively _ in Pakistani history.



Again, in either case, no. Are these "Islamic monuments" part of Pakistan's history, yes; as much as they are a part of India's history. Similarly, pre-Islamic monuments in Pakistan do not belong to India nor do they belong exclusively to India's history. They are a part of India's history as much as they are a part of Pakistan's history. 



Stealth Assassin said:


> That brings us to the never-ending debate:
> 
> How to cut the chocolate cake into little pieces.
> 
> On what basis. International Border? Ethnic Groups? Religion? Locations of the capitals of the empires?



Why should there be a cutting of the "chocolate cake?" Why seggregate something as wonderful as "history?" Why can't it be shared? Why can't we (the inhabitants of the sub-continent) agree to the notion that *our (modern day nation states) history is overlapping and more common than not, and is not an exclusive legion of particular nation state solely due to geography*?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

vish said:


> In my view "*Historic Monuments in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka can be a part of the histories of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka*."
> 
> This is because at one time or the other, there were intra-regional entities ruling these modern day nation states.



One could equally say that Iran, Afghanistan, China, Uzbekistan, even Indonesia, UK, France etc were all part of the histories of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka on this basis. You have to draw the line. Whatever happened within Pakistan's borders is Pakistani history. If a civilization overlapped (Mayan Empire), then some of the Mayan Empire has a Pakistani history, some Indian history etc. On the IVC, both Afghanistan and India can claim parts of it, but Pakistan was the driving force behind it. One can say it's a Pakistani civilization with Indian/Afghani parts, not really it's an Indian one alone.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

I feel that it is common history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vish

roadrunner said:


> One could equally say that Iran, Afghanistan, China, Uzbekistan, even Indonesia, UK, France etc were all part of the histories of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan/Sri Lanka on this basis. You have to draw the line. Whatever happened within Pakistan's borders is Pakistani history. If a civilization overlapped (Mayan Empire), then some of the Mayan Empire has a Pakistani history, some Indian history etc. On the IVC, both Afghanistan and India can claim parts of it, but Pakistan was the driving force behind it. One can say it's a Pakistani civilization with Indian/Afghani parts, not really it's an Indian one alone.



Drawing the line is an individual prerogative. You can't generalize it. Why do we need to draw a line? I claim, think, and believe that the IVC is as much Indian as it is Pakistani; what can anybody do?

Iran and Afghanistan share more history with the subcontinent than the UK, France, and China. The origin of Buddhism is part of China's history as much as it is part of India's. The British Raj is as much a part of the subcontinent's history as it is of British history.

The IVC had no driving force behind it. It is as much Indian as it is Pakistani and Afghanistani. And I'm not saying it is an "Indian one alone."

Geography is a very limited way of "dividing history." The nation states of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Bhutan, and Nepal are very recent in terms of history. However, the term "India," used by the rest of the world to refer to the subcontinent, predates these nation states. This is because the terms sub-continent and "India" have by and large been used interchangeably. This "India" is different from the current nation state of India, though both do have a lot in common. The nation states are offsprings of this supra-regional entity known as "India."

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

vish said:


> Before you read this post, let me clarify a certain something. I've used the terms "India" and India (without the quotes) to refer to two separate entities.
> 
> I think India and Pakistan, as nation states, have been "derived" from one common intra-regional entity, which has always been known as "India." Before the advent of the British Empire, there were plenty of instances when both, present day India and Pakistan, were ruled by pan-"Indian" empires. Here I'm using the term "India" to refer to the "Indian Sub-continent." Mind you, it was always British "India" or the East "India" Company. Both these entities used the term "India" to refer to the "Indian Sub-continent." This "India," politically different from the current day nation state, was partitioned into the nation states of India and Pakistan.
> 
> The idea of Pakistan, which again I have nothing against except for its religious background, was born much later. Both our countries, including the other states in the sub-continent, have a common ancestry.
> 
> So stating that India lays "claim" to the Indus Valley Civilization is very naive. The Indus Valley Civilization is a part of our (people living in the sub-continent) history, not yours or mine, alone. Porus is as much an Indian legend as he is a Pakistani legend. My history textbooks never "claimed" the IVC as Indian, as in belonging to the present day nation-state. They also mention that Harrapa and Mohan-je-daro are in modern day Pakistan. But my books do mention that these are a part of "Indian" history, which does transcend national borders and goes back thousands of years. My history textbooks also mention the regional powers that ruled over present day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and Afghanistan, and also state that this is a part of our ("India's") history. Even Greco-Indian kingdoms are a part of "India's," India's, and Pakistan's history.
> 
> The idea of "Islamic Monuments in India belonging to Pakistan" is nothing but a lopsided point of view. Religion alone does not dictate history. Why do people forget that the current day region of Pakistan was once home to a lot of Hindus/Buddhists/Sikhs? There will be plenty of pre-Islamic monuments in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Does that mean that we (India/Hindus) possess them?
> No. But can we state that these monument are a part of our history and heritage; yes.
> 
> History transcends regional/national borders; this is because borders are temporary. You think our present day borders will last a thousand years? Regardless of whether any sub-continent regional kingdom enjoyed "control" over Pakistan/part of Pakistan, Pakistan can claim that it is a part of its "history."
> 
> And what makes people think that just because "India's" rulers were Muslim, India or the then Indian elite was/were pre-dominantly Muslim? There must have been powerful non-Muslim power plays then too. Most Muslim rulers respected the religious/cultural diversity of "India." Even Aurangzeb was far tolerant of non-Muslims than what is stated. There was no "Islamic rule" of "India"; only "rule of kings who were Muslims."
> 
> There was a "Delhi Sultanate" (not "Muslim Sultanate") and then the "Mughal Empire" (not the "Islamic Empire"). These were not "Islamic empires;" these were "empires headed by Muslim kings."



Well said.

Its a point I have made before as well. My argument is that the adoption of the name "India" by the political entity created in 1947 is what has caused this mess.

As you correctly point out, historically the region (or parts of the region, starting from the Western areas now comprising Pakistan under the Greeks) has been referred to as "India", British India, Indian subcontinent etc.

For historians to refer to the history of the region as "Indian" history makes sense using the commonly used identifier for the _region_, but with no distinction left between the current nation of India and the historical region of India, the impression is created that Pakistan has no history, or that its history is being usurped.

I had argued before that it would make sense for India and Pakistan to perhaps agree on referring to the history of the region as South Asian history - as such there is no question over it being common history, and there is no impression of one nation "usurping" history.


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Well said.
> 
> Its a point I have made before as well. My argument is that the adoption of the name "India" by the political entity created in 1947 is what has caused this mess.
> 
> As you correctly point out, historically the region (or parts of the region, starting from the Western areas now comprising Pakistan under the Greeks) has been referred to as "India", British India, Indian subcontinent etc.
> 
> For historians to refer to the history of the region as "Indian" history makes sense using the commonly used identifier for the _region_, but with no distinction left between the current nation of India and the historical region of India, the impression is created that Pakistan has no history, or that its history is being usurped.
> 
> I had argued before that it would make sense for India and Pakistan to perhaps agree on referring to the history of the region as South Asian history - as such there is no question over it being common history, and there is no impression of one nation "usurping" history.



The term "India," the supra-regional entity, has been in use since millennia and there is hardly a manner in which it can be changed. Plus the term India has been derived from the term Indus (I may be wrong here). So it does have a certain amount of historic credibility.

The initial euphoria of nationalism during the British Raj did not call for a divided "India." They simply wanted British "India" to be changed to Independent India (comprising the many modern day nation states). The modern day India is seen as a continuation of "India" and everything "Indian;" I think this is justified. The creation of modern day Pakistan is seen as the partition of "India" and by many as the partition of India, as it (India) is a continuation of "India." This is where the confusion starts. This is solely because the idea of Pakistan took root much later than nationalism (India) in the subcontinent. Pakistan's history is a part of "India's" and to a certain extent India's.

There is no usurping of Pakistan's history. Pakistan's history is a part of "Indian" history. I honestly see no conflict. But perhaps I being an Indian, my views are not that unbiased and "real."


----------



## roadrunner

vish said:


> Drawing the line is an individual prerogative. You can't generalize it. Why do we need to draw a line? I claim, think, and believe that the IVC is as much Indian as it is Pakistani; what can anybody do?



Fine, so the Portuguese who ruled Goa for centuries can lay claim to the history of India also? And Afghanistan can lay claim also to many an Indian civilization, as can Iran, Greece, Turkey, Saudi Arabia? There has to be a line you draw. 



> Iran and Afghanistan share more history with the subcontinent than the UK, France, and China. The origin of Buddhism is part of China's history as much as it is part of India's. The British Raj is as much a part of the subcontinent's history as it is of British history.



Buddhism spent more time being developed in Pakistan than in India. Its origins are Nepalese. 

So the British Raj is part of subcontinent history. Then Saudi Arabian history is also part of subcontinent history, Turkish history also is. The Greeks also etc. 



> The IVC had no driving force behind it. It is as much Indian as it is Pakistani and Afghanistani. And I'm not saying it is an "Indian one alone."



That's not true. The IVC was centred along the Indus River, and predominantly was in Pakistan. Take the example of the Saudi Arabians. We know they invaded parts of India about 1,000 years ago. Can the Saudi Arabians now claim some parts of Indian history as a greater Saudi Arabian history? Since parts of India were part of the Saudi Empire, why not? India in this case would have no history if everything was divided up like you're trying to divide up the IVC. 



> Geography is a very limited way of "dividing history." The nation states of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Bhutan, and Nepal are very recent in terms of history. However, the term "India," used by the rest of the world to refer to the subcontinent, predates these nation states. This is because the terms sub-continent and "India" have by and large been used interchangeably. This "India" is different from the current nation state of India, though both do have a lot in common. The nation states are offsprings of this supra-regional entity known as "India."



The term India was invented by ancient Pakistan for the region of the Indus. Some idiot Greeks that were poor at geography and thought "all dem people..duh..where the big river lies, dem folk all look same to me, dey Indian", should not have any influence on what was the real India, and what Indian history actually refers to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cactuslily58

UnitedPak said:


> That is seriously a narrow minded explanation. 1.6 billion people do not share the same history.
> 
> What happened on the land of Pakistan belongs to the people who have always lived there, i.e *the people known as Pakistanis.* You are blatantly using double meanings to credit the modern People of India the history of the entire subcontinent.
> 
> Actions that took place in Baluchistan do not belong to Indians, regardless of what year it was, same with actions that took place in every other Pakistani city. 1947 politics doesnt change ancient history. Lets try and talk sense here.
> 
> Sure there is some overlapping, Certain Muslim history in North India, certain Sikh history in Lahore. But try not and abuse this.



Events that became part of history had nothing to do with the confines of borders as we now know them. I suggest we raise our vision from our immediate past & look beyond. The connect will be apparent.

If for some reason it is not evident .. forget it.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

vish said:


> The term "India," the supra-regional entity, has been in use since millennia and there is hardly a manner in which it can be changed. Plus the term India has been derived from the term Indus (I may be wrong here). So it does have a certain amount of historic credibility.
> 
> The initial euphoria of nationalism during the British Raj did not call for a divided "India." They simply wanted British "India" to be changed to Independent India (comprising the many modern day nation states). The modern day India is seen as a continuation of "India" and everything "Indian;" I think this is justified. The creation of modern day Pakistan is seen as the partition of "India" and by many as the partition of India, as it (India) is a continuation of "India." This is where the confusion starts. This is solely because the idea of Pakistan took root much later than nationalism (India) in the subcontinent. Pakistan's history is a part of "India's" and to a certain extent India's.
> 
> There is no usurping of Pakistan's history. Pakistan's history is a part of "Indian" history. I honestly see no conflict. But perhaps I being an Indian, my views are not that unbiased and "real."



Yes, we would disagree on some of the points you raised.

Even Historians will not use the term "Indian" to describe the people of Pakistan, though the peoples/descendants of peoples in the lands comprising Pakistan have been around perhaps as long as any other people in South Asia. If in fact the _Human Migration Theory_ is correct, then the area comprising Pakistan would have been populated earlier than the areas further East in today's India, with the population eventually migrating and diffusing into India/Nepal/Sri Lanka/Bangladesh etc.

The name India,as has been pointed out, was also initially coined by the Greeks to primarily refer to the region comprising today's Pakistan.

Yet the association of the word "India" with the present political entity is so strong that it is not typically used for anything major related to anything but today's India.

There is a contradiction when we talk about a "region" called "India" (which you agreed to earlier), and then suggest that "the history of Pakistan is a part of India's" (in this context the only thing you could be referring to would be the current Indian State). 

Since there was a larger region called "India" (called so not by the residents of South Asia, but rather foreign historians), then it only makes sense to argue that the history of today's India and Pakistan is a part of the history of "the Indian Subcontinent" or South Asia.

You could argue however that the history of Modern India is a part of Pakistan's history, and the history of Pakistan is a part of Modern India's history - and the histories of both are part of South Asian history.

Another point that causes some of this confusion is the suggestion that Modern India is a continuation of Ancient India. It is really only a continuation in name. No such entity existed historically.

Yes the historical cultures of ancient India have continued into Modern India, but they have also continued into Pakistan, and into Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka etc. 

The history of all of these nations is a common South Asian history, and they are all a part of each others history. They are not part of "Modern India's" history alone.

Hence my argument that the history should be referred to as South Asian history to remove all this confusion and redundancy of names, and suspicion that Indians are fine with everyone else's history being a part of "modern India's history", but not with anyone else claiming the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vish

roadrunner said:


> Fine, so the Portuguese who ruled Goa for centuries can lay claim to the history of India also? And Afghanistan can lay claim also to many an Indian civilization, as can Iran, Greece, Turkey, Saudi Arabia? There has to be a line you draw.



Distinguish betwen "laying claim to history" and "being a part of history." The part of Portugese history that deals with Goa is "a part of" Indian history. Portugal, which is different from the "Portugal" then, cannot claim Indian history. Same goes for Iran, Greece, etc.



roadrunner said:


> Buddhism spent more time being developed in Pakistan than in India. Its origins are Nepalese.



I disagree with your assessment with regard to development. With regard to origin, Buddhism originated in modern day India and Nepal. It's origins though are "Indian," because Nepal as an entity did not exist back then but "India" did.



roadrunner said:


> So the British Raj is part of subcontinent history. Then Saudi Arabian history is also part of subcontinent history, Turkish history also is. The Greeks also etc.



Again distinguish betwen "laying claim to history" and "being a part of history." Some parts of Saudi Arabian history are parts of Indian history too.



roadrunner said:


> That's not true. The IVC was centred along the Indus River, and predominantly was in Pakistan. Take the example of the Saudi Arabians. We know they invaded parts of India about 1,000 years ago. Can the Saudi Arabians now claim some parts of Indian history as a greater Saudi Arabian history? Since parts of India were part of the Saudi Empire, why not? India in this case would have no history if everything was divided up like you're trying to divide up the IVC.



Did the inhabitants of the IVC know what India and Pakistan are? No. The term "India" is derived from "Indus." The origin of the term "India" predates the origin of the term "Pakistan." Hence the world sees it is a part of "Indian" history. I'm not dividing IVC, I'm suggesting that it belongs to one and all equally.



roadrunner said:


> The term India was invented by ancient Pakistan for the region of the Indus. Some idiot Greeks that were poor at geography and thought "all dem people..duh..where the big river lies, dem folk all look same to me, dey Indian", should not have any influence on what was the real India, and what Indian history actually refers to.



Nobody invented the term India. It slowly developed on its own over centuries. The term "Pakistan" came much later than the term "India."


----------



## vish

AM:

Any disagreement is welcomed; I just hope it does not lead to animosity.

I am aware that the lands in the current day Pakistan were the first in the subcontinent to be populated. Then again the term "India" originated from the river "Indus." The term "Pakistan" originated much later. This is the reason why the term "Indian history" is more pre-dominant than "Pakistani history." 

The term "India" might have been coinde by the Greeks, but again the term "India" predates the term "Pakistan." This does not imply that there is no Pakistani history; all I'm saying is that Pakistani history is more seen as a part of Indian history than vice versa. This is due to chronology. If the term "Pakistan" would have predated "India," reality would have been different now.

I've said that Pakistan history is part of Indian, the nation state, history because the idea of India, the nation state, predates the idea of Pakistan, the nation sate. India, the nation state, originally encompassed the lands that are now in Pakistan. It is a generally held view that India was partitioned between India and Pakistan. Herein, India is seen as a continuation of "India" and Pakistan an offshoot of "India" and to a certain extent India.

Even residents of "India" referred to their lands as "Hind." This term has less to do with "Hindu" and more to do with "Sindh" and "Ind," both referring to Indus. In fact the term "Hindu" was derived from "Hind," and not vice versa.

India as a nation state did not exist originally, but "India" as a region did. However, India is seen as a continuation of "India" largely due to its name, size, and the accompanying dominance. There are however numerous just reasons why this continuation is believed to be true. However, I do agree that the marginalization of the other states is uncalled for. But then again, I don't see any myself.

I agree that the cultural traditions have prevailed in modern day nation states. Again the term "India" is oldest among the terms Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc. The modern day nation state of India is seen as a continuation of "India," and consequently the histories of Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc are seen as offshoots of "Indian" and Indian history.

The term "Indian history" is quiet widespread and official action won't achieve much.


----------



## roadrunner

vish said:


> Distinguish betwen "laying claim to history" and "being a part of history." The part of Portugese history that deals with Goa is "a part of" Indian history. Portugal, which is different from the "Portugal" then, cannot claim Indian history. Same goes for Iran, Greece, etc.



portugal cannot lay claim to indian history. it cannot say for example that the the Mughal Empire was a Portuguese Empire simply because Vasco De Gama conquered some areas of the Mughal Empire. Likewise, one cannot say the IVC was an Indian civilization simply because India had a minority of IVC sites. Same with Afghanistan's IVC sites, one cannot say it was an Afghani civilization. IVC was centred on the Indus. It was an Indus Valley Civilization, and the Indus Valley is mainly located in Pakistan. So it must be an Ancient Pakistani civilization. 



> I disagree with your assessment with regard to development. With regard to origin, Buddhism originated in modern day India and Nepal. It's origins though are "Indian," because Nepal as an entity did not exist back then but "India" did.



Look, whatever happens within Nepal's borders is Nepalese history, it doesn't matter whether Nepal as a country entity existed then. You just want to say everything is Indian history, so that you can claim it for yourself. Don't you think you're trying to portray a fake version of history that is favourable towards India, when a lot of it never really occurred within the borders of modern day India? 



> Again distinguish betwen "laying claim to history" and "being a part of history." Some parts of Saudi Arabian history are parts of Indian history too.



See first reply. 



> Did the inhabitants of the IVC know what India and Pakistan are? No. The term "India" is derived from "Indus." The origin of the term "India" predates the origin of the term "Pakistan." Hence the world sees it is a part of "Indian" history. I'm not dividing IVC, I'm suggesting that it belongs to one and all equally.



This statement is complete nonsense. 

Did the inhabitants of the IVC know what India and Pakistan are? No. 
So what if they did not know what India and Pakistan were? We know what India and Pakistan are now, and we know what the IVC was. It was a civilization built primarily on Pakistani soil. 

The term "India" is derived from "Indus." The origin of the term "India" predates the origin of the term "Pakistan." Hence the world sees it is a part of "Indian" history. 

Exactly. So because Nehru intentionally stole the name India to steal all Pakistan's history, and fooled the world into believing this, it does not mean it is correct. It is up to Pakistanis to correct this impression, and one day, when someone bashes the radical Mullahs up, they will wake up and tell the world this. You will always have your alternative word for India, Bharat, to be used. 

I'm not dividing IVC, I'm suggesting that it belongs to one and all equally.

I know you're suggesting this. My point is that the IVC does not belong to India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran equally. IVC belongs to Pakistan mainly (the driving force), then India, then Afghanistan, then Iranian history. But to mention IVC as Indian history (as in modern India), is a distortion of the truth. one cannot mention IVC without referring to Pakistan first. 



> Nobody invented the term India. It slowly developed on its own over centuries. The term "Pakistan" came much later than the term "India."



No, it did not. "India" derives from the Indus River, which in turn derives from Sindh, which in turn derives from Saptha Sindhu. Saptha Sindhu (literal, land of the seven rivers or the indus valley or Pakistan), was first coined 3,500 years ago by the people of the Rig Veda who were Ancient Pakistanis, not Indians though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vish

roadrunner said:


> portugal cannot lay claim to indian history. it cannot say for example that the the Mughal Empire was a Portuguese Empire simply because Vasco De Gama conquered some areas of the Mughal Empire. Likewise, one cannot say the IVC was an Indian civilization simply because India had a minority of IVC sites. Same with Afghanistan's IVC sites, one cannot say it was an Afghani civilization. IVC was centred on the Indus. It was an Indus Valley Civilization, and the Indus Valley is mainly located in Pakistan. So it must be an Ancient Pakistani civilization.



All I said was the part of Portuguese history that deals with Goa is part of Indian history too and I'll stick to that. I do not understand your statements with regard to Vasco da Gama, so I'll request you to make it clearer. 

The IVC is the Indus Valley Civilization, neither Indian nor Pakistani nor Afghanistani. The IVC is as much Indian as much as it is Pakistani. The cities of the IVC may be segregated on the basis of geography. The IVC is seen as a part of Indian history because India, as a term, predates Pakistan, as a term, by millennia. Pakistan's history is seen as part of Indian history because India was partitioned between India and Pakistan; at least this is the majority view. Ancient history cannot be segregated on the basis of modern day national borders. 



roadrunner said:


> Look, whatever happens within Nepal's borders is Nepalese history, it doesn't matter whether Nepal as a country entity existed then. You just want to say everything is Indian history, so that you can claim it for yourself. Don't you think you're trying to portray a fake version of history that is favourable towards India, when a lot of it never really occurred within the borders of modern day India?



It absolutely matters whether Nepal as an entity existed then or not. How can you say that the origins are Nepalese, if Nepal never existed then? Modern-day geography cannot be used to segregate history. I'm not trying to portray a fake version; you are not accepting the distinction between historical sites and abstract historical concepts. Indian history is synonymous with the sub-continent's history simply because the idea of India, both as a supra-regional entity and the nation state, predates Pakistan and other modern day nation states. A lot did occur within the borders of modern day India.



roadrunner said:


> See first reply.


 
Seen and answered.



roadrunner said:


> This statement is complete nonsense.



Uncalled for. 



roadrunner said:


> Did the inhabitants of the IVC know what India and Pakistan are? No.
> So what if they did not know what India and Pakistan were? We know what India and Pakistan are now, and we know what the IVC was. It was a civilization built primarily on Pakistani soil.



This does not make it a Pakistani civilization, as Pakistan, as an entity, never existed then. This is the reason why Pakistani history is seen as an offshoot of Indian history and not vice versa. The IVC is part of Indian and Pakistani history equally. The sites of the IVC are a different matter.



roadrunner said:


> The term "India" is derived from "Indus." The origin of the term "India" predates the origin of the term "Pakistan." Hence the world sees it is a part of "Indian" history.
> 
> Exactly. So because Nehru intentionally stole the name India to steal all Pakistan's history, and fooled the world into believing this, it does not mean it is correct. It is up to Pakistanis to correct this impression, and one day, when someone bashes the radical Mullahs up, they will wake up and tell the world this. You will always have your alternative word for India, Bharat, to be used.



Nehru had nothing to do with this. Some Muslims in India wanted a separate state and they decided to name their country "Pakistan." The freedom struggle always wanted an independent India; this is long before Nehru was born. My country's names are India and Bharat, and that will never change.



roadrunner said:


> I'm not dividing IVC, I'm suggesting that it belongs to one and all equally.
> 
> I know you're suggesting this. My point is that the IVC does not belong to India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran equally. IVC belongs to Pakistan mainly (the driving force), then India, then Afghanistan, then Iranian history. But to mention IVC as Indian history (as in modern India), is a distortion of the truth. one cannot mention IVC without referring to Pakistan first.



IVC is equally Indian and Pakistani. Indian, the modern day nation state, history is a continuation of "Indian" history. Pakistani, the modern day nation state, history is seen as an offshoot of "Indian" history.



roadrunner said:


> No, it did not. "India" derives from the Indus River, which in turn derives from Sindh, which in turn derives from Saptha Sindhu. Saptha Sindhu (literal, land of the seven rivers or the indus valley or Pakistan), was first coined 3,500 years ago by the people of the Rig Veda who were Ancient Pakistanis, not Indians. The culture later flowed East a bit.



Nobody invented the term "India;" the term evolved on its own. Again, the term "Pakistan" is much much more modern than the term "India." Hence, the Rig Vedic tribes are seen as Indian and not Pakistani.


----------



## Flintlock

vish said:


> Again, in either case, no. Are these "Islamic monuments" part of Pakistan's history, yes; as much as they are a part of India's history. Similarly, pre-Islamic monuments in Pakistan do not belong to India nor do they belong exclusively to India's history. They are a part of India's history as much as they are a part of Pakistan's history.



They are a part of Pakistani history to the extent that Pakistan or Pakistanis was/were a part of the empire that built them...I guess that's the best statement I can come up with.



> Why should there be a cutting of the "chocolate cake?" Why seggregate something as wonderful as "history?" Why can't it be shared? Why can't we (the inhabitants of the sub-continent) agree to the notion that *our (modern day nation states) history is overlapping and more common than not, and is not an exclusive legion of particular nation state solely due to geography*?



It can be shared, and IMO it should. 

However, Pakistanis today ( as you must have observed) are stuck with the conflicting notions that "their" history is described as "Indian history", a country which they don't have positive feelings towards, and the fact that that the term "India" originated due to the Indus river that flows bang through the middle of their country, so they think the name actually applies to their country, and their country alone.

The idea is to somehow wrench apart the history (and hence identity) of Pakistan from India. 

You must have read about how bloody partition was. Think now of the intellectual bloodshed over the partition of history.

Obviously, the name India isn't going to change in a hurry, and I don't see Pakistan adopting the name "India" either. 
Moreover, it will be a huge headache to wrench apart the history of the subcontinent along the current boundaries, so most historians prefer to stick with the phrase "India (now Modern Pakistan)", rather than use the term "Pakistan" outright.


----------



## cactuslily58

UnitedPak said:


> That is seriously a narrow minded explanation. 1.6 billion people do not share the same history.
> 
> *What happened on the land of Pakistan belongs to the people who have always lived there, i.e the people known as Pakistanis.* You are blatantly using double meanings to credit the modern People of India the history of the entire subcontinent.
> 
> Actions that took place in Baluchistan do not belong to Indians, regardless of what year it was, same with actions that took place in every other Pakistani city. 1947 politics doesnt change ancient history. Lets try and talk sense here.
> 
> Sure there is some overlapping, Certain Muslim history in North India, certain Sikh history in Lahore. But try not and abuse this.



No comments


----------



## vish

Stealth Assassin said:


> They are a part of Pakistani history to the extent that Pakistan or Pakistanis was/were a part of the empire that built them...I guess that's the best statement I can come up with.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be shared, and IMO it should.
> 
> However, Pakistanis today ( as you must have observed) are stuck with the conflicting notions that "their" history is described as "Indian history", a country which they don't have positive feelings towards, and the fact that that the term "India" originated due to the Indus river that flows bang through the middle of their country, so they think the name actually applies to their country, and their country alone.
> 
> The idea is to somehow wrench apart the history (and hence identity) of Pakistan from India.
> 
> You must have read about how bloody partition was. Think now of the intellectual bloodshed over the partition of history.
> 
> Obviously, the name India isn't going to change in a hurry, and I don't see Pakistan adopting the name "India" either.
> Moreover, it will be a huge headache to wrench apart the history of the subcontinent along the current boundaries, so most historians prefer to stick with the phrase "India (now Modern Pakistan)", rather than use the term "Pakistan" outright.



Pakistan and India were one as India. Their history is the same as ours. No matter how hard one (they/us) tries to separate the history, it is not going to change. You cannot partition history; it is an abstract concept.

It is a fact that the pre-Independence history will always be broadly referred to as the Indian History or the History of the Indian Civilization. If Pakistanis do feel that their history is being usurped as Indian history, they should realize that they were a part of "India" once. 

Again, Im not against Pakistan or its creation; my view is India was partitioned into India and Pakistan.


----------



## MIG_ACE

Ok, there's something I don't understand. How can "History" belong to anyone? It is not a material object that can be claimed or possessed. It is just an account of all events that happened in the past. No one can "claim" any history. So I don't understand why you guys keep referring to history. This thread is not about history as such. It is about Islamic Monuments in India which are material objects that can be claimed. Whether or not the claim is legitimate is a different matter.
As you can see three members have voted "Yes" to this poll, but they haven't posted why they feel so. I can only assume that they either did it for fun or they cannot find any justification for their claims.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

vish said:


> AM:
> 
> Any disagreement is welcomed; I just hope it does not lead to animosity.
> 
> I am aware that the lands in the current day Pakistan were the first in the subcontinent to be populated. Then again the term "India" originated from the river "Indus." The term "Pakistan" originated much later. This is the reason why the term "Indian history" is more pre-dominant than "Pakistani history."
> 
> The term "India" might have been coinde by the Greeks, but again the term "India" predates the term "Pakistan." This does not imply that there is no Pakistani history; all I'm saying is that Pakistani history is more seen as a part of Indian history than vice versa. This is due to chronology. If the term "Pakistan" would have predated "India," reality would have been different now.
> 
> I've said that Pakistan history is part of Indian, the nation state, history because the idea of India, the nation state, predates the idea of Pakistan, the nation sate. India, the nation state, originally encompassed the lands that are now in Pakistan. It is a generally held view that India was partitioned between India and Pakistan. Herein, India is seen as a continuation of "India" and Pakistan an offshoot of "India" and to a certain extent India.
> 
> Even residents of "India" referred to their lands as "Hind." This term has less to do with "Hindu" and more to do with "Sindh" and "Ind," both referring to Indus. In fact the term "Hindu" was derived from "Hind," and not vice versa.
> 
> India as a nation state did not exist originally, but "India" as a region did. However, India is seen as a continuation of "India" largely due to its name, size, and the accompanying dominance. There are however numerous just reasons why this continuation is believed to be true. However, I do agree that the marginalization of the other states is uncalled for. But then again, I don't see any myself.
> 
> I agree that the cultural traditions have prevailed in modern day nation states. Again the term "India" is oldest among the terms Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc. The modern day nation state of India is seen as a continuation of "India," and consequently the histories of Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc are seen as offshoots of "Indian" and Indian history.
> 
> The term "Indian history" is quiet widespread and official action won't achieve much.



No animosity here. I am in fact arguing something different in my later posts than my initial one, and my later posts will find dissenters in both Pakistanis and Indians.

I still see a contradiction in your statement of "Pakistani history being a part of Indian history" due to the argument that the notion of a single Indian political entity may have predated that of Pakistan. The fact is that Modern India and Pakistan came into existence almost simultaneously, and one cannot be part of the others history and not vice versa.

India the nation State never encompassed the lands that also include Pakistan - the only thing that existed was an idea perhaps, but many empires and civilizations have had grand designs of "expansion". That does not then validate a claim on the history of the regions that were only "idealized" as being part of that entity.

There are some scholars who would argue for an Islamic Caliphate or Ummah - but can a case be made that Saudi Arabia has claim to the history of all the Muslim world on the premise that it would be the center of authority of an "ideal" Islamic Caliphate?

Until such an entity actually exists I would argue that it does not, just as the claim of the "idea of a united India" cannot be used to argue that Pakistan's history is a part of India's history, but not vice versa, and even more inaccurate to argue that Pakistan is an "offshoot of Modern India", or even Historical India (South Asia - which is the term I'll use since I keep getting mixed up and going back and adding or deleting quotes).

Pakistan cannot be an offshoot of India because India never existed before Pakistan, and Pakistan cannot be an off shoot of South Asia because it is still very much a part of South Asia, as are Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India etc.


----------



## UnitedPak

cactuslily58 said:


> Events that became part of history had nothing to do with the confines of borders as we now know them. I suggest we raise our vision from our immediate past & look beyond. The connect will be apparent.
> 
> If for some reason it is not evident .. forget it.



I didnt say Borders, I said the People of Pakistan.


----------



## Energon

I have always found this "there never existed an India before 1947" to be a weak argument. There was very much an ancient India which to this day is recognized by historians and academicians world over. True, it didn't exist in the form of a singular political entity or a nation state, which in itself is a European creation. But that doesn't mean that until 1947 there was no India. Practically every neighboring empire (Bactrian, Persian, Chinese, etc), every invader (Alexander, Muslim invaders from the west, Mongolians, Europeans) and contemporary civilization through time (Greek, Roman, Chinese, European powers) have recognized India through their own historical records. Now I can certainly see the proclivity of the Pakistani perspective to deny the existence of India prior to 1947; but it is unlikely that anyone is going to buy into this point of view.

By default modern India has the advantage of laying claim to the historical events of ancient India. Obviously the byproduct states are at bit of a disadvantage in this regard. Sri Lanka however if I'm not mistaken has always been given credence as an independent entity even through ancient Indic literature.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Energon said:


> I have always found this "there never existed an India before 1947" to be a weak argument. There was very much an ancient India which to this day is recognized by historians and academicians world over. True, it didn't exist in the form of a singular political entity or a nation state, which in itself is a European creation. But that doesn't mean that until 1947 there was no India. Practically every neighboring empire (Bactrian, Persian, Chinese, etc), every invader (Alexander, Muslim invaders from the west, Mongolians, Europeans) and contemporary civilization through time (Greek, Roman, Chinese, European powers) have recognized India through their own historical records. Now I can certainly see the proclivity of the Pakistani perspective to deny the existence of India prior to 1947; but it is unlikely that anyone is going to buy into this point of view.
> 
> By default modern India has the advantage of laying claim to the historical events of ancient India. Obviously the byproduct states are at bit of a disadvantage in this regard. Sri Lanka however if I'm not mistaken has always been given credence as an independent entity even through ancient Indic literature.



Energon,

I don't think many people are denying the idea of a region called India before 1947 - that is taking the argument out of context. 

What is being argued is that the current political entity of India is distinct from "Ancient India", the _region_.

As has been pointed out, when the name India was initially used it exclusively referred to the lands primarily comprising current Pakistan.

The "disadvantage" that results from the modern Indian State automatically being given credit for history that is shared between the many nations of South Asia is a genuine concern, and has only arisen, IMO, due to the choice of the name "India" by the Indian founders.

An oft repeated conversation between Jinnah and Nehru (IIRC) is of Jinnah saying that the new nation for Muslims would be called Pakistan, and that the remainder would be called "Hindustan", to which Nehru replied that it would be called India.

The history of the region would still be referred to as "Indian History", without any issues, had the name Hindustan been chosen, and the term would be akin to "South Asia". Therefore the only advantage in claiming this history Modern India has is that fate determined that its name would be identical to the historical name for the_ region_.


The history of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, the historical events of their ancestors, belong to Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, not just the modern Indian political entity, though I can "understand the proclivity of the Indian perspective" to amalgamate almost every thing historical related to South Asia under the banner of the modern Indian state to deny Pakistan any opportunity to discredit Pakistan's separate existence as much as possible.


----------



## UnitedPak

*"India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator." -Winston Churchill*

"India" was always a Geographical Expression. Like Europe, Asia etc. It doesnt hold the same meaning today so we dont need to use it. Indians obviously feel the need to use it, as it credits them the history of the entire subcontinent.

_Imagine the scenario that the European Union became one single country. 100 years later it broke up into the European nations we see today, Except ONE country which takes up the name "Europe".
Does this new country have a right to all European history for all time periods?_

Ancient Pakistani history doesnt belong to the people of India, hence its Pakistani history.


----------



## HAIDER

So, its all indigenous. Indian muslims and specially Hyderabadi muslim think we Pakistani are the most inferior.


----------



## MIG_ACE

HAIDER said:


> So, its all indigenous. Indian muslims and specially Hyderabadi muslim think we Pakistani are the most inferior.



Now where did that come from?


----------



## UnitedPak

Hyderabad has its own Muslim history which Pakistanis havent got much claim over. I was referring to Northern Indian Muslim history.


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> *"India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator." -Winston Churchill*



What year was that? 1945?

You do realize, that Winston Churchill's motive for this statement probably had nothing to do with Ancient History, and more to do with denying us Independence, which by the way, even Pakistan was fighting for, right? 

You also realize, that the 'India' being referred to here includes Pakistan here.

I hate to state the obvious, but you are simply undermining your own right to freedom by quoting your colonial master...



> "India" was always a Geographical Expression. Like Europe, Asia etc. It doesnt hold the same meaning today so we dont need to use it. Indians obviously feel the need to use it, as it credits them the history of the entire subcontinent.



Well, if you think that the name India gives us all that credit, then who are we to disagree?


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> I didnt say Borders, I said the People of Pakistan.



Aren't the People of Pakistan the guys who live within its borders?


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> No animosity here. I am in fact arguing something different in my later posts than my initial one, and my later posts will find dissenters in both Pakistanis and Indians.



That makes the two of us!



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I still see a contradiction in your statement of "Pakistani history being a part of Indian history" due to the argument that the notion of a single Indian political entity may have predated that of Pakistan. The fact is that Modern India and Pakistan came into existence almost simultaneously, and one cannot be part of the others history and not vice versa.
> 
> India the nation State never encompassed the lands that also include Pakistan - the only thing that existed was an idea perhaps, but many empires and civilizations have had grand designs of "expansion". That does not then validate a claim on the history of the regions that were only "idealized" as being part of that entity.
> 
> There are some scholars who would argue for an Islamic Caliphate or Ummah - but can a case be made that Saudi Arabia has claim to the history of all the Muslim world on the premise that it would be the center of authority of an "ideal" Islamic Caliphate?
> 
> Until such an entity actually exists I would argue that it does not, just as the claim of the "idea of a united India" cannot be used to argue that Pakistan's history is a part of India's history, but not vice versa, and even more inaccurate to argue that Pakistan is an "offshoot of Modern India", or even Historical India (South Asia - which is the term I'll use since I keep getting mixed up and going back and adding or deleting quotes).
> 
> Pakistan cannot be an offshoot of India because India never existed before Pakistan, and Pakistan cannot be an off shoot of South Asia because it is still very much a part of South Asia, as are Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India etc.



We do agree that India, the supra-regional entity, has existed since ancient times. With the advent of the British, this India became British India. When nationalism took root in the sub-continent, in the late 1800s, the notion of Partition or Pakistan was non-existent. The fight for freedom was for an independent India; this is not an expansion. 

When the Partition movement picked up steam, the idea was a nation state separate from India (the nation state that erstwhile would have included most of the sub-continent), i.e., Pakistan. So what has happened is that India succeeded India and Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka (which has been considered Indian hegemony since ancient times), Nepal, Bhutan, and Afghanistan (to a certain extent) offshooted from India. 

However, since India continued India and that initially nationalism was pan-sub-continent, there is a perception that Pakistan (and to a certain extent the other states) is an offshoot of India; this is something that I disagree with, though not entirely. But India did continue India. The perception that India is the sole continuation of India is skewed.

Im unaware of the Saudi Arabian history with regard to the Caliphate; hence, Im unable to argue on that matter.


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> As has been pointed out, when the name India was initially used it exclusively referred to the lands primarily comprising current Pakistan.



Yes, very true. Initially the term India was used to refer to lands that are now in present day Pakistan, but not exclusively. The IVC predates India. By the time the term India was in widespread use, civilization(s) had evolved across the major rivers of the subcontinent. 



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The "disadvantage" that results from the modern Indian State automatically being given credit for history that is shared between the many nations of South Asia is a genuine concern, and has only arisen, IMO, due to the choice of the name "India" by the Indian founders.
> 
> An oft repeated conversation between Jinnah and Nehru (IIRC) is of Jinnah saying that the new nation for Muslims would be called Pakistan, and that the remainder would be called "Hindustan", to which Nehru replied that it would be called India.



I disagree with you thoroughly here. India is given credit for the history of the South Asian nations largely because the entire sub-continent was once, and aptly, referred to as India. Modern day India, being the dominant entity within the subcontinent is the continuation of India, in more ways than is Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc. Hence the history of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc is seen to lie within the realm of Indian history, but Indian history is seen in the same light as Indian history.

Nehru did not want to adopt the name Hindustan because he was an atheist secularist, and the name Hindustan had severe religious connotations.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The history of the region would still be referred to as "Indian History", without any issues, had the name Hindustan been chosen, and the term would be akin to "South Asia". Therefore the only advantage in claiming this history Modern India has is that fate determined that its name would be identical to the historical name for the_ region_.



Ive mentioned earlier why Nehru avoided the term Hindustan. The reasons why India is seen as a continuation of India is more than just nomenclature. Whilst it cannot be denied that the first civilizations in the subcontinent today largely lie within the borders of Pakistan, the lands within modern day India have been witness to many events and actors. The reason why Pakistan is seen as an offshoot (I do not intend to be rude here) is because Pakistan (and to a certain extent, the other states) was created as a separate state (from India).



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The history of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, the historical events of their ancestors, belong to Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, not just the modern Indian political entity, though I can "understand the proclivity of the Indian perspective" to amalgamate almost every thing historical related to South Asia under the banner of the modern Indian state to deny Pakistan any opportunity to discredit Pakistan's separate existence as much as possible.



Correct, the history of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, the historical events of their ancestors, belong to Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, not just the modern Indian political entity. I wonder, though, how does the proclivity of the Indian perspective arise? It is not that India/Indians have sought this history mumbo-jumbo. I do not intend to annihilate Pakistan, or its entity, or the question of its nationality. My only concern is its non-secularism. All Im saying is that Pakistans history is seen as a part of Indian history, and nothing will change that. Also, India is a continuation of India in more ways than mere nomenclature and that India is seen as more of a torch bearer than Pakistan or the other South Asian states; nothing will change these facts too.

AM, Im sorry if I sound rude; Ive no such intention.


----------



## roadrunner

vish said:


> All I said was the part of Portuguese history that deals with Goa is part of Indian history too and I'll stick to that. I do not understand your statements with regard to Vasco da Gama, so I'll request you to make it clearer.



Alright, look. The Portuguese (under Vasco da Gama) ruled Goa and parts of India during the Mughal Empire times. Can some Portuguese person come now and say that the Mughal Empire was a Portuguese civilization? If not, how does this differ from an Indian person saying that the IVC was an Indian civilization? In both cases, the Portuguese, and the Indians forned a minor component of the Mughal Empire, and of the IVC. So the IVC cannot be described as an Indian Civilization, unless it's allowed for virtually any country in the world with any connections to an area to claim its history even though the connection is minor. 



> The IVC is the Indus Valley Civilization, neither Indian nor Pakistani nor Afghanistani. The IVC is as much Indian as much as it is Pakistani. The cities of the IVC may be segregated on the basis of geography. The IVC is seen as a part of Indian history because India, as a term, predates Pakistan, as a term, by millennia. Pakistan's history is seen as part of Indian history because India was partitioned between India and Pakistan; at least this is the majority view. Ancient history cannot be segregated on the basis of modern day national borders.



lol. What utter nonsense. IVC is part of Pakistani, Afghani, Indian and Iranian history. Whatever happened within the borders of those countries is their own histories. 

The IVC is not as much Indian as it is Pakistani. If this were the case, then the Mughal Empire is as much Portuguese as it is Indian. Which is absolutely ludicrous. Or Alexander's Empire is as much Pakistani as it was Greek/Macedonian. I'm pretty sure most people will agree that Alexander's Empire was not Pakistani. 

The term "India" does predate Pakistan. But this does not mean whatever happened within the borders of Pakistan automatically can be claimed by anyone who calls themselves Indian. Say if in 100 years time, Germany calls itself Europe (UP's example), can Germany claim all French history because France was a part of Europe at one time? I think you'll find noone would accept this idea. Germany can only claim the history that occurred within its borders. It doesn't matter what name it changes to. Same with India. It doesn't matter what name it calls itself, it cannot claim history outside of its borders such as the history of Pakistan. 

Pakistan's history is only seen as Indian history by nationalist Indians or Westenr subcontinent scholars who find it more convenient to lump everything together so it doesn't get politicial. It's partly the fault of the Pakistanis of course, but this will probably change as the education improves. 



> It absolutely matters whether Nepal as an entity existed then or not. How can you say that the origins are Nepalese, if Nepal never existed then? Modern-day geography cannot be used to segregate history. I'm not trying to portray a fake version; you are not accepting the distinction between historical sites and abstract historical concepts. Indian history is synonymous with the sub-continent's history simply because the idea of India, both as a supra-regional entity and the nation state, predates Pakistan and other modern day nation states. A lot did occur within the borders of modern day India.



The idea that India as a national nomenclature predates 1947 is nonsensical. UP has given Churchill's quote on this, that India as a country never existed before 1947. It was just a region. Therefore calling Pakistani history Indian history leads to confusion. Take the example of Germany calling itself Europe in 100 years time. Let's say the Germans claimed to have invented the telescope (according to official history Italian, Galileo, invented it), because Galileo was European and since Germany is now called Europe and Galileo was a European, then his invention was a German invention. Can you not see the confusion this creates, and the blatant stealing of the shining examples of other country's history that has occured? This is exactly what Indian nationalists have been trying to do with the history of Pakistan. For this reason, it is important to clarify what is meant by Pakistani and Indian history. 



> This does not make it a Pakistani civilization, as Pakistan, as an entity, never existed then. This is the reason why Pakistani history is seen as an offshoot of Indian history and not vice versa. The IVC is part of Indian and Pakistani history equally. The sites of the IVC are a different matter.



What you're saying is this. In 100 years time Germany, calling itself Europe, claims the Roman Empire was a European Empire that belongs to the German people as much as the Italian people. In reality, the Roman Empire was purely an Italian Empire, with no Germanic contribution in it. In reality the IVC was mainly a civilization consisting of Pakistani ancestors with little input from Indian ancestors. Would you think it is alright to call the Roman Empire a German Empire, and if so, your reasons for this? 



> Nehru had nothing to do with this. Some Muslims in India wanted a separate state and they decided to name their country "Pakistan." The freedom struggle always wanted an independent India; this is long before Nehru was born. My country's names are India and Bharat, and that will never change.



Well, India and Pakistan have not been part of the same country until it was unified by the British in the last couple of centuries. Before then, the Indus Valley was mostly separated from India or Bharat. It was Nehru that decided on the name India. Jinnah disapproved of the name..Perhaps he knew Pakistan's history well enough, and what was the real reason for calling a country after a regional area (equal to calling germany all of Europe). 



> IVC is equally Indian and Pakistani. Indian, the modern day nation state, history is a continuation of "Indian" history. Pakistani, the modern day nation state, history is seen as an offshoot of "Indian" history.



Certainly if you see it like this, then you couldn't be more incorrect. It is the opposite. Pakistan was from where "Indian" history originated from as described by the Greek texts. Bharat history is in fact the off shoot of Indian history, with Pakistan being the "real" India if you like - the originator. 



> Nobody invented the term "India;" the term evolved on its own. Again, the term "Pakistan" is much much more modern than the term "India." Hence, the Rig Vedic tribes are seen as Indian and not Pakistani.



Actually, India did not evolve on its own. There has to be an origin for everything. And we know what the origin of the word "India" is. Saptha Sindhu (equal to Pakistan of modern day), is from where India originated from. The Persians called this same land "Haptha Hindu", the Greeks evolved it into "Indu", and from there it came round to being Indus and India. As for the Rig Vedic tribes being Indian, that's nonsense in the historical sense. They were Vedic people that were part of Ancient Pakistani history. They were given the term "Indian" by latter day scholars from the West, and their history has been confused with that of Bharat's. So it makes sense to make this point clear.


----------



## Tiki Tam Tam

The Portuguese culture and monuments are still there in Goa.

What are the famous Churches and the Madri Gras all about?

Now that Goa is a part of India, it automatically embraces that culture but cannot claim that it is only of Indian origin.


----------



## vish

roadrunner said:


> Alright, look. The Portuguese (under Vasco da Gama) ruled Goa and parts of India during the Mughal Empire times. Can some Portuguese person come now and say that the Mughal Empire was a Portuguese civilization? If not, how does this differ from an Indian person saying that the IVC was an Indian civilization? In both cases, the Portuguese, and the Indians forned a minor component of the Mughal Empire, and of the IVC. So the IVC cannot be described as an Indian Civilization, unless it's allowed for virtually any country in the world with any connections to an area to claim its history even though the connection is minor.



The Portuguese rule over Goa is part of both Portuguese and Indian history. If Portuguese rule of Goa interferes with Mughal suzerainty of Goa then, in that case, yes the part of Portuguese history that deals with Goa or its (Portuguese) interaction with the Mughals is a part of Mughal history too. Im not saying that the IVC is an Indian civilization; Im saying IVC is a part of Indian and Pakistani history equally. IVC is not a Pakistani civilization. Further, please distinguish between laying claim to ones history and being a part of ones history. 



roadrunner said:


> lol. What utter nonsense. IVC is part of Pakistani, Afghani, Indian and Iranian history. Whatever happened within the borders of those countries is their own histories.



Precisely, IVC is part of Pakistani, Afghani, Indian, and Iranian (unsure of this) history, but equally. Modern day geography is not the basis by which history is segregated upon; come to think of it, history can never be segregated, only shared.



roadrunner said:


> The IVC is not as much Indian as it is Pakistani. If this were the case, then the Mughal Empire is as much Portuguese as it is Indian. Which is absolutely ludicrous. Or Alexander's Empire is as much Pakistani as it was Greek/Macedonian. I'm pretty sure most people will agree that Alexander's Empire was not Pakistani.



Ive already explained my viewpoint with regard to IVCs nationality and Portugal ownership of the Mughal Empire. The part of Alexanders history which deals with his advances in the sub-continent is a part of Greek, Indian, and Pakistani history.



roadrunner said:


> The term "India" does predate Pakistan. But this does not mean whatever happened within the borders of Pakistan automatically can be claimed by anyone who calls themselves Indian. Say if in 100 years time, Germany calls itself Europe (UP's example), can Germany claim all French history because France was a part of Europe at one time? I think you'll find noone would accept this idea. Germany can only claim the history that occurred within its borders. It doesn't matter what name it changes to. Same with India. It doesn't matter what name it calls itself, it cannot claim history outside of its borders such as the history of Pakistan.



Im not claiming your history. All Im saying is that Pakistans and Indias history are a part of Indias and Pakistans history, respectively. With regard to Germany, isnt East Prussia (which is now in Poland and Russia) a part of German history?



roadrunner said:


> Pakistan's history is only seen as Indian history by nationalist Indians or Westenr subcontinent scholars who find it more convenient to lump everything together so it doesn't get politicial. It's partly the fault of the Pakistanis of course, but this will probably change as the education improves.



Pakistans history is seen as Indian history simply because Pakistan was a part of India, the supra-regional pan-subcontinent entity that is the predecessor to the modern day nation state of India much more than to the other nation states, once. 



roadrunner said:


> The idea that India as a national nomenclature predates 1947 is nonsensical. UP has given Churchill's quote on this, that India as a country never existed before 1947. It was just a region. Therefore calling Pakistani history Indian history leads to confusion. Take the example of Germany calling itself Europe in 100 years time. Let's say the Germans claimed to have invented the telescope (according to official history Italian, Galileo, invented it), because Galileo was European and since Germany is now called Europe and Galileo was a European, then his invention was a European invention. Can you not see the confusion this creates, and the blatant stealing of the shining examples of other country's history that has occured? This is exactly what Indian nationalists have been trying to do with the history of Pakistan. For this reason, it is important to clarify what is meant by Pakistani and Indian history.



Churchills racism and bigotism with regard to Indians (mind you, this India does encompass modern day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) is well known. Further, nationalism took root across the globe during the Industrial Age and as such every place was a region earlier. India definitely was more than just a region. If Germany calls itself Europe, how will it claim that the telescope is invented by a German? Wont they, logically, claim that the telescope is invented by a European? Further, this analogy is very much inappropriate.



roadrunner said:


> What you're saying is this. In 100 years time Germany, calling itself Europe, claims the Roman Empire was a European Empire that belongs to the German people as much as the Italian people. In reality, the Roman Empire was purely an Italian Empire, with no Germanic contribution in it. In reality the IVC was mainly a civilization consisting of Pakistani ancestors with little input from Indian ancestors. Would you think it is alright to call the Roman Empire a German Empire, and if so, your reasons for this?



The Roman Empire was a Roman empire, and not German or Italian. IVC is the Indus Valley Civilization, and not Indian or Pakistani.



roadrunner said:


> Well, India and Pakistan have not been part of the same country until it was unified by the British in the last couple of centuries. Before then, the Indus Valley was mostly separated from India or Bharat. It was Nehru that decided on the name India. Jinnah disapproved of the name..Perhaps he knew Pakistan's history well enough, and what was the real reason for calling a country after a regional area (equal to calling germany all of Europe).



There were plenty of instances in history when the present day nation states of India and Pakistan were under a common rule. Back then, though, the idea of nationalism was still unheard of and the notion of Pakistan was not there. The notion of India, as some form of an entity, was. The IVC was the precursor to the civilizations of the sub-continent. It is a part of India and Bharat. Nehru decided on the name India over Hindustan because the INC (Indian National Congress) was fighting for an independent modern day nation state (India) and not a religious Hindu country.

Ill quote my previous words IVC is equally Indian and Pakistani. Indian, the modern day nation state, history is a continuation of Indian history. Pakistani, the modern day nation state, history is seen as an offshoot of "Indian" history.



roadrunner said:


> Actually, India did not evolve on its own. There has to be an origin for everything. And we know what the origin of the word "India" is. Saptha Sindhu (equal to Pakistan of modern day), is from where India originated from. The Persians called this same land "Haptha Hindu", the Greeks evolved it into "Indu", and from there it came round to being Indus and India as more and more of the subcontinent was discovered. As for the Rig Vedic tribes being Indian, that's nonsense in the historical sense. They were Vedic people that were part of Ancient Pakistani history. They were given the term "Indian" by latter day scholars from the West, and their history has been confused with that of Bharat's. So it makes sense to make this point clear.



India and Bharat are one and the same, and have been for a long time. Nobody invented the term India; the term India evolved across centuries and largely became what it is through corruptions of various dialects and languages spoken then. The Sapta Sindhu, meaning seven rivers, is universally agreed to be referring to the modern day Punjab region (both India and Pakistan); this implies that your argument is invalid. Vedic tribes were present in many sites across the subcontinent (northern and western India, northern Pakistan, and eastern Afghanistan) roughly during the same period; again, your argument that these tribes are exclusively Pakistani is invalid. Further, there was no Pakistan then.


----------



## Flintlock

From what I know, mainly from a recent BBC documentary, the IVC people are supposed to have migrated eastwards into the Gangetic Plains.

Now I shall go and bury myself in another thread.


----------



## cactuslily58

Stealth Assassin said:


> It is neither stupid nor irrelevant. There are quite a few Pakistanis who think that they are the inheritors of all the real estate in India with Allah's name on it, Webmaster included.
> 
> What I want to know, is why.



Point taken.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Vish:*
No need to worry about coming across as "rude".

Ask Stealth here, we have been over this stuff so many times. 

Also, my "proclivity statement" was a tongue in cheek reply to Energon's original "proclivity statement", which I thought grossly misinterpreted the context of the discussion, and was my own "gross misinterpretations" (deliberate) of the "Indian intentions".

One other point is that my intention is not to discuss Nehru's motives on crossing the name "India", but simply point out that the choice of the name has contributed a large part to the impression that India has a dominant right to the history of South Asia - a flawed perception IMO. 

As you said, we agree that there was a "region" called India, much like one would say South East Asia.

We also agree that the history of the region belongs to all the people pf the region - Pakistanis Indians and Bangladeshis.

We also agree that currently the perception created by using the term "Indian History" is that of most of the history of the region being that of India's.


> I disagree with you thoroughly here. India is given credit for the history of the South Asian nations largely because the entire sub-continent was once, and aptly, referred to as &#8220;India.&#8221; Modern day India, being the dominant entity within the subcontinent is the continuation of &#8220;India,&#8221; in more ways than is Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc. Hence the history of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc is seen to lie within the realm of &#8220;Indian&#8221; history, but Indian history is seen in the same light as &#8220;Indian&#8221; history.



Vish, the first part of your statement essentially agrees with my point - "India is given credit because the region was referred to as _India_". That is my argument, that the mere choice of names has given India (not necessarily by ulterior motives) a larger claim than is correct to the history of the region.

Modern India is the dominant entity, but to argue that it is a continuation of India does not make sense - because what exactly is it continuing? There was no all encompassing nation state to continue. 

It is a continuation of name only. Modern India does not encompass all of South Asia, so how can Indian history be the same as South Asian history, but Pakistani history only be in the "realm of South Asian history". Yes it is true that India encompasses a larger geographic area, but just by virtue of not having Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc. as part of it, Modern Indian history is also a subset of South Asian history, albeit a much larger subset.


> The reasons why India is seen as a continuation of &#8220;India&#8221; is more than just nomenclature. Whilst it cannot be denied that the first civilizations in the subcontinent today largely lie within the borders of Pakistan, the lands within modern day India have been witness to many events and actors. The reason why Pakistan is seen as an offshoot (I do not intend to be rude here) is because Pakistan (and to a certain extent, the other states) was created as a separate state (from India).


I see your point, and I think there is little difference in our arguments - India is a larger subset of South Asia, hence is associated with more history and hence associated more with South Asian history. 

But this then lends credence to the argument of describing history in the lands comprising Pakistan as Pakistani history, merely to keep our history as "ours", and not lose it as perceptions of South Asian history associate it more and more with India only.

Vish, I could argue that Modern India was created as a separate state from Pakistan. In 1947 two political entities were created, not one. Therefore either both are offshoots of South Asia, or they are both part of South Asia.

This argument really trivializes the people of Pakistan. Their ancestors were a part of this history, Pakistanis are not offshoots, and neither are modern Indians. We lived in one region, under various empires, multiple civilizations, various Kingdoms etc. It was the British who first united all these disparate people into one colony, and out of occupation we created two nation states. 

Both nations continue to be part of South Asia.


----------



## UnitedPak

Stealth Assassin said:


> From what I know, mainly from a recent BBC documentary, the IVC people are supposed to have migrated eastwards into the Gangetic Plains.
> 
> Now I shall go and bury myself in another thread.



Very convenient.

Apart from the massive lack of IVC cities of the likes of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro in India to prove your claim, its a very wishful theory promoted not by facts but by Hindutva historians.

So many groups use that old "migration" card to steal history from other people. I know white nationalist use a similar theory to show that IVC people moved to Europe.
5000 years was not a long time ago (relatively speaking). Humans inhabited Asia way, way before this period. So to claim they relocated is nothing but desperation.


----------



## MIG_ACE

----Self Deleted-----


----------



## Energon

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Energon,
> 
> I don't think many people are denying the idea of a region called India before 1947 - that is taking the argument out of context.
> 
> What is being argued is that the current political entity of India is distinct from "Ancient India", the _region_.
> 
> As has been pointed out, when the name India was initially used it exclusively referred to the lands primarily comprising current Pakistan.
> 
> The "disadvantage" that results from the modern Indian State automatically being given credit for history that is shared between the many nations of South Asia is a genuine concern, and has only arisen, IMO, due to the choice of the name "India" by the Indian founders.
> 
> An oft repeated conversation between Jinnah and Nehru (IIRC) is of Jinnah saying that the new nation for Muslims would be called Pakistan, and that the remainder would be called "Hindustan", to which Nehru replied that it would be called India.
> 
> The history of the region would still be referred to as "Indian History", without any issues, had the name Hindustan been chosen, and the term would be akin to "South Asia". Therefore the only advantage in claiming this history Modern India has is that fate determined that its name would be identical to the historical name for the_ region_.
> 
> 
> The history of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, the historical events of their ancestors, belong to Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians, not just the modern Indian political entity, though I can "understand the proclivity of the Indian perspective" to amalgamate almost every thing historical related to South Asia under the banner of the modern Indian state to deny Pakistan any opportunity to discredit Pakistan's separate existence as much as possible.



First, regarding the "discrediting Pakistan's existence", an argument I've heard multiple times here is at least from an Indian and global perspective a farce. As I mentioned previously in another thread, I have as yet to see a main stream Indian movement today that is centered around the illegitimacy of Pakistan's existence or what have you. Even the fundamentalist stand (nowhere near as mainstream as it is perceived by the "Muslim World" on this matter is that all Muslims should have been sent out of Indian territory after the partition). But as far as not recognizing Pakistan or Bangladesh is concerned, I'm afraid this is nothing more than a poor attempt at retrofitting the Israeli conundrum to Pakistan, which just doesn't measure up; and again is a point of view that most people will probably not buy into. If India really didn't recognize Bangladesh and/or Pakistan no territory would have been returned after the 1971 war; and Bangladesh certainly wouldn't have been able to establish itself as a sovereign nation.

As far as the nomenclature is concerned, Nehru was wary of the title "Hindustan" because it would empower the Hindu nationalists who would take the literal meaning: "land of Hindus" to assume power thereby decimating any chance of secularism. He also wanted to adopt an Anglicized name in order to make the nation more marketable on the global front, particularly to the western European industrialists and keep the status quo after independence and maintain as much neutrality within the populace as possible. Moreover, the decision to remove the British prefixes (primarily "British" and "Royal" as in "British India" or "Royal Indian Navy" etc) and retaining the names was a decision made long ago; the partition issue actually came up a bit later. The changes of most major cities and landmarks didn't occur until about a decade ago. Nonetheless, modern India is the remnant of the ancient India which was partitioned and will thereby retain the ability to claim the historical records of the land until its dissection in 1947. 

What you want here is for India to press the "reset button" post 1947 and just claim the history within its current borders. That is unlikely to happen.

Edit: I just realized that Vish has already done a far better job of addressing the points of my post.


----------



## UnitedPak

Energon said:


> What you want here is for India to press the "reset button" post 1947 and just claim the history within its current borders. That is unlikely to happen.
> 
> Edit: I just realized that Vish has already done a far better job of addressing the points of my post.



The history doesnt belong to the name "India". It belongs to whatever people lived in the region. Hence Pakistani history belongs to Pakistanis. Its really not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Before the British invasion, nobody referred to themselves as "Indians" in the subcontinent, so your claims are nonsensical.

I gave an example before, and it still holds true:
*
Imagine the scenario that the European Union became one single country. 100 years later it broke up into the European nations we see today, Except ONE country which takes up the name "Europe".
Does this new country have a right to all European history for all time periods?*

Modern India has no claim over history which didnt happen to their people.


----------



## UnitedPak

Stealth Assassin said:


> Aren't the People of Pakistan the guys who live within its borders?



And always have. A border doesnt magically make their history shared.


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Vish:*
> No need to worry about coming across as "rude".
> 
> Ask Stealth here, we have been over this stuff so many times.
> 
> Also, my "proclivity statement" was a tongue in cheek reply to Energon's original "proclivity statement", which I thought grossly misinterpreted the context of the discussion, and was my own "gross misinterpretations" (deliberate) of the "Indian intentions".
> 
> One other point is that my intention is not to discuss Nehru's motives on crossing the name "India", but simply point out that the choice of the name has contributed a large part to the impression that India has a dominant right to the history of South Asia - a flawed perception IMO.



Thanks for clarifying your position. Hope we are able to maintain the civility of the argument.

Nehru did not choose the name India. There was always this consensus that an independent subcontinent would be called India. When the Pakistan movement gathered steam, Jinnah suggested that India adopt the name Hindustan (I do not know why but Im pretty certain it had nothing to do with history). Thus, Nehru had a choice between India and Hindustan (a choice which wasnt there earlier as India was the chosen nomenclature), and he decided to stick to the name India so as to maintain and foster his model of atheist secularism. Further, Pakistan sought its creation as a separate state from India; as in it wanted a part of India to be its. Hence, I say that India is seen as a continuation of India, the supra-regional entity.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> As you said, we agree that there was a "region" called India, much like one would say South East Asia.



India then was not merely a region. It was a cultural, social, and pseudo-political entity of a far greater degree of integration than South-East Asia.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> We also agree that the history of the region belongs to all the people pf the region - Pakistanis Indians and Bangladeshis.



Very true.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> We also agree that currently the perception created by using the term "Indian History" is that of most of the history of the region being that of India's.



There is a perception; but then that perception is not entirely unreal.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Vish, the first part of your statement essentially agrees with my point - "India is given credit because the region was referred to as _India_". That is my argument, that the mere choice of names has given India (not necessarily by ulterior motives) a larger claim than is correct to the history of the region.
> 
> Modern India is the dominant entity, but to argue that it is a continuation of India does not make sense - because what exactly is it continuing? There was no all encompassing nation state to continue.



Ive stated that the reason why India succeeds India is more than just mere nomenclature. Primarily, the notion of Indian nationalism predated the notion of Pakistan. India, the nation state, is thus a continuation of India through an intermediary, British India. Some sections of the Muslim society in undivided India sought a Muslim state carved from India, the nation state which would have erstwhile included the present day Pakistan and Bangladesh. You are correct there wasnt an all encompassing nation to continue; however, British India can be considered to be a national entity. Further, the concept of nationalism arose only after the British had consolidated their position in India. So the argument that there was never a nation is somewhat invalid, as the concept of a nation is itself pretty modern.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> It is a continuation of name only. Modern India does not encompass all of South Asia, so how can Indian history be the same as South Asian history, but Pakistani history only be in the "realm of South Asian history". Yes it is true that India encompasses a larger geographic area, but just by virtue of not having Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc. as part of it, Modern Indian history is also a subset of South Asian history, albeit a much larger subset.



This is where you and I disagree. Modern India is a continuation of India, in more ways than nomenclature. Other states in the subcontinent came (sorry for the word choice; was unable to find a better word) from India, but India, whatever that was left of it, morphed into India. Modern geography cannot form the basis on which history is categorized.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I see your point, and I think there is little difference in our arguments - India is a larger subset of South Asia, hence is associated with more history and hence associated more with South Asian history.
> 
> But this then lends credence to the argument of describing history in the lands comprising Pakistan as Pakistani history, merely to keep our history as "ours", and not lose it as perceptions of South Asian history associate it more and more with India only.



I thoroughly agree with you. But you have to realise that India/Indians had no role in this mess. Nobody is denying Pakistan its history; it is just that Pakistans history is a part of Indian history. It is a part of Indian history as Indian history is largely Indian history for India is seen as a successor (and to a certain extent, rightfully so) to India.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Vish, I could argue that Modern India was created as a separate state from Pakistan. In 1947 two political entities were created, not one. Therefore either both are offshoots of South Asia, or they are both part of South Asia.



This is where your and my views diverge. Both entities were created from India; one, however, separated from India, and the other continued being India. Please respect my choice of words here; was unable to find better alternatives. Both are part of South Asia.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> This argument really trivializes the people of Pakistan. Their ancestors were a part of this history, Pakistanis are not offshoots, and neither are modern Indians. We lived in one region, under various empires, multiple civilizations, various Kingdoms etc. It was the British who first united all these disparate people into one colony, and out of occupation we created two nation states.
> 
> Both nations continue to be part of South Asia.



Im sorry if that is so; I had no such intention. I am not denying Pakistan or its people their history; nevertheless, Im also stating that Pakistans history is a subset of Indian history. Further, Pakistan is an offshoot of India while India is a continuation; at least this is what the majority view is. Further, the reason why Pakistan is seen as an offshoot is because India is seen as the continuation and also Pakistan was created out of the need for a seperate state (from India). 

Note that there were plenty of instances when the regions of modern day India and Pakistan were ruled by pan-subcontinent empires. British rule wasnt the first such instance; however, it was during the British Raj that the concept of nationalism evolved itself in the world. Hence, the British Raj is seen as the unifying force.



Energon:
Thanks for the appreciation; youve raised some very valid points yourself.


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

pakistan is not an ethnicity or race, that's what the indians are trying to use to their advantage. however, pakistan is coined from the many ethnicities living in the region including sindh. from sindh, we derive hind and hindu.

half of pakistan lies in the indian plate, half of it lies within the eurasian plate. likewise of half of pakistan would fall under the region of "hind", half of pakistan would fall under the region of khurasaan. pashtuns(or should I say afghans) and balochis do not share any ancestry with indians. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Earthquake_Information_for_Pakistan.gif

actually, pakistan can be considered a buffer zone between hind and persia. afghanistan does not share any history with indian sub-continent. it has been home to the Greco-Bactrian and Kushan kingdoms. other than that, I've yet to come across the term "ancient India" in anything other than indian sources. modern day pakistan is viewed as the home of the "ancient Indus Valley civilization" not ancient India, according the our text books in the United States.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Vish:*

The major sticking point that I see, and what the arguments with Stealth always boil down to as well, is that of modern India somehow being a continuation of a prior entity, which gives it, per your argument, greater rights to the history of the region.



> Primarily, the notion of Indian nationalism predated the notion of Pakistan. India, the nation state, is thus a continuation of India through an intermediary, British India. Some sections of the Muslim society in undivided India sought a Muslim state carved from India, the nation state which would have erstwhile included the present day Pakistan and Bangladesh. You are correct there wasnt an all encompassing nation to continue; however, British India can be considered to be a national entity. Further, the concept of nationalism arose only after the British had consolidated their position in India. So the argument that there was never a nation is somewhat invalid, as the concept of a nation is itself pretty modern.



India the nation-state cannot be a continuation of anything but a nation-state. 

Why is Pakistan not a continuation of ancient India? You say that "Indian nationalism" existed before "Pakistani nationalism", but the mere existence of an idea, or the time frame of its conception, does not make it the sole idea or the true idea.

The fact is that when time came to actually implement the "idea" of a nation out of the British colony of India, which was created out of the amalgamation of various States, kingdoms, territories and peoples, mostly by force, there was a competing idea and a competing nationalism.

Therefore I would argue that Pakistan has just as much right to the history of South Asia, and is not an off shoot of anything, as does India.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

asaad-ul-islam said:


> I've yet to come across the term "ancient India" in anything other than indian sources. modern day pakistan is viewed as the home of the "ancient Indus Valley civilization" not ancient India, according the our text books in the United States.



The delineation of history according to geographic boundaries has already started, and the process will accelerate.


----------



## roadrunner

asaad-ul-islam said:


> pakistan is not an ethnicity or race, that's what the indians are trying to use to their advantage. however, pakistan is coined from the many ethnicities living in the region including sindh. from sindh, we derive hind and hindu.
> 
> half of pakistan lies in the indian plate, half of it lies within the eurasian plate. likewise of half of pakistan would fall under the region of "hind", half of pakistan would fall under the region of khurasaan. pashtuns(or should I say afghans) and balochis do not share any ancestry with indians.
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Earthquake_Information_for_Pakistan.gif
> 
> actually, pakistan can be considered a buffer zone between hind and persia. afghanistan does not share any history with indian sub-continent. it has been home to the Greco-Bactrian and Kushan kingdoms. other than that, I've yet to come across the term "ancient India" in anything other than indian sources. modern day pakistan is viewed as the home of the "ancient Indus Valley civilization" not ancient India, according the our text books in the United States.



Just a minor point: the plates were formed millions of years ago, humans made their way to the "Indian plate" well after it had fused with the "Eurasian one". So the plates don't have anything to do with the ethnic groups, though the map was informative.But as you say, Pakistan has many different ethnic groups, none of them define a Pakistani.


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Very convenient.
> 
> Apart from the massive lack of IVC cities of the likes of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro in India to prove your claim, its a very wishful theory promoted not by facts but by Hindutva historians.
> 
> So many groups use that old "migration" card to steal history from other people. I know white nationalist use a similar theory to show that IVC people moved to Europe.
> 5000 years was not a long time ago (relatively speaking). Humans inhabited Asia way, way before this period. So to claim they relocated is nothing but desperation.



Don't blame "Hindutva Historians" buddy. Take up the issue with the BBC 

I'm sure they have a couple of "Hindutva turncoats" in their ranks churning out the propaganda, unnoticed by naive Britons....


----------



## roadrunner

vish said:


> The Portuguese rule over Goa is part of both Portuguese and Indian history. If Portuguese rule of Goa interferes with Mughal suzerainty of Goa then, in that case, yes the part of Portuguese history that deals with Goa or its (Portuguese) interaction with the Mughals is a part of Mughal history too. *I&#8217;m not saying that the IVC is an Indian civilization; I&#8217;m saying IVC is a part of Indian and Pakistani history equally. IVC is not a Pakistani civilization.* Further, please distinguish between &#8220;laying claim to one&#8217;s history&#8221; and &#8220;being a part of one&#8217;s history.&#8221;



Take this Portuguese person example again. He says "the Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese and half Indian civilization because we owned 2&#37; of the Mughal Empire" - a minority part of an Empire claiming equal representation to a civilization. 

Now take the Indian person and rephrase it. "IVC was half Indian and half Pakistan civilization because 20% of the buildings fell in Indian territory and 50% in Pakistani territory (along with the major cities) - where is the truth in that? 

If the Portuguese ruled in Goa during the Mughal Empire, they can mention Goa when discussing Portuguese history. However they cannot claim that the Mughal Empire was anything near a Portuguese civilization. Neither can the minority Indians claim the IVC was equally Indian as it was Pakistani. 

One could imagine it going on - "The IVC was an Indian civilization because IVC was known as an Indian civilization by the Greeks at the time" - where is the logic to that? 



> Precisely, IVC is part of Pakistani, Afghani, Indian, and Iranian (unsure of this) history, but equally. Modern day geography is not the basis by which history is segregated upon; come to think of it, history can never be segregated, only shared.



IVC is not part of all 4 histories equally. The Iranians can mention one or two IVC sites were located within their borders. That's fine. But to say that the IVC was as much an Iranian civilization as it was a Pakistani civilization is inocorrect. It's probably better to use the term Indus Valley for this, but the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan. 

Again, can the Portuguese person claim that Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese civilization? No, even though Goa came under the suzeranity of the Mughals. The Portuguese made a small contribution to the Mughal civilization, but nothing like an equal contribution. 

It just seems like your aim is to try and confuse people by claiming all history is shared and equal. It's not at all. You cannot claim the Inca civilization because 1 Indian happened to get lost in the Andes. 



> I&#8217;ve already explained my viewpoint with regard to &#8220;IVC&#8217;s nationality&#8221; and &#8220;Portugal ownership of the Mughal Empire.&#8221; The part of Alexander&#8217;s history which deals with his advances in the sub-continent is a part of Greek, Indian, and Pakistani history.



I agree, it is PART of Greek and Pakistani history (it's not part of Indian history because Alexander never stepped foot into modern day India). However, Alexander's Empire is not or was not EQUALLY Pakistani as it was Greek. 



> I&#8217;m not claiming your history. All I&#8217;m saying is that Pakistan&#8217;s and India&#8217;s history are a part of India&#8217;s and Pakistan&#8217;s history, respectively. With regard to Germany, isn&#8217;t East Prussia (which is now in Poland and Russia) a part of German history?



_"All I'm saying is that Pakistan's and India's history are a part of India's and Pakistan's history"?_ So now Pakistan's history is India's history, and India's history is Pakistan's history? Thanks, but I think most Pakistanis would want Pakistan's history to be Pakistani history. 

You're missing the point on the German history. Looks like you're twisting it. Poland was invaded by Germany and ruled by Germany for a bit, so was Russia. Alright, but that has nothing to do with the example we're discussing about the IVC. 

Here is my question again. Answer it, don't twist. 

_"Say if in 100 years time, Germany calls itself Europe (UP's example),* can Germany claim all French history because France was a part of Europe at one time?* I think you'll find noone would accept this idea. Germany can only claim the history that occurred within its borders. It doesn't matter what name it changes to. Same with India. It doesn't matter what name it calls itself, it cannot claim history outside of its borders such as the history of Pakistan." _



> Pakistan&#8217;s history is seen as Indian history simply because Pakistan was a part of &#8220;India,&#8221; the supra-regional pan-subcontinent entity that is the predecessor to the modern day nation state of India much more than to the other nation states, once.



Pakistan was the original India. Remember the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan. 

Let's rephrase your statement in 100 years time when Germany renames itself to Europe: 

*"French history is seen as German history simply because France was a part of "Europe,&#8221; the supra-regional pan-continent entity that is the predecessor to the modern day nation state of Europe much more than to the other nation states, once." *

Can you see how absurd this is? Can you see any French person accepting such an idea? 



> Churchill&#8217;s racism and bigotism with regard to Indians (mind you, this India does encompass modern day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) is well known. Further, nationalism took root across the globe during the Industrial Age and as such every place was a &#8220;region&#8221; earlier. India definitely was more than &#8220;just a region.&#8221; If Germany calls itself Europe, how will it claim that the telescope is invented by a German? Won&#8217;t they, logically, claim that the telescope is invented by a European? Further, this analogy is very much inappropriate.



Churchill might have been a racist bigot, but it didn't mean his geography was inaccurate or that he was stupid. He, if anyone, knew the history of the subcontinent well. 

I'm sure you do understand my point about the telescope. Let me rephrase it. 

_"Take the example of Germany calling itself Europe in 100 years time. Let's say the Germans claimed to have invented the telescope (according to official history Italian, Galileo, invented it), because Galileo was European and since Germany is now called Europe and Galileo was a European, then his invention was a European invention. Can you not see the confusion this creates, and the blatant stealing of the shining examples of other country's history that has occured?"_ - The telescope was a European invention, but Germany is called Europe now, and most people don't remember Europe ever being applied to a whole continent, making it look like the Germanic people invented the telescope. Confusion and blatant misdirection. 

Let me rephrase the above for the Indian, this time 2,500 years ago: 
_"Take the example of Bharat calling itself India in 2,500 years time. Let's say the Indians claimed to have invented Sanskrit (according to official history Pakistani, Panini, invented it), because Panini was Indian and since Bharat is now called India and Panini was a Indian, then his invention was a Indian invention. Can you not see the confusion this creates, and the blatant stealing of the shining examples of other country's history that has occured?"
_


> The Roman Empire was a &#8220;Roman&#8221; empire, and not German or Italian. IVC is the Indus Valley Civilization, and not Indian or Pakistani.



The Roman Empire was part of Ancient Italian history. It was an civilization made up of the ancestors of modern day Italians. Therefore it can be described as an Ancient Italian civilization. 



> &#8220;India&#8221; and &#8220;Bharat&#8221; are one and the same, and have been for a long time. Nobody invented the term &#8220;India;&#8221; the term &#8220;India&#8221; evolved across centuries and largely became what it is through corruptions of various dialects and languages spoken then.



Incorrect. The term "India" originated from Saptha Sindhu. This is the recognized etymology of the word. It evolves into "India" from this origin. 



> The &#8220;Sapta Sindhu,&#8221; meaning seven rivers, is universally agreed to be referring to the modern day Punjab region (both India and Pakistan); this implies that your argument is invalid.



The seven rivers mainly flow in Pakistan, and it's definitely not referring to Punjab alone. The Rig Vedic origins lie most likely all over Pakistan (the Indus Valley). Even if you take the river system, hardly any of the rivers (perhaps only 1), runs into India. So, you can't claim Sapta Sindhu was equally an Indian civilization as a Pakistani one!! 





> Vedic tribes were present in many sites across the subcontinent (northern and western India, northern Pakistan, and eastern Afghanistan) roughly during the same period; again, your argument that these tribes are exclusively Pakistani is invalid. Further, there was no Pakistan then.



That's incorrect also. Vedic tribes were inhabiting the Indus Valley, Sapta Sindhu (or Pakistan) almost exclusively. One or two broke away and migrated to the Gangetic plains to set up Hinduism.


----------



## Flintlock

First of all RR, That was VERY, VERY GOOD POST. 




roadrunner said:


> Take this Portuguese person example again. He says "the Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese and half Indian civilization because we owned 2&#37; of the Mughal Empire" - a minority part of an Empire claiming equal representation to a civilization.
> 
> Now take the Indian person and rephrase it. "IVC was half Indian and half Pakistan civilization because 20% of the buildings fell in Indian territory and 50% in Pakistani territory (along with the major cities) - where is the truth in that?



There are a couple of questions here:

1. Was the IVC an empire at all? Did it have a capital in the modern sense of the word, along with a common administration, a sense of loyalty towards the empire, a common identity and awareness spreading throughout its reach?
Or was it a collection of independent city-states, each unaware, or vaguely aware, or having no loyalty, towards the other?

2. What is the basis for deciding who can claim the IVC? You argue that the basis is solely the current International Borders. However, have you considered that the IVC people may have migrated elsewhere, or been wiped out completely? 

3. What is your argument for stating that _anyone_ in India or pakistan can claim the IVC at all.




> If the Portuguese ruled in Goa during the Mughal Empire, they can mention Goa when discussing Portuguese history. However they cannot claim that the Mughal Empire was anything near a Portuguese civilization. Neither can the minority Indians claim the IVC was equally Indian as it was Pakistani.




What Vishnu is saying here, is that since very significant Harappan cities have been found within the boundaries of Modern India, IVC is also a part of Indian history.
Now if you want to boil it down to percentages, and say that IVC is 20% Indian history and 70% Pakistani history and so on, then why depend solely on geography for deciding the percentage? 
Why can't we use things like cultural continuity, racial continuity, significance of individual sites (like weighted means), etc. etc. to decide?




> One could imagine it going on - "The IVC was an Indian civilization because IVC was known as an Indian civilization by the Greeks at the time" - where is the logic to that?



That is indeed a logical fallacy. (However, I'd like to point out that the Greeks didn't actually mix around with Harappans)



> It just seems like your aim is to try and confuse people by claiming all history is shared and equal. It's not at all. You cannot claim the Inca civilization because 1 Indian happened to get lost in the Andes.



I think what Vish is saying, and I agree with him in principle, that history belongs to those who created it, and not to the present occupiers of the land, irrespective of whether or not these occupiers descended from the creators.

Its a question, really, on where we choose to draw the line.
Does the history of my grandfather's haveli belong to me, my village, my district, my country, or the whole of humankind, or just my grandfather?

Perhaps the whole concept of owning history is flawed?



> Pakistan was the original India. Remember the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.



I'm not sure what you mean by "Original India". 

If you mean that much of what is now Pakistan was first called by a name (not necessarily 'India') which was derived from the river Indus, then you are right.

However, if you are implying that Modern India is wrong to use this name because it actually belongs to Pakistan, then you are wrong.
The name 'India' (or a similar name derived from Indus) was quickly adopted for most of what is now the Indian Subcontinent, so the chronology (I got there first) doesn't have any significance.




> Churchill might have been a racist bigot, but it didn't mean his geography was inaccurate or that he was stupid. He, if anyone, knew the history of the subcontinent well.



I agree, we must not use character assassination to justify our arguments.

Churchill's personal views on racism don't automatically invalidate his knowledge of history.

However, we can definitely question his motives for making such a statement.

On the other hand, what qualification does he have as a historian? I would attach more value to a quote from a famous historian rather than a quote from a politician trying to achieve his end by any means possible.


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

roadrunner said:


> Just a minor point: the plates were formed millions of years ago, humans made their way to the "Indian plate" well after it had fused with the "Eurasian one". So the plates don't have anything to do with the ethnic groups, though the map was informative.But as you say, Pakistan has many different ethnic groups, none of them define a Pakistani.


roadrunner, of course i know that people came way after. i simply stated this because an indian on this forum stated the same idea of pakistan "belonging" to india because it lies within the Indian Plate.

however, i'm sure you understand my point that some ethnicities in residing in what is now known as pakistan, are of persian and central asian stock. also, Sindh is a part of Pakistan. So "hind" that is derived from Sindh, originates from what is now known as pakistan. 

even if we go ahead with what the indians, or should I say akhand bharatis claim(sorry just couldn't resist), only half of pakistan would fall under their claim. what about NWFP+FATA (or should I say afghanistan/afghania) and Balochistan? Condolezza Rice stated Pakistan was a part of the Greater Middle East, to an extent that claim is true considering the role of Gwadar.

Pakistan is considered to be a part of central asia according to the world bank. it plays a significant role in holding asia together.


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Vish:*
> 
> The major sticking point that I see, and what the arguments with Stealth always boil down to as well, is that of modern India somehow being a continuation of a prior entity, which gives it, per your argument, greater rights to the history of the region.
> 
> 
> 
> India the nation-state cannot be a continuation of anything but a nation-state.
> 
> Why is Pakistan not a continuation of ancient India? You say that "Indian nationalism" existed before "Pakistani nationalism", but the mere existence of an idea, or the time frame of its conception, does not make it the sole idea or the true idea.
> 
> The fact is that when time came to actually implement the "idea" of a nation out of the British colony of India, which was created out of the amalgamation of various States, kingdoms, territories and peoples, mostly by force, there was a competing idea and a competing nationalism.
> 
> Therefore I would argue that Pakistan has just as much right to the history of South Asia, and is not an off shoot of anything, as does India.



After this discussion I've come to realize certain flaws in both our, yours and mine, arguments. My assertion that Pakistani history is a part of Indian, the nation state, history is incorrect.

But I do stick to my argument that modern India is a continuation of "India" and the other nation states have decided to chart their own seperate (from India) course in history, and as a consequence are "offshoots." If this triviliazes Paistan or any other state than I'm sorry. But I'll maintain my stand; Pakistan was a part and is an offshoot of "India" whereas India is a continuation of "India."

Further, I've already stated that the sub-continent was ruled by pan-regional empires multiple times in history. These, however, cannot be called "nations" because the idea of "nationalism" was absent then. The British Raj is seen as the unifying force because it was during the British occupation the inhabitants of the sub-continent got introduced to the concept of "nationalism" and the "strength of unity."

Pakistan's history is a part of "Indian"/South Asian history.


----------



## vish

roadrunner said:


> Take this Portuguese person example again. He says "the Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese and half Indian civilization because we owned 2% of the Mughal Empire" - a minority part of an Empire claiming equal representation to a civilization.
> 
> Now take the Indian person and rephrase it. "IVC was half Indian and half Pakistan civilization because 20% of the buildings fell in Indian territory and 50% in Pakistani territory (along with the major cities) - where is the truth in that?
> 
> If the Portuguese ruled in Goa during the Mughal Empire, they can mention Goa when discussing Portuguese history. However they cannot claim that the Mughal Empire was anything near a Portuguese civilization. Neither can the minority Indians claim the IVC was equally Indian as it was Pakistani.
> 
> One could imagine it going on - "The IVC was an Indian civilization because IVC was known as an Indian civilization by the Greeks at the time" - where is the logic to that?



Firstly, modern day geography can never be the basis on which history is segregated. What Ive said is The part of history dealing with Portuguese rule over Goa is part of both Portuguese and Indian history. If Portuguese rule of Goa interferes with Mughal suzerainty of Goa then, in that case, yes the part of Portuguese history that deals with Goa or its (Portuguese) interaction with the Mughals is a part of Mughal history too. When did I say anything about percentages or claiming or controlling? Again, distinguish between being part of history, which is what Im suggesting, and claiming history, which I presume is what youre comprehending my argument to be.

What do you mean by the Indian person? Please enlighten me.

The IVC is an Indus Valley civilization; neither Indian nor Pakistani. The IVC is part of both Indian and Pakistani history equally. Indian and Pakistani histories are part of Indian, the pan-subcontinent pseudo-political entity, history. The IVC is an Indian, the pan-subcontinent pseudo-political entity that is distinct from modern day India, civilization.



roadrunner said:


> IVC is not part of all 4 histories equally. The Iranians can mention one or two IVC sites were located within their borders. That's fine. But to say that the IVC was as much an Iranian civilization as it was a Pakistani civilization is inocorrect. It's probably better to use the term Indus Valley for this, but the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.
> 
> Again, can the Portuguese person claim that Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese civilization? No, even though Goa came under the suzeranity of the Mughals. The Portuguese made a small contribution to the Mughal civilization, but nothing like an equal contribution.
> 
> It just seems like your aim is to try and confuse people by claiming all history is shared and equal. It's not at all. You cannot claim the Inca civilization because 1 Indian happened to get lost in the Andes.



The IVC is a part of all the four countries history equally. Further, it seems that youve mistaken my views on Portuguese rule in Goa and its relationship with the Mughal Empire, which I've explained above, again. The Inca example is a very inappropriate analogy in our context.

My aim, which in this case I never knew existed, is none of your concern; refrain from making this personal. 



roadrunner said:


> I agree, it is PART of Greek and Pakistani history (it's not part of Indian history because Alexander never stepped foot into modern day India). However, Alexander's Empire is not or was not EQUALLY Pakistani as it was Greek.



All I said was that the part of Greek history dealing with Alexanders invasion of India is a part of Greek, Indian, Pakistani, and Indian history. Whatever happened in modern day Pakistan prior to 1947 is a part of Pakistani, Indian, and Indian histories. Whatever happened in modern day India prior to 1947 is a part of Indian, Pakistani, and Indian histories.



roadrunner said:


> _"All I'm saying is that Pakistan's and India's history are a part of India's and Pakistan's history"?_ So now Pakistan's history is India's history, and India's history is Pakistan's history? Thanks, but I think most Pakistanis would want Pakistan's history to be Pakistani history.



Ive already stated the distinction between India and India. Pakistani history is a part of Indian history.



roadrunner said:


> You're missing the point on the German history. Looks like you're twisting it. Poland was invaded by Germany and ruled by Germany for a bit, so was Russia. Alright, but that has nothing to do with the example we're discussing about the IVC.


 
If my example (East Prussia) has nothing to do with the IVC, may I ask what do your examples (vis-à-vis Goa and Europe) have anything to do with the IVC? 



roadrunner said:


> Here is my question again. Answer it, don't twist.
> 
> _"Say if in 100 years time, Germany calls itself Europe (UP's example),* can Germany claim all French history because France was a part of Europe at one time?* I think you'll find noone would accept this idea. Germany can only claim the history that occurred within its borders. It doesn't matter what name it changes to. Same with India. It doesn't matter what name it calls itself, it cannot claim history outside of its borders such as the history of Pakistan."_



I did answer it; however, since you are not satisfied with my response Ill answer it again and Ill try not to twist it.

Why would Germany call itself Europe? What will happen to the original Europe then? Won't there be a clear distinction between this new Europe and old Europe?

Even if Germany did name itself Europe, the new formerly-Germany Europe can only claim German history; this German history will include parts of German history that deal with regions which were once in its sphere of influence but currently are not inside its borders.



roadrunner said:


> Pakistan was the original India. Remember the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.



This argument is invalid for the idea of modern day nation state of Pakistan is predated by the idea of the modern day nation state of India, which is predated by India, which is predated by the IVC. Modern day geography is not the basis on which history can be segregated. Pakistan was a part of India, and theoretically speaking pre-partition India.



roadrunner said:


> Let's rephrase your statement in 100 years time when Germany renames itself to Europe:
> 
> *"French history is seen as German history simply because France was a part of "Europe, the supra-regional pan-continent entity that is the predecessor to the modern day nation state of Europe much more than to the other nation states, once." *
> 
> Can you see how absurd this is? Can you see any French person accepting such an idea?



Ive already stated my stance on this issue. However, I do not see any parallel between the scenario that youve mentioned and the history of the subcontinent. 



roadrunner said:


> Churchill might have been a racist bigot, but it didn't mean his geography was inaccurate or that he was stupid. He, if anyone, knew the history of the subcontinent well.



Churchill is not a historian and consequently his argument is not that credible. Further, the context in which he made the concerned statement must also be taken into account.



roadrunner said:


> I'm sure you do understand my point about the telescope. Let me rephrase it.
> 
> _"Take the example of Germany calling itself Europe in 100 years time. Let's say the Germans claimed to have invented the telescope (according to official history Italian, Galileo, invented it), because Galileo was European and since Germany is now called Europe and Galileo was a European, then his invention was a European invention. Can you not see the confusion this creates, and the blatant stealing of the shining examples of other country's history that has occured?"_ - The telescope was a European invention, but Germany is called Europe now, and most people don't remember Europe ever being applied to a whole continent, making it look like the Germanic people invented the telescope. Confusion and blatant misdirection.



If Germany calls itself Europe, why would it claim the telescope to be a German invention? Wouldnt the new, formerly-Germany Europe claim the telescope to be a European invention? Further, wont there be a clear distinction between the Europe that we know now and the new, formerly-German Europe?



roadrunner said:


> Let me rephrase the above for the Indian, this time 2,500 years ago:
> _"Take the example of Bharat calling itself India in 2,500 years time. Let's say the Indians claimed to have invented Sanskrit (according to official history Pakistani, Panini, invented it), because Panini was Indian and since Bharat is now called India and Panini was a Indian, then his invention was a Indian invention. Can you not see the confusion this creates, and the blatant stealing of the shining examples of other country's history that has occured?"_



Bharat and India are one and the same. The IVC predates both these pseudo-political entities. How is it that Sanskrit is a Pakistani invention (if one can actually call the evolution and development of a language an invention) when the idea of Pakistan wasnt present then? Sanskrit is an Indian invention and since India is seen as a continuation of India, it is seen as an Indian invention.



roadrunner said:


> The Roman Empire was part of Ancient Italian history. It was an civilization made up of the ancestors of modern day Italians. Therefore it can be described as an Ancient Italian civilization.



True, the Roman Empire is a part of Ancient Italian history. It, however, is not an ancient Italian civilization because the idea of Italy never existed then.



roadrunner said:


> Incorrect. The term "India" originated from Saptha Sindhu. This is the recognized etymology of the word. It evolves into "India" from this origin.



Very true.



roadrunner said:


> The seven rivers mainly flow in Pakistan, and it's definitely not referring to Punjab alone. The Rig Vedic origins lie most likely all over Pakistan (the Indus Valley). Even if you take the river system, hardly any of the rivers (perhaps only 1), runs into India. So, you can't claim Sapta Sindhu was equally an Indian civilization as a Pakistani one!!



Again, modern day geography is not the basis on which history can be segregated. The Sapta Sindhu region is the Punjab region, modern day India and Pakistan. The IVC is older than the initial culture of the Rig Vedic tribes. 



roadrunner said:


> That's incorrect also. Vedic tribes were inhabiting the Indus Valley, Sapta Sindhu (or Pakistan) almost exclusively. One or two broke away and migrated to the Gangetic plains to set up Hinduism.



The Rig Vedic tribes are different from the original inhabitants of the IVC. The Rig Vedic tribes came to India during the late-Harrapan period. The Rig Veda, the oldest text in Hinduism, was written and compiled across centuries and across regions which straddle both modern day India and Pakistan. Most historians do consider Hinduism to have many similarities to the religions practiced in pre-Rig Veda cultures and civilizations.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*RR:*

Excellent post!

*Vish,*

Please understand that there is no animosity here nor do I think that you are being rude, and I hope I am not either.

Perhaps its just a case of not being able to see the argument from the other person's perspective, so forgive me if I am being repetitive.

The point about "empires", as an example of an entity modern India could be a continuation of, has been raised by Stealth as well. I disagree with that notion because empires have existed throughout history, often without the approval of the people they govern. Yet it would be flawed to argue that the Islamic, Roman or Greek empires justify at some point in the future the existence of a nation state based on that territory. 

Empire is merely one individual or a dynasty forcing their control. It is not an indication of unity or nationalism or any such thing.

Modern India can be a continuation of the regions of ancient India that comprise the nation-state created in 1947, while Pakistan is a continuation of the regions of ancient India that it is comprised of. They are both in that sense a continuation of ancient India, just different parts of it.

Of course scholars and empires crossed current geographical borders, so we share history where that occurs, but I also think that the argument RR raises of the IVC being a Pakistani civilization, by virtue of the majority of it being centered in current Pakistan, is also a valid one. 

After all, the Maurya empire cannot be considered a Pakistani empire, even if it did touch include parts of Pakistan, and Afghanistan, since the majority of it lay in Modern India.

Similarly with the Mongols, or the Greeks, Arabs etc.

It is an extremely valid argument to attribute an empire and civilization to the region it originated from or was centered on.


----------



## Flintlock

My question is, that was IVC an empire? There is no evidence to support the theory that it had a ruler or a capital.


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Vish,*
> 
> Please understand that there is no animosity here nor do I think that you are being rude, and I hope I am not either.
> 
> Perhaps its just a case of not being able to see the argument from the other person's perspective, so forgive me if I am being repetitive.
> 
> The point about "empires", as an example of an entity modern India could be a continuation of, has been raised by Stealth as well. I disagree with that notion because empires have existed throughout history, often without the approval of the people they govern. Yet it would be flawed to argue that the Islamic, Roman or Greek empires justify at some point in the future the existence of a nation state based on that territory.
> 
> Empire is merely one individual or a dynasty forcing their control. It is not an indication of unity or nationalism or any such thing.
> 
> Modern India can be a continuation of the regions of ancient India that comprise the nation-state created in 1947, while Pakistan is a continuation of the regions of ancient India that it is comprised of. They are both in that sense a continuation of ancient India, just different parts of it.
> 
> Of course scholars and empires crossed current geographical borders, so we share history where that occurs, but I also think that the argument RR raises of the IVC being a Pakistani civilization, by virtue of the majority of it being centered in current Pakistan, is also a valid one.
> 
> After all, the Maurya empire cannot be considered a Pakistani empire, even if it did touch include parts of Pakistan, and Afghanistan, since the majority of it lay in Modern India.
> 
> Similarly with the Mongols, or the Greeks, Arabs etc.
> 
> It is an extremely valid argument to attribute an empire and civilization to the region it originated from or was centered on.



Well I guess we have just discovered a new disagreement.

The IVC by mere virtue of having most of its "discovered and important" sites within the present day state of Pakistan is not a "Ancient Pakistani civlization." 

I would not like to refer to the IVC as an ancient "Indian" civilization (I may have mistakenly done this earlier) for the IVC is the pre-cursor to the civilizations of the subcontinent and to the notion of "India."

My assertion is that modern day geography is not the basis on which history can be segregated.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> My question is, that was IVC an empire? There is no evidence to support the theory that it had a ruler or a capital.



Does it matter? 

Lets say that the IVC was comprised of various City-States.

Is there any evidence to support that there wasn't an alliance between the various Cities, like the Aztec City States had?

At this point at least the consensus is that the majority of this "civilization" was centered in modern day Pakistan. 

The Mauryan empire was primarily in India, so it would continue to be a primarily associated with Modern India. 

So I would imagine the IVC should be primarily associated with modern Pakistan.


----------



## Neo

roadrunner said:


> Take this Portuguese person example again. He says "the Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese and half Indian civilization because we owned 2% of the Mughal Empire" - a minority part of an Empire claiming equal representation to a civilization.
> 
> Now take the Indian person and rephrase it. "IVC was half Indian and half Pakistan civilization because 20% of the buildings fell in Indian territory and 50% in Pakistani territory (along with the major cities) - where is the truth in that?
> 
> If the Portuguese ruled in Goa during the Mughal Empire, they can mention Goa when discussing Portuguese history. However they cannot claim that the Mughal Empire was anything near a Portuguese civilization. Neither can the minority Indians claim the IVC was equally Indian as it was Pakistani.
> 
> One could imagine it going on - "The IVC was an Indian civilization because IVC was known as an Indian civilization by the Greeks at the time" - where is the logic to that?
> 
> IVC is not part of all 4 histories equally. The Iranians can mention one or two IVC sites were located within their borders. That's fine. But to say that the IVC was as much an Iranian civilization as it was a Pakistani civilization is inocorrect. It's probably better to use the term Indus Valley for this, but the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.
> 
> Again, can the Portuguese person claim that Mughal Empire was a half Portuguese civilization? No, even though Goa came under the suzeranity of the Mughals. The Portuguese made a small contribution to the Mughal civilization, but nothing like an equal contribution.
> 
> It just seems like your aim is to try and confuse people by claiming all history is shared and equal. It's not at all. You cannot claim the Inca civilization because 1 Indian happened to get lost in the Andes.
> 
> I agree, it is PART of Greek and Pakistani history (it's not part of Indian history because Alexander never stepped foot into modern day India). However, Alexander's Empire is not or was not EQUALLY Pakistani as it was Greek.
> 
> _"All I'm saying is that Pakistan's and India's history are a part of India's and Pakistan's history"?_ So now Pakistan's history is India's history, and India's history is Pakistan's history? Thanks, but I think most Pakistanis would want Pakistan's history to be Pakistani history.
> 
> You're missing the point on the German history. Looks like you're twisting it. Poland was invaded by Germany and ruled by Germany for a bit, so was Russia. Alright, but that has nothing to do with the example we're discussing about the IVC.
> 
> Here is my question again. Answer it, don't twist.
> 
> _"Say if in 100 years time, Germany calls itself Europe (UP's example),* can Germany claim all French history because France was a part of Europe at one time?* I think you'll find noone would accept this idea. Germany can only claim the history that occurred within its borders. It doesn't matter what name it changes to. Same with India. It doesn't matter what name it calls itself, it cannot claim history outside of its borders such as the history of Pakistan." _
> 
> Pakistan was the original India. Remember the Indus Valley is located in Pakistan.
> 
> Let's rephrase your statement in 100 years time when Germany renames itself to Europe:
> 
> *"French history is seen as German history simply because France was a part of "Europe, the supra-regional pan-continent entity that is the predecessor to the modern day nation state of Europe much more than to the other nation states, once." *
> 
> Can you see how absurd this is? Can you see any French person accepting such an idea?
> 
> Churchill might have been a racist bigot, but it didn't mean his geography was inaccurate or that he was stupid. He, if anyone, knew the history of the subcontinent well.
> 
> I'm sure you do understand my point about the telescope. Let me rephrase it.
> 
> _"Take the example of Germany calling itself Europe in 100 years time. Let's say the Germans claimed to have invented the telescope (according to official history Italian, Galileo, invented it), because Galileo was European and since Germany is now called Europe and Galileo was a European, then his invention was a European invention. Can you not see the confusion this creates, and the blatant stealing of the shining examples of other country's history that has occured?"_ - The telescope was a European invention, but Germany is called Europe now, and most people don't remember Europe ever being applied to a whole continent, making it look like the Germanic people invented the telescope. Confusion and blatant misdirection.
> 
> Let me rephrase the above for the Indian, this time 2,500 years ago:
> _"Take the example of Bharat calling itself India in 2,500 years time. Let's say the Indians claimed to have invented Sanskrit (according to official history Pakistani, Panini, invented it), because Panini was Indian and since Bharat is now called India and Panini was a Indian, then his invention was a Indian invention. Can you not see the confusion this creates, and the blatant stealing of the shining examples of other country's history that has occured?"
> _
> 
> The Roman Empire was part of Ancient Italian history. It was an civilization made up of the ancestors of modern day Italians. Therefore it can be described as an Ancient Italian civilization.
> 
> Incorrect. The term "India" originated from Saptha Sindhu. This is the recognized etymology of the word. It evolves into "India" from this origin.
> 
> The seven rivers mainly flow in Pakistan, and it's definitely not referring to Punjab alone. The Rig Vedic origins lie most likely all over Pakistan (the Indus Valley). Even if you take the river system, hardly any of the rivers (perhaps only 1), runs into India. So, you can't claim Sapta Sindhu was equally an Indian civilization as a Pakistani one!!
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect also. Vedic tribes were inhabiting the Indus Valley, Sapta Sindhu (or Pakistan) almost exclusively. One or two broke away and migrated to the Gangetic plains to set up Hinduism.



Wow...great post RR!


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Lets say that the IVC was comprised of various City-States.
> 
> Is there any evidence to support that there wasn't an alliance between the various Cities, like the Aztec City States had?
> 
> At this point at least the consensus is that the majority of this "civilization" was centered in modern day Pakistan.
> 
> The Mauryan empire was primarily in India, so it would continue to be a primarily associated with Modern India.
> 
> So I would imagine the IVC should be primarily associated with modern Pakistan.



If the IVC comprised various city-states, then they wouldn't have a central capital.
If it didn't have a capital, then why would it be "centered" around anything?
Each city developed and flourished independently, or perhaps traded with other cities, but there wasn't a central political order.

In such circumstances, it should not be primarily associated with any country.
Please refer to my reply to RR's long post.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> There are a couple of questions here:
> 
> 1. Was the IVC an empire at all? Did it have a capital in the modern sense of the word, along with a common administration, a sense of loyalty towards the empire, a common identity and awareness spreading throughout its reach?
> Or was it a collection of independent city-states, each unaware, or vaguely aware, or having no loyalty, towards the other?
> 
> 2. What is the basis for deciding who can claim the IVC? You argue that the basis is solely the current International Borders. However, have you considered that the IVC people may have migrated elsewhere, or been wiped out completely?
> 
> 3. What is your argument for stating that _anyone_ in India or pakistan can claim the IVC at all.



Stealth,

A slight digression, but the questions you raise in your first point are exactly the questions raised to debunk the idea of modern India being a continuation of ancient India, in terms of ancient India being any sort of unified entity.

But back to the topic, the question of whether the IVC were city states rather than a single empire is moot because the argument is that empire or city states, they existed in modern day Pakistan.

As to what happened - the most plausible theory is probably that like the Mayan and Aztec City States, they made very tantalizing targets, and their breakdown probably resulted in the IVC people moving into smaller settlements in the surrounding areas. 

Even if they were wiped out completely, the fact that the majority of the civilization was present in Pakistan gives Pakistan the right to claim it as their history. We are after all not going to tell the Greeks that their ancient history is not theirs just because they cannot explain every single event and attribute associated with it.

If the people migrated, and their customs and way of life evolved as they interacted and mixed with other peoples, then they were not the IVC any more were they?

One definition of civilization is "_the type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch_".

If migration (out of Pakistan or merely out of their cities) was the cause of their disappearance, then I would argue that they did not meet the requirements of a civilization any more, but that still does not diminish the fact that as a civilization they lived and prospered in the lands of modern Pakistan primarily.

Once the civilization itself ceased to exist, shreds of the culture, customs and knowledge would still be passed onto the ancestors of modern Pakistanis through the remnants of the IVC, and hence Pakistan's claim to that history.


----------



## vish

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Stealth,
> 
> A slight digression, but the questions you raise in your first point are exactly the questions raised to debunk the idea of modern India being a continuation of ancient India, in terms of ancient India being any sort of unified entity.
> 
> But back to the topic, the question of whether the IVC were city states rather than a single empire is moot because the argument is that empire or city states, they existed in modern day Pakistan.
> 
> As to what happened - the most plausible theory is probably that like the Mayan and Aztec City States, they made very tantalizing targets, and their breakdown probably resulted in the IVC people moving into smaller settlements in the surrounding areas.
> 
> Even if they were wiped out completely, the fact that the majority of the civilization was present in Pakistan gives Pakistan the right to claim it as their history. We are after all not going to tell the Greeks that their ancient history is not theirs just because they cannot explain every single event and attribute associated with it.
> 
> If the people migrated, and their customs and way of life evolved as they interacted and mixed with other peoples, then they were not the IVC any more were they?
> 
> One definition of civilization is "_the type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch_".
> 
> If migration (out of Pakistan or merely out of their cities) was the cause of their disappearance, then I would argue that they did not meet the requirements of a civilization any more, but that still does not diminish the fact that as a civilization they lived and prospered in the lands of modern Pakistan primarily.
> 
> Once the civilization itself ceased to exist, shreds of the culture, customs and knowledge would still be passed onto the ancestors of modern Pakistanis through the remnants of the IVC, and hence Pakistan's claim to that history.



What if modern day Pakistan had different boundaries?

Modern day geography is not the basis on which history is divided because our modern day borders are not permanent.

Further, the IVC was a geographically widespread civilization.

You can say that the IVC is a part of Pakistan's history, but not that it is an Ancient Pakistani civilization.

Further, the IVC is also not and Ancient Indian civilization. It is a part of Indian history.


----------



## MIG_ACE

Everyone, will you please read the title of the poll again? This thread has gone completely off-track.


----------



## FaisalAyaz

MIG_ACE said:


> Everyone, will you please read the title of the poll again? This thread has gone completely off-track.



hahaha great idea come to the point


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Does it matter?
> 
> Lets say that the IVC was comprised of various City-States.
> 
> Is there any evidence to support that there wasn't an alliance between the various Cities, like the Aztec City States had?
> 
> At this point at least the consensus is that the majority of this "civilization" was centered in modern day Pakistan.
> 
> The Mauryan empire was primarily in India, so it would continue to be a primarily associated with Modern India.
> 
> So I would imagine the IVC should be primarily associated with modern Pakistan.



For a civilization to be "centered" around Pakistan, it needs to have a centre, i.e. a capital. 

Since there was no central authority or capital, it cannot be said to have centered around any country. It was spread across 2 countries. 

Having established that, it is quite apparent that although a majority of the sites lay within Pakistan, a significant number also lay within India. 

What's more, the vast majority of sites lie a few kilometers on either side of the border.

The ideological basis of modern day Pakistan has nothing to do with their ancient history. Infact, the ideological basis of Pakistan is an outright rejection of their past.
Modern day Pakistanis are ethnically distinct from the IVC people as well. Of course, a little mixing might have occured, but that genetic component has reduced to next to nothing through the centuries. .

As RR likes to often point out, The predecessors of the term India were first used for the land lying to the east of the Indus, which would include eastern Pakistan. So why should any Pakistanis have problems with their history being called "Indian" history?

Since the Indus valley is associated with "ancient India", it should be called an "ancient Indian" civilization, and not an "Ancient Pakistani" one

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Stealth,
> 
> A slight digression, but the questions you raise in your first point are exactly the questions raised to debunk the idea of modern India being a continuation of ancient India, in terms of ancient India being any sort of unified entity.



Who said that Ancient India was a unified political entity. It was a unified cultural entity, as compared and contrasted with other cultural entities.



> But back to the topic, the question of whether the IVC were city states rather than a single empire is moot because the argument is that empire or city states, they existed in modern day Pakistan.



They existed in an ancient cultural entity called "Ancient India", not in the modern political entity called "Pakistan"



> As to what happened - the most plausible theory is probably that like the Mayan and Aztec City States, they made very tantalizing targets, and their breakdown probably resulted in the IVC people moving into smaller settlements in the surrounding areas.



There are several theories, including ones which say that climate change forced the tribes to move eastwards well before the arrival of the new races. 



> Even if they were wiped out completely, the fact that the majority of the civilization was present in Pakistan gives Pakistan the right to claim it as their history. We are after all not going to tell the Greeks that their ancient history is not theirs just because they cannot explain every single event and attribute associated with it.



But the Greeks are by and large descendants of the Ancient Greeks. The same cannot be said about modern Pakistanis. Perhaps, a small fraction of them, but that's all. 

Even the American settlers mixed with the Natives to some extent. That doesn't make American settlers the inheritors of the histories of the native tribes.



> If the people migrated, and their customs and way of life evolved as they interacted and mixed with other peoples, then they were not the IVC any more were they?



Yes, but this would be a positive assimilation rather than a diminishing one or nonexistent one. 

Who knows, the modern day IVC people could be identified as an isolated tribe in India, but the same can be definitely ruled out for Pakistan, because the gene pool has been almost completely replaced.



> One definition of civilization is "_the type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch_".
> 
> If migration (out of Pakistan or merely out of their cities) was the cause of their disappearance, then I would argue that they did not meet the requirements of a civilization any more, but that still does not diminish the fact that as a civilization they lived and prospered in the lands of modern Pakistan primarily.
> 
> Once the civilization itself ceased to exist, shreds of the culture, customs and knowledge would still be passed onto the ancestors of modern Pakistanis through the remnants of the IVC, and hence Pakistan's claim to that history.



You are simply giving more importance to the "Land" part of a civilization than the "People" part in order to bolster your argument. 
Why should the land be given more importance than the people? 

Besides, the modern day Indians have inherited far more from the Harappans in terms of culture than modern day Pakistanis have. 

On a different note, many Indians are incensed by the fact that on one hand, Pakistan has sought to dissociate itself from the subcontinent by claiming to be a Central Asian/Persian/Arab culture, and on the other hand, it tries to bolster this seclusion by claiming that even its ancient history is completely different from India.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> That's incorrect also. Vedic tribes were inhabiting the Indus Valley, Sapta Sindhu (or Pakistan) almost exclusively. One or two broke away and migrated to the Gangetic plains to set up Hinduism.



LOL RR, did you count the tribes yourself?


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Buddhism spent more time being developed in Pakistan than in India. Its origins are Nepalese.
> 
> So the British Raj is part of subcontinent history. Then Saudi Arabian history is also part of subcontinent history, Turkish history also is. The Greeks also etc.



Buddha was an ethnic Indian who was born on the border between India and Nepal. Buddhism originated well within India, in Bihar to be precise, and it evolved considerably in a number of places within and outside India.



> That's not true. The IVC was centred along the Indus River, and predominantly was in Pakistan. Take the example of the Saudi Arabians. We know they invaded parts of India about 1,000 years ago. Can the Saudi Arabians now claim some parts of Indian history as a greater Saudi Arabian history? Since parts of India were part of the Saudi Empire, why not? India in this case would have no history if everything was divided up like you're trying to divide up the IVC.



There is an Iranian and Arabian sphere of Influence, under which both India and Pakistan fall. 
You are assuming that history must be divided into mutually exclusive sections. You are assuming wrong.



> The term India was invented by ancient Pakistan for the region of the Indus. Some idiot Greeks that were poor at geography and thought "all dem people..duh..where the big river lies, dem folk all look same to me, dey Indian", should not have any influence on what was the real India, and what Indian history actually refers to.



The term India was invented to mean the area "East of the Indus", which originally included Eastern Pakistan and NW India and quickly grew to represent the whole of India and eastern Pakistan.

You keep repeatedly forgetting that the modern border is an arbitrary line and it is not based on what the Greeks defined as India thousands of years ago.

Oh and bravo....you just called the world's first travel writers "idiots". 
Wake up call: They were probably a lot smarter than you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

MIG_ACE said:


> Ok, there's something I don't understand. How can "History" belong to anyone? It is not a material object that can be claimed or possessed. It is just an account of all events that happened in the past. No one can "claim" any history. So I don't understand why you guys keep referring to history. This thread is not about history as such. It is about Islamic Monuments in India which are material objects that can be claimed. Whether or not the claim is legitimate is a different matter.
> As you can see three members have voted "Yes" to this poll, but they haven't posted why they feel so. I can only assume that they either did it for fun or they cannot find any justification for their claims.



Given the choice, I would definitely agree with your view. History cannot and should not be partitioned because its a series of interconnected events.

However, modern Nationalism and National Identity relies heavily on history and its interpretation in order to create national pride, ethnic pride and religious pride, which are essential ingredients in order to keep a country together. 
So, we are forced to commit intellectual harakiri and partition history.


----------



## su-47

History is actually very difficult to attribute in some cases to a certain nation, since national identity might have changed from the time of the historical events and the modern day. 

For historical events to be attributed to a nation, first and foremost a majority of the people of that nation should accept those historical events as belonging to them. The geographical location of the historical event doesnt attribute that event to that nation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## U-571

i conclude this topic with some neutral suggestions tht:

1. muslims ruled "sub continent" for more than 1000 yrs, the muslim monuments belong to the muslims of india, it is the prime duty of indian govt to preserve it and expose the "glorious muslim history of sub continent", and include it in indian course books.

2. muslims have given a new face of india to the world, through their rule came unity and power to india, so india shuld feel proud of muslim inheritance and every indian shuld know the "islamic inheritance history and legacy" and make utmost efforts to preserve it.


----------



## Flintlock

U-571 said:


> i conclude this topic with some neutral suggestions tht:
> 
> 1. muslims ruled "sub continent" for more than 1000 yrs, the muslim monuments belong to the muslims of india, it is the prime duty of indian govt to preserve it and expose the "glorious muslim history of sub continent", and include it in indian course books.



Islamic monuments belong to all Indians, not just muslims. 

We are doing a great job of preserving them, and they are a part of Indian History books.

History is supposed to be objective, and not glorify anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Indeed - India's history belongs to all Indians, regardless of whether they are Hindu, Muslim or Christian.

Peoples faith and beliefs have shifted and changed over time, but the ancestors of the peoples of these lands remain their ancestors, and their works and achievements are a legacy for all who have continued from them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Indeed - India's history belongs to all Indians, regardless of whether they are Hindu, Muslim or Christian.
> 
> Peoples faith and beliefs have shifted and changed over time, but the ancestors of the peoples of these lands remain their ancestors, and their works and achievements are a legacy for all who have continued from them.



I couldn't agree more. 

Some monuments like the Taj Mahal, are a product of genius drawn from a number of civilizations and sources, and belong to the whole world.


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> LOL RR, did you count the tribes yourself?



it's well known..Large population movements like you love to claim did not occur (especially from the very fertile valleys like Pakistan).


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> Buddha was an ethnic Indian who was born on the border between India and Nepal. Buddhism originated well within India, in Bihar to be precise, and it evolved considerably in a number of places within and outside India.



Buddha was a Nepalese ethnic. 

Buddhism originated from Nepal/India, but then got persecuted substantially within India, and found refuge in Pakistan's land. From within pakistan, it developed, especially the Northwest and Swat/Afghanistan. 

http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022008/buddhism.htm 



> There is an Iranian and Arabian sphere of Influence, under which both India and Pakistan fall.
> You are assuming that history must be divided into mutually exclusive sections. You are assuming wrong.



History can be divided into mutually exclusive sections in fact. Whatever happened within the borders of modern day Pakistan during history, is the history of the land area known as Pakistan. Whatever happened within India's borders is the history of India. 



> The term India was invented to mean the area "East of the Indus", which originally included Eastern Pakistan and NW India and quickly grew to represent the whole of India and eastern Pakistan.



LOL. Oh BULLSHYT. No part of the term "India" means East  

The term "India" was coined with reference to the "Indus River". Nothing to do with East of it. 



> You keep repeatedly forgetting that the modern border is an arbitrary line and it is not based on what the Greeks defined as India thousands of years ago.



The modern border is not an arbitrary line. There is a reason that Islam spread along only up till the Indo-Pak border. It was definitely not arbitrary. 



> Oh and bravo....you just called the world's first travel writers "idiots".
> Wake up call: They were probably a lot smarter than you.



Compared to today's standards they were idiots, though for their time, they were remarkably advanced..Sort of the USA of today. However, placing such emphasis on their geographical knowledge, and assuming the mistakes they made as fact, is just regurgitating what we know to be incorrect..that is idiocy.


----------



## Logic note

roadrunner said:


> Buddha was a Nepalese ethnic.
> 
> Buddhism originated from Nepal/India, but then got persecuted substantially within India, and found refuge in Pakistan's land. From within pakistan, it developed, especially the Northwest and Swat/Afghanistan.
> 
> Disappearance of Buddhism From India: An Untold Story
> 
> .



Yes Buddhism has nothiing to do with India .. same way as Ghalib,Mir or mughals Has nothing to do with Pakistan ..

Trying to see history with present geographical perspective is foolish .. 
you mean to say that history of Pakistan was cut into half in 1971 . the pages in history books were torn in to half ?? 
lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Logic note said:


> Yes Buddhism has nothiing to do with India .. same way as Ghalib,Mir or mughals Has nothing to do with Pakistan ..
> 
> Trying to see history with present geographical perspective is foolish ..
> you mean to say that history of Pakistan was cut into half in 1971 . the pages in history books were torn in to half ??
> lol



Buddha was born in Nepal, not India: 

_Tired from the decade-old armed conflict that has already claimed more than 13,000 lives, followers of Bomjan claimed that he was an incarnation of Lord Buddha who was born in Nepal more than 2,500 years ago. _
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Nepal's 'Buddha' boy goes missing 

Buddhism originated in Nepal: 
_Buddhism originated in Northern India, or present-day Nepal. It was here that the Historical Buddha (Prince Siddhartha, later Gautama Buddha), was born and lived in the sixth century BC._ 
SamuraiReligion 

As for the Bangladesh or East Pakistan example, it's the same as Saudi Arabia conquering parts of India centuries ago. According to your "logic", the Arabian conquerors were not called Saudi Arabians, therefore they cannot claim to have conquered India. However they did. So I hope you can see that names of countries change over centuries and do not mean much. What is Bangaldeshi history is all that occurs within the border of modern day Bangladesh, what is Pakistani history is all within Pakistani borders. 

I really don't know why you place so much emphasis on the name. Do the French not claim their Gaulish heritage, because their country was not called France millenia ago? It is good to argue your case logically, but you are not being logical..just more desperate to deny something you know exists but cannot bring yourself ot admit. That Pakistani history = the history of whatever land mass Pakistan currently occupies.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Buddha was a Nepalese ethnic.
> 
> Buddhism originated from Nepal/India, but then got persecuted substantially within India, and found refuge in Pakistan's land. From within pakistan, it developed, especially the Northwest and Swat/Afghanistan.
> 
> Disappearance of Buddhism From India: An Untold Story



Gautam Buddha was an Indian Prince (Kshatriya Caste), which ruled the Kingdom of Kosala which roughly corresponds with modern Uttar Pradesh.

Lumbini is located in a district bordering India, and for all intents and purposes,is considered a part of ancient India.

That does not however take anything away from the Nepalis.

As far as your claims of persecution are concerned, considering the widespread mixed hindu-buddhist-jain religious structures dating well into the 12th century before the arrival of Islamic invaders, it would hardly seem that there was any ideological enmity between the faiths.

Its true that the social structure did change over time, but it was a gradual evolution like most other religious developments within India.



> History can be divided into mutually exclusive sections in fact. Whatever happened within the borders of modern day Pakistan during history, is the history of the land area known as Pakistan. Whatever happened within India's borders is the history of India.



That's completely wrong and very irresponsible. Did Babur change from Pakistani to Indian once he crossed the border? 

History has many layers, and its highly unfortunate that it has to be chopped up for national pride, but even so, its best avoided as far as possible.




> LOL. Oh BULLSHYT. No part of the term "India" means East



Here's a quote from Megasthenes (300C BC) (I have quoted him before, but just to refresh your memory):

*
"India then being four-sided in plan, the side which looks to the Orient and that to the South, the Great Sea compasseth; that towards the Arctic is divided by the mountain chain of H&#275;m&#333;dus from Scythia, inhabited by that tribe of Scythians who are called Sakai; and on the fourth side, turned towards the West, the Indus marks the boundary, the biggest or nearly so of all rivers after the Nile."
*

A map to help interpret the paragraph:









> The term "India" was coined with reference to the "Indus River". Nothing to do with East of it.



No denying that, but it was used to describe the lands to the east of the Indus, which would include eastern Pakistan.

Similarly, the term "Hindustan", also a corruption of the Indus river, would later be used by the Middle-easterners to describe the lands east of the Indus.



> The modern border is not an arbitrary line. There is a reason that Islam spread along only up till the Indo-Pak border. It was definitely not arbitrary.



And that reason was the constant migration of western tribes into the Indus valley and the consequent dilution/wiping out of indigenous peoples.




> Compared to today's standards they were idiots, though for their time, they were remarkably advanced..Sort of the USA of today. However, placing such emphasis on their geographical knowledge, and assuming the mistakes they made as fact, is just regurgitating what we know to be incorrect..that is idiocy.



I don't understand - on one hand you use the terms invented by them to describe the subcontinent - and on the other - you claim that they had the wrong definition? 
It seems that you are employing double standards by selectively choosing the stuff that conforms with your own ideas, and rejecting the stuff that doesn't by discrediting it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## donrahul

Well! We wil use an Oxymoron now.. Modern History.. Lets take Germany.. Germany's Benovalent dictator was Adolf Hitler.. But Do u think Germany rejected his entry into the country's history coz he was born in Austria?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

donrahul said:


> Well! We wil use an Oxymoron now.. Modern History.. Lets take Germany.. Germany's Benovalent dictator was Adolf Hitler.. But Do u think Germany rejected his entry into the country's history coz he was born in Austria?



Whats your point? 

Analogies only go so far since you can never have a perfect comparison. What are you comparing to in this case?


----------



## donrahul

Islamic monuments and Whatever that existed in the subcontinent, have a shared history is my point.. Same with IVC and other stuff.. Its neither your history, nor my history.. Its "our" (you n me included) history..


----------



## Flintlock

apr4000 said:


> i dont know why the taj mahal is the symbol of India,
> 
> i mean there are other monuments way better than it (Victoria Terminal, Akshardam, and a few others)
> 
> taj mahal is so freaking ugly to me
> 
> should promote other monuments



Well, Victoria Terminus is the Great Imperial Monument, so it doesn't get much love.

Akshardham is brand new, and they don't allow photography inside 

So, what's the great monument that is reasonably close to Delhi and exquisitely beautiful to boot? Taj of course.


----------



## Flintlock

Xtremeownage said:


> Ustad Ahmed Lahori, who was the chief architect of the Taj Mahal was from Lahore, which is in Pakistan!



 Actually its Lahauri, not Lahori. And he was from Persia.

But its not at all certain who was the chief architect of the Taj. Lahauri is just one of the many claimants for that throne.


----------



## Bull

roadrunner said:


> Buddha was a Nepalese ethnic.
> 
> Buddhism originated from Nepal/India, but then got persecuted substantially within India, and found refuge in Pakistan's land. From within pakistan, it developed, especially the Northwest and Swat/Afghanistan.



There was no india and pakistan then. It was bharat. One united south asia or a amalgamation of Prince states.


----------



## MilesTogo

Finally Pakistanis/Muslims have started to acknowledge their non-islamic past. I hope this time they don't destroy whatever is left of it like they have always done it.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

MilesTogo said:


> I hope this time they don't destroy whatever is left of it like they have always done it.



Stupid and insulting generalizations like these are not welcome on this forum.

Freedom of speech allowed does not allow you to insult an entire people and faith.


----------



## MilesTogo

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Stupid and insulting generalizations like these are not welcome on this forum.
> 
> Freedom of speech allowed does not allow you to insult an entire people and faith.



oops - My apologies, if I offended you but that was not the intention. I have reasons for saying what I said. May be you could help me correct my false impressions of Muslim community?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

MilesTogo said:


> oops - My apologies, if I offended you but that was not the intention. I have reasons for saying what I said. May be you could help me correct my false impressions of Muslim community?



I thought I just did ...


----------



## A1Kaid

Well it would also be wrong for India to claim those Islamic monuments in India as their sole Legacy...

The Islamic Monuments are achievements of Musulmans, by a Muslim dynasty, they are the legacy of one part of the Muslim Nation, far greater than Hindustan.

Hindus had little role in the construction of these great monuments.


----------



## SoulOnIce

cactuslily58 said:


> Of all the topics I have read discussions on this forum, I think this topic is easily the most stupid & irr-relevant. Someone seems to have run out of ideas or is simply attempting to stoke a fire.
> 
> History belongs to the land where the events took place or the people that were affected by it.
> 
> What shall we discuss next ? " Does the wind that blows that over India from the west belong to Pakistan "?



How the hell do you thank someone for a post on this forum? I cant find the right button, i 100% agree with this post


----------



## SoulOnIce

These structures are irrelevant simply because partition was not based on historical empires, monuments, or areas previously inhabited by majority muslim, sikhs, or hindus, but areas current to then contemporary demographic trends, areas that are inhabited by majority hindus, or muslims at the time of partition. That was the basic measurement used to guide partition, obviously there were compromises made for the sake of political expediency but thats life...

And also, to draw boundaries based on "national" monuments is stupid, and was probably never even considered by any people close to or people in the positions to make those decisions. And by stupid, i mean is there any other country is the world where a monument was used to draw contemporary borders? Is there even any such incident in history?


----------



## SoulOnIce

Oh and btw, laying claim to history, is very different than laying claim to land
I agree with Vish on most points, our history is shared yes
but does it mean that were not two distinct nations now or at the time or parition? no


Being american doesnt make one british as well, or vice versa


----------



## Faadi

Such monuments are remaining and reminders of Muslims rule over India for more than 1000 years and make Muslims recall their bright history in India. More about this history is available at Pakistan History


----------



## Jacobtheindoamerican

Well the Mughals are a very funny Muslims, because they drank alcohol, smoked, fell for temptation of woman, and killed many Muslims to. They came to India as Mongols. They broke many rules in Islam.

Babur first emperor of Mughal empire







And this is what results when you breed with the Rajput Indians majority of the rule.

Bahadur Shah II(last mughal emperor)






His wife






His childern






If you seen a modern Mughal descendant you can see the Mongol has be breed out. This is a similar case with the Ottoman Turks. They came to Turkey as Central Asian Mongoloid Turks. But through time you can see Ottoman empires with generations of breeding with indigenous anatolians, greeks, Armenians, etc they start losing the Mongol features.


----------



## eric_cartman

@jacobs : really??? with such faces they ruled India and us!! damn we were way too stupid and dumb!! god save us


----------



## moonwalk

LAUREL ASTON COMMENTS ON AGHA KHAN :

The Agha Khan is part of a network of illuminati ,who practice mind control and brain washing to control and even enslave some innocent people. I was a producer in Hollywood a cover for CIA/MILITARY crimes and activity. I represented the Agha Khan in the Hollywood Beverly Hills community,and did a tv show with Sheila, Washington head of AKF .An offer was made to me by Ike Lolgi and his cousin Aziz ,who is close to Agha Khan. That I could go to Aglemont to study with Zara and then take over as a foundation head. I was also asked to produce the Golden Jubile in LA for which Agha Khan was going to come to LA . I was then told the truth .I had been illegally trafficed by criminal free masons in the US military ,who went into service to avoid prison. And that the truth was I was born in Kenya (Swahili was my native language I spoke it until age 5 ) that I was not merely a carbon copy of the Agha Khan by accident.I was monitored by Khan personally and given oppurtunity because I am his biological daughter.

I had at age 4 ,been given into MKULTRA military mind control slavery .For a wide variety of political reasons. I was for purpose of shattering and controling my mind as a baby ,raped tortured drugged electrocuted and suffered sexual humiliation in group settings.All to turn me into a robotic mindcontrolled child and later adult assassin spy soldier. I was a child caught in between power mad lunatics who have used MKULTRA tactics for centuries. While in HOLLYWOOD (run by CIA/USMILITARY ) I was used for military purposes, the famous Hollywood producer Laurel Aston was merely a cover.I am currently RED FLAGGED at the highest level and on a no fly list ,unable to leave US or work legally .My life is hell. I have attorneys but I am stalled at every turn. I am a political prisoner of USA,I was also used by my biological father Agha Khan, for his own political reasons , Now I want to know WHAT IS HE GOING TO DO TO FREE ME ? Or is he simply going to stand by and watch,and pretend he is innocent of any wrong doing?an personally and given oppurtunity because I am his biological daughter.
Please believe me when I tell you .Among the world leaders in every organization,things go on at the top .That those at lower levels never hear a whisper of. Men like my father and other billionaires and trillionaires like him ,do not make or keep their money by being sweet soft loving or kind. There is a dark side to them all that would shatter your mind. Open your eyes and minds , read do your own research on me ,and other cases of child military slaves like me. They all usually hail from political families,or fathers who were free masons and violent criminals/pedophiles. FYI.. I am a number on military roles,as are all who are brain washed and mind controlled. I was told by Atif Bhanji Fara his sister ,my former flat mates,and Alesha Lolgi that ALL Ismailis have a number on roles? Is this true ?And if so for what purpose?
I will leave you on one final note .I worked for the JACKSONS ,and knew Michael. Michael Jackson is a victim of MKULTRA and was run by CIA/NAVY INTEL.just like me. The millions I made in Hollywood were stolen from me my bank accounts wiped out,and my CIA assigned identity burned. Michael Jackson was murdered for his money ,fighting his military handlers, and for speaking out on CIA /ILLUMINATI control of HOLLYWOOD ,within a few short months of speaking out at large concert gatherings. I have advocats such as BISHOP HOSEA BRADLEY who was a 20 year US MILITARY VET and spent 12 years as a detective with the police dept. The Bishop investigated me for months before he brought me on his radio show to speak out on the truth around Michael Jacksons murder ,and child trafficking in the US MILITARY. Please have a listen A LOOK@THE UNKNOWN TO C THE KNOWN ..BEYOND THE VEIL blog talk radio. THANKS


----------



## somebozo

Well they dont belongs to Pakistan obviously but Muslims as general can travel back in time and enjoy a shared history and heritage over india.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

somebozo said:


> Well they dont belongs to Pakistan obviously but Muslims as general can travel back in time and enjoy a shared history and heritage over india.



yepp just like how sikhs travel back in time and enjoy a shared history and heritage over pakistan...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HAK

Do Islamic monuments in India belong to Pakistani history?

All historical monuments in india belong to Pakistani history and vice versa


----------



## Spring Onion

lolzz i was wondering which idiot has started this thread.

anyway. Those are built by Muslim rulers/kings who invaded Sub-continent.

And since some of these fall in India and some in Pakistan hence the country wherein these are present does have possession rights.

As far as the legacy is concerned its legacy of the Muslims who built it. All credit goes to them


----------



## Spring Onion

HAK said:


> Do Islamic monuments in India belong to Pakistani history?
> 
> All historical monuments in india belong to Pakistani history and vice versa



A shared history. while divided possession or ownership in terms of physical structure


----------



## Spring Onion

eric_cartman said:


> @jacobs : really??? with such faces they ruled India and us!! damn we were way too stupid and dumb!! god save us



 with such faces? i believe and seen you have far worst in India


----------



## Iqbal_Brar

LOL.. and this is why I love pdf..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BudWiser

Of course it is India's legacy. Just like Christian monuments are part of the legacy of Europe even though Christianity came from outside Europe. Unlike Europe, Islam did not supplant the native religion in India but that does not make it any less Indian.

Some of the greatest achievements in Islamic architecture were born in India, and this is India's legacy.


----------



## arihant

While reading whole nine pages I learn almost everything about how history is related.

Since, India wanted to be come successor state of British India but somehow concept of Pakistan came, it got divided into two parts. India didn't wanted to be divided but circumstances could not prevent it. India not only took all the history of its predating 1947 but also became successor state in UN and for all the earlier treaties signed by British India.

Moreover, choosing name India could have given Nehru first hand in all international relations and history.


----------



## BudWiser

Wrong thread buddy . 

The name "India" was not some political choice. It was the inheritance of history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sanasahil

well its in their lands so they are theirs, like they cant have their monuments present in pakistan, but yes they were built by muslim rulers so in this sense we can talk about them as our monuments.


----------



## MadDog

@ Agnostic Muslim...Dude when u said u dont care about muslim history as much as u care about Pakistani history....this shows that there is a serious need on your side to re-learn history.
Pakistan is an *ideological state like Israel *and would never have been created without the muslim identity. There was no Israel on the map, only Asham (Jordan, Palestine, Syria)...it was carved cuz of an ideology and by a race of people.
In the context of this region, *There were no Pakistani people before 47, it were the muslims who said we would make "LAND OF THE PURE" meaning "Pakistan".* Today there are around 10-15 major-minor ethinicities in Pak, thus u can't claim pride on the base of an ethinicity as a Persian or Arab does cuz *our country is at the cross-roads of South-Asia, Central Asia and Middle East, the regions today in our country were part of these various regions, even some analysts classify us in South Asia, some in central Asia and G8 nations and Bush Administration and now Obama administration call Afghanistan and Pakistan part of Greater Middle East to satisfy their political goals.* 
Thus we are a mixture of different generations and thus not all of us can lay this claim that our ancestors were in this part of the world thousands of years ago...some can claim while others can't cuz i repeat we are a mixture of ethnicities.

If u seperate muslim identity from Pakistani identity then i am sorry to say this would be the most misguided act ever and cost alot to this nation ...and it would surely be a lunatic thing to do. 
Regards

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Taj Mahal is not a ISLAMIC monument!


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Do some idiots think indian muslim history belongs to Pakistan? 
I remember watching Khada kay liya where shaan trys to impress his girl friend by saying.. you know the taj mahal in India? We built it. I mean like WTF! Do Muslims even take pride in that monument? 
In which part of Islam is it allowed to waist money and then kill those people who build it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Saithan

I'm sorry to blunder in like this, but wasn't Taj Mahal build before the brits came, and wasn't it in a time where Islam had a far reach. Since it dates back so far I think it's fair to take pride in it's construction. Yes there are many different cultures in the world, like in africa where they have the disgusting circumcission on women, and India where they used to bury female children alive.

I think icons build in an age or time where an empire had far reach is/should be considered everyones. Although to be honest I have no idea how that giant buddha statue was build in afghanistan or by whom.

I consider Sultan Ahmet in Istanbul to be a treasure for all muslims.


----------



## k!ng_0f_(~)3@rt$

Myth_buster_1 said:


> Do some idiots think indian muslim history belongs to Pakistan?
> 
> In which part of Islam is it allowed to waist money and then kill those people who build it?


 
But unfortunately it was built by a Muslim King. So its the part of Muslim history.


----------



## sab

k!ng_0f_(~)3@rt$ said:


> But unfortunately it was built by a Muslim King. So its the part of Muslim history.


 
But who paid for that? ...Indian population as taxes...The Kings were not born with money.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Roybot

I say let it be a shared legacy of the whole sub continent. But yes all the countries who want to claim the legacy, should split the money involved in the upkeep of the monuments and share the revenue generated by the visitors?


----------



## Kambojaric

Of course its Indian, just like Hindu or other non muslim monuments in Pakistan are Pakistani (Moenjo daro or Harappa e.g.)


----------



## sajan

I dont know how much truth is in this site...
but its interesting to have some new knowledge regarding this..
just have a look at this site...
Taj Mahal: Was it a Vedic Temple?


----------



## sab

sajan said:


> I dont know how much truth is in this site...
> but its interesting to have some new knowledge regarding this..
> just have a look at this site...
> Taj Mahal: Was it a Vedic Temple?



It is a BS.............................The guy PN Oak is a fake, for people like hime Indians look stupid in the eyes of the world. Any person having little knowledge on different architecture style can say ...Taj is of Persian style..may be some Indian touch was their too...

BTW , search for PN Oak's book, he did claim Westminister Abbe as a Hindu temple

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JonAsad

sajan said:


> I dont know how much truth is in this site...
> but its interesting to have some new knowledge regarding this..
> just have a look at this site...
> Taj Mahal: Was it a Vedic Temple?


 
I Agree completely- Destroy Taj Mahal- Like you destroyed Babri Mosque- and hoist the Orange flag- show the Hindu dominance-

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## twofriends

I wish to see these historical things but afraid of situations


----------



## Lyrical Mockery

Those are the remnants of great empires of yore. Both India and Pakistan can lay claim to it. It's a shared legacy.

Same goes for non-islamic monuments and sites in Pakistan.


----------



## Zarvan

These are the legacy of Muslims who ruled India


----------



## Lyrical Mockery

^ nobody doubts that.


----------



## Kalyugi Mirza

No it's belongs to Islamic values and Islamic culture..You can't bound this to Pakistan only..


----------



## SQ8

vks_gautam said:


> No it's belongs to Islamic values and Islamic culture..You can't bound this to Pakistan only..



It belongs to the history of Islam in the sub-continent.. of which Pakistan-India-Bangladesh is part of.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rusty

Self Delete


----------



## Khan_patriot

They surely dont belong to Pakistan but they belong to Muslims and the true Muslim and Islamic heritage and no one in this world can take this away from the ''Muslim Ummah'' these monuments not only bear witness to our great heritage but also for people like me serve as a reminder of our soon to be repeated glorious past.........


----------



## tony singh

Taj is a fusion of Hindu, Islamic and persian style thats why no such building exist in Arabia


----------



## notsuperstitious

Its indeed shared legacy, but it belongs not only to the muslims, it belongs to everybody in the sub continent. Its like saying Rashtrapati bhavan belongs to anglo indians 

We all paid taxes, not just the anglo indians or the sub continental muslims.


----------



## mahar khawar ramzan

Surely all the things of our Muslim Ancesters belong to us. Pakistan is not just a geographical division of Sub-Continent but it is the representer of muslims of sub-continent. So all things belonging to muslims of sub-continent belong to Pakistan.


----------



## NALANDA

mahar khawar ramzan said:


> Surely all the things of our Muslim Ancesters belong to us. Pakistan is not just a geographical division of Sub-Continent but it is the representer of muslims of sub-continent. So all things belonging to muslims of sub-continent belong to Pakistan.


 

Cross check with other PDF members from Pakistan. When it comes to "all the things of our Hindu Ancesters " like Indus Valley civilizations etc, they lay a claim on them as well.



As per me, it is shared culture and belong to the sub-continent.


----------



## oFFbEAT

Its actually Hindu legacy.......as most(if not all) of the architects, labourers were Hindus.

*By the way*......India(ancient) was full of Hindu architectures..... Most of which were destroyed by Islamic invaders...........


----------



## mahar khawar ramzan

oFFbEAT said:


> Its actually Hindu legacy.......as most(if not all) of the architects, labourers were Hindus.
> 
> *By the way*......India(ancient) was full of Hindu architectures..... Most of which were destroyed by Islamic invaders...........



can you refer some hindu architects which were the most skilled of sub-continent than muslims or any other.


----------



## oFFbEAT

mahar khawar ramzan said:


> can you refer some *hindu architects* which were the most skilled of sub-continent than muslims or any other.



Who built all the Hindu temples??........Muslim architects?? 

*Everything has its root in Hinduism*......you can't escape anywhere.........
If you "dig up your roots"......you will be surprised to find that everything you are made to believe from your childhood is a myth......

*The History of the most iconic, so called "Islamic" monument in India is shrouded in mistery itself..*.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_and_architecture_of_the_Taj_Mahal
Taj Mahal: Was it a Vedic Temple?



mahar khawar ramzan said:


> Surely all the things of our Muslim Ancesters belong to us. Pakistan is not just a geographical division of Sub-Continent but it is the representer of muslims of sub-continent. So all things belonging to muslims of sub-continent belong to Pakistan.


According to your logic.....we should claim the legacy of *Indus Valley Civilization* then!
*Pakistanis a.k.a Muslims had no role in it.........*


----------



## shuntmaster

If people feel that the Islamic monuments in India belong to Pakistan, then shouldn't the government of Pakistan pay the rent to India for occupying the land in India? I suppose by this the Indian Government can earn some revenue from these monuments.


----------



## Charlie1

I aint proud of the taj mahal....
that fool could have made some world class universities with the fortune that he shoved up his dead wife's tomb...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## STEELMAN

mahar khawar ramzan said:


> Surely all the things of our Muslim Ancesters belong to us. Pakistan is not just a geographical division of Sub-Continent but it is the representer of muslims of sub-continent. So all things belonging to muslims of sub-continent belong to Pakistan.



Indian Muslims dont want to recruit any one as there representer if u wish, than remain in your own world of delusion.
We Indians are capable enough to represent ourselves in any part of the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## nalandapride

It is the legacy of India and Pakistan also have share in it.


----------



## STEELMAN

Itna to sasura Shahjahan bhi nahi socha hoga banwate waqt....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## shuban

The base of Pakistan is "Two Nation Theory."


----------



## truthunited

Flintlock said:


> Let me clear a few misconceptions here.
> 
> The vast majority of Islamic monuments in India were built by Indian architects, sculptors, calligraphy artists, workers, and funds.
> 
> Sure,the Taj Mahal involved people of different backgrounds, ranging from Iran to Arabia to South and North India.
> It is not surprising that a building of such magnificence required an international effort.



yeah, an amazing building


----------



## SherAli

its the legacy of the Mughals


----------



## Indus Pakistan

In principle everything within India belongs to India. Everything in Pakistan belongs to Pakistan. 
There are some problems though, for example things built during the times when we were togather. Even than unless there is something there that connects strongly to areas of Pakistan I am inclined to say everything in India belongs to India.
Of course the other side of the coin, everything in Pakistan is ours.
You can't use religion as a basis of a claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Patriots

Very Useless Debate

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mard

it's a the legacy of muslims of the subcontinent, especially the people who lived from Lahore to Lucknow because this was the center of Islamic civilization in south asia, so basically modern day muslim Punjabis and Urduspeakers (Karachite) people are their successors


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Flintlock said:


> This isn't the first time I'm hearing stuff of this kind.
> 
> How many people here think that buildings such as Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Fatehpur Sikri etc. belong to Pakistan?



First of all find me the mention of Taj mahal red fort etc from Quran or hadith only then we can establish the fact that its "Islamic". How about we just call them "Muslim"


----------



## qamar1990

Flintlock said:


> This isn't the first time I'm hearing stuff of this kind.
> 
> How many people here think that buildings such as Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Fatehpur Sikri etc. belong to Pakistan?



they belong to the muslims of south asia. not the hindus and sikhs or the christians



STEELMAN said:


> Indian Muslims dont want to recruit any one as there representer if u wish, than remain in your own world of delusion.
> We Indians are capable enough to represent ourselves in any part of the world.



where was the mughal empire mainly based? india or pakistan?


----------



## scorpionx

It belongs to a nation.Not exclusive to any community in particular.


----------



## Jackdaws

Monuments belong to a civilization not to the more modern concept of a nation-state. In this case - monuments located from Pakistan in the west to Laos in the east come under the arc of the Indic civilization. A big chunk of this civilization is now the nation-state of India - but Angkor Wat belongs as much to us as Taj Mahal belongs to the Pakistani not in a national sense but in a civilizational sense.


----------



## T90TankGuy

guys its a 5 yr old thread.


----------



## abhinav.mehrotra

UnitedPak said:


> Its Muslim but not Pakistani.
> 
> Pakistani history is basically everything that took place on Pakistani land since thats where most Pakistanis have always lived. i.e Indus Valley, Ghandaran Kingdom, Porus Kingdom etc.
> The Taj Mahal is Indian because it is in India, its Muslim because it was built by a Muslim ruler, who was Central Asian for the record.
> 
> Pakistanis however are proud of such monuments because they show the face of Muslim rule in India.
> 
> Religion doesnt change who your ancestors were. Having the same Religion doesnt give you right over land or history which didnt belong to your ancestors either.





With all due respect to you :--

Pakistan's history comprises of only the events leading to creation of pakistan and thereafter.... i.e Since 1940-till date , give or take few years before 1940...

Indus valley civilization , Gandhar rajya(kingdom) , Puru Kingdom (porus was the king) etc. are part of India's history. Just because the place where the events took place are in present day pakistan does not makes them part of pakistan, pakistani culture or indeed pakistan's history.
Below are few facts about these places at that time:--

1. Indus valley civilization was an ancient hindu civilization and you find references of it in ancient hindu texts i.e vedas, purans etc.

2. Gandhar rajya plays an important part in Mahabhart, you can find out about it if you read it or ask me if you would really like to know.

3. Puru rajya was also an hindu kingdom rules by hindu king.


Pakistan cannot simply claim that part of history which suits her and discard part of history that it does not likes. All above things are part of India and her history... Pakistan unfortunately cannot lay claim to it... 

Some other facts ---

a) You will find references of sindhu desh in Mahabharat. The king fought on Kauravs side and was slain in battle.

b) Lahore is named after Lord Ram's Son. Lahore Fort has a vacant temple dedicated to the son of Lord Ram

c) Jammu & kashmir is named after a hindu rishi kashyap. It is believed that he was the one who drained lake from the valley and that is why the place is named after him.


The reason for above facts is not to start trolling here but they should be seen in the context of the topic being discussed.


----------



## upriver

Nope they don't. Pakistan is a geographic entity, not the homeland of all Muslims.


----------



## bronxbull

Of Muslims


----------



## eastwatch

Whatever built in India, by Hindus, Muslims or Buddhists, belong rightfully to India. These are the legacy of India. However, as history of the sub-continent did not start in 1947 therefore many should be regarded as common legacy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## INDIC

Indian Legacy.


----------



## INDIC

eastwatch said:


> Whatever built in India, by Hindus, Muslims or Buddhists, belong rightfully to India. These are the legacy of India. However, as history of the sub-continent did not start in 1947 therefore many should be regarded as common legacy.



Pakistanis believe they are similar to only 3% Indians(Indian Punjabis).


----------



## eastwatch

INDIC said:


> Pakistanis believe they are similar to only 3% Indians(Indian Punjabis).



They tend to think themselves separate because Punjab people are taller and physically stout than other people of the sub-continent. They became tall because they, both Sikhs and Muslims, were baby-fed by the British after they helped the British to fight the 1857 war of independence. 

British developed Punjab irrigation, agriculture and infrastructure at the expense of all other regions of the then Hindustan because 'His Master's Voice' Punjabis were too eager to kill their own countrymen.

They had more earnings than other Hindustanis, they ate well and became taller than the average Hindustanis during the next four generations of British slavery.

Now, if they believe they do not belong to Hindustan historically, how come they come to claim the Muslim monuments of India as their own? Only the Guru Duwars in Amritsar should be claimed by them.


----------



## INDIC

qamar1990 said:


> they belong to the muslims of south asia. not the hindus and sikhs or the christians



Pakistanis claims that they are only similar to 3% Indians Punjabis, so how does it belong to Pakistani Muslims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

eastwatch said:


> Now, if they believe they do not belong to Hindustan historically, how come they come to claim the Muslim monuments of India as their own? Only the Guru Duwars in Amritsar should be claimed by them.



It not just Indians but they even consider Muhajirs with the same view. Here is some interesting article to read. 

My Muhajir identity and partition: A burden for generations &#8211; by Naveed Ali



> So there I was in the line, my turn came, Rangers&#8217; Jawan (Soldier) checked my university ID card (not sure if he knew how to read it, he could have hold it upside down if there was not my photo on it), looked at it,* then looked at me and asked &#8220;Hindustani ho?&#8221; (You are an Indian?)*. Well, for few seconds, blood stopped in my veins, I felt a cold running through my body and I looked at him with so much anger that he took two or three steps back. I did not say a word and he handed me my card back, *I took few steps forward and then came back to him, &#8220;I am a Pakistani&#8221; *he smiled nervously and looked at his senior for help who was standing few steps away, but he preferred to look away as well, that was a mistake which could cost them heavily and best way for them was to ignore as nothing happened. Students any way were challenging and unexpected for these human machines trained to obey and follow. *This was not first neither the last time I was called a Hindustani*, Muhajir (migrant) was the usual identity I had to carry since I started to go out into society, in school, in hospitals, in bank or to any social event and gathering, I was and I still am a Muhajir, though I was born in Pakistan, though I have never been to India, but strange how many generations have to carry the burden of this decision.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## qamar1990

INDIC said:


> Pakistanis claims that they are only similar to 3% Indians Punjabis, so how does it belong to Pakistani Muslims.




what logic you indians have wah!


----------



## INDIC

qamar1990 said:


> what logic you indians have wah!



Please make me understand that logic, how can you claim the heritage of the people whom you don't believe one of you.


----------



## qamar1990

INDIC said:


> Please make me understand that logic, how can you claim the heritage of the people whom you don't believe one of you.



ignorance is bliss.


----------



## INDIC

qamar1990 said:


> ignorance is bliss.



You can explain it instead of writing one line.


----------



## qamar1990

INDIC said:


> You can explain it instead of writing one line.




no im good, im not going to bother wasting time.


----------



## Shadow_Hunter

INDIC said:


> You can explain it instead of writing one line.



For explaining, one must first actually know something about what he is talking about.


----------



## INDIC

Shadow_Hunter said:


> For explaining, one must first actually know something about what he is talking about.



Pakistanis claim everywhere that they are only similar to 3% Indians, now every Pakistani is writing here that Islamic monuments of India belong to them or a shared heritage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## priti

UnitedPak said:


> Its Muslim but not Pakistani.
> 
> Pakistani history is basically everything that took place on Pakistani land since thats where most Pakistanis have always lived. i.e Indus Valley, Ghandaran Kingdom, Porus Kingdom etc.
> The Taj Mahal is Indian because it is in India, its Muslim because it was built by a Muslim ruler, who was Central Asian for the record.
> 
> Pakistanis however are proud of such monuments because they show the face of Muslim rule in India.
> 
> Religion doesnt change who your ancestors were. Having the same Religion doesnt give you right over land or history which didnt belong to your ancestors either.


 shah jahans mother was hindu.


----------



## bronxbull

by the logic of unitedpak,Indus valley.ghandaran kingdom and porus are all hindu kingdoms and it shows the cowardice of the hindu castes of pakistan who converted, Indian punjabis especially sikhs look down upon mulleys.


----------



## qamar1990

priti said:


> shah jahans mother was hindu.




my ancestors were hindu as well but im a muslim, was shah jahan a hindu? i don't see what your trying to say lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asad71

1.Jahangir's mom was Mariam uz-Zamani, formerly Hira Kunwar a Rajput princess of Amer. Shahjahan's mom was Taj Bibi Bilqis Makani, formerly Manmati Baiji Lal Sahiba, a Rajput princess of the Jodhpur royal house. Aurangjeb's mom was Mumtaz Mahal and he did not marry any Hindu lady. Neither did his son the next emperor. The last emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar mom Lalbai, was a Rajput princess.

2. FYI, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutoo's mom was Khursheed Begum formerly Lakhi Baia, a Bombay Hindu lady.

3. All these ladies had converted to Islam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

bronxbull said:


> by the logic of unitedpak,Indus valley.ghandaran kingdom and porus are all hindu kingdoms and it shows the cowardice of the hindu castes of pakistan who converted, Indian punjabis especially sikhs look down upon mulleys.



Good for them Pakistanis look down upon all indians... u dnt even want to hear the racial slurs people use for u guys here...


----------



## my2cents

Flintlock said:


> This isn't the first time I'm hearing stuff of this kind.
> 
> How many people here think that buildings such as Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Fatehpur Sikri etc. belong to Pakistan?



They are shared heritage of both our countries. Just like Makka and Medina are shared heritage of all the muslims of the world. Better yet call them world heritage monuments.


----------



## bronxbull

asad71 said:


> 1.Jahangir's mom was Mariam uz-Zamani, formerly Hira Kunwar a Rajput princess of Amer. Shahjahan's mom was Taj Bibi Bilqis Makani, formerly Manmati Baiji Lal Sahiba, a Rajput princess of the Jodhpur royal house. Aurangjeb's mom was Mumtaz Mahal and he did not marry any Hindu lady. Neither did his son the next emperor. The last emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar mom Lalbai, was a Rajput princess.
> 
> 2. FYI, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutoo's mom was Khursheed Begum formerly Lakhi Baia, a Bombay Hindu lady.
> 
> 3. All these ladies had converted to Islam.



and thats why they are begging in chandi chowl today,

hahahaha.

thats their aukaat. 


DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Good for them Pakistanis look down upon all indians... u dnt even want to hear the racial slurs people use for u guys here...



dude,multiple educated pakistanis ask me to buy their financial products.

do u seriously think we care about what you think?

i mean,we have been discussing stuff on this board for a year or so and you still make rookie mistakes. 


bronxbull said:


> and thats why they are begging in chandi chowl today,
> 
> hahahaha.
> 
> thats their aukaat.
> 
> dude,multiple educated pakistanis ask me to buy their financial products.
> 
> do u seriously think we care about what you think?
> 
> i mean,we have been discussing stuff on this board for a year or so and you still make rookie mistakes.



and i give 10-20 riyal extra tip to pathan cabbies and if they have an opinion on race,it is their problem and khuda doesn't love people who spit on the hand that feeds them.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

bronxbull said:


> dude,multiple educated pakistanis ask me to buy their financial products.
> 
> do u seriously think we care about what you think?




LMAO ... HAHAHA... 



> and i give 10-20 riyal extra tip to pathan cabbies and if they have an opinion on race,it is their problem and khuda doesn't love people who spit on the hand that feeds them.



Lmao.. just dont try to mess with em... u will have to get alot of tips just to pay for the treatment at a hospital...


----------



## asad71

bronxbull said:


> and thats why they are begging in chandi chowl today,
> 
> hahahaha.
> 
> thats their aukaat.
> 
> dude,multiple educated pakistanis ask me to buy their financial products.
> 
> do u seriously think we care about what you think?
> 
> i mean,we have been discussing stuff on this board for a year or so and you still make rookie mistakes.
> 
> and i give 10-20 riyal extra tip to pathan cabbies and if they have an opinion on race,it is their problem and khuda doesn't love people who spit on the hand that feeds them.


Asaf Ali,a great-grandson of Bahadur Shah, was India's first ambassador to USA and a cabinet minister also.


----------



## priti

qamar1990 said:


> my ancestors were hindu as well but im a muslim, was shah jahan a hindu? i don't see what your trying to say lol


 read the post I replied to. it says about taj mahal and says the Mughals are c. Asian. but by the time of Akbar, the Mughals were half Indians. Jahangir and shah jahan had indian mothers. so if Mughals are c.Asian they are equally indian.


----------



## bronxbull

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> LMAO ... HAHAHA...
> 
> 
> 
> Lmao.. just dont try to mess with em... u will have to get alot of tips just to pay for the treatment at a hospital...



trust me unlike silly brats like you,they are earnest people and earn the respect they deserve.

and nor do they have any power to harm anyone even in dubai.


----------



## Indian-Lion

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Good for them Pakistanis look down upon all indians... *u dnt even want to hear the racial slurs people use for u guys here...*


same here


----------



## bronxbull

asad71 said:


> Asaf Ali,a great-grandson of Bahadur Shah, was India's first ambassador to USA and a cabinet minister also.



wel; he is a self made man and nothing says he is a mughal descendant but there are many of the mughal family live in slums in kolkata regardless of the argument all mughal minars ll go at one point of time to dust


----------



## acetophenol

Religion is one's personal affair. Dragging it to be potrayed as a national identity is a disaster.
Islamic monuments or any other monuments in India are for the entire humanity,as it represents the history of mankind. India is just the responsible keeper of these valuable treasures of humanity.
I am utterly dissappointed to see threads like these,anyway these are just my humble opinions. Feel free to disagree.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Indian-Lion said:


> same here



LMAO.. chal chor yaar..


----------



## asad71

bronxbull said:


> wel; he is a self made man and nothing says he is a mughal descendant but there are many of the mughal family live in slums in kolkata regardless of the argument all mughal minars ll go at one point of time to dust


It is unfortunate you do not know about Asif Ali and Aruna Asif Ali who were stalwarts in the freedom struggle of SA.Their official CV would be available somewhere.


----------



## bronxbull

stalwarts?

they did ok. 

i know people from my village who went to INA and died.

Big deal about these 2


----------



## Baybars Han

Taj Mahal is not Indian. Its a great Turkic Legacy and Turkic Architecture.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jamwal's

There is hardly any Islamic monument in India which isn't a fusion of Persian and Hindu architecture (Rajput) ,Akbar even introduced Buddhist and Christian art.

The major difference is that,all these have beautiful calligraphy (islamic hallmark) instead of Painting and images of Hindu monuments.

Apart from calligraphy,major Islamic monuments were decorated with Jewels and pearls which is common with few Hindu temples as well.

Most of these jewels were looted with the weakening of Mughals apart being sold off by Mughals in the time of crisis.


----------



## Kashmiri Pandit

Its the legacy of those who built them . Modern day South Asians have nothing to do with it .


----------



## Gunfu

Belongs to Mughal Empire. Mughals are Muslim descendent's of Genghis Khan. Mongolians raided Islamic caliphate. But they also took with them the Quran and made 90% of the Mongol Empire Islamic. There is something called Mongol Khanates. Mongol Khanates are Islamic Mongol dynasties. Turkey are also of Mongol descent. The Turkish was originally Buddhist but converted to Islam because of Genghis Khan.

In other words. These Islamic buildings does not belong to Pakistan but they belong to Mongols. 
Mughals *[Islam mongol descendents of Ghenghis Khan]* used Chinese technology to win against India.
Here is a nice documentary about Islamic Mongol Mughals conquering India.


----------



## SQ8

The legacy of these buildings belongs to the Muslims of the subcontinent but also the direct ethnic relatives of the Mughals.

Rest is all crapola and needless ego scratching

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gunfu

Oscar said:


> The legacy of these buildings belongs to the Muslims of the subcontinent but also the direct ethnic relatives of the Mughals.
> 
> Rest is all crapola and needless ego scratching



Well they actually belongs to the Mongols. If we are indeed going that road.
And also remember Mongols conquered a lot of land and converted to Islam.
99% of the Islamic buildings in Russia, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and so on are built by Mongols. 
Secret history of Mongols. Is that Mongols converted to Islam. But nobody seems to care about this part.


*

*


----------



## SQ8

Gunfu said:


> Well they actually belongs to the Mongols. If we are indeed going that road.
> And also remember Mongols conquered a lot of land and converted to Islam.
> 99% of the Islamic buildings in Russia, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and so on are built by Mongols.
> Secret history of Mongols. Is that Mongols converted to Islam. But nobody seems to care about this part.
> 
> 
> *
> *


Actually the destruction they bought overshadows their achievements whilst under the faith of Islam

Or more appropriately, their achievements as part of the Muslim world are recorded under different names in history rather than the continuation of mongol heritage


----------



## chanakya84

Going by the logic given in the above thread, all Pakistani land belongs to India, because once upon a time that entire land belonged to hindus, before local populace was forcibly converted, mass raped.


----------



## Gunfu

Oscar said:


> Actually the destruction they bought overshadows their achievements whilst under the faith of Islam
> 
> Or more appropriately, their achievements as part of the Muslim world are recorded under different names in history rather than the continuation of mongol heritage



Yep that is true. Yuan that is Mongols are considered Chinese. This did not only apply to Islamic world but other Buddhist nations as well. And the Mughal in India are Mongols but was considered Indians.

In other words. *Assimilation* happened to the Mongols.



chanakya84 said:


> Going by the logic given in the above thread, all Pakistani land belongs to India, because once upon a time that entire land belonged to hindus, before local populace was forcibly converted, mass raped.



India started small in the beginning. Then they began to conquer neighbor tribes and nations. 
There is such thing as 100% pure Indians. Because Indians breed with many different tribes and nations that they conquered. 








And because I do not want this to become a islam vs hindu topic.
I am gonna be fair with you. The Muslims did the same as the Indians.


----------



## chanakya84

Gunfu said:


> Yep that is true. Yuan that is Mongols are considered Chinese. This did not only apply to Islamic world but other Buddhist nations as well. And the Mughal in India are Mongols but was considered Indians.
> 
> In other words. *Assimilation* happened to the Mongols.
> 
> 
> 
> India started small in the beginning. Then they began to conquer neighbor tribes and nations.
> There is such thing as 100% pure Indians. Because Indians breed with many different tribes and nations that they conquered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And because I do not want this to become a islam vs hindu topic.
> I am gonna be fair with you. The Muslims did the same as the Indians.



I totally agree with you on this. However the twisted logic since it was built by the muslims hence it belongs to Pakistan, is just a pure fascination because of the lack of individual identity. Being a pakistani is a tough job, as one cannot go back and history and relate oneself to India, the one whom they despise the most. 

Hence the reason half of the defence systems are named after the heroes from other countries and glorification of Mass Rapists and looters to get a sense of individual identification.


----------



## Gunfu

chanakya84 said:


> I totally agree with you on this. However the twisted logic since it was built by the muslims hence it belongs to Pakistan, is just a pure fascination because of the lack of individual identity. Being a pakistani is a tough job, as one cannot go back and history and relate oneself to India, the one whom they despise the most.
> 
> Hence the reason half of the defence systems are named after the heroes from other countries and glorification of Mass Rapists and looters to get a sense of individual identification.



The problem with Islamic nations today though. Is that the leaders do not educate their own citizens properly. They just like to spread propaganda to gain more power. The less educated people. The more power the leaders gain. That is why Pakistan has a lot of problems with Taliban and Al Qaeda. I mean if Pakistan can become more like *Kuwait, Jordan or Marocco*. Educate their citizens properly. This way of thinking where every thing in India belongs to Pakistan would just disappear.

And when it comes to India. India has a history of 4000 years old civil war. It was the British Empire that united India. If the British Empire never conquered India. There would be like a 7-10 different nations in India. Just look at the video I posted in the post above. And Britain supported Pakistan in creating their own nation.
And according to Britain. Britain still support Pakistan in 2016. I hope the Pakistani does not hate Britain.


----------



## chanakya84

Gunfu said:


> The problem with Islamic nations today though. Is that the leaders do not educate their own citizens properly. They just like to spread propaganda to gain more power. The less educated people. The more power the leaders gain. That is why Pakistan has a lot of problems with Taliban and Al Qaeda. I mean if Pakistan can become more like *Kuwait, Jordan or Marocco*. Educate their citizens properly. This way of thinking where every thing in India belongs to Pakistan would just disappear.
> 
> And when it comes to India. India has a history of 4000 years old civil war. It was the British Empire that united India. If the British Empire never conquered India. There would be like a 7-10 different nations in India. Just look at the video I posted in the post above. And Britain supported Pakistan in creating their own nation.
> And according to Britain. Britain still support Pakistan in 2016. I hope the Pakistani does not hate Britain.



Agreed to the point, the dilemma of the average Pakistani is their association with average Indian. They simply cannot digest the fact that once they were hindus or were part of India as a geographical entity. 
In a quest to prove that we are not Indian, they have been embracing the propaganda about invaders being the heroes. They simply cannot associate themselves with something which they themselves call evil.

Unification of India under the british rule was one of the very few positive outcomes of British rule in India. India had been weak because of the infighting between the kingdoms and India as entity had not existed since the Gupta dynasty. However geographies are not permanent.


----------



## Baybars Han

Gunfu said:


> Belongs to Mughal Empire. Mughals are Muslim descendent's of Genghis Khan. Mongolians raided Islamic caliphate. But they also took with them the Quran and made 90% of the Mongol Empire Islamic. There is something called Mongol Khanates. Mongol Khanates are Islamic Mongol dynasties. Turkey are also of Mongol descent. The Turkish was originally Buddhist but converted to Islam because of Genghis Khan.
> 
> In other words. These Islamic buildings does not belong to Pakistan but they belong to Mongols.
> Mughals *[Islam mongol descendents of Ghenghis Khan]* used Chinese technology to win against India.
> Here is a nice documentary about Islamic Mongol Mughals conquering India.



Timur and he's descendants was not mongol. He looked up to cengiz khan and wanted to be like him as a great ruler. THAT IS IT.


----------



## Gunfu

Baybars Han said:


> Timur and he's descendants was not mongol. He looked up to cengiz khan and wanted to be like him as a great ruler. THAT IS IT.



*The Timur was Mongols.*
The origin of the Timurid dynasty goes back to the Mongol tribe known as Barlas, who were remnants of the original Mongol army of Genghis Khan,founder of the Mongol Empire. After the Mongol conquest of Central Asia, the Barlas settled in what is today southern Kazakhstan, from Shymkent to Taraz and Almaty, which then came to be known for a time as _Moghulistan_ – "Land of Mongols" in Persian – and intermingled to a considerable degree with the local Turkic and Turkic-speaking population, so that at the time of Timur's reign the Barlas had become thoroughly Turkicized in terms of language and habits.

*The mongols later assimilated into Persian and Turkish culture.*
Additionally, by adopting Islam, the Central Asian Turks and Mongols adopted the Persian literary and high culture which had dominated Central Asia since the early days of Islamic influence. Persian literature was instrumental in the assimilation of the Timurid elite to the Perso-Islamic courtly culture.

*The Barlas descends from Ghenghis Khan and share his DNA.*
Barlas shared ancestry with the Borjigin, the imperial clan of Genghis Khan and his successors, and other Mongol clans.

en wikipedia org wiki Timurid_dynasty

en wikipedia org wiki Barlas

Just remember to add in *.* & */*


----------



## Baybars Han

Gunfu said:


> *The Timur was Mongols.*
> The origin of the Timurid dynasty goes back to the Mongol tribe known as Barlas, who were remnants of the original Mongol army of Genghis Khan,founder of the Mongol Empire. After the Mongol conquest of Central Asia, the Barlas settled in what is today southern Kazakhstan, from Shymkent to Taraz and Almaty, which then came to be known for a time as _Moghulistan_ – "Land of Mongols" in Persian – and intermingled to a considerable degree with the local Turkic and Turkic-speaking population, so that at the time of Timur's reign the Barlas had become thoroughly Turkicized in terms of language and habits.
> 
> *The mongols later assimilated into Persian and Turkish culture.*
> Additionally, by adopting Islam, the Central Asian Turks and Mongols adopted the Persian literary and high culture which had dominated Central Asia since the early days of Islamic influence. Persian literature was instrumental in the assimilation of the Timurid elite to the Perso-Islamic courtly culture.
> 
> *The Barlas descends from Ghenghis Khan and share his DNA.*
> Barlas shared ancestry with the Borjigin, the imperial clan of Genghis Khan and his successors, and other Mongol clans.
> 
> en wikipedia org wiki Timurid_dynasty
> 
> en wikipedia org wiki Barlas
> 
> Just remember to add in *.* & */*



Timur has no blood relationship with Mongols other than idolising Cengiz Khan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gunfu

Baybars Han said:


> Timur has no blood relationship with Mongols other than idolising Cengiz Khan.



It is because you are Turk dude. Just deny everything. That is the Turk way of life.
The Mongols assimilated into Turkish culture.
Then Mughal assimilated into Indian culture. 

There is a difference between Turkey and Ottoman turks. 
I tell you the difference.

Turkey close narrow minded.
Ottoman Turks open minded. Ottoman used Chinese technology to conquer lands.

Turks thinks they are the greatest
Ottoman Turks allied them self with Germany during World War 1.

Turkey thinks they are superior in every thing.
Ottoman Turks learns knowledge and wisdom from China and Europe.

Ottoman Turks women did not wear Hijab during the caliphate.
Turkey women wears Hijab.

I think Mr Erdogan has brain washed you to much dude. Do not follow the blind. If you are gonna learn your Ottoman heritage then do it properly. Right now you are denying and denying. Denying is not giving you wisdom, knowledge and intelligence. To learn you must stop deny. If you just deny then you are just a useless Muslim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Only TAJ MAHAL is different and special and it belongs to INDIA

That is because

1 The Marble came from India ( Makrana in Rajasthan )

2 The money for Taj mahal ie Taxes were paid by Indians

3 The labourers were mostly Indians

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Baybars Han

Taj mahal was made by a trainee of Mimar Sinan, a great architect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Baybars Han

Gunfu said:


> It is because you are Turk dude. Just deny everything. That is the Turk way of life.
> The Mongols assimilated into Turkish culture.
> Then Mughal assimilated into Indian culture.
> 
> There is a difference between Turkey and Ottoman turks.
> I tell you the difference.
> 
> Turkey close narrow minded.
> Ottoman Turks open minded. Ottoman used Chinese technology to conquer lands.
> 
> Turks thinks they are the greatest
> Ottoman Turks allied them self with Germany during World War 1.
> 
> Turkey thinks they are superior in every thing.
> Ottoman Turks learns knowledge and wisdom from China and Europe.
> 
> Ottoman Turks women did not wear Hijab during the caliphate.
> Turkey women wears Hijab.
> 
> I think Mr Erdogan has brain washed you to much dude. Do not follow the blind. If you are gonna learn your Ottoman heritage then do it properly. Right now you are denying and denying. Denying is not giving you wisdom, knowledge and intelligence. To learn you must stop deny. If you just deny then you are just a useless Muslim.


I hate Erdoğan and not all people in Turkey wear hijab which I don't care about. Secondly I'm not saying it because I'm a Turk but because I researched this matter. Timur spoke Turkish. This is not about Ottomans we are talking about Timur and South Asia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cerilchan

Bastards


----------



## heisenberg

Pakistan is the jewel of islamic Kingdom. The Harappa Civilisation- an Islamic civilisation gave birth to Islam which led to spread of science and technology, medieval architecture, trade all over the world. Not only Indian monuments but Islamic monuments all over the world belong to Pakistan. After Pakistan gets back Kashmir and Islamic Republic of India, they should claim for entire Islamic region from Europe to East Asia. The President of Pakistan should be declared the new Caliphate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cerilchan

You are dreaming


----------



## haviZsultan

These monuments belong first to muslims who can be within and outside the current bounds of Indian territory. Then these monuments belong to the people of the land who can be both hindus or muslims or someone else.


----------



## Braith

Baybars Han said:


> Timur has no blood relationship with Mongols other than idolising Cengiz Khan.


His Barlas tribe , had migrated from Mongolia to Turkestan and is mentioned to be one of the tribe of Mongols in 'secret history of Mongols'....


----------



## Kaniska

If you have any technology where you can transport all the Islamic monuments which Pakistan feel as their own, please feel free to take it away. Otherwise, we will enjoy it of being ours..


----------

