# Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?



## UnitedPak

Salaam people.

This is my first post on this forum, and I must say, I am really starting to like this place. I would like to ask Pakistanis a simple question. Why is our Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

Pakistans history starts with the Indus Valley civilisation, which is more than 5000 years old and was on par with civilisations like Egypt and Mesopotamia, it was based almost entirely in modern Pakistan, and all the major cities are in Pakistan.

Our fellow Pakistanis have totally ignored this part of our history, and given the Indians full access to steal it, and label it Indian.
I dont know what amuses me more, an Indian claiming IVC is Indian even though its not even in India, or a Pakistani ignoring this great chapter of our history because its not "Islamic".

It doesnt stop here however. There are lots of other civilisations which were based in Pakistan, and run by Pakistanis, i.e Ghandara, Kushun empire, and even Muslim empires like Mughal empires started in Pakistan, and spread into India.

So why why and why do we allow India to take credit of everything?
They talk about "Pakistan being created", like Pakistan is a baby, and Pakistanis didnt exist before 1947. This is the whole reason why Indian nationalists believe they own Pakistan.
They take it one step further and our leaders like Quid-e-Azam are officially known as "Indians", (look it up on wikipedia).

So please let me know your opinions regarding this. Pakistan has an unbelievably big history book, but we "proudly" go on about 60 years of Independence?


p.s Pakistan wasnt created in 1947, it was our Independence. Please dont promote Indian views.

Thank you for reading, I am looking forward to read your views.

W/Salaam.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## roadrunner

It is good to see you here UP. What you are saying here is really such an important part of Pakistani identity that sets Pakistan apart from any other country in the world. One word, education, in fact two, lazyness on the part of Pakistanis, a third, antipathy causes all this. Keep posting what you do, sooner or later it'll catch up with the majority of Pakistanis who can claim aspects of historical achievements of their ancestors, instead of letting the world believe it was Bharati ancestors that had a civilization as advanced as the Indus Valley, when they do not. So much of the history of the subcontinent has been falsified, somehow you need to disclose the facts in a simple enough manner that these people can absorb them. Else they just ignore it because it becomes too mentally taxing. I'd suggest posting things one at a time in real simple English to get your points across. (if you can type well in Urdu, then that's another way).


----------



## niaz

A lot of Pakistanis appreciate and are proud of their ancient heritage. It is only the mulla party and extremists who believe that our history started with Mohammad Bin Qassim. This is an extremely narrow minded attitude. This land what is now called Pakistan existed since the dawn of history. Indus valley civilization existed 3000 years ago. Gandhara flourished at the time of Kushans ( Kanishka) 2,000 years ago. 

However, if MMA and its supporters insist that they dropped in with the Arab invasion in 712 AD and their history starts from that period, they are welcome to their view point but this wont change the facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## blitz

Whoa this is hilarious !! Pakistanis is so desperate for 'respect' and 'legitimacy' that now you guys even want to steal Indian history ? haha. Piece of land does not a civilization make. A civilization is a set of traditions, set of ethics, rituals, religions, way of life, etc. 

In India the religion, traditions of ancient 'Indian' civilizations are still practiced, hence the civilizations are Indian. Pakistan was but a small part of the larger 'India'.

Pakistan gave up its claim to this civilizational inheritance the day it chose to be an 'Islamic Republic'. Pakistan has as much claim to IVC as the modern Egyptians have to the ancient Egyptian civilization i.e. nil, nada, zilch. Pakistan is an offshoot of Arabic civilization now. The sooner you accept it, the less heartburn shall you suffer.

Otherwise you are welcome to wage your 'jihad' against world history. I don't think the prospects of success are too bright though.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## UnitedPak

Nice to see people that know of Pakistans history.

Indians promote a very simple version of history to feel more secure about themselves. Their story shows that only 3 countries existed in "ancient times", and that was Persia, India and China. This is a very bs view since China and India were never United like today. The region of Pakistan has been independent from India for 95&#37; of the time. And India itself was never one country, apart from Ashokas rule which lasted an "amazing" 30 years.

The region of Pakistan, (lets call it Indus Valley), was part of Persia, while India was not, it was also the only part invaded in the so called "Alexanders Invasion of India".
Only Pakistans Punjab was invaded, so Porus Kingdom is Pakistani, and not Indian.
And during the Afghan empire, Pakistan and India had a border between them, which was amazingly similar to the modern border we have today.

As for Pakistans history starting with the Arab general, that would be a start, but Indian dominated text books usually ignore the 2 nation theory. They seem to think "India" is another word for South Asia.
They are too busy promoting that Pakistanis and Indians are the "same people", which once again doesnt make sense. Punjab is the only shared state we have with them, and Punjabi Muslims and Sikhs have not mixed for centuries, so are different from each other as it is.

Hopefully we can do something about it. I am tired of all this propaganda out there. Western Media might be keen on promoting this so called Booming India, but distorting history should not be allowed.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## UnitedPak

blitz said:


> Whoa this is hilarious !! Pakistanis is so desperate for 'respect' and 'legitimacy' that now you guys even want to steal Indian history ? haha. Piece of land does not a civilization make. A civilization is a set of traditions, set of ethics, rituals, religions, way of life, etc.
> 
> In India the religion, traditions of ancient 'Indian' civilizations are still practiced, hence the civilizations are Indian. Pakistan was but a small part of the larger 'India'.
> 
> Pakistan gave up its claim to this civilizational inheritance the day it chose to be an 'Islamic Republic'. Pakistan has as much claim to IVC as the modern Egyptians have to the ancient Egyptian civilization i.e. nil, nada, zilch. Pakistan is an offshoot of Arabic civilization now. The sooner you accept it, the less heartburn shall you suffer.
> 
> Otherwise you are welcome to wage your 'jihad' against world history. I don't think the prospects of success are too bright though.



A very typical narrow minded Indian reply.

What you cant seem to understand is that simply because Pakistanis converted to Islam doesnt make their ancestors Indian.
You seem to think Pakistani genes changed when they converted to Islam?

Islam is a way of thinking and living, doesnt change who Pakistanis used to be.

You have a very limited view if you ask me. But what to expect from a bunch of phoney people with nothing better to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## blitz

There is a reason why Pakistan i said to lie within the "Indian Sub-continent". Need i say more ?


----------



## blitz

UnitedPak said:


> A very typical narrow minded Indian reply.
> 
> What you cant seem to understand is that simply because Pakistanis converted to Islam doesnt make their ancestors Indian.
> You seem to think Pakistani genes changed when they converted to Islam?
> 
> Islam is a way of thinking and living, doesnt change who Pakistanis used to be.
> 
> You have a very limited view if you ask me. But what to expect from a bunch of phoney people with nothing better to do.



Of course i am narrow minded and moronic with nothing better to do. You on the other hand seem very wide minded, brilliant and with much better things to do. So i suggest you continue with your 'jihad' against history to satisfy your ego. Really doesn't change things one bit either way.


----------



## blitz

"Islam is a way of thinking and living."

Civilization is also a way of thinking and living. Hence the term, 'Islamic civilization'.


----------



## roadrunner

blitz said:


> you guys even want to steal Indian history ? haha.



What "Indian" (in this case Bharati) history would Pakistanis be stealing by claiming the Indus Valley Civilization/ Gandhara as their own? 



> Piece of land does not a civilization make. A civilization is a set of traditions, set of ethics, rituals, religions, way of life, etc.



Nonsense. A civilization is specific to a certain time. Indus Valley was advanced for its time. Current Bharat can copy them (Hinduism is not the same as the religion of the Indus Valley civilization), but Bharat or Bharatis played no part in the inventions, or the development or the thinking/creativity of the Indus Valley Civilization or Gandhara. 



> In India the religion, traditions of ancient 'Indian' civilizations are still practiced, hence the civilizations are Indian. Pakistan was but a small part of the larger 'India'.



Oh please! If America starts following an Asian culture, Asia does not become "American", rather America will adopt an Asian culture. This is what might have happened in India/Bharat. The Bharatis have adopted an ancient Pakistani culture..this does not make the ancient cultures Indian. What has happened is more sinister. India/Bharat has stolen the name India from the ancient Vedic people of Pakistan, and tried to steal its history in the process. It's only a matter of time before this is rectified, since your arguments lack logic. 



> Pakistan gave up its claim to this civilizational inheritance the day it chose to be an 'Islamic Republic'.



Not sure I understand this. The people of the civilization were ancestors of modern Pakistanis, the civilizations existed within modern day Pakistan. This makes the historically Pakistani civilizations. 



> Pakistan has as much claim to IVC as the modern Egyptians have to the ancient Egyptian civilization i.e. nil, nada, zilch. Pakistan is an offshoot of Arabic civilization now. The sooner you accept it, the less heartburn shall you suffer.



Islam isn't a civilization you know. How are the ancient Egyptian civilizations not Egyptian? Who do they not belong to, if not modern day Egyptians? Do not be absurd. 



> Otherwise you are welcome to wage your 'jihad' against world history. I don't think the prospects of success are too bright though.



Prospects are very bright. Everyday I see new websites popping up about it, and even clarifications from international authors in the field to mention Pakistan specifically.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## UnitedPak

blitz said:


> Of course i am narrow minded and moronic with nothing better to do. You on the other hand seem very wide minded, brilliant and with much better things to do. So i suggest you continue with your 'jihad' against history to satisfy your ego. Really doesn't change things one bit either way.



Of all the people, an Indian goes on a rant about Jihad. No Pakistani in this thread so far has brought Islam into the discussion. You are the one in denial, and you just proved you barely understand the history of Pakistan.



> *"Pakistan gave up its claim to this civilizational inheritance the day it chose to be an 'Islamic Republic'."*


So by your argument, if you converted to Islam right now, your parents wont be related to you anymore???

I know the media is biased against Islam, but jeez, calm down on the dosage of Fox news, it really isnt good for you.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## TOPGUN

Okk enough is enough to all ur indian friends please shoe some repesct or dont come on this site lets have frendly posts and talks if you are inmatture then please dont come on this site its really dumm thaks and GOD bless Pakistan  .

Regards,
TOPGUN.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Awesome

TOPGUN said:


> Okk enough is enough to all ur indian friends please shoe some repesct or dont come on this site lets have frendly posts and talks if you are inmatture then please dont come on this site its really dumm thaks and GOD bless Pakistan  .
> 
> Regards,
> TOPGUN.


Please do not make sweeping declarations which are best left for the defence.pk staff.

Defence.pk encourages serious debate from all nationalities, ethnicities and creeds.


----------



## UnitedPak

Asim Aquil said:


> Please do not make sweeping declarations which are best left for the defence.pk staff.
> 
> Defence.pk encourages serious debate from all nationalities, ethnicities and creeds.



Totally agree with you, but Blitz has only been insulting us by name calling and going on rants about Jihad. He has had nothing intelligent to say so far.

Well, apart from believing that converting to Islam changes your parents.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## blitz

UnitedPak said:


> Totally agree with you, but Blitz has only been insulting us by name calling and going on rants about Jihad. He has had nothing intelligent to say so far.
> 
> Well, apart from believing that converting to Islam changes your parents.



Wow talk about lying through one's nose. 



UnitedPak said:


> A very *typical narrow minded Indian* reply.
> 
> What you cant seem to understand is that simply because Pakistanis converted to Islam doesnt make their ancestors Indian.
> You seem to think Pakistani genes changed when they converted to Islam?
> 
> Islam is a way of thinking and living, doesnt change who Pakistanis used to be.
> 
> *You have a very limited view if you ask me. But what to expect from a bunch of phoney people with nothing better to do*.



I suppose thats not insulting eh ? And now show us where have i insulted you or anyone else ? Isn't waging 'Jihad' supposed to be a duty for all muslims, or are you telling me that 'jihad' is a derogatory term ?

You must learn to differentiate between sarcasm and insults.


----------



## UnitedPak

blitz said:


> Wow talk about lying through one's nose.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose thats not insulting eh ? And now show us where have i insulted you or anyone else ? Isn't waging 'Jihad' supposed to be a duty for all muslims, or are you telling me that 'jihad' is a derogatory term ?
> 
> You must learn to differentiate between sarcasm and insults.



Listen smart guy, You only had one intention when you went on a rant about Jihad, and pointing out Muslim duties was not one of them.

Seriously, what are you trying to achieve here?

If you have any intelligent argument to make, then please go ahead, but refrain from making half assed replies. You are not kidding anyone.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## EagleEyes

> You must learn to differentiate between sarcasm and insults.



Perhaps you should be reminded of the forum rules again? No sarcasm please!

And also please take your jihad speeches some where else.

Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

blitz said:


> Whoa this is hilarious !! Pakistanis is so desperate for 'respect' and 'legitimacy' that now you guys even want to steal Indian history ? haha. Piece of land does not a civilization make. A civilization is a set of traditions, set of ethics, rituals, religions, way of life, etc.



What wonderful analysis - we should all go back to living in mud and thatch houses, and forsake the "necessities" (electricity, running water, etc) we have come to depend upon. 

Wait! While poverty in South Asia ensures that quite a few of its residents already live that life, even India has a "growing Middle Class of almost three hundred million" mired in the modern "way of life". So your argument essentially discredited modern India from any "right" to any history on the geographic piece of land that it is comprised of currently.



> In India the religion, traditions of ancient 'Indian' civilizations are still practiced, hence the civilizations are Indian. Pakistan was but a small part of the larger 'India'.



Did the "Indian ancients" use mobile phones and drive Ambassadors and Marutis, and go see skimpily clad women dancing on the silver screen? Pakistan was part of a "sub-continent". 

A nation called India never existed until independence in 1947 - it was flawed nomenclature used by a colonizing power.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## bhangra12345

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> What wonderful analysis - we should all go back to living in mud and thatch houses, and forsake the "necessities" (electricity, running water, etc) we have come to depend upon.
> 
> Wait! While poverty in South Asia ensures that quite a few of its residents already live that life, even India has a "growing Middle Class of almost three hundred million" mired in the modern "way of life". So your argument essentially discredited modern India from any "right" to any history on the geographic piece of land that it is comprised of currently.
> 
> Did the "Indian ancients" use mobile phones and drive Ambassadors and Marutis, and go see skimpily clad women dancing on the silver screen? Pakistan was part of a "sub-continent".
> 
> A nation called India never existed until independence in 1947 - it was flawed nomenclature used by a colonizing power.



Alexander was not from greece proper, he was from macedonia - but all his systems for greek. Do you start calling him something else other than a greek emperor, who did many great things?

A civilizations boundaries expand and contract and sometimes might even shift from the past centre of gravity. Read the history of roman civilization to read about its various contractions, expansions from time to time. This example so that you have a neutral perspective. I differentiate between the civilizational aspect, political aspect and religious aspect. this is not to say that one does not have an affect on the other. They all have interminglings with each other.
But can yet be easily differentiated. Some of the aspects of civilization are some sort of continuity and vaguely some sort of past as torch for future, some shared values and knowledge. For example, ayurveda -Indian, unani -persian. its ofcourse another matter that both India and pakistan have moved on to halopati

Akbar/Ashoka/ harsha/vikramaditya NEVER ruled the entire India. Differentiate a political entity from an civilizational entity (Ashoka came the closest). Yes, India as a political entity, got its form in 1947, but as a civilizational entity it is way back. Understand nepal and srilanka still come under this civilizational (not political, not religious) entity. The whole of SE asia *was* under the indian civilization at that time(name of indonesian airlines), but today they arent. 

whereas Pakistan is a break from the civilizational aspect. I am not talking about political, The civilizational break started with the advent of Qasim (Note I am not saying that the break happened instantly as the Pakistani textbooks proclaim). Afghanistan slid out around 4-5 centuries back. Pakistan got a huge break in 1947 due to political aspect. yes, may be not 100&#37; civilizational aspect but around 99% which for me is good enough from that aspect to be treated as a new entity.

The use of mobile phones and all modernisation all today are technological aspects, which again has its effects. I think you have heard of americanization/consumerism term, what do you think that stuff about?

Read the kingdoms of sodasa mahajanapadas (16 great kingdoms), the names and locations of kingdoms mentioned in ramayana and mahabharata to get a perspective.

In the modern age, look at the rajputs, their claims of being suryavamshis(the clan from the sun) and such, each of them had a very small political kingdom, should I/you start calling each of the district sized political entities as different civilizations? Greece was divided in its hey days into city states each max the size of an average sized town, are they different civilizations? Answer this and you will immediately understand the difference between a political entity and a civilizational entity.

Oh! If I am not wrong, Kandahar is the modern gandhara which is part of afghanistan, which according to the logic being propounded, is now an afghan civilization.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UnitedPak

I dont know what you mean by "Indian civilisation", because where ever a term which sounds anything like "Indi", Indians seem to think they own it. 
South East asia is Indian? 
How?
Pakistan is Indian?
How?

p.s, Ghandara was a Pashtun civilisation spread from Afghanistan to most of North Pakistan, pretty much how Pashtuns are spread out today.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

bhangra12345 said:


> The whole of SE asia *was* under the indian civilization at that time(name of indonesian airlines), but today they arent.



Oh puleazze!! What a ridiculously foolish statement! 



> whereas Pakistan is a break from the civilizational aspect. I am not talking about political, The civilizational break started with the advent of Qasim (Note I am not saying that the break happened instantly as the Pakistani textbooks proclaim). Afghanistan slid out around 4-5 centuries back. Pakistan got a huge break in 1947 due to political aspect. yes, may be not 100&#37; civilizational aspect but around 99% which for me is good enough from that aspect to be treated as a new entity.



Look, "breaks" as you call them happen in EVERY country's history. By your logic, the Teutons would not be an ancient German civilization, because they had a "break" from the Teutonic customs  Even the Gauls would not be an ancient French civilization by this masterly logic of yours!! 



> Read the kingdoms of sodasa mahajanapadas (16 great kingdoms), the names and locations of kingdoms mentioned in ramayana and mahabharata to get a perspective.



The Mahabharata is a piece of fiction, not historical fact. Do you find anyone here referring to their Holy books as a basis for history? 



> Greece was divided in its hey days into city states each max the size of an average sized town, are they different civilizations? Answer this and you will immediately understand the difference between a political entity and a civilizational entity.



Ancient Greece was not a load of different civilizations. Ancient Greece was ONE civilization. 



> Oh! If I am not wrong, Kandahar is the modern gandhara which is part of afghanistan, which according to the logic being propounded, is now an afghan civilization.



Well, you're wrong! Qandahar is a derivative of Iskandaria (Alexander). It was founded in around 300 BC, whereas Gandahara was flourishing way before in around 600 BC. Therefore the name is just a coincidence.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

UnitedPak said:


> p.s, Ghandara was a Pashtun civilisation spread from Afghanistan to most of North Pakistan, pretty much how Pashtuns are spread out today.



Ghandara was located mainly in north-west Pakistan..Peshawar I think was its centre.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bhangra12345

roadrunner said:


> Oh puleazze!! What a ridiculously foolish statement!


You need to seriously read history books. Read about Sri Vijaya empire, the chola conquests, and then search why the biggest hindu temples in the world are where they are?(Hint: they are in south east asia). and then probably you will probably understand what was foolish and what was not.


> Look, "breaks" as you call them happen in EVERY country's history. By your logic, the Teutons would not be an ancient German civilization, because they had a "break" from the Teutonic customs  Even the Gauls would not be an ancient French civilization by this masterly logic of yours!!


As a geographical entity yes, but civilizational no. Are you by any chance saying that todays french are part of gaulic civilization?



> The Mahabharata is a piece of fiction, not historical fact. Do you find anyone here referring to their Holy books as a basis for history?


read about the 16 great kingdoms- not from epics but from history also


> Ancient Greece was not a load of different civilizations. Ancient Greece was ONE civilization.


So you agree that political entities are different from civilizational entities, good.


> Well, you're wrong! Qandahar is a derivative of Iskandaria (Alexander). It was founded in around 300 BC, whereas Gandahara was flourishing way before in around 600 BC. Therefore the name is just a coincidence.



might be not, many historians seem to have other ideas.

read paragraph 15 in the below link
"a book link"


How many years do you the greeks ruled afghanistan? not even 15 years. Alexander conquered around 324 bc and then Darius became king and was almost immediately expelled by chandra gupta mourya around 315 or something like that

Chandragupta Maurya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

bhangra12345 said:


> You need to seriously read history books. Read about Sri Vijaya empire, the chola conquests, and then search why the biggest hindu temples in the world are where they are?(Hint: they are in south east asia). and then probably you will probably understand what was foolish and what was not.



*There is no such thing as an "Indian civilization"*. Whilst South East Asia is something unrelated and I don't know much of, there is at least as much Buddhist influence in the region as Hindu influence (in fact more when you consider places like Burma and Cambodia etc). Buddhism might have spread to these countries from Pakistan (silk routes), Sri Lanka, but it was through traders and not through conquests. You original line "The whole of SE Asia was under the Indian civilization" is still just a pompous meandering of a person wishing desperately he was the epicentre of all civilization. SE Asia has never been "under the Indian civilization". SE Asia only adopted a Buddhist/Hindu culture, and if you look at SE Asia today, they have all *discarded* their Hindu (in fact it was never Hindu, but discuss elsewhere) culture and kept their Buddhist identity. But there is no such thing as an "Indian civilization"



> As a geographical entity yes, but civilizational no. Are you by any chance saying that todays french are part of gaulic civilization?




The French are descendants of the Gaulic civilization, not a part of that civilization. 
The Pakistanis are descendant of the Indus Valley civilization/Gandhara, not a part of it. 
Today's India is not a part of the Indus Valley civilization/Gandhara, because that civilization does not exist anymore. 



> read about the 16 great kingdoms- not from epics but from history also



Sojasa Muhajanpadas WAS an Indian (Bharati) kingdom. You do not see Pakistanis trying to claim it. Why is it that people like you claim the Ancient Pakistani civilizations? 

You are welcome to Sojasa Muhajanapadas! I don't consider it a great kingdom at all. 



> So you agree that political entities are different from civilizational entities, good.



Dude, Ancient Greece was ONE civilization. Whether the politics of the time meant that different areas had different politics on a provincial scale is IRRELEVANT. That has always been my point. 



> might be not, many historians seem to have other ideas.
> 
> read paragraph 15 in the below link
> "a book link"
> 
> 
> How many years do you the greeks ruled afghanistan? not even 15 years. Alexander conquered around 324 bc and then Darius became king and was almost immediately expelled by chandra gupta mourya around 315 or something like that
> 
> Chandragupta Maurya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It's a known fact Alexander established many cities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Your wiki link is irrelevant. You obviously have no idea of timescales. Gandhara was FLOURISHING in 500 BC when Qandahar had not even been established. Every single map places Gandara at a different location, except for your mind it seems!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bhangra12345

> It's a known fact Alexander established many cities in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


Do you even know how much work and most importantly time it takes to establish MANY cities? Do you know how many years Alexander was in India? Ah! forget it, who am I trying to explain logic to?

P.S: buddha was also an "Indian".


----------



## roadrunner

bhangra12345 said:


> Do you even know how much work and most importantly time it takes to establish MANY cities? Do you know how many years Alexander was in India? Ah! forget it, who am I trying to explain logic to?



Alexander did NOT step foot in today's India (Bharat), nor did he establish a single city in Bharat. There are hundreds of credited links that prove he established cities in Pakistan (like Uch) and Afghanistan (like Qandahar). 



> P.S: buddha was also an "Indian".



He was Nepalese actually

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

bhangra12345 said:


> Do you even know how much work and most importantly time it takes to establish MANY cities? Do you know how many years Alexander was in India? Ah! forget it, who am I trying to explain logic to?
> 
> P.S: buddha was also an "Indian".




Alexander never set his foot in "India".

And what exactly defines these so called "Ancient Indians"??? What makes south east asians "Indian"?
You have an agenda of linking the modern population of India with everything from Afghanistan to South east asia. It doesnt make sense, thats why Pakistan and South East Asia are not Indian. They have nothing to do with you consider as "Indian".

I know what you mean by "Indian civilisation"; and I can tell you right now that its a disgusting abuse of the origin of the term "India". Why do you stop here though? West Indies, American Indians, Indonesia gained their names by exact same way as India.

History is not linked to the name, its linked to the people and their descendants.

Consider this, If Germany changes its name to "Europe", can Germans claim the history of the entire Europe?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## niaz

I have seeen an interesting debate about what Pakistan and India constitute.

Let us first understand that it is the land that matters, not the name. For example today's Afghanistan did not exist as Afghanistan until Ahmad Shah Abdali. Does this mean that the country didnt exist??. It was just called by a different name; it was a part of Khurasaan. Ghaznavid's were kings of Iran even though capital was in todays Afghanistan. Khwarizm Shahs were Kings of Iran with their capital near modern day Khiva.

My point is that it is incorrect to say that ancient history belongs to India not Pakistan. I have no hesitation to admit that what is called Pakistan today was called India in ancient times. As a matter of fact India should not be called India at all. It should be called by its correct name " Bharat". 

One Hon Member has mentioned the Gandhara was a Pashtun civilization. Regret to disagree. Pashtun is a relatively new language related to Kurdish language among others. Gandhara civilization was at its peak during the Kushan times. The language used was Pali and Khoroshti, even though later Greek script was adopted. If any Pashtoon is any doubt, kindly look at the Kushaan coinage at the Taxila museum, there is no similarity with Pashto or Pakhto at all. This is however correct that a large area of what comes under Gandhara is now inahabited by the Pashto speaking people.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

niaz said:


> Pashtun is a relatively new language related to Kurdish language among others.



No, no, no. Pashto (not Pashtun) is completely unrelated to the Kurdish language. You are thinking of Baloch. Pashto falls into the East Iranic language grouping (same as Ossetic and some extinct languages), Kurdish is a (North)-western Iranic language (again to others reading, don't confuse the words such as "Iranic" with modern day Iran). 

Pashto is not relatively new compared with others. Most modern day languages have all evolved from some language or other, so though Pashto is relatively new, it's evolution can be traced back, as with lots of other languages. 



> Gandhara civilization was at its peak during the Kushan times. The language used was Pali and Khoroshti, even though later Greek script was adopted.



Khoroshti is a script, and Pali is a form of Prakrit that was spoken by common people of Gandhara, the elite were speaking Sanskrit. Prakrit is known as the common vernacular that contributes to several Pakistani languages, including Pashto. The Prakrit in Pashto is well documented. Pali was described as.. This language (Gankovsky), was probably made up of elements from the languages of the 'local pre-Indo-European population and Indo-Aryan tribes, as well as the Dardic and *East-Iranian ethnic elements'*. The Dardic elements would come from the Kashmiri side, the East Iranic elements would be from the Pashto side. Populations do not change in the way you're insinuating. 

Take it from science that the language of the Gandharans was a mix of Sanskrit and Aramaic 

It was influenced by the Gandharan language, which was based on India's (not Bharat's) Sanskrit and on Aramaic, brought from the west by the Achaemenid Empire 
(you'll need a subscription to read this Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In )




> If any Pashtoon is any doubt, kindly look at the Kushaan coinage at the Taxila museum, there is no similarity with Pashto or Pakhto at all. This is however correct that a large area of what comes under Gandhara is now inahabited by the Pashto speaking people.



Dude, please. The coinage of the Kushans would not have language similarities to anything in the subcontinent or central asia today, including Pashto. It's simply that languages have evolved since the times of Gandhara. Whether Pashtuns were behind the Gandhara civilization (and I would say the ancestors of modern Pashtuns were), or whether they were behind the Bactrian civilization is speculation, but coming to such a bold declaration that "If any Pashtoon is any doubt" is a nonsense conclusion.


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

What about DNA results? Were ancient people tamils?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sajan

shan said:


> What about DNA results? Were ancient people tamils?


Actually the Indus valley civilization belongs to the Dravidan people.. thats the present South Indians. The Survival of Brahui; a Dravidian language, spoken even today by large numbers of people in Baluchistan and the adjoining areas in Afghanistan and Iran, is an important factor in the identification of the Indus Civilization as Dravidian. Brahui belongs linguistically to the North Dravidian group with several shared innovations with Kurukh and Malto; no dialectal features connect it with the South or Central Dravidian languages. So Brahui represents the remnants of the Dravidian language spoken in the area by the descendants of the Harappan population.

Dravidian languages - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase


----------



## UnitedPak

sajan said:


> Actually the Indus valley civilization belongs to the Dravidan people.. thats the present South Indians. The Survival of Brahui; a Dravidian language, spoken even today by large numbers of people in Baluchistan and the adjoining areas in Afghanistan and Iran, is an important factor in the identification of the Indus Civilization as Dravidian. Brahui belongs linguistically to the North Dravidian group with several shared innovations with Kurukh and Malto; no dialectal features connect it with the South or Central Dravidian languages. So Brahui represents the remnants of the Dravidian language spoken in the area by the descendants of the Harappan population.
> 
> Dravidian languages - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase



No western historian has accepted that wishful theory, obviously made in India. This theory is so ridiculous that its not even funny.

You pick Brahui, compare it with Tamil, and see similarities, and then you reach a totally random conclusion that IVC were Dravidian?
I honestly dont see how that works, there is a huge gap in that theory, number one being, what did the Brahui have to do with IVC?
Even if the Brahui were "related" to tamils, you seem to have made up every part in between.

Lets for the sake of argument say that the Brahui are descendants of the IVC- Okay...Full stop, you have your answer, why pull the Dravidian in this theory again?

I suppose you also have a theory explaining why the IVC people abruptly stopped building huge cities when they entered India?
*Why not for once look at evidence and accept that proof of IVCs existence lies in the cities, and if there are no cities, there were no IVC people there*, so please do let me know what on earth makes the Tamils descendants of IVC.

In case you cant let me tell you. All the Pro Indian theories appeared mysteriously after 1947, go figure.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

sajan said:


> Actually the Indus valley civilization belongs to the Dravidan people.. thats the present South Indians. The Survival of Brahui; a Dravidian language, spoken even today by large numbers of people in Baluchistan and the adjoining areas in Afghanistan and Iran, is an important factor in the identification of the Indus Civilization as Dravidian. Brahui belongs linguistically to the North Dravidian group with several shared innovations with Kurukh and Malto; no dialectal features connect it with the South or Central Dravidian languages. So Brahui represents the remnants of the Dravidian language spoken in the area by the descendants of the Harappan population.
> 
> Dravidian languages - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase



Your argument here is purely a language-based one. IMO, it's nonsensical at best. Languages do not remain stuck on people. One example that even you might understand is Sanskrit. Who speaks it now? Noone does. Yet a group of people in history did speak Sanskrit (the Gandarans for example). These Sanskrit speaking Gandarans then adopted another language (the languages of Northern Pakistan), and Sanskrit was no more in the region. However, the descendants of these Sanskrit-speaking Gandarans did not disappear. They did not even relocate or migrate. They remained stuck in the same area and became various people of Northern Pakistan. This is much the same as what has happened with the Brahui speakers of Balochistan. They have just adopted a language at some time or other, but this does not make them related to Dravidian people genetically, just as speaking an Iranic language does not make Pashtuns Iranian/Persian people genetically. 

There is a theory (known as the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis), which explains how the Brahui came to have a Dravidian tongue. In this theory, Brahui is a derivation of Elamite from Western Iran. It sounds the most likely explanation, as that area of Balochistan was under the Archemid Empire and various others for quite a while. 

Finally compare pictures of Brahui today, and of Tamils. There's very little resemblance in build or in physical features..They're not the same people genetically for sure. This is the strongest evidence that the Tamils never were in the Pakistan region, and never contributed to the IVC (some Dravidian influence was there, but not much). If they were, there would be a lot of Tamil looking people in Pakistan today. Not to mention that many skulls of non-Dravidian origin have been found in Harrappa and Mohen-jendaro. 

A Brahui boy






Some South Indians 


Would you say these two "Dravidian speakers" are racially the same? If not, then how do you come to the conclusion that the IVC was a Dravidian civilization, since your theory is based on the Brahui being a Tamil people (and this based on them speaking a similar language classification!).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

sajan said:


> Actually the Indus valley civilization belongs to the Dravidan people.. thats the present South Indians. The Survival of Brahui; a Dravidian language, spoken even today by large numbers of people in Baluchistan and the adjoining areas in Afghanistan and Iran, is an important factor in the identification of the Indus Civilization as Dravidian. Brahui belongs linguistically to the North Dravidian group with several shared innovations with Kurukh and Malto; no dialectal features connect it with the South or Central Dravidian languages. So Brahui represents the remnants of the Dravidian language spoken in the area by the descendants of the Harappan population.
> 
> Dravidian languages - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase



I was asking about DNA results if they have done that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

shan said:


> I was asking about DNA results if they have done that.



I don't understand what you're asking. You want to know if DNA tests have been done that show ancient people of Pakistan were Tamils? In that case no. Skull sizes have been measured though, and the DNA of today's Pak people have been investigated a bit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shabaz Sharif

roadrunner said:


> I don't understand what you're asking. You want to know if DNA tests have been done that show ancient people of Pakistan were Tamils? In that case no. Skull sizes have been measured though, and the DNA of today's Pak people have been investigated a bit.



So why the hell Indians can't accept the fact that Indus vally people were not tamils?  Don't they have their own history to be proud of? Or does they love to steal history of every country?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

shan said:


> So why the hell Indians can't accept the fact that Indus vally people were not tamils?  Don't they have their own history to be proud of? Or does they love to steal history of every country?



Indus Valley is the oldest civilisation in South Asia. For nationalistic purposes they want to link it with Hinduism, and since the Tamil theory is the only one which allows Pakistanis to be excluded altogether they went for it.

They have a history to be proud of, but the oldest and advanced civilisations were based in Pakistan, and they are desperately trying to tell the world that Pakistanis are not related to their own ancestors, and Indians are behind everything that happened in South Asia.

Its a very strange mindset where they seem to think they own the entire subcontinent, even though their ancestors never had anything to do with the region of Pakistan. 

In simple words, they dont recognise the distinct identity of the Pakistani people, but seem to think that 1.6 billion people are the same, "the same" being Indian.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## roadrunner

UnitedPak said:


> They have a history to be proud of, but the oldest and advanced civilisations were based in Pakistan, and they are desperately trying to tell the world that Pakistanis are not related to their own ancestors, and Indians are behind everything that happened in South Asia.



Generally what you find is that all the internationally renowned history of South Asia occurred in Pakistan land area. However it comes under the banner of "Indian" (due to a misnaming of the subcontinent at partition), and Indians use this to leech away on Pakistan's history. The outside world and the Bharatis themselves didn't record much of their own history except in the Mahabharata, but that was fairly recent, *so basically they don't really have any history*. Pakistan would not have had much of a history either, had it not been for the Vedic people of Pakistan, and the Greeks (who weren't very good with facts, but noted some down). It's wrong to leech the history of another country, because there's none of note in your own.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## roadrunner

shan said:


> So why the hell Indians can't accept the fact that Indus vally people were not tamils?  Don't they have their own history to be proud of? Or does they love to steal history of every country?



I think they love to steal the history of Pakistan, because Pakistan has genuine history. They don't have much of note it seems.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## EagleEyes

RR,

What about the Aryan guys?? Those Hanuman hero, and monkeys? Which I believe Indian call them gods. Aren't they part of the now (India) history? Thats all of what i can think of, other than the recent british time history.

Sorry for the arrogance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sajan

roadrunner said:


> I think they love to steal the history of Pakistan, because Pakistan has genuine history. They don't have much of note it seems.


The present day Pakistans history is based on the arrival of muslims from the middle east and nothing to do with the Indus valley civilization. But the tradition and culture which was praticed in Indus civilization is still praticed in some part of South India especially Tamil nadu.

Different views are expressed in the world of research on Indus Valley Civilization. Some say it is of the Aryans while others opine that it is of the Dravidians.If Indus Valley Civilzation is of the Aryans, mother goddess worship that plays an important role in the Indus Valley Civilization should be described in the Vedas. But in the Vedas only minor female deities are mentioned. The Indus Valley deities normally have horns, whereas the deities of the Vedas are not portrayed with horns. Sivalinkas which are found in the Indus Valley Civilization is later on degraded in the Vedas.If you look to the Tamil culture, they still workship mother godess than male gods. 

The Vedas describe the wheels of the Chariots with spokes, but the wheels that are seen on the seals and vehicles of clay in Indus valley do not have wheels with spokes.Archaeological evidence shows that the Indus Valley culture moved from west to east, with sites towards central and southern India flourishing after Harappa and Mohenjo-daro had declined.Apart from Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, Ropar in Punjab,Lothal in Gujarat and Kalibangan in Rajasthan is a part of Indus valley civilization. Madurai,the ancient capital of the Pandya Kingdom of the south have evidence that connecting Indus valley.

The Tamils have legends that their ancient history extends up to about ten thousand years, sea swallowing up their lands twice and kings establishing new capitals and fostering Tamil in three successive academies. The legend is first mentioned in the commentary of kalavijal, which is assigned to about 8th century AD.


----------



## UnitedPak

Indus Valley sites are not found in South India, or anywhere in India for that matter. Indians would call anything an Indus valley site. Cities like Harappa and Mohenjo Daro are Indus valley which is recognisable by their architecture. Unlike the so called "Indus valley" sites in west India, which is usually a brick wall and nothing more. As for South India, nothing there what so ever.
If the people of IVC moved from West to East, shouldnt they have improved their building, but evidence suggested they didnt bother building anything as they moved east?

As for traditions. Nobody knows what the IVC people did. Their language has never been deciphered. How Indians seem to know what the IVC people had for breakfast is beyond me. But even if the Indians did practise IVC traditions, that doesnt make them IVC descendants.
If I started practising Chinese customs, that doesnt make me Chinese. or does it?

And most of your evidence is based on pretty much nothing. Carvings? I dont understand, whats your point? Egyptians made Carvings, are they Indian too? Carvings of wheels is hardly concrete proof which makes Tamils the descendants of IVC. 

You dont seem to appreciate the time difference here. The Tamil history you speak of, is no where near as old as the IVC. IVC is 5000 years plus. The cities you speak of are just over 1000 years.

But why do Indians insist on ignoring the population of Pakistan? Which ever theory you present, it usually involves everyone moving out of the Pakistan region and in to India. Pakistanis seem to have magically come out of no where in 1947. What is that about?
Pretty much every Indian peoples claim to have originated from IV.

I dont doubt Tamil history, but I doubt any claims which link Indians to the Pakistan region. Unless of course you can explain the origin of the Pakistani people before ranting about how the ancient people of Pakistan made a habit of mass migrating to India.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## roadrunner

WebMaster said:


> RR,
> 
> What about the Aryan guys?? Those Hanuman hero, and monkeys? Which I believe Indian call them gods. Aren't they part of the now (India) history? Thats all of what i can think of, other than the recent british time history.
> 
> Sorry for the arrogance.



Good example of the Bharati method of leeching Pak history. It is centuries old which they've managed to perfect. Let me summarize how this Aryan/Hanuman/Aryan monkeys and rats came into being. 

There was a time of pure Vedism which occurred in Pakistan in around 1500 BC to 500 BC or somewhere around this time. These people were known as Vedic Aryans (they called themselves this in fact). One or two Vedic Aryan tribes then migrated from Pakistan to Bharat (which I'm sure they regret now), and introduced the Vedic religion to the Dravidian people inhabiting the country. At first the Dravidians worshipped the Aryans, but then they overthrew this rule, but not after the varna (caste system) had been entrenched in Bharat society. Now over the centuries, the Dravids in India gradually changed the Vedic religion of Pakistan, by adding blue eyed Aryan monkeys and representing the Dravidian Gods (none of whom were a part of Vedic Pakistani religion) as blue beings. This is how Hanuman became an "Aryan being" (it's a Bharati addition). The Vedic religion has many differences with today's Hinduism, they're completely different religions. 

My belief is that some Aryans did move into Pakistan some to Afghanistan, one or two tribes might have made their way to Northwestern India, but these tribes became overrun by Dravidians and have gradually become Dravidianized so that they are unrecognizable. Also I think the same happened with Iran, in that one or two of the Aryan tribes migrated from Afghanistan to Iran (Zoroaster and his followers) and set up Zoroastrianism there. There's fairly good evidence imo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

sajan said:


> Different views are expressed in the world of research on Indus Valley Civilization. Some say it is of the Aryans while others opine that it is of the Dravidians.If Indus Valley Civilzation is of the Aryans, mother goddess worship that plays an important role in the Indus Valley Civilization should be described in the Vedas. But in the Vedas only minor female deities are mentioned.



Nonsense. The Vedas were written AFTER the Indus Valley Civilization finished. The religion of the IVC is unknown. So why are you looking into the Vedas for IVC culture? 



> The Indus Valley deities normally have horns, whereas the deities of the Vedas are not portrayed with horns. Sivalinkas which are found in the Indus Valley Civilization is later on degraded in the Vedas.If you look to the Tamil culture, they still workship mother godess than male gods.
> 
> The Vedas describe the wheels of the Chariots with spokes, but the wheels that are seen on the seals and vehicles of clay in Indus valley do not have wheels with spokes.



This is all nonsense copied from Jattworld by some equally illiterate historian who doesnt know anything about Indus Valley chronology. 



> Archaeological evidence shows that the Indus Valley culture moved from west to east, with sites towards central and southern India flourishing after Harappa and Mohenjo-daro had declined.Apart from Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, Ropar in Punjab,Lothal in Gujarat and Kalibangan in Rajasthan is a part of Indus valley civilization. Madurai,the ancient capital of the Pandya Kingdom of the south have evidence that connecting Indus valley.



A couple of IVC sites exist in the extreme Northwest of India (Bharat), but then so do some IVC sites exist in the extreme East of Afghanistan, and some more in the extreme East of Iran. The IVC was centred on Pakistan though, and Bharat can at best claim it was a small part of the IVC, just like Afghanistan can also claim. But I don't see Afghanistan trying to leech all the inventions of the IVC. 



> The Tamils have legends that their ancient history extends up to about ten thousand years, sea swallowing up their lands twice and kings establishing new capitals and fostering Tamil in three successive academies. The legend is first mentioned in the commentary of kalavijal, which is assigned to about 8th century AD.



What factual creditability does the "Kalavijal" have? If I wrote a book saying that a shark bit a bit of India off and Sri Lanka was formed, calling it the "kalavijal II", would you believe it?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sajan

roadrunner said:


> What factual creditability does the "Kalavijal" have? If I wrote a book saying that a shark bit a bit of India off and Sri Lanka was formed, calling it the "kalavijal II", would you believe it?


Mate.. you are asking what factual credibility does "kalavijal" have..
Then let me ask you what credibility does all the religious texts have which is followed by the world today. So does that mean that all are fools...?


----------



## roadrunner

sajan said:


> Mate.. you are asking what factual credibility does "kalavijal" have..
> Then let me ask you what credibility does all the religious texts have which is followed by the world today. So does that mean that all are fools...?



Religious texts are a source of reference, but they aren't necessarily factual. You have flying apes in the Mahabharata, would you say these are accurate? Some texts are more accurate than others, the Vedas seem written by reasonably sane people. Some are more mythological than others. However, you cannot just say that a Holy book is fact. A fact needs some evidence behind it. If that evidence is a Holy book alone, then it's not enough to be a fact..just a belief

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

UnitedPak said:


> Unlike the so called "Indus valley" sites in west India, which is usually a brick wall and nothing more. As for South India, nothing there what so ever.



This is also true. I think that some of these sites in Northwestern India are nothing more than invented and were never part of the IVC. There is a desperation on the part of Indians (Bharatis) to be a part of the IVC, so much that they make up things. 

HORSEPLAY IN HARAPPA


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

RR and United pak,

Perhaps, if you and others ever have time, you could contribute with articles, links to publications, references and your own posts/comments, that detail and defend this rich history of ours.

It could be an excellent source of reference and information for members and visitors to the site. Perhaps we can get some history institutions/academics from Pakistan involved- unless of course such a source of information already exists.

Defending our history is just as important as defending our borders.

The bigger battle will be introducing pre-islamic history into our schools. the new curriculum being proposed is supposed to be more balanced, but I am not sure how much emphasis pre-Islamic history is going got have.



> A study by Nayyar & Salim concluded in 2003 that there is an increasing trend where children are taught Pakistan Studies as a replacement for the teaching of history and geography as full fledged disciplines. Previously, children were taught the very early pre-Islamic history of South Asia and its contribution to rich cultural diversity of modern-day Pakistan.This long historical perspective of Pakistan is absent these Pakistan Studies textbooks. Instead, children are now taught that the history of Pakistan starts from the day the first Muslim set foot in India. The study reported that the textbooks also had a lot of gender-biased stereotypes and other perspectives that "encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards fellow Pakistanis and other nations, especially against religious minorities, as well as the omission of concepts ... that could encourage critical self awareness among students&#8221;.


http://www.sdpi.org/whats_new/reporton/State&#37;20of Curr&TextBooks.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Seems like pre-Islam history will continue to get short rift in our textbooks, though there will be some welcome changes in other aspects:



> *School curriculum &#8216;enlightened&#8217;; Two-Nation Theory explained:*
> 
> &#8216;Muslim deprivation, not religion, led to Partition&#8217;
> 
> * New Pak Studies syllabus &#8216;eliminates prejudice against non-Muslims&#8217;
> * Includes concept of &#8216;enlightened moderation&#8217;, economic and privatisation policies, October 1999 coup
> 
> By Irfan Ghauri
> 
> ISLAMABAD: The government has made drastic changes in the new Pakistan Studies curriculum, including new chapters on the Musharraf government&#8217;s economic and privatisation policies and &#8220;enlightened moderation&#8221;, and less biased explanations of the Two-Nation Theory and Partition.
> 
> The new National Curriculum for Pakistan Studies for grades IX and X explains the Two-Nation Theory and Pakistan&#8217;s ideology &#8220;with specific reference to the economic and social deprivation of Muslims in India,&#8221; an official involved with the formulation of the curriculum told Daily Times.
> 
> &#8220;An effort has been made to exclude all such material that promotes prejudice against the non-Muslims of pre-partition India,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Pakistan&#8217;s ideology has been explained with reference to the pronouncements of Allama Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam,&#8221; he added.
> 
> The final draft of the new curriculum has been finalised and it is being sent to the provinces, which will print text books in accordance with this curriculum, sources in the Education Ministry told Daily Times on Wednesday. The final draft includes amendments made by the provinces to an earlier draft prepared by the national curricula committee, the sources said.
> 
> The new curriculum will be implemented from the next academic year (2007).
> 
> The new textbooks will cover the topics of the ideological basis of Pakistan, creation of Pakistan, land and environment, brief history of Pakistan, Pakistan in world affairs, economic development, population, society and culture.
> 
> Pakistan&#8217;s pre-Partition history includes discussion of the Pakistan movement (1940-47), Pakistan Resolution (1940), Cripps Mission (1942), Jinnah-Ghandi Talks (1944), Simla Conference (1945), General Elections (1945-46), Muslim League Legislators&#8217; Convention (1946), Cabinet Mission Plan (1946), Interim Government (1946-47), 3rd June Plan (1947), Partition and the creation of Pakistan (1947).
> 
> The post-Partition history of Pakistan is covered in two sections. The first includes consolidation of the state and search for a constitution (1947-58), early problems, Objectives Resolution, accession of the states and tribal areas, 1956 constitution, the Ayub Khan era (1958-1969), Yahya Khan regime (1969-71), legal framework order and the elections of 1970, events in the aftermath of the elections, and the secession of East Pakistan.
> 
> The next section starts with the ZA Bhutto era (1971-77), including his economic reforms, policy of nationalisation and the 1973 constitution. It also cover the Zia era (1977-88), Islamisation, Afghan jihad and its implications, the Junejo period, the restoration of civil rule (1988-99), Benazir and Nawaz Sharif&#8217;s first and second governments, the functioning of their governments, and Pakistan&#8217;s becoming a nuclear power.
> 
> The causes of the military takeover of October 12, 1999, the devolution of power process introduced by Gen Musharraf&#8217;s government and the 2002 elections will also be covered in this section.
> 
> Special space has been given to Musharraf&#8217;s policies of enlightened moderation, privatisation and industrialisation. Also included are the economic reforms of the present government masterminded by Shaukat Aziz, first as finance minister and then prime minister.
> 
> The section on Pakistan in world affairs includes the country&#8217;s foreign policy, its relations with neighbouring countries, the USA, China, the UK, the EU, Russia and Japan, and its role in the Organisation of Islamic Countries and South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation.
> 
> The last section covers population and environment issues, education and literacy, the gender and rural-urban composition of the population, and major problems faced by society including education and healthcare. It also includes discussion of major features of Pakistan&#8217;s culture and community, regional cultures, and the origin and evolution of national and regional languages.
> 
> The minorities of Pakistan are also discussed with specific reference to Quaid-e-Azam&#8217;s speech of August 11, 1947, defining their status.


Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> RR and United pak,
> 
> Perhaps, if you and others ever have time, you could contribute with articles, links to publications, references and your own posts/comments, that detail and defend this rich history of ours.
> 
> It could be an excellent source of reference and information for members and visitors to the site. Perhaps we can get some history institutions/academics from Pakistan involved- unless of course such a source of information already exists.
> 
> Defending our history is just as important as defending our borders.



Very true! 



> The bigger battle will be introducing pre-islamic history into our schools. the new curriculum being proposed is supposed to be more balanced, but I am not sure how much emphasis pre-Islamic history is going got have.



That is a problem. Religion and politics dont mix, religion and history dont mix either. Just teach history as it occurred. Forget the brainwashers (Mullahs) who want only parts of history taught. A more tolerant society would come about by learning about Islamic and unislamic pasts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EagleEyes

I must say, RR and UnitedPak, i am impressed with your knowledge.

Studying here in the United States made me total ignorant of the history of Pakistan.

Did you guys take courses in school and colleges related to Pakistan history? Any book you guys want to recommend?

Its good to have you guys here.

Thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bhangra12345

Pictures from Indus Valley Civilization

Indus Valley Civilization


Fig. 1. Excavation of the ruins at Mohenjo-daro, featuring the "Great Bath," a large 
structure whose central sunken area would have been filled with water.
This would have been a massive project to build and maintain.
What purpose would it have served?




Figs. 2 and 3 (above). Bust found at Mohenjo-daro. The artistry is undeniable,

but who might it be? What sort of person would warrant such artistic efforts on his behalf? 
A king? Priest? God? Hero?




Figs. 4 and 5. Seals featuring what appear to be horned, crossed-legged figures (seals were small carvings used to make impressions in clay surfaces, not unlike the impressions left in wax by a signet ring), Note the inscriptions above each figure; scholars have yet to decipher their meaning. Marks on the arms may represent bangles like those on the Mohenjo-daro figure below (Fig. 10). Figure 4, a horned, ithyphallic figure surrounded by animals, is perhaps the single most famous Indus Valley image, known as the "Pashupati Seal." Speculation abounds, but the significance or identity of the figures remains elusive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Spring Onion

UnitedPak said:


> p.s, Ghandara was a Pashtun civilisation spread from Afghanistan to most of North Pakistan, pretty much how Pashtuns are spread out today.


Yes you can see the statues of Budha in Afghanistan and coming to NWFP you will find most rare reminents of Gandhara Civilization in SWAT valley.
There are so many of these Budha statues and stoopas and places of warship of Budhisim.

And same in Taxila which im sure everyone knows very well

BTW  i noticed this therad just today

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

WebMaster said:


> I must say, RR and UnitedPak, i am impressed with your knowledge.
> 
> Studying here in the United States made me total ignorant of the history of Pakistan.
> 
> Did you guys take courses in school and colleges related to Pakistan history? Any book you guys want to recommend?
> 
> Its good to have you guys here.
> 
> Thanks!



Hey, thanks for the reply

I never took any courses on Pakistans history but just became interested. I started searching on the internet and realised that Pakistans ancient history was completely credited to India, despite the fact that it didnt belong to Indians.

At first I simply tried to correct the mistakes on wikipedia. But this was met with angry replies by Indians on wikipedia. They literally abused their admin powers to ban me and a few other Pakistani friends from Wiki. There was a big trial called Pak vs India on wikipedia, and despite the mounting evidence against the Indians where they insulted Islam in response to our arguments, vandalised articles, made hate comments towards Pakistanis in every article and generally avoided taking any Pakistani argument seriously, only the Pakistani members were banned, and every Indian member was left unpunished (coincidence apparently).

The Indian cabal on wiki had pretty much hijacked the articles, and refused to let anyone edit. Their arguments were very weak, and they only defended themselves by accusing Pakistanis of being pro taliban and anti Semitic, thus totally avoiding the original argument.

They literally wanted to pass on the Idea that Pakistanis changed their ancestors when they converted to Islam, so didnt have any right to their own history. And for some weird reason, when Pakistanis converted to Islam, it made Pakistani ancestors related to neighbouring Indians instead.

Its not only the history articles they have hijacked. Every Pakistan v India and even India v China war articles are extremely biased. Anyone questioning this is banned for "not having a neutral point of view".

When wikipedia didnt turn out well, I went on with several Pakistani friends and joined PakHub, a site dedicated to reclaiming Pakistans history.
To be honest, things have improved a great deal from when I started. Pakistan is at least being mentioned whenever Indus valley is in question. This is a huge step from a few years ago.
The articles are still very biased though. Empires based in Pakistan, and with known names for their land are being referred to as "Indian"; and they avoid giving out maps altogether.

Throughout this entire time I became more and more familiar with Pakistans history and also I had a lot of conversations with very well-informed people. But its a shame that we dont have as many proud Pakistanis to help out in this fight.

I plan to keep going on, their nationalistic lies cant go up against basic logic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

WebMaster said:


> I must say, RR and UnitedPak, i am impressed with your knowledge.
> 
> Studying here in the United States made me total ignorant of the history of Pakistan.
> 
> Did you guys take courses in school and colleges related to Pakistan history? Any book you guys want to recommend?
> 
> Its good to have you guys here.
> 
> Thanks!



No history courses here. I guess I read about it for the same reasons as the others mentioned in this thread. I find it annoying that India is allowed to steal a great history that is not even theirs in the first place. Teaching pre-Islamic history is of utmost importance. It's part of Pakistan history, so why let the Indians have a good image for which they contributed virtually nothing to anyway? I'm disappointed that Pakistani media is not up in arms about this stealing of history. It's their job create this image. All they do is talk about how much of a darling the CJ is, and how much Mush has been "unconstitutional" for making Pakistan into an asian tiger.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

UnitedPak said:


> Their arguments were very weak, and they only defended themselves by accusing Pakistanis of being pro taliban and anti Semitic, thus totally avoiding the original argument.



Are you saying Indians (Bharatis) consider themselves to be Semites?


----------



## UnitedPak

roadrunner said:


> Are you saying Indians (Bharatis) consider themselves to be Semites?



lol, no, the anti-Semite card seems to be thee card to play when someone needs to discredit Muslims now a days.

It was just an accusation thrown at us to get us banned. It started with me saying that they were exaggerating the number of Hindus killed in Pakistan during the partition (their number ended with 6 zeros ), and somehow it offended them when I asked for sources besides hindutva.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dravidan

There are four main cradles of civilization from which elements of culture have spread to other parts of the world. These are, moving from east to west, China, the Indian subcontinent, the 'Fertile Crescent', and the Mediterranean, espicaly Greece and Italy. Of these four areas India deserves a large share of the credit. 
She has deeply afected the religious life of most of asia and has provided very important elements in the culture of the whole of South East asia, as well as extending her influence, directly and indirectly to other parts of the world.
The old strata of India's cultural life go back far beyond anything than in the west. The whole of the Rig Veda has been composed long before the "ILIAD", and there is hardly anything in the "OLD TESTAMENT" in its present form which is as old even as the latest Rig Vedic hymns.

Some practices and beliefs of popular Hinduism, for instance the cults of the sacred bull and the pipal tree, are even older. Infact every generations in India, for over 5000 yrs, has bequeathed something, if only a very little, to posterity.

No land on earth has such a long cultural continuity as India, since there is a visibile evidence for that till now, though there were more ancient civilizations, notably in Egypt and Iraq, there were virtually forgotten by the inhabitants of those lands, and were overlaid by new intrusive cultures until nobody remembered the "BOOK OF THE DEAD" or the "EPIC OF GILGAMESH", and great kings such as Ramesses II or Hammurabi were not recorded in any living tradition. 

Only 19th century scholarship resurrected them from oblivion, and if they are now national heroes, remembered by every school-child in their respective lands,this is not thanks either to the historical genius or to the retentive folk-memory of the countries concerned.

On the other hand in India the 'brahman' still repeats in his daily worship vedic hymns composed over 3000 yrs ago, and tradition recalls heroic chieftains and the great battles fought by them at about the same time. In respect of the lenght of continuous tradition China comes second to India and Greec makes a poor third.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

^^^ Beg to disagree with the terminology used. There was no nation called "India" to spread any of this you claim. The IVC would have primarily existed in the the geographical area now known as Pakistan, and most probably Pakistanis are the descendants of its people, so "South Asia" would be a more appropriate term., or "the ancient inhabitants of South Asia".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Dravidan said:


> There are four main cradles of civilization from which elements of culture have spread to other parts of the world. These are, moving from east to west, China, the Indian subcontinent, the 'Fertile Crescent', and the Mediterranean, espicaly Greece and Italy. Of these four areas India deserves a large share of the credit.



And this really is the point. HISTORICAL India (whose borders are equal to modern day Pakistan basically) was one of the 4 cradles of civilization. But MODERN India (aka Bharat) was never a cradle of civilization. In other words it was ancient Pakistan that was the cradle of civilization to put it more clearly. 



> The old strata of India's cultural life go back far beyond anything than in the west. The whole of the Rig Veda has been composed long before the "ILIAD", and there is hardly anything in the "OLD TESTAMENT" in its present form which is as old even as the latest Rig Vedic hymns.



The Rig Veda was composed in ancient Pakistan, when Pakistan was known as Saptha Sindhu, (_ind_) or India (the name "India" is a derivation of "Indus". Which part of modern Bharat/India does the Indus flow through?). 



> Some practices and beliefs of popular Hinduism, for instance the cults of the sacred bull and the pipal tree, are even older. Infact every generations in India, for over 5000 yrs, has bequeathed something, if only a very little, to posterity.



Hinduism is a relatively new religion. I would say it's present form is not more than 1000 years old. Islam is more ancient than Hinduism when you consider Hinduism's timeline. 



> No land on earth has such a long cultural continuity as India, since there is a visibile evidence for that till now, though there were more ancient civilizations



Sorry, but this is just BS. Vedism pushed into Northern Bharat, and then the indigenous people metamorphized it into Hinduism over the course of centuries. There has been a complete change of culture/religion in fact. You call it Dharmic worship, where you select the bits you find appealing to "let the Dharma flow". 



> On the other hand in India the 'brahman' still repeats in his daily worship vedic hymns composed over 3000 yrs ago, and tradition recalls heroic chieftains and the great battles fought by them at about the same time. In respect of the lenght of continuous tradition China comes second to India and Greec makes a poor third.



The Vedic hymns that are repeated as you say are not followed in Hinduism. Hinduism is a complete U-turn on Vedism. Look up what Vedic society was like and look up what Hindu society is and always was like. Animal sacrifices, eating of beef were all common to Vedism, in Hinduism these have been forbidden. This is just the tip of th iceberg. Look at Hinduism's evolution, you will find that as Hinduism evolved, the Dravidian Gods became more and more prominent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

Gentlemen, first of all my compliments for your knowlege and contribution to this thread...I've been following it from the day it started but dare not to post as my knowledge seems like a drop of rain in the ocean compared to Sir Road Runner, UnitedPak and Sir Niaz. 

We've been talking about Indus Valley with Mohinjodaro as the oldest civilisation in the sub continent but the fact is that there was another advanced civilisation in the Kachi Plains of Balochistan called Mehergarh which dates back as early as 7000 BC making it older much than the Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilisation!

Allow me to post some facts with links here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*Mehrgarh*


----------



## Neo

*Mehrgarh *



Early farming village in Mehrgarh, c. 7000 BCE, with houses built with mud bricks. (Musée Guimet, Paris).Mehrgarh, one of the most important Neolithic (7000 BCE to 3200 BCE) sites in archaeology, lies on the "Kachi plain of Baluchistan, Pakistan, and is one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming (wheat and barley) and herding (cattle, sheep and goats) in South Asia."[1]

Located near the Bolan Pass, to the west of the Indus River valley and between the present-day Pakistani cities of Quetta, Kalat and Sibi, Mehrgarh was discovered in 1974 by an archaeological team directed by French archaeologist Jean-François Jarrige, and was excavated continuously between 1974 and 1986. The earliest settlement at Mehrgarh  in the northeast corner of the 495-acre site  was a small farming village dated between 7000 BCE5500 BCE.

Google Image resultaat voor http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/19/290px-Mehrgarh_pakistan_rel96.JPG

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*Lifestyle and technology*

Early Mehrgarh residents lived in mud brick houses, stored their grain in granaries, fashioned tools with local copper ore, and lined their large basket containers with bitumen. They cultivated six-row barley, einkorn and emmer wheat, jujubes and dates, and herded sheep, goats and cattle. Residents of the later period (5500 BCE to 2600 BCE) put much effort into crafts, including flint knapping, tanning, bead production, and metal working. The site was occupied continuously until about 2600 BCE.[2]

In April 2006, it was announced in the scientific journal Nature that the oldest (and first early Neolithic) evidence in human history for the drilling of teeth in vivo (i.e. in a living person) was found in Mehrgarh.[3]

Google Image resultaat voor http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/19/290px-Mehrgarh_pakistan_rel96.JPG

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*Archaeological significance*



A relief map of Pakistan showing MehrgarhMehrgarh is now seen as a precursor to the Indus Valley Civilization. "Discoveries at Mehrgarh changed the entire concept of the Indus civilization," according to Ahmad Hasan Dani, professor emeritus of archaeology at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, "There we have the whole sequence, right from the beginning of settled village life."[4] According to Catherine Jarrige of the Centre for Archaeological Research Indus Balochistan, Musée Guimet, Paris

"... the Kachi plain and in the Bolan basin (are) situated at the Bolan peak pass, one of the main routes connecting southern Afghanistan, eastern Iran, the Balochistan hills and the Indus valley. This area of rolling hills is thus located on the western edge of the Indus valley, where, around 2500 BCE, a large urban civilization emerged at the same time as those of Mesopotamia and the ancient Egyptian empire. For the first time in the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent, a continuous sequence of dwelling-sites has been established from 7000 BCE to 500 BCE, (as a result of the) explorations in Pirak from 1968 to 1974; in Mehrgarh from 1975 to 1985; and of Nausharo from 1985 to 1996."[5]


A figurine from Mehrgarh, c. 3000 BCE. (Musée Guimet, Paris)The chalcolithic people of Mehrgarh also had contacts with contemporaneous cultures in northern Afghanistan, northeastern Iran and southern central Asia.[6]

Google Image resultaat voor http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/19/290px-Mehrgarh_pakistan_rel96.JPG

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*Mehrgarh Period I*



Archaeologists divide the occupation at the site into several periods. Mehrgarh Period I 7000 BCE5500 BCE, was Neolithic and aceramic (i.e., without the use of pottery). The earliest farming in the area was developed by semi-nomadic people using plants such as wheat and barley and animals such as sheep, goats and cattle. The settlement was established with simple mud buildings with four internal subdivisions. Numerous burials have been found, many with elaborate goods such as baskets, stone and bone tools, beads, bangles, pendants and occasionally animal sacrifices, with more goods left with burials of males. Ornaments of sea shell, limestone, turquoise, lapis lazuli, sandstone and polished copper have been found, along with simple figurines of women and animals. Sea shells from far sea shore and lapis lazuli found far in Badakshan,Afghanistan shows good contact with those areas. A single ground stone axe was discovered in a burial, and several more were obtained from the surface. These ground stone axes are the earliest to come from a stratified context in the South Asia.

In 2001, archaeologists studying the remains of two men from Mehrgarh made the discovery that the people of the Indus Valley Civilization, from the early Harappan periods, had knowledge of proto-dentistry. Later, in April 2006, it was announced in the scientific journal Nature that the oldest (and first early Neolithic) evidence for the drilling of human teeth in vivo (i.e. in a living person) was found in Mehrgarh. According to the authors, their discoveries point to a tradition of proto-dentistry in the early farming cultures of that region. "Here we describe eleven drilled molar crowns from nine adults discovered in a Neolithic graveyard in Pakistan that dates from 7,500 to 9,000 years ago. These findings provide evidence for a long tradition of a type of proto-dentistry in an early farming culture."[7]

Google Image resultaat voor http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/19/290px-Mehrgarh_pakistan_rel96.JPG

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*Mehrgarh Period II and Period III*

Mehrgarh Period II 5500 BCE4800 BCE and Merhgarh Period III 4800 BCE3500 BCE were ceramic Neolithic (i.e., pottery was now in use) and later chalcolithic. Much evidence of manufacturing activity has been found and more advanced techniques were used. Glazed faience beads were produced and terracotta figurines became more detailed. Figurines of females were decorated with paint and had diverse hairstyles and ornaments. Two flexed burials were found in period II with a covering of red ochre on the body. The amount of burial goods decreased over time, becoming limited to ornaments and with more goods left with burials of females. The first button seals were produced from terracotta and bone and had geometric designs. Technologies included stone and copper drills, updraft kilns, large pit kilns and copper melting crucibles. There is further evidence of long-distance trade in period II: important as an indication of this is the discovery of several beads of lapis lazuli  originally from Badakshan.

Google Image resultaat voor http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/19/290px-Mehrgarh_pakistan_rel96.JPG

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*Mehrgarh Period VII*

Somewhere between 2600 BCE and 2000 BCE, the city seems to have been largely abandoned, which is when the Indus Valley Civilisation was in its middle stages of development. It has been surmised that the inhabitants of Mehrgarh migrated to the fertile Indus valley as the Balochistan became more arid due to climatic changes.


Common variant spellings
Mehrgarh is also spelled as Mehrgahr, Merhgarh or Merhgahr. 
Kachi plain is also spelled as Kacchi plain, Katchi plain. 

Notes
^ Hirst, K. Kris. 2005. "Mehrgarh". Guide to Archaeology 
^ Possehl, Gregory L. 1996. "Mehrgarh." Oxford Companion to Archaeology, edited by Brian Fagan. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 
^ Coppa, A. et al. 2006. "Early Neolithic tradition of dentistry: Flint tips were surprisingly effective for drilling tooth enamel in a prehistoric population." Nature. Volume 440. 6 April, 2006. 
^ Chandler, Graham. 1999. "Traders of the Plain." Saudi Aramco World. 
^ 
^ Kenoyer, J. Mark, and Kimberly Heuston. 2005. The Ancient South Asian World. Oxford University Press. 176 pages. ISBN 0195174224. 
^ Coppa, A. et al. 2006. "Early Neolithic tradition of dentistry: Flint tips were surprisingly effective for drilling tooth enamel in a prehistoric population." Nature. Volume 440. 6 April, 2006. 

Google Image resultaat voor http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/19/290px-Mehrgarh_pakistan_rel96.JPG

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

*Chronological Chart*


Stone Age 70,0003300 BC 
· *Mehrgarh Culture · 70003300 BC* 
Indus Valley Civilization 33001700 BC 
Late Harappan Culture 17001300 BC 
Vedic Period 1500500 BC 
· Iron Age · 1200500 BC 
· Vedic Kingdoms · 1200700 BC 
Maha Janapadas 700300 BC 
Magadha Empire 684 BC 320 BC 
· Maurya Empire · 321184 BC 
Middle Kingdoms 230 BCAD 1279 
· Satavahana Empire · 230 BCAD 199 
· Kushan Empire · 60240 
· Gupta Empire · 240550 
· Pala Empire · 7501174 
· Chola Empire · 250 BCE 1279 
Islamic Sultanates 12061596 
· Delhi Sultanate · 12061526 
· Deccan Sultanates · 14901596 
Hoysala Empire 10401346 
Kakatiya Empire 10831323 
Vijayanagara Empire 13361565 
Mughal Empire 15261707 
Maratha Empire 16741818 
Sikh Empire 17991849 
Colonial Era 17571947 
Modern States 1947 onwards 

South Asian Stone Age: Information and Much More from Answers.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EagleEyes

Neo said:


> Gentlemen, first of all my compliments for your knowlege and contribution to this thread...I've been following it from the day it started but dare not to post as my knowledge seems like a drop of rain in the ocean compared to Sir Road Runner, UnitedPak and Sir Niaz.
> 
> We've been talking about Indus Valley with Mohinjodaro as the oldest civilisation in the sub continent but the fact is that there was another advanced civilisation in the Kachi Plains of Balochistan called Mehergarh which dates back as early as 7000 BC making it older much than the Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilisation!
> 
> Allow me to post some facts with links here.



WOW Neo. Thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

wow, thank you for stickying this post. Greatly appreciated. It would help spread awareness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neo

UnitedPak said:


> wow, thank you for stickying this post. Greatly appreciated. It would help spread awareness.



Agreed! 
You're welcome!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## niaz

Neo said:


> Gentlemen, first of all my compliments for your knowlege and contribution to this thread...I've been following it from the day it started but dare not to post as my knowledge seems like a drop of rain in the ocean compared to Sir Road Runner, UnitedPak and Sir Niaz.
> 
> We've been talking about Indus Valley with Mohinjodaro as the oldest civilisation in the sub continent but the fact is that there was another advanced civilisation in the Kachi Plains of Balochistan called Mehergarh which dates back as early as 7000 BC making it older much than the Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilisation!
> 
> Allow me to post some facts with links here.



Many thanks for the compliments Neo. My interest is really the history of the Islamic people, specially of non Arab Mulsims. This means the era from approx 600 AD onwards. I have only cursory knowlegde of the Ancient History mostly acquired while helping a numismatist friend in cataloging his coins. My compliments to you on a very informative post about Mehrgarh. 

My current interest is in the Hephthalites ( also known as white Huns) who ruled in the area what is now Pakistan around 500 AD ( just before the muslim invasion), the rule was centered around Sialkot. Naturally, I surfed the internet and it is very intriguing to learn that a lot modern races currently living in Punjab such as Jats and Gujjars etc could be descendents of these Huns. If any member comes across a good book about these people, kindly post the reference in this thread. Would be greatly appreciated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

From the encyclopedia britannica:



Indus Valley civilization or Harappan civilization the *earliest known urban culture of the Indian subcontinent*, first identified in 1921 at Harappa in the Punjab and then in 1922 at Mohenjo-daro, near the Indus River in the *Sindh*, now both in Pakistan. Subsequently, vestiges of the civilization were found as far apart as *Sutkagen Dor*, near the shore of the Arabian Sea 300 miles (480 km) west of Karachi, and *Ropar* at the foot of the Simla Hills, 1,000 miles (1,600 km) to the northeast. Later exploration established its existence southward down the west coast as far as the Gulf of Cambay, 500 miles (800 km) southeast of Karachi and as far east as the *Yamuna Basin*, 30 miles (50 km) north of Delhi. It is thus decidedly the most extensive of the world's three earliest civilizations; the other two are those of Mesopotamia and Egypt, both of which began somewhat before it. (See also India.)


The Indus civilization is known to have comprised two large cities, *Harappa* and *Mohenjo-daro*, and more than 100 towns and villages, often of relatively small size. The two cities were each perhaps originally about a mile square in overall dimensions, and their outstanding magnitude suggests political centralization, either in two large states or in a single great empire with alternative capitals, a practice having analogies in Indian history. Or it may be that Harappa succeeded Mohenjo-daro, which is known to have been devastated more than once by exceptional floods. The southern region of the civilization in Kathiawar and beyond appears to be of later origin than the major Indus sites. The civilization was *literate*, and its *script*, with some 250 to 500 characters, has been partly and tentatively deciphered; the *language* has been *tentatively identified as Dravidian.* The nuclear dates of the civilization appear to be c. 2500&#8211;1700 BC, though southern sites may have lasted later in the 2nd millennium BC.

The Indus civilization apparently evolved from the villages of neighbours or predecessors, using the *Mesopotamian model* of irrigated agriculture with sufficient skill to reap the advantages of the spacious and fertile Indus River valley while controlling the formidable annual flood that simultaneously fertilizes and destroys. Having once obtained a secure foothold on the plain and mastered its more immediate problems, the new civilization, doubtless with a well-nourished and increasing population, would find expansion along the flanks of the great waterways an inevitable sequel. The civilization *subsisted primarily by farming* supplemented by an appreciable but often elusive *commerce*. Wheat and six-rowed barley were grown; field peas, mustard, sesame, and a few date stones have also been found, as well as some of the earliest traces of cotton known. Domesticated animals included dogs and cats, humped cattle, shorthorns, domestic fowl, and possibly pigs, camels, and buffalo. The elephant probably also was domesticated, and its ivory tusks were freely used. Minerals, unavailable from the alluvial plain, were brought in sometimes from far afield. Gold was imported from southern India or Afghanistan, silver and copper from Afghanistan or northwestern India (Rajasthan), lapis lazuli from Afghanistan, turquoise from Iran (Persia), and a jadelike fuchsite from southern India.

Perhaps the best-known artifacts of the Indus civilization are a n*umber of small seals*, generally made of *steatite*, which are distinctive in kind and unique in quality, depicting a wide variety of animals, both real&#8212;*such as elephants, tigers, rhinoceros, and antelopes&#8212;and fantastic, often composite, creatures.* Sometimes human forms are included. A few examples of Indus stone sculpture have also been found, usually small and representing humans or gods. There are great numbers of *small terra-cotta figures* of animals and humans.

How and when the civilization came to an *end remains uncertain.* In fact, no uniform ending need be postulated for a culture so widely distributed. But the end of Mohenjo-daro is known and *was dramatic and sudden*. It was *attacked toward the middle of the 2nd millennium BC by raider*s who swept over the city and then passed on, leaving the dead lying where they fell. *Who the attackers were is matter for conjecture.* The episode would appear to be consistent in time and place with the earlier Aryan onslaught upon the Indus region as reflected in the older books of the Rigveda, in which the newcomers are represented as attacking the &#8220;walled cities&#8221; or &#8220;citadels&#8221; of the aboriginal peoples and the Aryan war-god Indra as rending &#8220;forts as age consumes a garment.&#8221; However, one thing is clear:* the city was already in an advanced stage of economic and social decline before it received the coup de grace*. Deep floods had more than once submerged large tracts of it. Houses had become increasingly shoddy in construction and showed signs of overcrowding. *The final blow seems to have been sudden, but the city was already dying.* As the evidence stands, *the civilization was succeeded in the Indus valley by poverty-stricken cultures*, deriving a little from a sub-Indus heritage but also drawing elements from the direction of Iran and the Caucasus&#8212;from the general direction, in fact, of the Aryan invasions. *For many centuries urban civilization was dead in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent.*

*In the south, however, in Kathiawar and beyond, the situation appears to have been very different.* Here it would seem that there was a real cultural continuity between the late Indus phase and the Copper Age cultures that characterized central and western India between 1700 and the 1st millennium BC. *These cultures form a material bridge between the end of the Indus civilization proper and the developed Iron Age civilization that arose in India about 1000 BC.*


----------



## Flintlock

Rakhigarhi, Haryana: The newest and one of the largest additions to the IVC:


*Rakhigarhi is about to rewrite the 5000 year old history of our civilization.* Recent excavations at *Rakhigarhi in Hissar district of Haryana* may push the history of the civilization *back by over a thousand years.* It could change the commonly held view about the Indus Valley civilization, as Rakhigarhi is situated on the *bank of the now dry, Saraswati river. *Archaeologists and historians are excited about the findings from Rakhigarhi, the largest Indus Valley site after Mohenjodaro. Archaeologists consider this to be no ordinary Harappan site and say it is the most important of all the archaeological sites of India. The unearthed clues may yield answers to many unanswered questions. Rakhigarhi findings have already started showing new civilization contours. The area and dimensions of the site are far wider than assessed by archaeologist Raymond and Bridget Allchin and J M Kenyer. *It is 224 hectares, the largest in the country.*

In size, dimensions strategic location and unique significance of the settlement, *Rakhi Garhi matches Harappa and Mohenjodaro at every level*.

*Three layers of Early, Mature and Late phases of Indus Valley civilization have been found at Rakhi Garhi. What has so far been found indicates that Rakhi Garhi settlement witnessed all the three phases.*

The site has trick deposits of &#8216;Hakra Ware&#8217; (typical of settlements dating back before the early phases of Indus Valley). &#8216;Early and &#8216;Mature&#8217; Harappan artifacts. The solid presence of the Hakra Ware culture raises the important question: "Did the Indus civilization come later than it is recorded?" The Hakra and the Early phases are separated by more than 500-600 years and the Hakra people are considered to be the earliest Indus inhabitants. Although the carbon-14 dating results are awaited, based on the thick layers of Hakra Ware at Rakhi Garhi, it is said that the site may date back to about *2500 BC to 3000 BC. *This pushes the Indus Valley civilization history by a thousand years or more. While this site came to light in 1963 excavations at Rakhigarhi started only in 1997.

Had excavations started 70 years earlier, when Harappa and Mohenjodaro were uncovered, the story would have been different. Fossils indicate that the Harappan man reared cattle. The findings are startling. Rakhi Garhi was settled on the banks of a river Dhrishdwati, which was a tributary of the river Saraswati. *Copper fishing hooks and woven nets* found at the site affirms the river&#8217;s existence nearby. It is thought that the people living in this city traded with other people using this river for navigation.

The site&#8217;s antiquities, *drainage system* and signs of *small-scale industry* are in continuity with other Indus sites. All this adds one more dimension to the whole debate on Indus civilization. Many feel that since this site is situated on the *Saraswati river*, it is more likely connected to the *Vedic civilization*. All this only add to the enigma called Indus civilization, rich in facts, richer still in speculation. What stands out from the churning debate is the fact that much more perhaps still remains shrouded in the folds of the past centuries. The real and very important part played by Haryana in India's history is yet to be fully understood.

Digging so far reveals a *well planned city with 1.92 m wide roads*. Pits surrounded by walls have been found, which are thought to be sacrificial pits or for some religious ceremonies. Which shows fire was used extensively in their religious ceremonies. There are brick lined drains to handle sullage from the houses. *Among other things that have been found are, terracotta statues, weights, bronze artifacts, combs, needles and terracotta seals*. A *bronze vessel* has been found which is decorated with gold and silver. A *gold foundry* with about 3000 unpolished semi-precious stones has been found. Many tools used for polishing these stones and a furnace were found there. A *burial site* has been found with 11 skeletons with their heads in the north direction. Near the heads of these skeletons, utensils for everyday use are kept. The three female skeletons have shell bangles on their left wrists. Near one female skeleton, a gold armlet has been fond. In addition semi precious stones have been found lying near the head, showing that they were part of some sort of necklace.

Rakhi Garhi - Rakhigarhi - Haryana - Archaeological Site - History - India


----------



## Flintlock

Dholavira, Gujarat: One of the biggest IVC Cities:

NEW DELHI, June 24: If the discovery of Mohenjodaro and Harappa in the 1920s changed the dateline of Indian history with fresh evidence of an older civilisation, the *Dholavira excavations of the 1990s have further enlightened archaeologists with revelations of an extensive Harappan city in the Rann of Kutch in Gujarat.
*
A team of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), led by Dr R S Bisht, Director (Excavations and Museums of ASI), conducted five field seasons of excavations at this semi-arid site.

Bisht, who had earlier carried out excavations in the multi-cultural site of Sanghol (Ludhiana district), Banawali - a premature and post-Harappan site, Chechar and Nalanda (Bihar) and Semthan in Kashmir, gave an exposition of his latest findings in Dholavira at a lecture organised by the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts on June 19.

Among Bhisht's findings, the most conspicuous was the *aesthetic architecture* of the city, *a unique water harnessing system and the storm-water drainage system.* *A 7 meter deep rock-cut reservoi*r with a confirmed length of 79 meter was among the most significant finds of Bhisht.

Awesome, for it had been vertically cut through the rock. Another, equally deep reservoir of fine stone masonry was also found.
*
The reservoirs skirted the cities while the citadel and baths were centrally located on raised ground.
*
A large well, perhaps the largest hitherto found in the Harappan context equipped with a stone-cut trough to connect the drain meant for conducting water to a storage tank was also found. Circular structures conjoining like the figure eight believed to be used for bathing were unearthed at the site.

Most notable is a *bathing tank with steps descending inwards.* However, amongst the most curious finds is a huge brick masonry tumulus, or a circular grave built in with 10 radial walls of mud bricks almost assuming the shape of a `spoked wheel' perhaps personifying, as Bisht says, ``*life, rebirth or the kalchakra*'' at this ancient sepulchral site.

Interestingly, all these funerary structures except one were devoid of skeletons. Bhisht explains this as perhaps being a ``symbolic gesture'' of recalling the dead.

The grave sites typically have an assortment of supple pots and curvaceous jars.

*A soft sandstone sculpture of a male with phallus erectus with its head and feet below the ankle truncated was found in the passage way of the eastern gate.*

The Dholavira site also uncovered terracotta pieces, bangles, rings beads and exotic seals with intaglio engravings.

However, an account of the Dholavira excavations will not be complete without mentioning the unique inscription consisting of 10 large-sized signs which were discovered.

It is reminiscent of their picture like script called `pictographs' which unfortunately have not been deciphered. Bhisht quaintly calls it ``the oldest signboards of the world''.

Dholavira excavations throw light on Harappan civilisation

CGI Reconstruction of Dholavira:










Computer graphics reconstruction of Dholavira

Useful link:
GujaratPlus.com - The Old World - Dholavira

Article in Time Magazine:
India's Salt Lake Cities


----------



## Flintlock

Lothal, Gujarat: One of the most important IVC cities:



Useful Link:
Ancient Indus Lothal, Gujarat, India

Lothal (Gujar&#257;t&#299;: &#2738;&#2763;&#2725;&#2738;, IPA: [&#712;lo&#720;t&#688;&#601;l], English: Mound of the dead)* was one of the most prominent cities of the ancient Indus valley civilization.* Located in the modern state of Gujar&#257;t and dating from 2400 BCE, it is one of India's most important archaeological site that dates from that era. Discovered in 1954, Lothal was excavated from February 13, 1955 to May 19, 1960 by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

*Lothal's dock&#8212;the world's earliest*&#8212;connected the city to an ancient course of the Sabarmati river on the trade route between Harappan cities in Sindh and the peninsula of Saurashtra when the surrounding Kutch desert of today was a part of the Arabian Sea. It was a vital and thriving trade centre in ancient times, with its trade of beads, gems and valuable ornaments reaching the far corners of West Asia and Africa. Lothal's people were responsible for the earliest-known portrayals of realism in art and sculpture, telling some of the most well-known fables of today. Its scientists used a shell compass and divided the horizon and sky into 8&#8211;12 whole parts, possibly pioneering the study of stars and advanced navigation&#8212;2000 years before the Greeks. The techniques and tools they pioneered for bead-making and in metallurgy have stood the test of time for over 4000 years.

Lothal is situated near the village of Saragwala in the Dholka taluka of Ahmedabad district. It is at a distance of six kilometres (south-east) from the Lothal-Bhurkhi railway station on the Ahmedabad-Bhavnagar railway line. It is also connected by all-weather roads to the cities of Ahmedabad (85 km/53 mi), Bhavnagar, Rajkot and Dholka. Nearest cities are Dholka and Bagodara. Resuming excavation in 1961, archaeologists unearthed trenches sunk on the northern, eastern and western flanks of the mound, bringing to light the inlet channels and nullah ("ravine", or "gully") connecting the dock with the river. The findings consist of a mound, a township, a marketplace and the dock. Adjacent to the excavated areas stands the Archaeological Museum, where some of the most prominent collections of Indus-era antiquities in modern India are displayed.


----------



## Flintlock

Sorry to break it to you guys, but atleast 3 cities around the size and sophistication of Harappa and Mohenjodaro are located well within the boundaries of modern India.

They are Dholavira, Rakhigarhi and Lothal. Considering that apart from the 5-6 excavations, the vast majority of sites remain unexcavated, it is likely that more surprises are in store!! 

*Kindly read my last 3 posts and follow the links for further info.*


*Roadrunner and Unitedpak*, the IVC was just as sophisticated on this side of the border as it was on the other side. So please stop claiming that "Indians are stealing Pakistani history".

Instead of squabbling over who the history belongs to, we should discuss the achievements of this great civilization and what lessons can be learnt from their success.

Here is a great link with a nice discussion:

Michel Danino - The Indus-Sarasvati Civilization and its Bearing on the Aryan Question


----------



## UnitedPak

Stealth Assassin said:


> Sorry to break it to you guys, but atleast 3 cities around the size and sophistication of Harappa and Mohenjodaro are located well within the boundaries of modern India.
> 
> They are Dholavira, Rakhigarhi and Lothal. Considering that apart from the 5-6 excavations, the vast majority of sites remain unexcavated, it is likely that more surprises are in store!!
> 
> *Kindly read my last 3 posts and follow the links for further info.*
> 
> 
> *Roadrunner and Unitedpak*, the IVC was just as sophisticated on this side of the border as it was on the other side. So please stop claiming that "Indians are stealing Pakistani history".
> 
> Instead of squabbling over who the history belongs to, we should discuss the achievements of this great civilization and what lessons can be learnt from their success.
> 
> Here is a great link with a nice discussion:
> 
> Michel Danino - The Indus-Sarasvati Civilization and its Bearing on the Aryan Question



You are joking right?

Please give me REAL photos of whats actually there of Dholavira, Rakhigarhi and Lothal.

You can flood this page with CGI computer reconstructions and Paintings all you want, but the truth is that there is nothing there which can be compared to the cities in Pakistan. Even the carbon dating tests were unclear.

Mojenjo Daro and Harappa are the only centers of IVC, I am open minded about cities in India, except there are none. Please go and compare the actual site with these CGI reconstructions, its just laughable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> You are joking right?
> 
> Please give me REAL photos of whats actually there of Dholavira, Rakhigarhi and Lothal.



CGI reconstructions are just *polished versions of the actual plan* and layout of the city, *not someone's imagination.*

They are done by archaeologists *exactly according to the excavations.*




> You can flood this page with CGI computer reconstructions and Paintings all you want, but the truth is that there is nothing there which can be compared to the cities in Pakistan. Even the carbon dating tests were unclear.



If you read my posts carefully and follow the links, you will find that they cities excavated are just as advanced as the ones found in Pakistan.



> Mojenjo Daro and Harappa are the only centers of IVC, I am open minded about cities in India, except there are none. Please go and compare the actual site with these CGI reconstructions, its just laughable.



Fine, I'll post photos. Happy?


----------



## UnitedPak

Dholavira is a scam, and nobody in there right mind would even use that city as proof.
According to sources



> The site was occupied from about 2900 BCE for about a millennium, declining slowly after about 2100 BCE, briefly abandoned *and then reoccupied, finally by villagers among its ruins, until about 1450.*


 Indians were living there until 1450, you really think they left the construction untouched for all the time they lived there?
They literally only found a Brick wall which was the so called IVC site, and the rest was built less than 600 years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

Sophisticated water reservoir at Dhaulavira:









City Plan of Dholavira:






A stormwater drain in the castle:






A junction of two streets, Lower Town


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Dholavira is a scam, and nobody in there right mind would even use that city as proof.
> According to sources
> 
> 
> Indians were living there until 1450, you really think they left the construction untouched for all the time they lived there?
> They literally only found a Brick wall which was the so called IVC site, and the rest was built less than 600 years ago.



Kindly name your source for the 600 year ago claim and the "only one brick wall" claim.
The photos seem to speak otherwise.

Also name your source for the claim that Dhaulavira is a scam.

Else, please refrain from irresponsible statements.


----------



## UnitedPak

I copied and pasted that quote from Wikipedia. Dholavira is a known scam, the so called age of the city has not been confirmed by non Indian sources.

Even Indian sources dont deny that the city was occupied until 1450
*link: *Dholavira Ruins,Kutch,Tour to Dholavira Ruins in Kutch,Gujarat,Tourist Attractions in Kutch

The city is not IVC, and even if its was, current Dholvira has been occupied by people until as recently as 1450, so its construction cannot be called IVC, unless you can prove the people who lived there until as recently as 1450 didnt do any construction to it for as long as they lived there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> I copied and pasted that quote from Wikipedia. Dholavira is a known scam, the so called age of the city has not been confirmed by non Indian sources.



So now the Archaeological Survey of India is a scam? Dear god, do you guys see hindutva propaganda in something as purely academic as archaeology?
*
The site has been studied by eminent archaeologists around the world, and is currently in consideration for world heritage status.
*



> Even Indian sources dont deny that the city was occupied until 1450
> *link: *Dholavira Ruins,Kutch,Tour to Dholavira Ruins in Kutch,Gujarat,Tourist Attractions in Kutch
> 
> The city is not IVC, and even if its was, current Dholvira has been occupied by people until as recently as 1450, so its construction cannot be called IVC, unless you can prove the people who lived there until as recently as 1450 didnt do any construction to it for as long as they lived there.



What? Do you know the first thing about archaeology?

Read some elementary stuff about archaeology before making such irresponsible comments. 

The ruins of harrappa wouldn't be accessible to locals since they would be buried, in mounds, or a few layers below present settlements

There are very standard methods to verify the age of an archaeological site, such as the depth of the ruins, the artefacts such as seals and pottery found, and carbon dating.

It is very easy to separate the newer portions of a settlement from the old ones. 

*Kindly leave archaeology to archaeologists and refrain from contesting established finds.*


----------



## Flintlock

Dholavira is a relatively recent discovery. This Indus city has been excavated by the Archaeological Survey of India since 1989. 

*Habitation at the site began well before 3000 B.C. and continued for more than a millennium.* 

*This long history provides important information about the formative stage of the Indus Civilization and its subsequent decline.* 

The city's unique stone architecture is partly responsible for the remarkable preservation of its "*Citadel", "Middle Town" and "Lower Town,"* all surrounded by *gigantic water reservoirs that were cut into the bedrock*. 

Application is currently being made to UNESCO to register and protect *Dholavira as a World Heritage site.*



Source:
Dholavira (Gujarat, India)


----------



## Flintlock

*Photos of Lothal, the world's first port:*







Drainage system, Lothal:


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Kindly name your source for the 600 year ago claim and the "only one brick wall" claim.
> The photos seem to speak otherwise.
> 
> Also name your source for the claim that Dhaulavira is a scam.
> 
> Else, please refrain from irresponsible statements.



He's actually correct. I believe it too, that some (not all) of the sites in India are a scam. They've suddenly started appearing out of nowhere. Take a lot at some Indian/Bharati slums and so on. They don't look too far off the pictures you posted of Dhaulivira and so on. 



Knock a few of those bricks down, and chip a few more, and voila. You have Dhilovira. 

The odd thing about these Indian sites is 

1) they've miraculously started discovering them, and 

2) there is no official verfication of them. For them to achieve the status of virtually all Pakistani sites, they need to be investigated and confirmed by neutral foreign investigators. ALL the Pakistani sites were discovered or researched on by Finns, English, Indians, and others, but not by Pakistanis. Virtually all the Indian ones (even Lothal) never had a foreign researcher of significance confirm they were genuine and not just a few brick walls the Indians had chipped a bit. 



> So now the Archaeological Survey *of India *is a scam?



The Archaeological Survey is run by India. You might think dear Bharat is incapable of lying to improve its image and steal histories (as it is trying to flood Kashmir with Hindus currently), but if you want it to be recognized by the world, you need confirmation from emininent researchers from outside the subcontinent. The top neutral researchers in the field are in the West. Pakistan regularly allows these people to look at their sites, and monitor them for whatever samples they need to determine the age and so on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

Article on Archaeology.org:

A nine-year Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) excavation at the site of Dholavira in the western Indian state of Gujarat has yielded a walled Indus Valley city that dates to the middle of the *third millennium B.C. and spans 123.5 acres*. A team lead by the ASI's R.S. Bisht has uncovered *a sophisticated water management system, giant reservoirs (the largest measuring 263 feet by 39 feet and 24 feet in depth)* that together held more than 325,000 cubic yards of water. To conserve rainwater that would have been lost to streams, the *Dholavirans built dams* and collected the water in reservoirs. These reservoirs were connected to wells that filled cisterns for drinking and bathing. Discovery of the ancient cisterns is ironic in view of the fact that Gujarat was recently stricken by drought. "If Harappans [Indus Valley people], using simple hydraulic engineering skills, could control water resources, then why can't we today?" asks Bisht.

In addition to the reservoirs, excavations in a *cemetery* west of the city have uncovered *tombs, idols, and ritual objects* belonging to ethnic groups that practiced a variety of religious rituals. *The cemetery's ethnic diversity indicates a thriving trading community that likely attracted merchants from as far as Mesopotamia, Persia, and southern Arabia.*

The city was a colorful place, according to Bisht. Most walls, roads, floors, and possibly even building roofs were likely constructed of a pink-and-white clay. The Dholavirans also appear to have loved amusement:* "A public place measuring 928 by 157 feet was found in the heart of the city," *says Bisht. "With seating for spectators in its tiered structure, it could have been a stadium, a coronation ground, a marketplace, or even an *amphitheater."*

Source:
Aqua Dholavira


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> He's actually correct. I believe it too, that some (not all) of the sites in India are a scam. They've suddenly started appearing out of nowhere. Take a lot at some Indian/Bharati slums and so on. They don't look too far off the pictures you posted of Dhaulivira and so on.



Man, where do you come from. I mean seriously. Your posts are ridiculous.

You think that Dhaulavira are slums passed off as IVC sites?

How stupid do u think the world is buddy




> Knock a few of those bricks down, and chip a few more, and voila. You have Dhilovira.
> 
> The odd thing about these Indian sites is
> 
> 1) they've miraculously started discovering them, and
> 
> 2) there is no official verfication of them. For them to achieve the status of virtually all Pakistani sites, they need to be investigated and confirmed by neutral foreign investigators. ALL the Pakistani sites were discovered or researched on by Finns, English, Indians, and others, but not by Pakistanis. Virtually all the Indian ones (even Lothal) never had a foreign researcher of significance confirm they were genuine and not just a few brick walls the Indians had chipped a bit.



This isn't a police investigation. Its an archeological dig. Kindly understand the difference and stop reading consipracy into everything.

Noone knew harappa and Mohenjodaro existed until someone discovered it by accident. Ditto here.

There are thousands of unexcavated sites scattered around India which are slowly being explored.

The rest of you post is...well....


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Sorry to break it to you guys, but atleast 3 cities around the size and sophistication of Harappa and Mohenjodaro are located well within the boundaries of modern India.
> 
> They are Dholavira, Rakhigarhi and Lothal. Considering that apart from the 5-6 excavations, the vast majority of sites remain unexcavated, it is likely that more surprises are in store!!
> 
> *Kindly read my last 3 posts and follow the links for further info.*



Nonsense. 

I've outlined the borders of Pakistan on the map below. 3 major cities are found in Pakistan. One major city is in India at the border. The majority of cities are well inside Pakistan. Lothal is a port, not a city. 

http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=indusmap1mn0.jpg



> *Roadrunner and Unitedpak*, the IVC was just as sophisticated on this side of the border as it was on the other side. So please stop claiming that "Indians are stealing Pakistani history".



 Dude, this is nonsense. Even if you include every single major site that India is currently miraculously discovering, Pakistan has way more cities and settlements (see map above). Why do you think it was called the "Indus Valley civilization"? Because the settlements were mainly located along the Indus River. Have the Indians suddenly discovered that the site was located mainly along the Ganges or something, and so should be renamed "The Gangetic Valley civilization" or something? Not many neutral international researchers will agree with you, though the Archaeological Survey of India might. 




> Instead of squabbling over who the history belongs to, we should discuss the achievements of this great civilization and what lessons can be learnt from their success.



We can do both? Why should we ignore one facet of history at the expense of another? Because it suits you? 



> Here is a great link with a nice discussion:
> 
> Michel Danino - The Indus-Sarasvati Civilization and its Bearing on the Aryan Question



Might check it later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> I've outlined the borders of Pakistan on the map below. 3 major cities are found in Pakistan. One major city is in India at the border. The majority of cities are well inside Pakistan. Lothal is a port, not a city.



According to what? Some map without any credible source?

Here's Dholavira on the UNESCO page:
Dholavira: a Harappan City, Gujarat, Disstt, Kachchh - UNESCO World Heritage Centre




> Dude, this is nonsense. Even if you include every single major site that India is currently miraculously discovering, Pakistan has way more cities and settlements (see map above). Why do you think it was called the "Indus Valley civilization"? Because the settlements were mainly located along the Indus River. Have the Indians suddenly discovered that the site was located mainly along the Ganges or something, and so should be renamed "The Gangetic Valley civilization" or something? Not many neutral international researchers will agree with you, though the Archaeological Survey of India might.



The civilization extends from Western pakistan all the way to Central India. Just because its called IVC doesn't make it solely exist on the banks of one river.

Naturally ,Indus being a major river, a lot of important sites are found there. 

All I'm saying is that no one country has ownership over the civilization, since equally large cities like Dhaulavira and Rakhigarhi, and an important trade and port centre Lothal is present within India.

Numerous other sites are also present within India and haven't been excavated yet.




> We can do both? Why should we ignore one facet of history at the expense of another? Because it suits you?



Because its your paranoid mind that is telling you that your history is being stolen. 
Noone is stealing anyone's history.
We aren't even sure about the origins of the Harappans, let alone decide which modern country it belongs to.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Man, where do you come from. I mean seriously. Your posts are ridiculous.
> 
> You think that Dhaulavira are slums passed off as IVC sites?
> 
> How stupid do u think the world is buddy



Dude, I've no doubts some Indian sites are old slums that some Indians have chipped away to make look archaeological. Not all of them, but undoubtedly some. I've already posted on some of the maniplations Indians have tried to do regarding Indus Valley artifacts and scripts. The big question you need to answer is..Why do you think all these sites are all of a sudden appearing in India and expanding? Research has been ongoing by the British for decades, the Finns, not one of these excavations found an Indian site. The major cities in Pakistan were discovered by foreign researchers. It's not conclusive proof that these sites are made up, but taken together I would have my doubts until they've been verified. 

I totally agree with your last statement "how stupid do you think the world is?" That is why the world requires proof, more so than just "the archaeological survey of India". Some neutral researchers. 



> This isn't a police investigation. Its an archeological dig. Kindly understand the difference and stop reading consipracy into everything.
> 
> Noone knew harappa and Mohenjodaro existed until someone discovered it by accident. Ditto here.



The British discovered Mohenjendaro, and Harrappa. They were neutral researcher, not Indian or Pakistani. 



> There are thousands of unexcavated sites scattered around India which are slowly being explored.



And this is where it turns into nonsense. The IVC was an agro-economy based on fertile lands and plentiful irrigation. The river systems were required for this. Being fairly advanced for their time, they would have had the common sense to locate their settlements and farms along the banks of the rivers since these were where the fertile lands lay. Forming major cities in India as you put it would have been stupid in this regard. 

Even the Vedic period was based around the Rig Veda. Read it. It talks of one river for the most part..the Indus. The Saraswati is also mentioned a bit (it is located in Pakistan for quite a large part also), but the focus is the Indus. Why would these Vedic people describe the Indus and its tributaries perfectly do you think? Why would the IVC people migrate to India and build farms on more barren land?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Article on Archaeology.org:
> 
> A nine-year Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) excavation at the site of Dholavira in the western Indian state of Gujarat has yielded a walled Indus Valley city that dates to the middle of the *third millennium B.C. and spans 123.5 acres*. A team lead by the ASI's R.S. Bisht has uncovered *a sophisticated water management system, giant reservoirs (the largest measuring 263 feet by 39 feet and 24 feet in depth)* that together held more than 325,000 cubic yards of water. To conserve rainwater that would have been lost to streams, the *Dholavirans built dams* and collected the water in reservoirs. These reservoirs were connected to wells that filled cisterns for drinking and bathing. Discovery of the ancient cisterns is ironic in view of the fact that Gujarat was recently stricken by drought. "If Harappans [Indus Valley people], using simple hydraulic engineering skills, could control water resources, then why can't we today?" asks Bisht.
> 
> In addition to the reservoirs, excavations in a *cemetery* west of the city have uncovered *tombs, idols, and ritual objects* belonging to ethnic groups that practiced a variety of religious rituals. *The cemetery's ethnic diversity indicates a thriving trading community that likely attracted merchants from as far as Mesopotamia, Persia, and southern Arabia.*
> 
> The city was a colorful place, according to Bisht. Most walls, roads, floors, and possibly even building roofs were likely constructed of a pink-and-white clay. The Dholavirans also appear to have loved amusement:* "A public place measuring 928 by 157 feet was found in the heart of the city," *says Bisht. "With seating for spectators in its tiered structure, it could have been a stadium, a coronation ground, a marketplace, or even an *amphitheater."*
> 
> Source:
> Aqua Dholavira



Archaeology.org is a non Indian website, but it is quoting the work of an Indian researcher, Rambhir Singh Bisht. 

Art and times of Ranbir Singh Bisht 

Is he a neutral reseacher? Show me non Indian researcher who have confirmed this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Dude, I've no doubts some Indian sites are old slums that some Indians have chipped away to make look archaeological. Not all of them, but undoubtedly some. I've already posted on some of the maniplations Indians have tried to do regarding Indus Valley artifacts and scripts. The big question you need to answer is..Why do you think all these sites are all of a sudden appearing in India and expanding? Research has been ongoing by the British for decades, the Finns, not one of these excavations found an Indian site. The major cities in Pakistan were discovered by foreign researchers. It's not conclusive proof that these sites are made up, but taken together I would have my doubts until they've been verified.



Man, seriously, don't get into archaeology. You'll end up putting some weird twist on everything you see.

Sure, they are all slums disguised as archaeological sites. Isn't that easy to do?  

The foreign researchers obviously search along the banks of the Indus, and don't expect very many sites away from the main river. 

Most of these "new" sites were discovered long ago by your beloved french and british, but are being properly excavated now by the ASI.



> I totally agree with your last statement "how stupid do you think the world is?" That is why the world requires proof, more so than just "the archaeological survey of India". Some neutral researchers.



The world has accepted these sites as harappan. The only people shouting "fake fake" are paranoid Pakistanis like yourself.





> And this is where it turns into nonsense. The IVC was an agro-economy based on fertile lands and plentiful irrigation. The river systems were required for this. Being fairly advanced for their time, they would have had the common sense to locate their settlements and farms along the banks of the rivers since these were where the fertile lands lay. Forming major cities in India as you put it would have been stupid in this regard.



So there are no rivers in India?
The Indian cities too are found on the banks of rivers, or near the ocean, or with advanced water storing facilities like in the city in Rann of Kutch.



> Even the Vedic period was based around the Rig Veda. Read it. It talks of one river for the most part..the Indus. The Saraswati is also mentioned a bit (it is located in Pakistan for quite a large part also), but the focus is the Indus. Why would these Vedic people describe the Indus and its tributaries perfectly do you think? Why would the IVC people migrate to India and build farms on more barren land?



What? What does vedic period have to do with Harappa. Don't go off topic.

the IVC people migrated to the banks of another river, not to the middle of a desert.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Archaeology.org is a non Indian website, but it is quoting the work of an Indian researcher, Rambhir Singh Bisht.
> 
> Art and times of Ranbir Singh Bisht
> 
> Is he a neutral reseacher? Show me non Indian researcher who have confirmed this.



Lol, just because he is Indian you doubt his credibility. Wow. Talk about prejudice and paranoia.

Archeology isn't propaganda. It requires careful study and expertise. The guy published peer reviewed papers before his research was accepted by the scientific community.

We aren't talking about Kashmir anymore. This is science, not politics.

Don't get your India-Pakistani -propaganda war into everything.

An Italian discovers Roman settlements, a British guy discoveres some early English settlement, and Indian guy discovers a Harrappan settlement.
Just because no Pakistani researcher did any notable excavations, and you had to rely on foreigners to do you work, doesn't mean that you start calling all Indian archaeological work as a sham.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> According to what? Some map without any credible source?



Major Ancient Indus Valley Sites 



> Here's Dholavira on the UNESCO page:
> Dholavira: a Harappan City, Gujarat, Disstt, Kachchh - UNESCO World Heritage Centre



BS. Read the page you quoted. 



UNESco website said:


> Date of Submission: 03/07/1998
> Criteria:
> Category: Cultural
> Submission prepared by:
> Archaeological Survey of India
> Coordinates:
> 23&#176;53'10" N, 70&#176;11'03" E
> Ref.: 1090



Read the bit in red. It might be on UNESCO, but it is just a submission to UNESCO by the "Archaeological Survey of India". Show me one neutral credible researcher that confirms all this. I can show you several neutral researchers that confirmed the Pakistani sites. 



> The civilization extends from Western pakistan all the way to Central India. Just because its called IVC doesn't make it solely exist on the banks of one river.



Dude, it's called the IVC for a reason. Because the settlements were mainly found along the fertile Indus River. They do not extend into Central India. In that case they also extend into Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Iran. There is some cross over passed the border into Northwestern India, but the MAJORITY of the sites are located in Pakistan. And the majorly important sites are located along the Indus - hence the Indus Valley Civilization. 



> Naturally ,Indus being a major river, a lot of important sites are found there.
> 
> All I'm saying is that no one country has ownership over the civilization, since equally large cities like Dhaulavira and Rakhigarhi, and an important trade and port centre Lothal is present within India.



BULLSHYT. Rakhigarhi and Dhaulavira are in no way comparable to Harrapa and Mohenjendaro. You will only find Indians saying this. Why do you think international researchers, the IVC seals, scripts and so on are performed in Harrappa and Mohenjendaro? 



> Numerous other sites are also present within India and haven't been excavated yet.



I'm sure many more Dalit toilet systems-cum-Indus Valley sites will be being found very soon 



> Because its your paranoid mind that is telling you that your history is being stolen.
> Noone is stealing anyone's history.
> We aren't even sure about the origins of the Harappans, let alone decide which modern country it belongs to.



It's not paranoid at all. India (Bharat) has tried to steal Pakistan's history. From the Vedic period, to the Gandharans, to the IVC. Gandhara luckily you guys cannot even claim to be close to, neither can you claim to have anything to do with the Vedic Pakistan people or period. The IVC you can claim to have been a minor part of (the northwestern Punjabis and Gujeratis), though by now Gujeratis I've seen look pretty Tamil, but not all. 

We are 100&#37; sure of the origins of the Harrappans imo. They are the ancestors of modern day Pakistanis from that area. You do not get these population shifts like you say. They do not occur. Ask a population geneticist why. Migratory factors will not mean that a whole populations suddenly decides to uproot itself and go to beloved Bharat. It does not happen. Unless you want to advocate genocide, and like many websites have said, this is very unlikely (neutral scholarship here now).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Read the bit in red. It might be on UNESCO, but it is just a submission to UNESCO by the "Archaeological Survey of India". Show me one neutral credible researcher that confirms all this. I can show you several neutral researchers that confirmed the Pakistani sites.



Ya, and guess who it is submitted to for evaluation. UNESCO. How easy do u think it is to fool UNESCO into taking a slum as a harappan site? 

Man, you are seriously funny 





> BULLSHYT. Rakhigarhi and Dhaulavira are in no way comparable to Harrapa and Mohenjendaro. You will only find Indians saying this. Why do you think international researchers, the IVC seals, scripts and so on are performed in Harrappa and Mohenjendaro?



In terms of size, sophistication, technology they definitely are. Check the details of the sites if you don't believe me.

Because the Indian ones are recent finds, thats why. 
Obviously the Pakistani ones were found earlier, so they are more famous.




> I'm sure many more Dalit toilet systems-cum-Indus Valley sites will be being found very soon



I'm glad you didn't choose to be an archaeologist. It would really be a shame...



> It's not paranoid at all. India (Bharat) has tried to steal Pakistan's history. From the Vedic period, to the Gandharans, to the IVC. Gandhara luckily you guys cannot even claim to be close to, neither can you claim to have anything to do with the Vedic Pakistan people or period. The IVC you can claim to have been a minor part of (the northwestern Punjabis and Gujeratis), though by now Gujeratis I've seen look pretty Tamil, but not all.



LOL..I love how you reason!! Again, thank goodness you didn't go into archaeology!! 




> We are 100&#37; sure of the origins of the Harrappans imo. They are the ancestors of modern day Pakistanis from that area. You do not get these population shifts like you say. They do not occur. Ask a population geneticist why. Migratory factors will not mean that a whole populations suddenly decides to uproot itself and go to beloved Bharat. It does not happen. Unless you want to advocate genocide, and like many websites have said, this is very unlikely (neutral scholarship here now).



Yeah rite. And you are the expert on migration and genetics. Kindly post links regarding the same.

Most western, and thus according to you, neutral researchers are not in consensus about their origin.

A large number agree that they are proto-dravidians. The rest have varying viewpoints.


----------



## Flintlock

For those who, by some slim chance, think that Indian archaeologists are "neutral" and aren't disguising slums as archaeological sites, here is a nice link:

Gola Dhoro, Bagasra: an ancient Indus Valley site in Gujarat, India, 2005


----------



## Flintlock

Here is a nice interview with the world famous Indian archaeologist Prof. S.R. Rao.
He is credited with discoveries at Lothal and Dwarka, as well as deciphering part of the Indus script:

The Hindu : Unearthing historical vestiges


----------



## Flintlock

News Article about Rakhigarhi:

&#8216;Rakhigarhi is the largest Harappan site ever found&#8217;

Website of Indus Center:

Indus Center, India


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Ya, and guess who it is submitted to for evaluation. UNESCO. How easy do u think it is to fool UNESCO into taking a slum as a harappan site?
> 
> Man, you are seriously funny



UNESCO sites must meet one of the following 10 criteria. I've lsited 3 possibilities. Don't you think it's rather loose? 

Selection criteria:


to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; 

-unlikely (but possible, since creating an archaeological site out of a toilet system does require genius  ) 

to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria); 

- this doesn't even need evidence to be associated with IVC. Just tangible evidence (probably a reference from the "Archaeological Institute of India"). 

to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.

-perhaps this? I'm sure a lot of biological diversity must still be thriving from the relics of pre-site latrinal content.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> UNESCO sites must meet one of the following 10 criteria. I've lsited 3 possibilities. Don't you think it's rather loose?
> 
> Selection criteria:
> 
> 
> to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;
> 
> -unlikely (but possible, since creating an archaeological site out of a toilet system does require genius  )
> 
> to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria);
> 
> - this doesn't even need evidence to be associated with IVC. Just tangible evidence (probably a reference from the "Archaeological Institute of India").
> 
> to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.
> 
> -perhaps this? I'm sure a lot of biological diversity must still be thriving from the relics of pre-site latrinal content.



Very funny. Nice joke, but not worth considering as a serious argument. The people at UNESCO are not fools.

In any case, read my last 3 posts and visit the links. There is some good information for interested readers there.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Here is a nice interview with the world famous Indian archaeologist Prof. S.R. Rao.
> He is credited with discoveries at Lothal and Dwarka, as well as deciphering part of the Indus script:
> 
> The Hindu : Unearthing historical vestiges



These are all Indians. Pakistani sites were discovered by people like Charles mason and Alexander burnes. Very few of the Pakistani sites were uncovered by Pakistanis (which isn't a good thing, but neutrality can be assured).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> These are all Indians. Pakistani sites were discovered by people like Charles mason and Alexander burnes. Very few of the Pakistani sites were uncovered by Pakistanis (which isn't a good thing, but neutrality can be assured).



Thats exactly my point. You have imaginary misgivings against Indian archaeologists.

The rest of the world doesn't.

Dr. Rao and others are respected worldwide in their field and have received grants from well known organizations for their work.

They aren't the hindutva stooges that you imagine them to be!

Kindly leave your prejudices home while debating about science.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Very funny. Nice joke, but not worth considering as a serious argument. The people at UNESCO are not fools.
> 
> In any case, read my last 3 posts and visit the links. There is some good information for interested readers there.



There's little doubt some IV sites do exist in India. But they have been over hyped. You're trying to say that the IVC was 50% located in India (technologically and so on), and 50% in Pakistan. That's nonsense. The figure, as with all maps and all sites, is more like 75%, 20% with 5% elsewhere. IVC = Indus.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Thats exactly my point. You have imaginary misgivings against Indian archaeologists.
> 
> The rest of the world doesn't.
> 
> Dr. Rao and others are respected worldwide in their field and have received grants from well known organizations for their work.
> 
> They aren't the hindutva stooges that you imagine them to be!
> 
> Kindly leave your prejudices home while debating about science.



What did Dr Rao discover?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> There's little doubt some IV sites do exist in India. But they have been over hyped. You're trying to say that the IVC was 50&#37; located in India (technologically and so on), and 50% in Pakistan. That's nonsense. The figure, as with all maps and all sites, is more like 75%, 20% with 5% elsewhere. IVC = Indus.



By sheer number of sites, perhaps, since most settlements seem to be along the banks of the Indus. 2 major cities are also present in Pakistan.But since I haven't counted the number of settlements on both sides of the border, I really can't be sure.


However, major excavations, which match the scale of the ones in Pakistan, have been found in Gujarat and Haryana.

Smaller, less significant sites have been found as far as central India. 

Thats all.

I am not going to comment on the percentage, since putting a number on such a thing is simply a bad idea. 

Lothal, Harappa, Mohenjodaro, Rakhigarhi, Dholavira are all significant finds, each with unique features and large settlements. We simply can't rank them on the basis of significance since they are all unique.

This is the history of the subcontinent. Doesn't belong to any one nation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> What did Dr Rao discover?



Kindly read the interview I posted earlier. All the info is there.


----------



## Flintlock

Here is the link to a brochure about the Indus Heritage Center, established in Gujarat, as a museum and research center for IVC. 

It has got the entire civilization in a nutshell....very interesting read.


t was formed with international aid from the Global Heritage Fund, so its not a hindutva propaganda base, as you are likely to say.

http://www.globalheritagefund.org/where/images/GHFIndusHeritageCentreBrochure72006draft.pdf

Its a PDF file, so might take time to load.


----------



## UnitedPak

Stealth, you need to admit that the IV city discovery business in India is real dodgy stuff. They are not even confirmed by Western sources, only Indian sources, and these are the same Indian sources that try to link the IVC to Hinduism. Of course the world doesnt trust these nationalists.

Part of the reason why Mohenjo Daro and Harappa have been labelled the Capitals and Centers of Indus valley was also because of the sheer amount of artefacts found there. The number of artefacts found are something like 1000.
Its not only the distinct architecture of the Cities, but the Artefacts found there, and their Proximity to the Indus river.

You might have noticed how Indian historians first had to invent this third "dried up" river to link their sites to IV. They claim the real Indus river moved East and dried up? That doesnt explain the current Indus river.

Obviously there was presence of other humans in the region, which is totally besides the point. The fact that Indian historians are stuck on making Pakistani history Indian, simply because of the recent shared history is illogical.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Stealth, you need to admit that the IV city discovery business in India is real dodgy stuff. They are not even confirmed by Western sources, only Indian sources, and these are the same Indian sources that try to link the IVC to Hinduism. Of course the world doesnt trust these nationalists.



They are not shady at all, have been confirmed by western sources. Just because Indian archaeologists discovered them doesn't mean that no western source have acknowledged the find. 

This isn't the Vatican where you pass off the bible as history. 

Its archaeology, which is a well established science. Very hard to fraud such things.

About the Hinduism part, some of the practices of harappans resemble hinduism, and some don't. 
It might be the origin of hinduism, some early form of proto-hinduism. That is the general consensus anyway.




> Part of the reason why Mohenjo Daro and Harappa have been labelled the Capitals and Centers of Indus valley was also because of the sheer amount of artefacts found there. The number of artefacts found are something like 1000.
> Its not only the distinct architecture of the Cities, but the Artefacts found there, and their Proximity to the Indus river.



Rakhigarhi is the newest find among the IVC sites. It matches Harappa and Mohenjodaro in both size and sophistication.

Who knows which one of these cities was the capital, or maybe each was the capital of a separte state? 

Its all very speculative at the moment.



> You might have noticed how Indian historians first had to invent this third "dried up" river to link their sites to IV. They claim the real Indus river moved East and dried up? That doesnt explain the current Indus river.



Er...they didn't invent a river. A dry riverbed can be easily ascertained by scientific methods. Also the finding of instruments related to fishing proves the existence of a river.

The linkage between sites of the IVC isn't the river indus, but their culture, pottery, beads, seals, and city planning. 
All these factors are common among the sites found in both India and Pakistan.



> Obviously there was presence of other humans in the region, which is totally besides the point. The fact that Indian historians are stuck on making Pakistani history Indian, simply because of the recent shared history is illogical.



Don't you get the point? We have no clue who these people are!! They might have been proto-dravidian, proto-indo-iranian etc.

Do you think that after 3000 years of migrations and invasions, people remain the same? No!! They cross breed, get conquered, conquer other lands, evolve, get wiped out, have genetic upheavals. 

History is too complicated to label this history as Indian or Pakistani.

The use of the word "Indian" is just a matter of convenience, nothing to do with political India.

The world knows this region as the "Indian subcontinent". Its a name, thats all. 
*
So just chill out and concentrate on the civilization rather than on which side of the British-drawn artificial boundary more of it lies.*


----------



## UnitedPak

Stealth Assassin said:


> Don't you get the point? We have no clue who these people are!! They might have been proto-dravidian, proto-indo-iranian etc.



Indian sources which you are quoting have a clear agenda to link the IVC culture with Hinduism and modern Indian culture. They even showed this in a recent BBC documentary. The program started of with a lot of interesting stuff about Mohenjo Daro and Harappa, then it went on to show some rather wishful CGI pictures of Dholvira, and to top it off the civilisation was linked to modern Indian Hindu culture.
Not to my surprise it was directed by an Indian. And these views are very main stream among Indian historians.



> History is too complicated to label this history as Indian or Pakistani.



Indian and Pakistani yes, which is why its actually called Indus Valley, i.e the area surrounding the Indus River, i.e Entirely within Pakistan.
You dont seem to understand that "Indus Valley" is actually the name of the region. The number of times I see the phrase, "Indus Valley, Ancient India", which just doesnt make sense. At the time IV existed, there was no India, and now Indus Valley is not any way near India.
And another fact, Indus Valley has never been part of the 60 year old Hindu India in existence today.



> The use of the word "Indian" is just a matter of convenience, nothing to do with political India.



Thats the entire reason why you are so eager to call it "India". Indus Valley is the name of the region surrounding the Indus river, which is entirely within Pakistan, (like I explained above). Indus Valley is just another word for Pakistan.
During the era of IV, there was no India, and today IV is not in India, the term India cannot be associated with Indus Valley.
Its really that simple.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Indian sources which you are quoting have a clear agenda to link the IVC culture with Hinduism and modern Indian culture. They even showed this in a recent BBC documentary. The program started of with a lot of interesting stuff about Mohenjo Daro and Harappa, then it went on to show some rather wishful CGI pictures of Dholvira, and to top it off the civilisation was linked to modern Indian Hindu culture.
> Not to my surprise it was directed by an Indian. And these views are very main stream
> among Indian historians.



Of course, as I pointed out earlier, there are many similarities between Hinduism and IVC culture. It is very likely that their reliigion is an early form of either Hinduism, or Proto-Dravidian Hinduism or an Indo-Iranian religion, out of which Hinduism evolved.


Also, the 3D images aren't fanciful, but based strictly on the archaeological site. Don't discredit someone's work because you can't accept in emotionally.

I have seen similar 3D representation of Harappa and Mohenjodarol. Are those fanciful as well?



> Indian and Pakistani yes, which is why its actually called Indus Valley, i.e the area surrounding the Indus River, i.e Entirely within Pakistan.
> You dont seem to understand that "Indus Valley" is actually the name of the region. The number of times I see the phrase, "Indus Valley, Ancient India", which just doesnt make sense. At the time IV existed, there was no India, and now Indus Valley is not any way near India.
> And another fact, Indus Valley has never been part of the 60 year old Hindu India in existence today.



The nomenclature in use is "Ancient India" as a matter of convenience. It has little to do with present boundaries.

There was no "modern India", but there was "Ancient India". The area is part of Ancient India. This is the term used, and widely accepted also. Its just a term thats all.

Indus valley itself might not be in Modern India, but a significant number of IVC sites are within India.

You have to dissociate the civilization and the valley. 

The IVC wasn't restricted to the banks of the Indus, there were major cities far away from the Indus as well.

The term "Indus Valley Civilization" is also a term of convenience, since the first settlement was found near the Indus river. Thats all.




> Thats the entire reason why you are so eager to call it "India". Indus Valley is the name of the region surrounding the Indus river, which is entirely within Pakistan, (like I explained above). Indus Valley is just another word for Pakistan.
> During the era of IV, there was no India, and today IV is not in India, the term India cannot be associated with Indus Valley.
> Its really that simple.



"Indus Valley" might be synonymous with Pakistan, but "Indus Valley Civilization" is not synonymous with "Pakistani Civilization". You must understand this.

the term Ancient India, for better or worse, is associated with Indus valley. Its origin has more to do with the Europeans than the present day Indians.

Also, the IVC culture and religion has much more common with Hindu culture than with Islamic culture or any other culture.

Hence, the origins of Hinduism are believed to be from the IVC.


----------



## UnitedPak

So first you tell me that Nothing is know about the IVC people or their culture, and their language has never been deciphered. 
And then you go on to tell me that they were really Hindu?

Its one or the other, you simply cant pretend everyone was Hindu because Islam wasnt in the region yet.
You should know best of all that Indians consider everything to be part of Hinduism, including Buddhism, Sikhism, any way of life which is more than a few thousand years old. You need something called evidence, and the theory of the "evolving religion" doesnt quite count as evidence.

IVC is restricted to the region called Indus Valley. Its not a convenience of names. Harappa and Mohanejo daro were cities of the Indus river. If you wish to label any other site IV, it has to at least show evidence of being built by the same people as Harappa and Mohenjo Daro. Indian so called IVC sites are associated with Harappa and Mohajo daro, because these are the only 2 cities which make those newly discovered brick walls so "great". If Harappa and Mohejo daro didnt exist, those brick walls would just be, (surprise surprise) brick walls.

You refusal to recognise the Pakistani identity is whats causing this massive ego clash.
Pakistani identity is not reliant on anything Indian, its a distinct Identity of its own. It could be called anything, but just face the fact that its a distinct Identity which has very little to do with India.
You are very eager to take away this identity. I am not quite sure why.

But consider this: 

It was the Pakistan which was part of the Persian empire while India wasnt. 
It was Pakistan which was invaded by Alexander while India wasnt.
It was Pakistan which was introduced to Islam first and remained heavily Muslim majority states right up till independence from the British while India remained Hindu majority. (exception being Bengal, which still didnt compare with the percentage of Muslims as the rest of Pak)

It was also Pakistan which was the home of successive Muslim empires which ruled over the rest of India
And not to mention, Pakistan was the Indus Valley, while India wasnt.

These are "some" of the things which make up the "Pakistani" identity which India cant lay claim over.

p.s Your arguments are getting very repetitive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> So first you tell me that Nothing is know about the IVC people or their culture, and their language has never been deciphered.
> And then you go on to tell me that they were really Hindu?



Kindly read my posts. You are generalizing and oversimplifying.



> Its one or the other, you simply cant pretend everyone was Hindu because Islam wasnt in the region yet.
> You should know best of all that Indians consider everything to be part of Hinduism, including Buddhism, Sikhism, any way of life which is more than a few thousand years old. You need something called evidence, and the theory of the "evolving religion" doesnt quite count as evidence.



Again, you are oversimplifying and generalizing. If you can't understand the nuances then kindly refrain from replying.



> IVC is restricted to the region called Indus Valley. Its not a convenience of names. Harappa and Mohanejo daro were cities of the Indus river. If you wish to label any other site IV, it has to at least show evidence of being built by the same people as Harappa and Mohenjo Daro. Indian so called IVC sites are associated with Harappa and Mohajo daro, because these are the only 2 cities which make those newly discovered brick walls so "great". If Harappa and Mohejo daro didnt exist, those brick walls would just be, (surprise surprise) brick walls.



They are more than just "brick walls" and are fully evolved IVC cities, which rival Harappa and Mohenjodaro in their sophistication and size.

Please don't make such silly statements. Shows you in poor light.




> You refusal to recognise the Pakistani identity is whats causing this massive ego clash.
> Pakistani identity is not reliant on anything Indian, its a distinct Identity of its own. It could be called anything, but just face the fact that its a distinct Identity which has very little to do with India.
> You are very eager to take away this identity. I am not quite sure why.



I would disagree. Harappan culture has a lot in common with modern Hinduism. 
There is sufficient evidence that points to the "evolution" of HInduism from these early cultures.

Think about cemetary-H culture, Vedic and modern Hinduism....there is a clear evolutionary line.



> But consider this:
> 
> It was the Pakistan which was part of the Persian empire while India wasnt.
> It was Pakistan which was invaded by Alexander while India wasnt.
> It was Pakistan which was introduced to Islam first and remained heavily Muslim majority states right up till independence from the British while India remained Hindu majority. (exception being Bengal, which still didnt compare with the percentage of Muslims as the rest of Pak)



Off topic. Nothing to do with IVC. Please keep on the topic.



> It was also Pakistan which was the home of successive Muslim empires which ruled over the rest of India
> And not to mention, Pakistan was the Indus Valley, while India wasnt.



Mughals, Sultanate, Malmuks etc. ruled from Delhi as well, incase you forgot.




> p.s Your arguments are getting very repetitive.



....maybe it seems so because you can't gauge the subtle differences.


----------



## Keysersoze

Guys I am spotting the early signs of a potential fire here.... keep it under control!!!!!!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> According to some archaeologists over 500 Harappan sites have been discovered along the dried up river beds of the Ghaggar-Hakra River and its tributaries, in contrast to only about 100 along the Indus and its tributaries, consequently, in their opinion, the appellation Indus Ghaggar-Hakra civilisation or Indus-Saraswati civilisation is justified. *However, these arguments are disputed by other archaeologists who state that the Ghaggar-Hakra desert area has been left untouched by settlements and agriculture since the end of the Indus period and hence shows more sites than found in the alluvium of the Indus valley; second, that the number of Harappan sites along the Ghaggar-Hakra river beds have been exaggerated and that the Ghaggar-Hakra, when it existed, was a tributary of the Indus, so the new nomenclature is redundant*


Wikipedia
Reference Link:
# ^ Ratnagar, Shereen (2006). Understanding Harappa: Civilization in the Greater Indus Valley. New Delhi: Tulika Books. ISBN 8189487027.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> But consider this:
> 
> It was the Pakistan which was part of the Persian empire while India wasnt.
> It was Pakistan which was invaded by Alexander while India wasnt.
> It was Pakistan which was introduced to Islam first and remained heavily Muslim majority states right up till independence from the British while India remained Hindu majority. (exception being Bengal, which still didnt compare with the percentage of Muslims as the rest of Pak)



The thread title does make this fair game "Ancient history not appreciated by Pakistanis". Doessn't have to be specifically about IVC - all ancient Pakistani history counts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The thread title does make this fair game "Ancient history not appreciated by Pakistanis". Doessn't have to be specifically about IVC - all ancient Pakistani history counts.



Yeah, but can we just do one topic at a time? Its rather difficult to make credible arguments on 7 different empires at the same time.


----------



## Flintlock

> According to some archaeologists over 500 Harappan sites have been discovered along the dried up river beds of the Ghaggar-Hakra River and its tributaries, in contrast to only about 100 along the Indus and its tributaries, consequently, in their opinion, the appellation Indus Ghaggar-Hakra civilisation or Indus-Saraswati civilisation is justified. However, these arguments are disputed by other archaeologists who state that the Ghaggar-Hakra desert area has been left untouched by settlements and agriculture since the end of the Indus period and hence shows more sites than found in the alluvium of the Indus valley; second, that the number of Harappan sites along the Ghaggar-Hakra river beds have been exaggerated and that the Ghaggar-Hakra, when it existed, was a tributary of the Indus, so the new nomenclature is redundant




So, according to these sources, the number of sites along the Ghaggar-Hakra river are more than the ones along Indus?

I am not disputing the name "Indus Valley Civilization". The name is of least significance and is just a term of convenience. 

But the fact is that a huge chunk of sites have been found far away from the Indus riverbed, which needs to be taken into consideration while labeling it as solely the history of Pakistan.


----------



## Flintlock

Keysersoze said:


> Guys I am spotting the early signs of a potential fire here.... keep it under control!!!!!!



Well if it does, just remember who started it


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin, 

I don't have enough time, but here are some replies to the wild claims you've been making on here. I haven't done the nitty gritty research on the discoveries at Dolivira. However, several aspects of it strike me as odd, and not only that I have not seen one non Indian researcher being part of the team to research this and the other Indian sites. 

The archaeologists whom this correspondent spoke to say that information on the material used to construct these structures will provide a crucial link to the period of the site. Raman explains: "Brick structures could be tied to the early Harappan culture. All Harappan sites used brick for building except Dholavira which used stone. 
Questionable claims 

Can you explain to me why Dholivira uses stone structures, instead of brick structures as per the rest of the IVC? 

This is my second finding: 

"Even the recent Dholavira [Gujarat, India] find - I was disappointed that the very large, nearly 10 feet wide, wooden board contained really nothing but a magnified version of a seal. In fact, I have identified all the 10 characters in that famous board as occurring on seals already in the same sequences." 
Ancient Indus Valley Script: Iravatham Mahadevan Interview 

Does it not strike you as odd, that 

no foreign researcher has done any research on some of these Indian sites that have suddenly popped up. 
that Dholivira used stone (a more ancient construction material), whereas all the other IVC sites used more advanced brick technology? 
what do you make of the find of a seal that has been found in other IVC sites with nothing in? Why on earth would anyone want to create a seal by itself?Why is it plagiarized from other IVC scripts? If the primary construction technology was less advanced than IVC, therefore the seal is the original, why is that the only thing found with nothing in? Coincidence? 

I'll get back to you with the rest. But these are things which some foreign (not an Indian) researcher needs to investigate for these sites to attain creditability. There's no way you can put them on the same level as Harrappa and Mohenjendaro. No researcher that is serious and creditable would agree with you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

Here is an article, by a foreign author by the way, for all those who would consider Indian authors biased, explaining the continuity between IVC religion and Hinduism:

The Harappan Civilization by Tarini J. Carr


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> So, according to these sources, the number of sites along the Ghaggar-Hakra river are more than the ones along Indus?
> 
> I am not disputing the name "Indus Valley Civilization". The name is of least significance and is just a term of convenience.
> 
> But the fact is that a huge chunk of sites have been found far away from the Indus riverbed, which needs to be taken into consideration while labeling it as solely the history of Pakistan.



 Dude, are you suggesting the Indus Valley Civilization should not be called the Indus Valley Civilization? Can you find some creditable, non Indian researcher that agrees with you (that more IVC sites have been found in India than in Pakistan?) 

Remember a large part of the Ghaggar-Hakra River flows/ed through Pakistan. 

EDIt - Alright here's the reference that says 500! IVC sites were found along the Ghagghar-Hakra river! 

Gupta, S. P. (ed.) (1995). The lost Sarasvati and the Indus Civilisation. Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Prakashan. 

Dr Gupta is an Indian clearly. Now if this sort of nonsense is permitted and given for public consumption, how much more nonsense have Indian archaeologists been telling us? Can you not see the need to establish creditability of these sites by allowing the major researchers to conduct research in these areas and perform experiments on the materials found in these areas?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Stealth Assassin,
> 
> I don't have enough time, but here are some replies to the wild claims you've been making on here. I haven't done the nitty gritty research on the discoveries at Dolivira. However, several aspects of it strike me as odd, and not only that I have not seen one non Indian researcher being part of the team to research this and the other Indian sites.



As I said, the Indian researchers are not kooks. They are renowned and well qualified. 
Your argument is bunk.



> The archaeologists whom this correspondent spoke to say that information on the material used to construct these structures will provide a crucial link to the period of the site. Raman explains: "Brick structures could be tied to the early Harappan culture. All Harappan sites used brick for building except Dholavira which used stone.
> Questionable claims



It shows a regional variation , thats all. There is nothing primitive about using stone. 

Stone was used in construction till the 20th century. 

On most other parameters, including culture, seals, city planning, sanitation, etc. it conforms to the IVC standard.

Also, it is older than the Harappan and Mohenjodaro cities.



> Does it not strike you as odd, that
> 
> no foreign researcher has done any research on some of these Indian sites that have suddenly popped up.
> that Dholivira used stone (a more ancient construction material), whereas all the other IVC sites used more advanced brick technology?
> what do you make of the find of a seal that has been found in other IVC sites with nothing in? Why on earth would anyone want to create a seal by itself?Why is it plagiarized from other IVC scripts? If the primary construction technology was less advanced than IVC, therefore the seal is the original, why is that the only thing found with nothing in? Coincidence?



They haven't "popped up", as you say. Some were discovered pre-independence, and others in the 60s.

Only recently has proper excavation taken place, thats all. I have said this over and over, please read all my posts.

I didn't get your part about the seal. 

The wooden board that was found, was a signboard with magnified harappan letters on it. 
According to researchers, it was probably used on the main gate.





> I'll get back to you with the rest. But these are things which some foreign (not an Indian) researcher needs to investigate for these sites to attain creditability. There's no way you can put them on the same level as Harrappa and Mohenjendaro. No researcher that is serious and creditable would agree with you.



That I would disagree with completely. Sorry. But you simply can't accept the facts.....


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Dude, are you suggesting the Indus Valley Civilization should not be called the Indus Valley Civilization? Can you find some creditable, non Indian researcher that agrees with you (that more IVC sites have been found in India than in Pakistan?)
> 
> Remember a large part of the Ghaggar-Hakra River flows/ed through Pakistan.
> 
> EDIt - Alright here's the reference that says 500! IVC sites were found along the Ghagghar-Hakra river!
> 
> Gupta, S. P. (ed.) (1995). The lost Sarasvati and the Indus Civilisation. Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Prakashan.
> 
> Dr Gupta is an Indian clearly. Now if this sort of nonsense is permitted and given for public consumption, how much more nonsense have Indian archaeologists been telling us? Can you not see the need to establish creditability of these sites by allowing the major researchers to conduct research in these areas and perform experiments on the materials found in these areas?



Sorry my friend, but according to you Indian= bullshit.

If thats the argument you are going to make, then I am not interested in contesting it.

These archaeologists are financed by well known foreign universities and institutions, as well as the ASI. They are well respected in their field and are not spreading any propaganda.

Their research is as credible as any other.

If you don't realize that, then there is very little that can stop you from living your daydream.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Here is an article, by a foreign author by the way, for all those who would consider Indian authors biased, explaining the continuity between IVC religion and Hinduism:
> 
> The Harappan Civilization by Tarini J. Carr



Dude, do you know who Tarini J Carr is? She's a traveller with no qualifications, and not even an archaeologist. She just writes on that stuff from time to time, and judging by what she's written, she sounds like she doesn't know much....isn't Tarini a Hindu name anyhow? 

Anyway, she is not a researcher. Dude, give us names and research papers of famous names in archaeology that are not Indian that have discovered and performed research at the major sites in India..You will not be able to come up with many. In contrast, the world's greatest Indologists frequently visit the Pakistani sites to get samples, such as Asko Perpola.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Sorry my friend, but according to you Indian= bullshit.
> 
> If thats the argument you are going to make, then I am not interested in contesting it.
> 
> These archaeologists are financed by well known foreign universities and institutions, as well as the ASI. They are well respected in their field and are not spreading any propaganda.
> 
> Their research is as credible as any other.
> 
> If you don't realize that, then there is very little that can stop you from living your daydream.



Alright, then we agree to disagree. But at least acknowledge that some Indian researchers make up stuff on the IVC. There are several articles by well known Indologists that have mentioned the nonsense that they've come out with. Gupta's 500 sites along the Saraswati is one example, which got published in a major Indian journal!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> It shows a regional variation , thats all. There is nothing primitive about using stone.



Yes, but why was Dholivira the only "IVC site" that used stone, while every other IVC sites used brick? Why were they not connected with the IVC technology? 



> On most other parameters, including culture, seals, city planning, sanitation, etc. it conforms to the IVC standard.



Why the anomalies though? And what was the culture of Dholivira? I don't think anyone even knows the culture of Mohenhendaro yet much. How was the planning of Dholivira similar to Harrappa and Mohenjendaro? Do you know, or are you just making this up?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Dude, do you know who Tarini J Carr is? She's a traveller with no qualifications, and not even an archaeologist. She just writes on that stuff from time to time, and judging by what she's written, she sounds like she doesn't know much....isn't Tarini a Hindu name anyhow?



Yes, I know that she has collected her information from various sources, which are clearly mentioned on the page. 

She has quoted several well known foreign archaeologists and is siimply reflecting their views, not airing her own.

Now, can you just consider the article on its own merit, and the merit of its sources, very few of which seem to be from Indian authors?

I think the article is well written and outlines the salient features of IVC very well indeed.


----------



## Flintlock

> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but why was Dholivira the only "IVC site" that used stone, while every other IVC sites used brick? Why were they not connected with the IVC technology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he sites were separated by more than 500 kilometers from Harappa and Mohenjodaro, I believe.
> 
> Even today the cities of London and Paris have significant variation in architecture and planning, inspite of all communication.
> 
> Its something called regional variation, which makes each harappan site unique. Why does only one site have the great bath? Why not others?
> Why does only one site have a reservoir-canal system, why not others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the anomalies though? And what was the culture of Dholivira? I don't think anyone even knows the culture of Mohenhendaro yet much. How was the planning of Dholivira similar to Harrappa and Mohenjendaro? Do you know, or are you just making this up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, its not an anomaly, its a variation.
> 
> By culture I mean beads, pottery, seals, bangles, necklaces, script, mathematics, brick sizes, toilets, roads, metal works, burial practices....etc etc etc.
> 
> get it?
> 
> I am not making anything up. Just read my earlier posts explaining the details of these sites.
Click to expand...


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Alright, then we agree to disagree. But at least acknowledge that some Indian researchers make up stuff on the IVC. There are several articles by well known Indologists that have mentioned the nonsense that they've come out with. Gupta's 500 sites along the Saraswati is one example, which got published in a major Indian journal!



Well....I don't think we have any other choice now do we, considering your unshakable hatred for all things said and done by Indians?

Its not nonsense. You just can't call anything you disagree with nonsense.

There are several theories on the IVC. 

Some Hindutva "experts" do publish propaganda from time to time, but none of those guys are archaeologists, nor do they publish academic papers.


----------



## Flintlock

Interesting InterviewFrench Gentleman selected for doubting Pakistanis)

INTERVIEW: M. Jean-Francois Jarrige, Membre de L&#8217;Institut, and President of the Musee National des Arts Asiatiques- Guimet

P.S>>>above French means "President of National Museum of Asian Art"<<<

*
Harappan civilisation came from an internal dynamic*

*Jean-Francois Jarrige*, member of the French Academy, has carried out extensive work over the l*ast 30 years* in the Indian sub-continent. His excavations centre around the Indus civilisation, and he is the *excavator of the famous proto-historic site of Mehrgarh (Pakistan)*. Director of the National Museum of Asiatic Arts of Paris, Jarrige was recently in New Delhi. Excerpts from an interview:
*
QUESTION: How would you reinterpret the whole Indus Valley civilisation scenario in the light of your excavations in India and Pakistan?*

ANSWER: The work we have been conducting on the western side of the Indus and all the work done by *Indian archaeologists* on the eastern side are giving us a much more *comprehensive picture.* The Indus Harappan civilisation is a synthesis of many elements. All these features and developments now shown by the Indian archaeologists on the eastern side were *not known 30 years ago.* Seeing the work at *Dholavira, Kalibangan, and our work,* we can say that there has been a lot of diversity before 2500 BC. There was an economical dynamic already by 3000 BC and many contacts between the east and west. So it seems that the Harappan civilisation developed from an internal dynamic and this internal dynamic is now to be understood within a much larger framework and comprising data from what is now India and Pakistan.

*Question: What is that internal dynamic?*

Now we know that by 3000 BC already the craft activities had developed to a level which was not expected before. In the time of Sir Mortimer Wheeler and other old archaeologists, it was felt that there was a gap between this early culture and the Indus culture. There is a change in the scale of the Indus civilisation which is enormous, but it takes its roots in the dynamic of the chalcholitic culture around 3000 BC. Some climatic change may have resulted in the exploitation of the alluvial flood planes like the Indus which led to an increase in agricultural production. It was definitely linked to a tradition which was there earlier. *Some Indian archaeologists want to rename it the Saraswati civilisation*, and those in *Pakistan would prefer to call it Hakra civilisation.* I like my Pakistani and Indian colleagues. I think the Hakra and the Saraswati are part of a large-scale process. We should avoid spotting a single place in order to say that it is more Indian than Pakistani because *in 2500 BC there was no concept of nation.
*

*Question: Who do you think were the authors of that civilisation?*

First of all we have not been able to excavate the lower layer of Mohenjodaro, and many cities, so it is very difficult to know. But we know that by 2600 BC there is a dynamic change. Suddenly the same type of pottery spreading on a large area, and then we have the emergence of the Harappan civilisation. What were the exact reasons, why the whole thing started in 2500 BC we don't know exactly. But we are trying to understand in which context, which background these things occurred. It is very difficult to say such and such group. We know that many sites have been destroyed by floods and what is left today is only a small part.

Brahminism's new archeological evidence suggests that history of civilisation dates to Rig Vedic people


----------



## UnitedPak

> Some Hindutva "experts" do publish propaganda from time to time, but none of those guys are archaeologists, nor do they publish academic papers.



Oh, I see, well why didnt you say that before.

Seriously though, you have no way of knowing that, and the current propaganda suggests otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

The above french archaeologist also supports my view, that since there was no concept of nation in the IVC, we should refrain from calling it either solely "Indian" or solely "Pakistani".

It belongs to both nations, to the people of the subcontinent, and to the world.


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Oh, I see, well why didnt you say that before.
> 
> Seriously though, you have no way of knowing that, and the current propaganda suggests otherwise.



You considering it propaganda doesn't make it propaganda.

An academic paper is not propaganda.
*
A cheap article on a website or newspaper, written by unqualified people without references, is propaganda.*

Please stop equating Indian research with propaganda. It is not. It is well respected and accepted.

*Kindly read the interview with the French excavator of some sites n Pakistan, which I have pasted earlier.

He has clearly endorsed the work of his Indian colleagues. I don't see why you cannot.*


----------



## UnitedPak

Stealth Assassin said:


> The above french archaeologist also supports my view, that since there was no concept of nation in the IVC, we should refrain from calling it either solely "Indian" or solely "Pakistani".
> 
> It belongs to both nations, to the people of the subcontinent, and to the world.



It belongs to the home of the Indus Valley first, i.e Pakistan, and then the whole world.

You still have to explain where India keeps coming into the story, and why it should receive the same priority as Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> It belongs to the home of the Indus Valley first, i.e Pakistan, and then the whole world.
> 
> You still have to explain where India keeps coming into the story, and why it should receive the same priority as Pakistan.


*
I have explained already, because equally significant finds have been made in India as well.*

I believe I have posted more than enough material on this subject, if you care to read through it patiently.

I have also pasted links and interviews, from both Indians and Foreign archeologists.

So accept the facts, otherwise continue calling Indian sites as fakes and disguised slums, and keep living in dreamworld.


----------



## UnitedPak

Stealth Assassin said:


> I have explained already, because equally significant finds have been made in India as well.
> 
> I believe I have posted more than enough material on this subject, if you care to read through it patiently.
> 
> I have also pasted links and interviews, from both Indians and Foreign archeologists.
> 
> So accept the facts, otherwise continue calling Indian sites as fakes and disguised slums, and keep living in dreamworld.



We have very different ideas of what "equally significant" means. I can assure you the sites in India are not even close to the ones in Pakistan. Nothing so far compares to Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, and I dont know why you refuse to accept that.

You clearly have an agenda by not accepting the significance of the Pakistani sites. You keep going on about India having the same amount of "significant sites", and it thats not a nationalist agenda, I dont know what is.
You are not interested in Indus Valley, but simply trying to push the agenda that India should be the center.

And your attempts to link Hinduism to IVC already took away whatever credibility you had. Sorry. I am sure you remember what happened to the "scientists" who claimed they had deciphered the IV scripts, and the "translation" turned out to be verses from the rgveda. The whole world laughed at them. And then they laughed some more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> We have very different ideas of what "equally significant" means. I can assure you the sites in India are not even close to the ones in Pakistan. Nothing so far compares to Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, and I dont know why you refuse to accept that.



In terms of what? 

In the beginning of this thread, you didn't even accept the existence of Indian sites, calling them fabrications.

I posted details of the sites, which clearly show their sophistication and scale which 
clearly match up to the 2 earlier excavations in Pakistan.

Then after a long time you admitted that sites may exist in India, but they have been exaggerated greatly.

I have demonstrated with an interview with the person incharge of excavation of sites in Paksitan, that he considers work done by his Indian colleagues as credible.

But sill you refuse to accept the facts.
*
Really, and its you who is questioning my credibility? Roardunner is comparing the excavations to slums, you are calling archaeologists as propagandists.* 
*
If anything, your credibility is in question here.*



> You clearly have an agenda by not accepting the significance of the Pakistani sites. You keep going on about India having the same amount of "significant sites", and it thats not a nationalist agenda, I dont know what is.
> You are not interested in Indus Valley, but simply trying to push the agenda that India should be the center.



What? When did I not accept the significance of Pakistani sites? Stop making things up buddy.

I am simply posting links showing the significance of sites discovered on the Indian side, thats all.

Neither am I claiming that India is the center. Stop your daydreaming and please READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.





> And your attempts to link Hinduism to IVC already took whatever credibility you had, away. Sorry. I am sure you remember what happened to the "scientists" who claimed they had deciphered the IV scripts, and the "translation" turned out to be verses from the rgveda. The whole world laughed at them. And then they laughed some more.



I have not attempted anything, several historians think this way. There are similarities between IVC religion and hinduism and proto-Iranian religion.

If you refuse to see the similarities, then there is nothing more to be said.

I don't remember anyone laughing at anyone else. Perhaps you guys were laughing since you cannot take research at face value.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Interesting InterviewFrench Gentleman selected for doubting Pakistanis)
> 
> INTERVIEW: M. Jean-Francois Jarrige, Membre de LInstitut, and President of the Musee National des Arts Asiatiques- Guimet
> 
> P.S>>>above French means "President of National Museum of Asian Art"<<<
> 
> *
> Harappan civilisation came from an internal dynamic*
> 
> QUESTION: How would you reinterpret the whole Indus Valley civilisation scenario in the light of your excavations in India and Pakistan?[/B]
> 
> ANSWER: The work we have been conducting on the western side of the Indus and all the work done by *Indian archaeologists* on the eastern side



Exactly the point I've been making to you. All the work in India has been done by Indian archaeologists. This French guy is doing the work on the Pakistani side. He's neutral. Perhaps he's a bit naive of the Indian mindset and Hindutva fanatics who want IVC as a Bharati civilization.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

*Change that chapter*

ONCE upon a time, there lived in Mohenjodaro and Harappa on the Indus Valley a highly organised and urbanised people. Their towns and cities were so well planned that we have not been able to replicate that in India today. Their residences were in blocks and their drainages were far superior to the dirty open nullahs you see in Amritsar or Delhi. They had private granaries, forts and fortifications, sprawling upper, middle and lower towns. They were great mariners, manufacturing goods and trading them far and near. They may not have had currency, but their seals, pottery, arts and crafts suggest that they had a sense of mathematical proportion, standardisation, precision and a writing system. Overnight, their towns were destroyed, and they were driven out, probably by a hoard of horse-riding, fair-skinned aliens. Then followed the Dark Ages, till the birth of Buddha in 600 BC. That is roughly what children learn about ancient Indian history. There is not a clue in the textbooks as to who built that fabulous civilisation, and where they came from. And why did the aliens destroy the towns instead of occupying them? The chapter on the Indus Valley civilisation, and much of ancient Indian history, has to be rewritten, say archaeologists who have been working on the Harappan sites.

The lesson being taught is based only on the excavation of Mohenjodaro and Harappa, the first Indus sites to come to light, in 1921-22. Excavations in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan in the last 50 years have shown that the Indus Valley civilisation was not just the story of two towns, *it touched Manda on the Beas in the north, Bhagattrao on the Tapti in Maharashtra, stretched to Alamgir on the Hindon in the east, and in the west to Satkangedor near eastern Iran! An area of 1.25 million square kilometres.* The civilisation included metros like *Mohenjodaro, Harappa, Ghaneriwala *(in Pakistan), *Dholavira and Rakhigarhi;* towns like *Lothal, Surkotda, Banawali and Kalibangan, and villages like Kunal*. The excavations exposed not just a town or city, but an earlier settlement beneath it, and an even earlier one further down. According to archaeologist Ravindra Singh Bhist (pic: above), before the mature Harappan stage, many regional cultures-Amri, Kot dirji, Kalibangan, Dholavira and Lothal-had coalesced into the cultural umbrella of Harappa. They were strongly bound by common economic compulsions, system and cultural ethos. Could it have been an internal conflict-a civil war of sorts-that brought them to ruin? Bhist says: "Every raja wanted to be the emperor. And so the break-up. And now we have the continuous history of India, from 7000 BC to 600 BC to date. No dark ages." History books have to be revised not only in the context of the Harappan culture, but also other things, these archaeologists suggest. "I*f we followed history books, the whole civilisation would start and end with Harappa and Mohenjodaro,"* says Amarendranath. *"Nobody teaches students about Kalibangan, which was exposed in the early 60s.*" He also laments the fact that there is no matching of literature and excavations. 

Brahminism's new archeological evidence suggests that history of civilisation dates to Rig Vedic people


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Exactly the point I've been making to you. All the work in India has been done by Indian archaeologists. This French guy is doing the work on the Pakistani side. He's neutral. Perhaps he's a bit naive of the Indian mindset and Hindutva fanatics who want IVC as a Bharati civilization.



Don't give me that "naive french guy" bullshit. First read the entire article to the last word, then comment.

He didn't just listen to hindutva stories from the Indians and trust them on their word.

There is a scientific method and a particular protocol while excavating, which all archaeologists follow. 

He was in India to visit those very sites you are calling fake.

Your arguments are getting worse.

First you say they are slums, then you call the eminent archaeologist naive and unaware of "indian Mindset" whatever that means.

*You are simply stalling buddy, even the most eminent archaeologists have verified the finds and recognised the work done by Indians. Don't insult your and my intelligence by still claiming that the indian sites are a fraud.*


----------



## UnitedPak

Stealth Assassin said:


> Don't give me that "naive french guy" bullshit. First read the entire article to the last word, then comment.
> 
> He didn't just listen to hindutva stories from the Indians and trust them on their word.
> 
> There is a scientific method and a particular protocol while excavating, which all archaeologists follow.
> 
> He was in India to visit those very sites you are calling fake.
> 
> Your arguments are getting worse.
> 
> First you say they are slums, then you call the eminent archaeologist naive and unaware of "indian Mindset" whatever that means.
> 
> *You are simply stalling buddy, even the most eminent archaeologists have verified the finds and recognised the work done by Indians. Don't insult your and my intelligence by still claiming that the indian sites are a fraud.*



I have already given you sources stating that Dholavira was inhabited by Indians until *1450*. You cant call that structure "Ancient", which is why the whole research there is a scam.

In fact, I will get someone to put a washing machine somewhere in Harappa and then I can claim the IVC people manufactured their own washing machines.

And why dont you question the Hinduism claims yourself. Before the discovery of Harappa in 1920 something, Hindu texts never referred to any great civilisation in that region. All those claims and "ancient sources" popped up after the discovery of Harappa. go figure.

And remember what I said about the artefacts found in Pakistan, and playing a great part in making Pakistani sites part of IVC? No significant artefacts have been found in the so called Indian sites. Not even with Dholavira being inhabited until as recently as 600 years ago. There goes that "culture" link.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> I have already given you sources stating that Dholavira was inhabited by Indians until *1450*. You cant call that structure "Ancient", which is why the whole research there is a scam.



Dude. You simply don't know the first thing about archaeology.

There is something called "mounds" and "levels" and "carbon dating", which is used to ascertain the age of a site.

People just don't discover a brick wall and name it harappan.

Please don't insult my intelligence.



> In fact, I will get someone to put a washing machine somewhere in Harappa and then I can claim the IVC people manufactured their own washing machines.



Only someone of your level will get fooled by such a scam.

If eminent archaeologists have verified it, you shouldn't be branding yourself an idiot by making such statements.



> And why dont you question the Hinduism claims yourself. Before the discovery of Harappa in 1920 something, Hindu texts never referred to any great civilisation in that region. All those claims and "ancient sources" popped up after the discovery of Harappa. go figure.



I have no idea what you are talking about. In any case, it has little to do with the similarities between Hinduism and IVC religion.




> And remember what I said about the artefacts found in Pakistan, and playing a great part in making Pakistani sites part of IVC? No significant artefacts have been found in the so called Indian sites. Not even with Dholavira being inhabited until as recently as 600 years ago. There goes that "culture" link.



Really? 

Statues have been found. 
Seals have been found.
Pottery has been found.
Metalwork has been found.
Fishing equipment has been found
Surveying instruments have been found.

All this info is available in the numerous links that i posted earlier.

If this isn't good enough for you, then you are simply blind to the facts.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Dude. You simply don't know the first thing about archaeology.
> 
> There is something called "mounds" and "levels" and "carbon dating", which is used to ascertain the age of a site.
> 
> People just don't discover a brick wall and name it harappan.
> 
> Please don't insult my intelligence.



Another important part of archaeology (and any research), is creditability. Which researchers have dated the stone (not brick) of Dhalivira toth time of the IVC? One reference will do. They won't even let this French guy into India to confirm any of the work. He just "trusts" Hindutva propagandists.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

Stealth Assassin said:


> Dude. You simply don't know the first thing about archaeology.
> 
> There is something called "mounds" and "levels" and "carbon dating", which is used to ascertain the age of a site.
> 
> People just don't discover a brick wall and name it harappan.
> 
> Please don't insult my intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone of your level will get fooled by such a scam.
> 
> If eminent archaeologists have verified it, you shouldn't be branding yourself an idiot by making such statements.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about. In any case, it has little to do with the similarities between Hinduism and IVC religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Statues have been found.
> Seals have been found.
> Pottery has been found.
> Metalwork has been found.
> Fishing equipment has been found
> Surveying instruments have been found.
> 
> All this info is available in the numerous links that i posted earlier.
> 
> If this isn't good enough for you, then you are simply blind to the facts.




Your language us getting more abusive, and with the personal insults, you have already lost the debate.

The argument is very simple, Let non Indian researchers work on so called Indian sites and we will see. Currently its only Indians writing the journals and presenting their so called facts, which usually leads to imaginary links with Hinduism. Thats the Agenda right there, and you cant even hide it. The frustrations is really visible now.

Please keep this debate clean, You are dismissing my points with claims that, I dont know the slightest thing about this and that. I do know about archaeology, and the Indians living in the city in 1450 IS being considered as an ancient part of Dholavira.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Some Hindutva "experts" do publish propaganda from time to time, but none of those guys are archaeologists, nor do they publish academic papers.



You mean Dr. Gupta's 500 IVC sites along the Ghaggar-Hakra riverbed was not published in an Indian academic paper?  

Gupta, S. P. (ed.) (1995). The lost Sarasvati and the Indus Civilisation. Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Prakashan. 

Is not Kusumanjali Parkashan an academic journal from Jodhpur, India? This link says it is an academic publication on historical stuff in India though..Surely not! 

Indica et Buddhica - Scholia: Search Interface Result for Publisher = Kusumanjali.,

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Another important part of archaeology (and any research), is creditability. Which researchers have dated the stone (not brick) of Dhalivira toth time of the IVC? One reference will do. They won't even let this French guy into India to confirm any of the work. He just "trusts" Hindutva propagandists.



Huh? He came to India. He saw the sites. He met his Indian counterparts. He verified their work.

He also gave the interview.

Didn't you read the article? If you didn't read it, then please do so, otherwise kindly refrain from posting.


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Your language us getting more abusive, and with the personal insults, you have already lost the debate.



Your ridiculous posts are simply exposing your inability to accept naked facts.




> The argument is very simple, Let non Indian researchers work on so called Indian sites and we will see. Currently its only Indians writing the journals and presenting their so called facts, which usually leads to imaginary links with Hinduism. Thats the Agenda right there, and you cant even hide it. The frustrations is really visible now.



Thats bullshit. Stop imagining an imaginary agenda. Your paranoia is what is frustating.

Indian finds have been verified and upheld in international academic circles. *If its good enough for the foreign archaeologists, its good enough for me.*

If its not good enough for you, then too bad.



> Please keep this debate clean, You are dismissing my points with claims that, I dont know the slightest thing about this and that. I do know about archaeology, and the Indians living in the city in 1450 IS being considered as an ancient part of Dholavira.



I am not dismissing your points. I am merely pointing out the fact that you are simply refusing to believe that actual archaeology was done at the site.

*
You are assuming that some saffron robed dudes found a brick wall, gave it an arbitrary date and named it IVC.*

Rest assured, the standards of the ASI are better than that. Perhaps Pakistani research is done that way, but not in India.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> You mean Dr. Gupta's 500 IVC sites along the Ghaggar-Hakra riverbed was not published in an Indian academic paper?
> 
> Gupta, S. P. (ed.) (1995). The lost Sarasvati and the Indus Civilisation. Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Prakashan.
> 
> Is not Kusumanjali Parkashan an academic journal from Jodhpur, India? This link says it is an academic publication on historical stuff in India though..Surely not!
> 
> Indica et Buddhica - Scholia: Search Interface Result for Publisher = Kusumanjali.,



So? Its an academic paper. 

Have you got any sources that dispute that claim? 

*
Stop nit-picking one claim and consider all the others before dismissing the whole body of Indian research as a sham.*


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Huh? He came to India. He saw the sites. He met his Indian counterparts. He verified their work.
> 
> He also gave the interview.
> 
> Didn't you read the article? If you didn't read it, then please do so, otherwise kindly refrain from posting.



Why lie about such an obvious thing which you posted in the first place?  

Here is a direct copy & paste lifted from your post about what the French archaeologist said: 

"The work *we have been conducting on the western side of the Indus *and all the work done by Indian archaeologists on the eastern side are giving us a much more comprehensive picture." 
Brahminism's new archeological evidence suggests that history of civilisation dates to Rig Vedic people (your source is even written by an Indian)

i.e The French dude only did work on the West side of the Indus. That is to say on settlements such as Mehargh, Naushera, Harappa and so on. By the Eastern side, presumably he means within India, all the work was done by Indians. In other words, the French archaeologist did not verify any of the Indian claims

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Keysersoze

This discussion seems to have run aground........I recommend every take a break and come back later.......


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Indian finds have been verified and upheld in international academic circles. *If its good enough for the foreign archaeologists, its good enough for me.*



The French guy did not verify the Indian finds. He worked on sites in Pakistan. Find me one eminent archaeologist that's agreed with the 500 sites along the Gagghar-Haraka riverbed, or the claims you're making that the IVC was located mainly in India. Just one. I've been asking this for about 10 hours now. So far you've managed to quote one Hindu convert with no qualifications writing on a site, and one French archaeologist that admits he never worked on an Indian site, only on Pakistani sites. Just one will do. Please? Pretty please!


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Why lie about such an obvious thing which you posted in the first place?
> 
> Here is a direct copy & paste lifted from your post about what the French archaeologist said:
> 
> "The work *we have been conducting on the western side of the Indus *and all the work done by Indian archaeologists on the eastern side are giving us a much more comprehensive picture."
> 
> i.e The French dude only did work on the West side of the Indus. That is to say on settlements such as Mehargh, Naushera, Harappa and so on. By the Eastern side, presumably he means within India, all the work was done by Indians. In other words, the French archaeologist did not verify any of the Indian claims



He gave the interview in New Delhi, India, where he visited the sites and read the papers written by Indians.

How stupid do you think he is buddy. Considering his eminence, he probably has an IQ of 130-140.
*
I'm sure he won't get fooled by false claims.

If he did get fooled by hindutva propaganda, I doubt if his excavations in pakistan are of any significance, since he may be incapable of interpreting his finds in the right manner.*


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> He gave the interview in New Delhi, India, where he visited the sites and read the papers written by Indians.
> 
> How stupid do you think he is buddy. Considering his eminence, he probably has an IQ of 130-140.
> *
> I'm sure he won't get fooled by false claims.
> 
> If he did get fooled by hindutva propaganda, I doubt if his excavations in pakistan are of any significance, since he may be incapable of interpreting his finds in the right manner.*



So you admit, he did not do any of the work on the "IVC" sites in India. Then what you were saying before, that the French archaeologist worked on the excavations in India, is incorrect. This guy is just foolishly trusting the Bharati excavators' data, a lot of whom no doubts are Hindutva. Thanks for correcting yourself. Now take a break like Keyser suggests, you obviously are not thinking straight.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> The French guy did not verify the Indian finds. He worked on sites in Pakistan.



He has visited both countries and done extensive work on the subject for the last 30 years.

He is probably much smarter than you are and capable of making better judgements than you.



> Find me one eminent archaeologist that's agreed with the 500 sites along the Gagghar-Haraka riverbed, or the claims you're making that the IVC was located mainly in India. Just one. I've been asking this for about 10 hours now.


*
I didn't mention the veracity of 500 sites being found anywhere. That was a quote by Agnostic Muslim which I even I was surprised by.*

*I never claimed that IVC is mainly in India. Another white lie by you.*

Please read my posts carefully before commenting.





> So far you've managed to quote one Hindu convert with no qualifications writing on a site, and one French archaeologist that admits he never worked on an Indian site, only on Pakistani sites. Just one will do. Please? Pretty please!



Bullshit argument.

The "Hindu Convert's" article has a good list of sources of foreign names and papers. the views in the article aren't hers, but collected from different sources. *But obviously you didn't read the article carefully and therfore jumped to conclusions.*

*
The French archaeologist has visited both countries, verified the work, and is thus speaking with the authority of an expert. His words are to be taken seriously.*

He is not a naive child to be fooled by cheap frauds.

I have given references from most common sites on the subject, and they all mention the Indian excavations as important finds.

I have posted details of the sites along with pictures and renderings.

If you refuse to accept cold facts, then so be it.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> So you admit, he did not do any of the work on the "IVC" sites in India. Then what you were saying before, that the French archaeologist worked on the excavations in India, is incorrect. This guy is just foolishly trusting the Bharati excavators' data, a lot of whom no doubts are Hindutva. Thanks for correcting yourself. Now take a break like Keyser suggests, you obviously are not thinking straight.




Right, so the stupid frenchie got fooled by hindutva propaganda.

I'm sure if a man of his intelligence got fooled, rest assured the whole world will follow his footsteps as well 

*
But seriously, you should think straight before doubting the words of an eminent archaeologist with little or no archaeological background yourself, especially when its his work that you are relying on to interpret a lot of Pakistani finds.*

*
I never said that he worked in India, so the question of correcting anything doesn't arise. As usual, you are not reading my posts properly.*


----------



## Flintlock

*An interesting and extensive paper about the Indus script by Asko Parpola:*

http://www.harappa.com/script/indusscript.pdf

*Its in .pdf format, so might take time to download*


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> He has visited both countries and done extensive work on the subject for the last 30 years.



Visting India, does not mean taking part in the data finding. What papers has he written about his excavations in India? None, because the Indian government does not let foreign researchers work on the sites in India that will not tow the line. 



> He is probably much smarter than you are and capable of making better judgements than you.



I realize that you cannot find an article by a neutral researcher, but no need to get personal. The French guy is probably just being diplomatic and accepting what the Indian excavators say. That is how research is done. You don't accuse until you have evidence, else there will be repurcussions. It does not mean that the French guy is stupid, he's just diplomatic. 



> *
> I didn't mention the veracity of 500 sites being found anywhere. That was a quote by Agnostic Muslim which I even I was surprised by.*



The 500 sites was a quote by an Indian researcher called Dr Gupta, who got his work published in a major Indian academic publication. It's something most neutral researchers would laugh at. 



> *I never claimed that IVC is mainly in India. Another white lie by you.*



Well I was short on time. Quote me one researcher that claims the Indian sites are anything like on the same scale as Mohenjendaro or Harrapa or the Pakistani sites. Virtually none of the Indian sites except Lothal which was a port, not a city have much creditibility in the eyes of the world (read: foreign researchers). 



> Please read my posts carefully before commenting.



Your posts have been read. Yet you don't seem to read my posts asking for 1 foreign, neutral (non Indian) researcher to verify the claims of the Indian excavators. 



> Bullshit argument.
> 
> The "Hindu Convert's" article has a good list of sources of foreign names and papers. the views in the article aren't hers, but collected from different sources. *But obviously you didn't read the article carefully and therfore jumped to conclusions.*



If you read the "Hindu convert's" article virtually all is about the Pakistani sites of Harrapa and Mohenjendaro. Have a read. Perhaps that is why all the references are of foreign researcher origin. If they're as you say they are, quote me one foreign researcher that has been excavating and collecting data from an Indian site. Just one. 



> *
> The French archaeologist has visited both countries, verified the work, and is thus speaking with the authority of an expert. His words are to be taken seriously.*



He has no verified the work. He only took part in a conference, of which he relayed his own work - that of his own excavations and data from west of the Indus. That is what your article says. The French guy did not collect data from within India. 



> He is not a naive child to be fooled by cheap frauds.



He's not, but you seem to lap it up because it's suits your beliefs/agenda. 



> I have given references from most common sites on the subject, and they all mention the Indian excavations as important finds.



Read this carefully. You have not given me 1 single reference by a foreign (non Indian) researcher to verify the data obtained by the Indian researchers. I have given you several from the Pakistani sites (and so have you like the frenchman!), which reassures me of te validity of the Pakistani work. 



> I have posted details of the sites along with pictures and renderings.
> 
> If you refuse to accept cold facts, then so be it.



What do the renderings mean, and how is a rendering a cold hard fact. Joke of the century..milenium even.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Right, so the stupid frenchie got fooled by hindutva propaganda.
> 
> I'm sure if a man of his intelligence got fooled, rest assured the whole world will follow his footsteps as well



The French archaeologist was just present at a conference. He did not endorse the findings of the Indians. He just mentioned them, and it doesnt even look like he agreed with their ideas of renaming stuff and so on. Show me where in that article the French archaeologist says that he verified the Indian data. 



> *
> But seriously, you should think straight before doubting the words of an eminent archaeologist with little or no archaeological background yourself, especially when its his work that you are relying on to interpret a lot of Pakistani finds.*



He personally did the excavation from the Pakistani finds. All the data such as the carbon dating (which isn't very accurate anyway), were done by him and his colleagues. This is neutral. I would trust his results since he has no vested interests. Can i say the same about radiocarbon dating done by a lab in India on IVC, no way. They have vested interests and are not neutral, and Indian researchers have a prior history of concocting fake results to suit agendas such as some examples I've given previously. 



> *
> I never said that he worked in India, so the question of correcting anything doesn't arise. As usual, you are not reading my posts properly.*



He didn't work on any of the Indian IVC sites, that's correct. Therefore he did not collect and analyze any of the data from the Indian sites. Therefore the Indian researchers collected all the data, and did the analysis. No independent verification has been done. Until I see independent, neutral, foreign researchers being allowed to collect and analyze data from Indian archaeological sites, why should I believe any of the Indian sites are genuine, given the track record of Indian researchers in making up lies on IVC?


----------



## Flintlock

A comprehensive and updated map of the Indus-Saraswati Sites:


----------



## Flintlock

*^^Above map shows the all major sites in India as well, including Lothal, Dholavira, Kalibangan, Banavali and Rakhigarhi.

IT also shows the major sites in Pakistan including Mohenjodaro, Chanhu Dero, Ganweriwala, Harappa and pre-harappan site Mehrgarh

Also shows the sites along the now dry Saraswati river or Ghaggar-Hakra River.

RR, your post about the 500 sites along the Saraswati is shown here...there seem to be plenty of minor sites along the Ghaggar-Hakra bed.....

Also a major chunk along the Saraswati is in Pakistan, so obviously not excavated by Indian researchers.

Looks like Dr. Gupta's 500 isn't as far from reality as we thought eh?

*


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> why should I believe any of the Indian sites are genuine, given the track record of Indian researchers in making up lies on IVC?



Oh, it doesn't matter...the rest of the world does..


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> ^^Above map shows the all major sites in India as well, including *Lothal, Dholavira, Kalibangan, Banavali and Rakhigarhi.
> *


* 

What's the reference for the map? Anyhow, this still does not mean foreign archaeologists are allowed to analyze data from Indian sites. We're accepting whatever Hindutva fanatics say. Without neutral achaeologists analyzing the data, the data is as good as made up imo. 




IT also shows the major sites in Pakistan including Mohenjodaro, Chanhu Dero, Ganweriwala, Harappa and pre-harappan site Mehrgarh

Click to expand...


Lothal might have been a major site in India, let's assume the others are genuine (for which we have no proof other than the work of some potential Hindutva fanatics like Dr Gupta), in no way does Kalibangan, Kalivali or many of the Indian sites you've quoted compare to Mohenjendaro or Harrappa. What has been discovered at these 5 major sites? Do you know? 




Also shows the sites along the now dry Saraswati river or Ghaggar-Hakra River.

RR, your post about the 500 sites along the Saraswati is shown here...there seem to be plenty of minor sites along the Ghaggar-Hakra bed.....

Also a major chunk along the Saraswati is in Pakistan, so obviously not excavated by Indian researchers.

Click to expand...


I said before that a major part of the Ghaggar-Hakra Riverbed runs through Pakistan. I actually trust the sites discovered in Pakistan because foreign archaeologist will have had a hand in them (not Indian or Pakistani). Even if you count up the number of sites there's around 130 in Pakistan, and around 76 in India (none of which have been independenly confirmed), with some in Afghanistan and Iran 




Looks like Dr. Gupta's 500 isn't as far from reality as we thought eh?

Click to expand...


So far, he's 400 off. There's around 80 in Pakistan, and 30 in India along the Saraswati. The Indus River in that map has had its sites cut down it seems. What's the reference?*


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Oh, it doesn't matter...the rest of the world does..



Of course they do. That's why several "eminent" Indian archaeologist have been caught manipulating IVC data. Keep believing it


----------



## roadrunner

Here's one map (trade) that shows the importance of Indian sites compared to Harrappa. Note this is not an Indian or a Pakistani website. What was that about the rest of the world believing your eminent Hindutva archaeologists?


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Lothal might have been a major site in India, let's assume the others are genuine (for which we have no proof other than the work of some potential Hindutva fanatics like Dr Gupta), in no way does Kalibangan, Kalivali or many of the Indian sites you've quoted compare to Mohenjendaro or Harrappa. What has been discovered at these 5 major sites? Do you know?



I have already posted articles that give precise details regarding the artefacts such as statues, seals, signboard, burial chambers, jewellry, pottery etc. found at the site if you care to read.

I have also posted the map of the site Dholavira, the details of the citadel, upper town, lower town, city planning,water reservoir system etc. along with an accurate 3D reconstruction of the site. Its entirely up to you to either accept them or dismiss them as imagination.

I have also posted details about Rakhigarhi and Lothal earlier if you care to read. Those articles clearly state that Rakhigarhi etc. match Harappa or Mohenjodaro in terms of size and sophistication.
*
The map is also posted earlier by me in my links. Obviously you haven't bothered to read any of it....assuming it to be propaganda. I am not surprised at how prejudiced you are, simply dismissing stuff without reading it.
*


> I said before that a major part of the Ghaggar-Hakra Riverbed runs through Pakistan. I actually trust the sites discovered in Pakistan because foreign archaeologist will have had a hand in them (not Indian or Pakistani). Even if you count up the number of sites there's around 130 in Pakistan, and around 76 in India (none of which have been independenly confirmed), with some in Afghanistan and Iran



Yes, well we'll just have to disagree on that one till some foreign archaeologists also choose participate in the excavations in India.




> So far, he's 400 off. There's around 80 in Pakistan, and 30 in India along
> the Saraswati. The Indus River in that map has had its sites cut down it seems. What's the reference?



I'm assuming that even the "minor" sites are incomplete. Probably even smaller sites, which are insignificant to show on the map are present, perhaps in very close proxmity to one another.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Here's one map (trade) that shows the importance of Indian sites compared to Harrappa. Note this is not an Indian or a Pakistani website. What was that about the rest of the world believing your eminent Hindutva archaeologists?



Please give your source for the image.

*
We must remember that only recently has the importance of the sites present in India come to light, so most of the older books and articles written on the subject give a lopsided view.

Only recently (1990s-2000s) have papers been published that take into consideration the importance of the finds in India.

The French archaeologist is only one of the many people who are reinterpreting their ideas based on more recent excavations.*


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Of course they do. That's why several "eminent" Indian archaeologist have been caught manipulating IVC data. Keep believing it



Hey, if the frenchie believes it, I don't have any problems either!!


----------



## Flintlock

Primitive "Chess Pieces" found at Lothal point to an early board game:


----------



## Flintlock

> Any society capable of town-planning, shipping, refined arts and crafts, writing, sustained trading, necessarily has to master a good deal of technology. This was also the case here. Craftsmen often used standardized tools and techniques, especially for the more complex productions. A highly standardized system of stone weights, unique in the ancient world, was found not only throughout the Harappan settlements, but also two thousand years later in the first kingdoms of the Ganga plains. (The weights were mostly cubes, but sometimes also truncated spheres.) T*he first seven weights in the system followed a geometrical progression, with ratios of 1 : 2 : 4 : 8 : 16 (by which time the weight had reached 13.7g) : 32 : 64, after which the increments switched to a decimal system and went 160, 200, 320, 640, 1600, 3200, 6400, 8000 and 12,800.* The largest weight found in *Mohenjo-daro is 10,865* grams. Now, if you divide its corresponding ratio of 12,800 by the ratio 16, you get 800 ; multiply this figure by the weight of 13.7 g found for the 16th ratio, and you get a theoretical weight of 10,960g &#8212; a difference of only 95g with the actual weight, or *less than 0.9&#37; ! *I don&#8217;t think the weights used today in our markets reach such precision, not to speak of those traders who get their weights tailor-made !



^^^^^^Wow!!


----------



## Flintlock

> What we have seen so far, and very briefly, is only the most visible features of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization. The internal and external mechanics of such a society are infinitely complex, and will no doubt keep archaeologists racking their brains for some more time. For example, while a few of them see the Harappan political organization as an empire, with Mohenjo-daro as the seat of the emperor and a number of &#8220;governors&#8221; in the regional capitals, *others are in favour of regional states, in view of the difficulty posed by a single central authority over such vast distances without our modern communications.* Those regional states would have had identities of their own (as evidenced from regional variations in arts and crafts), but they would all have been united by a common culture, and also by a common language (regardless of possible regional dialects). B. B. Lal, for instance, brings a parallel between the Harappan society and the Sixteen States or *Mahajanapadas* of later Buddhist times. This hypothesis is strengthened by the *lack of any glorification or even representation of rulers* on the seals ; even the few sculptures of human figures found at Mohenjo-daro cannot be said to represent rulers with any great certainty.


* *


----------



## Flintlock

> Wednesday, April 22, 1998
> 
> *Dholavira upturns an idea or two*
> 
> Anand Sundas
> Dholavira, April 21: Dholavira. The lost empire that 300 labourers and a six-member team of archaeologists have made it their mission to rediscover. Temperatures of 50 degree Celsius be damned. And finally, after seven long years of hope and sweat, they have stumbled on to something really big.
> 
> *It was perhaps a poignant irony of fate that a place which once cradled one of the oldest and most sophisticated civilisations is today far from civilisation.* So far that, apart from the chartered tourism buses or the taxis that you succeed in hiring only after much wrangling and enticing there is no mode of transportation to Dholavira. But as they say, history repeats itself.
> 
> Dholavira, perched in the middle of the Khadir island, along the *Rann of Kutch*, is again the cynosure of all eyes -- western and Indian -- especially after the excavation of the oldest and largest reservoir with archaeologists expecting to unearth at least 60 metres more. *So, apart from reports of Bill Clinton including the civilisational site in his Indian itinerary, there is the National Geographic team camped out there and a host of TV channels either in or trying to get in. Ministers, bureaucrats, businessmen have suddenly woken up with a jolt to the reality that is Dholavira.*
> 
> The site has also proven wrong some age-old and widely held archaeological `truths'. For instance, Dholavira -- meaning white well -- *has proven that the Indus culture (Harappan, as archaeologists prefer to call it these days) was not totally a riverine civilisation, as it is in the middle of a Rann.
> *
> 
> 
> *So both academically and archaeologically, the site today is the most important of all Harappan sites, including the three in Pakistan -- Mohenjodaro, Harappa and Gandhariwala -- and Rakhigari in India.*
> 
> *
> It is also the most sophisticated and scientifically built site; unlike other sites, 80 per cent of what has been excavated has been found intact.*
> 
> *Archaeologists can't stop talking about the site. R S Bisht, director (Explorations & Excavations), ASI says: ``Even after 5,000 years the 32 steps that lead to the reservoir still retain their geometrical balance.*
> 
> This Indus capital-city site shows how man first came, settled and then abandoned the site for more comfortable ones. It was only after 1,500 years of habitation that the people started moving north towards sites near Ganga and Yamuna, at about the time when the Mahabharata was being fought out.'' Another unique feature of the site is the ``*tremendous sense of town planning.''*
> 
> As Sanjay Singh, archaeologist and site supervisor, says: ``The concepts that were later detailed in the Rg Veda and the Puranas are all there. For instance, there is the param vesthinah, madhyam vesthinah and awam vesthinah. The upper, middle and lower towns. The stadium or the Rangbhumi too has been executed according to Pauranic patterns.''
> 
> Seven years of exploration -- officially the site was first excavated in 1969-70 by J.P. Joshi, who was looking for a trade route from Pakistan-Sindh to Lothal -- have thrown up *more than 22,000 artefacts, seals of terracota and steatite, stone pillar members with a plating of chocolate and yellow that line the east and north gate.*
> 
> ``We have also *recovered 37 micro beads of gold which cannot be picked up by bare fingers.* Look at the size of the beads and you wonder what kind of hammer they used to round them off so perfectly and then what kind of a boring instrument they must have used to drive a hole within,'' says Bisht. Bisht says that Dholavira has added an enormous amount of information towards understanding the Harappan culture.
> 
> ``This site is special in more ways than one,'' he said. ``The city planning, *aesthetic architecture, hydraulic engineering* and concern for water conservation, along with the funerary architecture are just amazing. Also, this city has given an authentic account of the rise and fall of the Harappan civilisation. Of how the grand urban culture became increasingly rural towards the end.''
> 
> The site also boasts of a *multi-purpose stadium, the oldest and biggest in the world,* with three sides for spectators and a path for ceremonial procession. There is a smaller stadium beside it.
> 
> ``We have conclusive evidence to prove that they were also used as haat bazaars with national and international business transactions taking place,'' adds Bisht.
> 
> Archaeologists have also for the first time found an outer city wall along with the first ever evidence of damming the channels (Mansar and Manhar) for water harnessing. Interestingly, at all the dam sites archaeologists have found clusters of houses, probably for the staff to look after the dams!
> 
> *``They knew the value of measuring distance according to laws of horizontality and verticality,''* says Bisht before signing off:
> 
> *``Even if the government today, after 5,000 years, makes the kind of arrangement that the Harappan people made then there will be no scarcity of water in the region.''*
> 
> Perhaps. For, it is never too late to learn.
> 
> Dholavira upturns an idea or two



My God, the sophistication of these people is amazing!!


----------



## Flintlock

*A mystifying script
Why did the Indus love baths and unicorns?*

BY TIM APPENZELLER
*
Four thousand years ago, the world's first known billboard looked down on one of the world's first great cities.* The imposing stone metropolis, now called *Dholavira*, sat on an island in a salt marsh in northwestern India. Three sets of walls enclosed it, and its gates opened onto broad plazas, bustling workshops, and busy markets. The 9-foot- wide wooden sign, remnants of which were found a decade ago, may have hung on a central tower, where its 15-inch white gypsum letters would have proclaimed to all literate citizens and visitors ... well, that's where the picture blurs, because today, no one can read the ancient script.

What name or slogan loomed over Dholavira is just one of the many puzzles of the ancient Indus civilization, which flourished along the modern Indus River and a now vanished river to the east between 2600 and 1900 B.C. *The Indus erected half a dozen major cities of brick and stone boasting amenities unmatched in the ancient world, including sewers and baths*. Digging into mounds that now entomb these cities on the dusty plains of Pakistan and northwestern India, archaeologists have found exquisite jewelry, statuary, and ceramics decorated with real and fanciful animals, including unicorns by the hundreds.

But they have found little to reveal the beliefs that sparked the culture and held it together for 700 years until it withered, perhaps because shifting rivers flooded some cities and parched others. Those secrets may be uncovered when archaeologists can finally read the script that adorned that ancient billboard--but perhaps not even then.

*Gentle people.* The news of the Indus Valley cities reached the modern world 75 years ago in the pages of the Illustrated London News, where British archaeologist John Marshall announced the discovery of a civilization that turned out to be as old as Mesopotamia. Many scholars expected the ruins would reveal a culture much like it. But the more Marshall and his successors dug, the less the Indus culture looked like other Bronze Age societies. *"There's no evidence for armies or war or anything like that," says archaeologist Jim Shaffer of Case Western Reserve University.*

Nor is there any sign of grandiose rulers. *"There was no cult of the individual,"* says Harvard University's Richard Meadow, who is excavating an Indus city called Harappa, in modern Pakistan. There are *"no fancy burials, no monumental displays of wealth."*

Somehow, without war or charismatic strongmen, the Indus people imposed their culture across a territory larger than France. Everywhere, their builders made bricks in a length-to-width-to-height ratio of 4 to 2 to 1, a signature of Indus construction. Tax collectors used standardized weights to assay goods, potters turned out identical designs, and the elite carried soapstone seals, embossed with Indus script and animal designs, to stamp trade goods. *"They also had tremendous craft technology, if not the best craft technology in the Bronze Age,"* says Shaffer. In city after city, the Indus people built deep, brick-lined wells, smelted and cast copper and bronze, and made jewelry.

The cohesion of the Indus culture may have been rooted in commerce. "Possibly it was a large economic empire with a strong sense of national ethos," says R.S. Bisht of the Archaeological Survey of India, who heads the excavations at Dholavira. The Indus people sought raw materials, including metals and semi*precious stones, from as far away as Afghanistan, and their ships carried beads, bangles, and other products up the Persian Gulf to the cities of Mesopotamia. These trade links might have kept the elite of the far-flung Indus realm in close touch.

Others think something more esoteric must have held the Indus culture together. "In the absence of a political elite, of a standing army, *one is left with the symbolic&#8211;a system of beliefs,"* says Shaffer. But decades of digging have revealed nothing like the elaborate temples of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.

*Clean freaks.* Still, the cities do hold clues, says archaeologist Gregory Possehl of the University of Pennsylvania. When it came to sanitation, the Indus people seem to have been as obsessive as modern Americans. Ubiquitous wells and baths&#8211;many private houses had them&#8211;"*make a strong case that people there were re* ally into water, *symbolically and in terms of purification," Possehl says. The Great Bath at Mohenjo Daro in Pakistan, 40 feet long and 8 feet deep, may have been the Indus equivalent of a temple.

Water wasn't the only force in Indus spiritual life. Seals and tablets found in the ruins depict unicorns, three-headed buffaloes, and encounters between humans, gods, and beasts. "If we could unravel these folk tales," says Possehl, "we could get into the ideology of the Indus people."

The inscriptions might help&#8211;if archaeologists could read them. Archaeologists think that some of the writing identifies the seal's owner. In other cases, the procession of symbols, which look tantalizingly like real objects&#8211;a trident, a fish, a two-handled jar&#8211;may narrate a story.

Would-be decipherers have published more than 50 claims of success, but most scholars think the Indus code is yet to be cracked. So far, no one has found anything like the Rosetta stone that unlocked the hieroglyphics of ancient Egypt: a bilingual inscription with both the undeciphered script and a known script.

But where there are ruins, there is hope. Archaeologists are digging deeper at Harappa and other sites. What they find may, finally, give a voice to the Indus people.

Ancient Indus - Mysteries of History - U.S. News Online


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> I have already posted articles that give precise details regarding the artefacts such as statues, seals, signboard, burial chambers, jewellry, pottery etc. found at the site if you care to read.



You're posting things at random. You've posted so much irrelevant stuff that I haven't bothered opening half of your links except to check who authored them. 



> I have also posted the map of the site Dholavira, the details of the citadel, upper town, lower town, city planning,water reservoir system etc. along with an accurate 3D reconstruction of the site. Its entirely up to you to either accept them or dismiss them as imagination.



THESE ARE RENDERINGS! Don't you get the difference between fact and renderings???? 



> I have also posted details about Rakhigarhi and Lothal earlier if you care to read. Those articles clearly state that Rakhigarhi etc. match Harappa or Mohenjodaro in terms of size and sophistication.
> *
> The map is also posted earlier by me in my links. Obviously you haven't bothered to read any of it....assuming it to be propaganda. I am not surprised at how prejudiced you are, simply dismissing stuff without reading it.
> *



So your map is by an Indian for an Indian website. Unsurprising but at least it even admits around 70&#37; of IVC sites were in Pakistan. Around 25%-30% in India



> Yes, well we'll just have to disagree on that one till some foreign archaeologists also choose participate in the excavations in India.



If you want credibility, you will need some neutrality in your excavations. It's a known fact Hindutva inside and outside of the Indian government want to claim IVC as their own (Pak government doesn't seem to have an agenda with it though).


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> You're posting things at random. You've posted so much irrelevant stuff that I haven't bothered opening half of your links except to check who authored them.



They are irrelevant even though you haven't bothered to read them? 

Verdict before trial?

Kindly put your misgivings and biases aside and give a different POV some honest thought.



> THESE ARE RENDERINGS! Don't you get the difference between fact and renderings????



The renderings are ditto according to the excavated site.

Similar renderings are available for Harappa and Mohenjodaro as well, if you care to find them.



> So your map is by an Indian for an Indian website. Unsurprising but at least it even admits around 70&#37; of IVC sites were in Pakistan. Around 25%-30% in India



Its by a foreigner on his website. 

There is nothing to admit. Indian researchers don't have an agenda and are presenting an unbiased picture of the civilization.

I haven't counted the total number of sites and neither is it possible to do so. There may be hundreds more such sites buried under cities, towns or in remote places.



> If you want credibility, you will need some neutrality in your excavations. It's a known fact Hindutva inside and outside of the Indian government want to claim IVC as their own (Pak government doesn't seem to have an agenda with it though).



Pak government simply wants to shut its eye to pre-islamic history. Too bad.

The excavations are perfectly neutral and their work has been recognized by the international community. 
If you can't think beyond your biases, then there is little to be said.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> *A mystifying script
> Why did the Indus love baths and unicorns?*
> 
> BY TIM APPENZELLER
> *
> Four thousand years ago, the world's first known billboard looked down on one of the world's first great cities.* The imposing stone metropolis, now called *Dholavira*, sat on an island in a salt marsh in northwestern India. Three sets of walls enclosed it, and its gates opened onto broad plazas, bustling workshops, and busy markets. The 9-foot- wide wooden sign, remnants of which were found a decade ago, may have hung on a central tower, where its 15-inch white gypsum letters would have proclaimed to all literate citizens and visitors ... well, that's where the picture blurs, because today, no one can read the ancient script.
> 
> Ancient Indus - Mysteries of History - U.S. News Online



Perhaps you should have highlighted that it says "stone metropolis" and all the other IVC sites used brick? Why do you think that was? 

If Dholivira was this great city, then let neutral archaeologists excavate some data from it, instead of only letting them do renderings or inviting them to conferences to make the Indian conclusions more valid. The Archaeological Survey of India (since partition) has become under the hand of the Indian government, in which Hindutva have been in charge, and still have a strong presence in political circles.


----------



## Shivakumar

roadrunner,

How you call yourselves the descendants of the IVC people? This land is invaded by lots of army. Your ancestors could be a migrant from present day Iran, Iraq or even further away. Even your ancestors might be the cause for the destruction of the IVC.

Wouldn't accepting this as your ancient civilization negate the current theory of "Ancient people of this land lived in a dark age and Islam brought light to this land"?


----------



## Flintlock

Shivakumar said:


> roadrunner,
> 
> How you call yourselves the descendants of the IVC people? This land is invaded by lots of army. Your ancestors could be a migrant from present day Iran, Iraq or even further away. Even your ancestors might be the cause for the destruction of the IVC.
> 
> Wouldn't accepting this as your ancient civilization negate the current theory of "Ancient people of this land lived in a dark age and Islam brought light to this land"?


*
Shiva, the current theories suggest that the Indus people gradually migrated eastwards and lost their urban culture with time, while others stayed behind, again, becoming more rural with time.

The Aryan Invasion theory has been discarded by most archaeologists.

Perhaps there was a peaceful influx of a new phenotype from the west, but no outright war.

The general consensus is that these cities were abandoned due to change in the flow of rivers and gradual climate changes.

It does however, imply that the "pagans" had an extremely advanced culture and technology, which goes against the feeling that Islam is superior to all other beliefs. This is perhaps why Pakistanis are so reluctant to acknowledge this history.*


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> My God, the sophistication of these people is amazing!!



Yes, as is your wilingness to believe an Indian archaeologist, writing for an Indian journal. 



> "Archaeologists can't stop talking about the site. R S Bisht, director (Explorations & Excavations),



Perhaps he should have inserted Indian before this phrase. 



> ASI says: "Even after 5,000 years the 32 steps that lead to the reservoir still retain their geometrical balance."



No surprise there if it was made yesterday then. Now if a neutral archaeologist were to confirm this using samples, and radiocarbon dating, I might start believing it. But of course, India is truly a miraculous country, so we should believe miracles happen there !


----------



## roadrunner

Shivakumar said:


> roadrunner,
> 
> How you call yourselves the descendants of the IVC people? This land is invaded by lots of army. Your ancestors could be a migrant from present day Iran, Iraq or even further away. Even your ancestors might be the cause for the destruction of the IVC.



Dude, populations do not change in the way you're saying. You can look into this further by learning population genetics. Unless you can advocate genocide, base populations remain the same throughout history. Doesn't matter about migration here and there. There was no major Arab invasion into Pakistan (or India) Invasion here defined as settlement of Arabs into Pakistan). There was no major Persian invasion (same definition). This has all been PROVEN genetically. 



> Wouldn't accepting this as your ancient civilization negate the current theory of "Ancient people of this land lived in a dark age and Islam brought light to this land"?



Dude, please. I'm proud of being a Muslim, I'm proud of my non Muslim ancestors (who were not Hindu), it doesnt matter what religion they were to me. Take your nonsense elsewhere, Muslims for the most part are not what is portrayed by the likes of my favourite Hindutva fanatics like Bal Thakeree and Atal Vajpayee, or your newspapers like rediff.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Perhaps you should have highlighted that it says "stone metropolis" and all the other IVC sites used brick? Why do you think that was?



Dunno...
.why did they worship peepal leaves? Redundant question......

Its called regional variation. No harappan site is identical. They were separated by more than 500 kms from other major sites.

You think that everything would be identical over such a huge distance?

Even today Amritsar and Lahore are vastly different, with motor cars to carry new ideas across.



> If Dholivira was this great city, then let neutral archaeologists excavate some data from it, instead of only letting them do renderings or inviting them to conferences to make the Indian conclusions more valid. The Archaeological Survey of India (since partition) has become under the hand of the Indian government, in which Hindutva have been in charge, and still have a strong presence in political circles.



Lol.....its not like this site is fenced off to visitors!! 

Anyone who wants to take a look can do so!! 

The ASI is a govt. body, not a Hindutva body. Don't equate the two.

*The articles merely describe the findings, and don't mention anything about Hinduism*.


----------



## Titanium

Stealth Assassin said:


> *
> It does however, imply that the "pagans" had an extremely advanced culture and technology, which goes against the feeling that Islam is superior to all other beliefs. *


*

How is that related.... advanced culture and technology of pagans and the belief in Islam?? They are two different things to me... take of your colour glasses before talking history. 

If it is just for kicks ..... then be my guest and post all that you want.*


----------



## Flintlock

> Dude, please. I'm proud of being a Muslim, I'm proud of my non Muslim ancestors (who were not Hindu), it doesnt matter what religion they were to me. Take your nonsense elsewhere, Muslims for the most part are not what is portrayed by the likes of my favourite Hindutva fanatics like Bal Thakeree and Atal Vajpayee, or your newspapers like rediff.



Then why is this history being ignored in Pakistani textbooks?

Why doesn't Saudi Arabia allow excavations?


----------



## Flintlock

Titanium said:


> How is that related.... advanced culture and technology of pagans and the belief in Islam?? They are two different things to me... take of your colour glasses before talking history.
> 
> If it is just for kicks ..... then be my guest and post all that you want.



I am merely making an observation.

This is not my view, it is the view of many muslims.

Of course, you might not agree with them, but some people do.

Those people are stopping Pakistanis from realizing the true worth of these findings.


----------



## Shivakumar

roadrunner said:


> Dude, populations do not change in the way you're saying. You can look into this further by learning population genetics. Unless you can advocate genocide, base populations remain the same throughout history. Doesn't matter about migration here and there. There was no major Arab invasion into Pakistan (or India) Invasion here defined as settlement of Arabs into Pakistan). There was no major Persian invasion (same definition). This has all been PROVEN genetically.



In more than 1000 years anything could happen. The entire population may be wiped out or migrated to other places. The landscapes might be changed. Give me a link to your genetic proof.



roadrunner said:


> Dude, please. I'm proud of being a Muslim, I'm proud of my non Muslim ancestors (who were not Hindu)



Because they were not Hindus? What a religious tolerance!!!!




roadrunner said:


> Take your nonsense elsewhere, Muslims for the most part are not what is portrayed by the likes of my favourite Hindutva fanatics like Bal Thakeree and Atal Vajpayee, or your newspapers like rediff.



Why do blame us? You school text books support this theory. Instead of blaming us, ask your government to change it.


----------



## UnitedPak

Why are you quoting what the Pakistani gov says? Its hypocritical when you refuse to accept the two nation theory which shows that Pakistan was created with Bin Qasims invasion of Sindh.

There is no evidence for the IVC people moving east. According to white nationalists, the IVC people were white, and moved to Europe. Should we believe that too?
Every nationalist group have their own "moving "theory regarding these civilisations, and India is considered no different.

The IVC people most likely stayed exactly where they stayed for 1000s of years.


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Why are you quoting what the Pakistani gov says? Its hypocritical when you refuse to accept the two nation theory which shows that Pakistan was created with Bin Qasims invasion of Sindh.
> 
> There is no evidence for the IVC people moving east. According to white nationalists, the IVC people were white, and moved to Europe. Should we believe that too?
> Every nationalist group have their own "moving "theory regarding these civilisations, and India is considered no different.
> 
> The IVC people most likely stayed exactly where they stayed for 1000s of years.



We are not discussing the Two-Nation theory, so I won't reply to that.

Thist isn't an Indian theory, but is espoused by many prominent writers on the subject. Those writers of course have well-thought out reasoning for such a stand.

I have never heard of this white nationalist theory. I'm sure no credible researcher has ever supported it.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Then why is this history being ignored in Pakistani textbooks?
> 
> Why doesn't Saudi Arabia allow excavations?



Quite honestly, I've had enough of you for now. You've obviously nothing better to do than to try and be elusive, responding to questions requiring facts with answers that don't answer the questions. In an exam you'd score zero marks. 

Here is your answer to "why doesn't Saudi Arabi allow excavations?"

"n the field of archaeology, a *Saudi-French *team led by Professor Jean-Marie Dentzer, member of the French Academie des inscriptions et belles lettres, and Dr. Laila Nehme, an archaeologist at the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), *have been working for three years on the Madain Saleh Nabatean site* in the northwestern part of Saudi Arabia, in cooperation with the Directorate of Antiquities and Museums. 
Louvre To Exhibit Islamic Artifacts In Riyadh Museum - Saudi Arabia Information 

That is why the Saudi sites have creditability. That is why the Pakistani sites have creditability. I've asked for the name of one non Indian eminient archaeologist or reference to a neutral team that how worked on the major Indian sites. Not a single one you have managed to quote. NOT ONE. 

Until you are able to answer my questions in this way with names of archaeologists or reputed references to non Indian teams, or say something useful, substantial, informative, or I feel like wasting more time, I'm just going to ignore what you write.


----------



## Titanium

Stealth Assassin said:


> I am merely making an observation.
> 
> *This is not my view, it is the view of many muslims.*
> Of course, you might not agree with them, but some people do.
> 
> Those people are stopping Pakistanis from realizing the true worth of these findings.



How did you know that? care to elaborate?

You did some study? or it is one of those know it all, they are like that only thing. It is called stereotype, racism, hatered, accusing a community without understanding. 

Be careful what you post and do not generalise.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I am referring to the use of stone and more primitive building materials/techniques, vs the brick etc. used by the people of the IVC as being evidence of no migration to the south.
> 
> You can cut and paste this onto the IVC thread though, so the discussion can continue there.



Well there seems to be a steady decline of harappan culture as the culture of the invaders was spread among the original harappan inhabitants. 

Here is another (Extremely tantalizing) quote from Witzel (2006):


It also is clear that the remnant agricultural people of the Indus
moved upstream (apparently for want of sufficient water in some areas
and as to exploit monsoon rains not found in the Indus area), to
Haryana/Delhi and eastwards to Saurastra and Gujarat. Indeed, we find
non-Aryan (prefixing, Para-Munda) river/place names concentrated in the
Haryana (Kuruksetra) area (Witzel 1999), and Dravidian ones in Gujarat
(Southworth 2005), while most of the NW and then the western Gangetic
valley has been overlaid by IA names.

This should explain some of RR's doubts about the movements of the Aryans and Indegenous people within the subcontinent.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Well there seems to be a steady decline of harappan culture as the culture of the invaders was spread among the original harappan inhabitants.
> 
> Here is another (Extremely tantalizing) quote from Witzel (2006):
> 
> 
> It also is clear that the remnant agricultural people of the Indus
> moved upstream (apparently for want of sufficient water in some areas
> and as to exploit monsoon rains not found in the Indus area), to
> Haryana/Delhi and eastwards to Saurastra and Gujarat. Indeed, we find
> non-Aryan (prefixing, Para-Munda) river/place names concentrated in the
> Haryana (Kuruksetra) area (Witzel 1999), and Dravidian ones in Gujarat
> (Southworth 2005), while most of the NW and then the western Gangetic
> valley has been overlaid by IA names.
> 
> This should explain some of RR's doubts about the movements of the Aryans and Indegenous people within the subcontinent.



It's not tantalizing. As I explained before, skull measurements have proved the IVC was not Dravidian.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

^^^

If what RR says is true, then skeletal similarities would trump any "theories" of migration wouldn't they? I mean we can postulate all we want over this or that being similar, but if there is a distinct difference between the skeletal remains of the IVC people, and those of the Dravidians in South India, then that would simply indicate that a very small or "limited migration", as was suggested in one of your quotes, was what occurred, and the genetic makeup of the limited migrants got swallowed up by the majority of the Dravidians.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> ^^^
> 
> If what RR says is true, then skeletal similarities would trump any "theories" of migration wouldn't they? I mean we can postulate all we want over this or that being similar, but if there is a distinct difference between the skeletal remains of the IVC people, and those of the Dravidians in South India, then that would simply indicate that a very small or "limited migration", as was suggested in one of your quotes, was what occurred, and the genetic makeup of the limited migrants got swallowed up by the majority of the Dravidians.



Dunno. He hasn't provided the name of the author who published his finds, but if skull sizes is indeed conclusive, then perhaps he is right.

Also, we must remember that there are a number of sub-races amongst the Indian population. The people of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka are hardly the same. There are significant isolated populations of Dravidians that are not your stereotypical smaller skull size, so the story is far from certain.

Besides, several Indus Valley sites have been found in Haryana, Gujarat and as far as Maharashtra. Perhaps this indicates a move to the south?? (just speculation on my part)


----------



## roadrunner

The strongest evidence imo, is the genetic continuity between skulls of the various periods, Mesolithic (c. 8,500 BC) and Harappan (2500-1500 BC), Southern Neolithic Chalcolithic (4000-500 BC), Iron Age (1000-100 B.C.). 

This quote by Kennedy is repeated so is probably correct. 

"Our multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of an ancient Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and Gandhara peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discrete traits that point to a high degree of biological affinity.&#65533;102 "
K.A.R. Kennedy: &#65533;Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?&#65533;, in George Erdosy, ed.: The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, p.49. 

Can't really do better than this quote for now, but noone is going to agree that Gandharans and Tamils were the same group of people.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> Besides, several Indus Valley sites have been found in Haryana, Gujarat and as far as Maharashtra. Perhaps this indicates a move to the south?? (just speculation on my part)



I think RR had a quote about that- that the veracity of those sites being IVC was being doubted because some of them (and this might have been Lothar) used stone for construction, rather than the bricks that the IVC civilization were using in current Pakistan. 

Again the argument, similar to the one made against the migration of IVC people to the south, is that using stone indicates moving to a more primitive form of construction, and that does not seem plausible. But I would have to concur with RR, archaeology is not immune from unethical, perhaps even subconciously, claims - and there is much for Indian history commentators to gain by showing the IVC and vedic civilizations as being heavily, if not primarily, concentrated in Bharat. So those claims cannot necessarily be considered valid until neutral analysis is done.


----------



## EagleEyes

Sorry guys. Stealth will not be available for this week. He will be teaching history to me for the rest of the week. It will be fun learning with each other.

Thanks.


----------



## roadrunner

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I think RR had a quote about that- that the veracity of those sites being IVC was being doubted because some of them (and this might have been Lothar) used stone for construction, rather than the bricks that the IVC civilization were using in current Pakistan.
> 
> Again the argument, similar to the one made against the migration of IVC people to the south, is that using stone indicates moving to a more primitive form of construction, and that does not seem plausible. But I would have to concur with RR, archaeology is not immune from unethical, perhaps even subconciously, claims - and there is much for Indian history commentators to gain by showing the IVC and vedic civilizations as being heavily, if not primarily, concentrated in Bharat. So those claims cannot necessarily be considered valid until neutral analysis is done.



I agree..The Indian discoveries are based around the logic the Saraswati actually flowed in the route shown (which hasn't been proved). That's there explanation of why Haryana has IVC sites and so on. Noone is even sure if the Saraswati even existed. As has been pointed out, the references to the Saraswati could be references to the deity in the Rig Veda, so it isn't/wasn't necessarily a big river. Incidentally, the "Saraswati Heritage Project" has been cancelled, never managed to prove anything anyway. 

"This is an assault on history," said historian Arjun Dev. "This version of the past is crucial to their political and religious ideology of Hindu supremacy. They will go to any lengths to achieve this -- even put forth a fake, invented past." 

"It is propaganda work," said Suraj Bhan, a retired archeologist. "The quest for Saraswati is not about history, it is myth-making." 

A Hindu Quest for Some Holy Water 

This is quite a good article about the Saraswati by an Indian researcher, fairly objective, admits to the problems of "revisionism" by the BJP. 

"It is only the biggest and the strongest of them, the Sarasvati, which got lost in the Thar desert of the Kutchch. Is it possible or conceivable? It is one thing to say that rivers often change their courses, and so may have been done by the Sarasvati; it is completely different thing to say that the river has been lost in the deserts. For so big a river as the Rigvedic Sarasvati to exist and then perish, it requires a major geological event. *However, such an event would have affected not only the Sarasvati but the entire river-system of the whole region.* *As far as our knowledge goes, there is no such report for the last, say, 10000 years, let alone the late-Vedic period. *

Secondly, some geologists show that in cases where great rivers with substantial supply of water at the source and catchment areas round the year flow through deserts, they overcome the resistance of aridity to make way for their courses. For example, the river Nile has been flowing along its 1600-km lower course through the Sahara, the ercest desert of the world. Similarly, the river Colorado flows through a comparable desert for almost 900 kms, the last 250 km of which pass through the Soneran, the hottest desert of the world. In both cases the rivers have been able to cut across the desert bed with their current. The Thar desert of Rajasthan is much weaker and quite younger compared to the two cases cited. It is, therefore, unlikely that a big river, the `naditama' which was supposed to receive continuous supply from the upper Himalayan glacier as well as from precipitation below, could not survive in the desert area. 

Thirdly, in the geological sciences there are well-dened methods of determining the period in which a certain river-bed was active. No such study is known to have been carried out in the Ghaggar-Hakra paleochannel, without which there is no scientific basis of claiming that the river was active within the past 5,000 years. However, certain geological indicators point to the logical possibilities. According to some research data, all the major rivers of northern India (and Pakistan) have been owing more or less in their present channels (within their meandering belts) for the last 30,000 years [10]. C. F. Oldham, a geologist of the 19th century observed in 1893: Between Sutlej and Yamuna there is no opening in the Himalaya through which a large river could have entered the plains[11]. *This means that even if the confluence of Satadru and Yamuna were able to make a big river like the Rigvedic Sarasvati out of the Shivalik-born Ghaggar, it had ceased to do so at least for the last thirty thousand years.* Because, Rigveda explicitly associates the Satadru with Vitasta and refers to their confuuence (Rv &#8211; 3.33), as at present, when it has already taken the westerly course. It can therefore be inferred that the Vedic poets had not seen that palaeo-Sarasvati. What they had described in the Vedic verses refer to something else. 

Fourthly, it is interesting to note here that Ptolemy, the renowned scientist of Alexandria in the 2nd century A.D.,who wrote a book on geography presenting many valuable information about south Asia in general and northwestern India in particular, mentioned all the important rivers of this Sindhu-to-Ganga region are,However, quite signicantly there is no reference about Sarasvati. This implies that at least by that time there was no such big river in the region.. This is an important point because even further back, none of the maps showed a bigger river than the Indus from the ancient Greek times (Indus was always recorded). 

Lastly, there is a strong culturalhistorical and social psychological argument. Let us suppose that the dry bed of the Ghaggar-Hakra represents the remnants of the river Sarasvati. And this Sarasvati was supposedly associated with all the cultural ethos of the Vedic people. It is therefore natural to expect that the river, although no longer as powerful as earlier, should at least preserve its nominal title as such to the adherents of Vedic tradition. Is it not, therefore, very strange that during the entire post-Vedic era of nearly three thousands of years up to now, Sindhu remained Sindhu, Satadru remained Satadru, Yamuna remained Yamuna, Ganga remained Ganga, but the most important river Sarasvati became Ghaggar? Moreover, if it is kept in mind that many minor rivers in different isolated parts of India have been given the name Sarasvati by the Hindus out of a religious nostalgia, is it not very peculiar that they should rename the original Sarasvati into a desanscritized drab title of local dialect? C. F. Oldham also was bothered by this peculiar fact: &#8220;How the sacred river came to lose its own name and acquire that of its former tributary is not known[12]. *It is this absence of any material evidence or cultural tradition that prompted many historians and archaeologists &#8212; both Indian and foreign &#8212; to conclude that the word&#8220;Sarasvati&#8221; is not actually a noun but an adjective which qualied a river evoking strong sense of respect among the Vedic tribes [13]. **They point out the fact that the Sanscrit word Sarasvati can be split into the following two parts: saras (sarah = water) + vati (= lled with), which indicates the meaning of qualifying something as being full of water. It can also be used as an adjective. These scholars therefore argued that the Rigvedic tribes had probably adored the majestic river Sindhu as Sarasvati, i.e., as a river with large dimension. With the passage of time, we may further surmise, the later generations of the Vedic tribes who gradually moved eastwards and southwards and settled on the banks of the Ganga and Yamuna, carried with them a popular and collective memory of the dimensions of Sindhu. Since then the adjective probably got converted into a noun, and perhaps a popular myth arose around the existence of another river, as big as river Sindhu, or even bigger. Since the other big rivers like Ganga had already been given proper names, there was no other river left *6 Hence the search for a river Sarasvati around different parts of the country. It also gave birth to an imaginary river Sarasvati which joined the conuence of Ganga and Yamuna at the Triveni-Sangam near Allahabad. A real Sarasvati on the bed of river Ghaggar-Hakra in Vedic times could hardly explain all these subsequent developments. In this connection another interesting fact needs be recalled. Associated with the Rigvedic exhortations of river Sarasvati is a post-Vedic and Puranic tradition over`vinashan' (disappearance) of Sarasvati. In the Mahabharata and other contemporary texts it is said that Sarasvati, after entering the kingdom of the nishadas, the lower caste of the brahmanical era, felt embarrassed and went under ground in the sands[14]. This legend also seems to support the above hypothesis. In order to sustain the myth of existence of the Sarasvati in face of its non-reality, it was necessary to generate another, complementary myth which would explain away the visible non-existence of the river. Thus there is no reason to assume a palaeo-river matching the Rigvedic description of the so-called Sarasvati, nor has there been obtained any new data to look for it in the relevant region. The entire fanfare created around its existence, disappearance and recent discovery is geared to the ongoing attempts of the BJP-led Governments at the centre and in some States to boost up Hindu religious sentiments and prejudices over some of the sensitive areas of Indian history. Let us see how. 
http://www.ee.iitkgp.ernet.in/~soumitro/bt/archives/saraswati.pdf


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

^^ Good article RR.

Some very good points raised about how it would be geologically implausible for such a large river to simply vanish.

I tend to agree with the limited migration into India part, after all, that has been the pattern of human settlement all along - slowly diffusing outwards from the center of gravity of major civilizations. 

The question would be, at what point do those that move away from the center, become distinct from the original civilization? If the area east of the current Indo-Pak border was already populated, then wouldn't the amalgamation of the IVC people with the natives give rise to a culture that would not be IVC?

IMO, the only way the sites in Bharat could be considered IVC, would be if:

(a) The area was primarily inhabited, and the immigrants were able to set up IVC "outposts" without major dilution of their culture.

(b) The area was populated, and the IVC immigrants overwhelmed the locals - but even then you would have an intermingling of culture, and a dilution of both, unless the locals were subjugated/killed. But in a situation where the IVC people prevailed, it would be expected that their "advanced culture" would continue i.e the town planning, construction and scriptural evidence from the Pakistan sites would be found pretty much unadulterated in the Bharat sites. Now is that the case?


----------



## roadrunner

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> ^^ Good article RR.
> 
> Some very good points raised about how it would be geologically implausible for such a large river to simply vanish.
> 
> I tend to agree with the limited migration into India part, after all, that has been the pattern of human settlement all along - slowly diffusing outwards from the center of gravity of major civilizations.
> 
> The question would be, at what point do those that move away from the center, become distinct from the original civilization? If the area east of the current Indo-Pak border was already populated, then wouldn't the amalgamation of the IVC people with the natives give rise to a culture that would not be IVC?



The IVC sites all used brick I suppose and had some common features I guess that constitute the same civilization. Why Dholivira would use stone then is a bit strange, since brick would be the better consturction material. But apparently Indus seals were found there. I think it's all too coincidental really. 



> IMO, the only way the sites in Bharat could be considered IVC, would be if:
> 
> (a) The area was primarily inhabited, and the immigrants were able to set up IVC "outposts" without major dilution of their culture.
> 
> (b) The area was populated, and the IVC immigrants overwhelmed the locals - but even then you would have an intermingling of culture, and a dilution of both, unless the locals were subjugated/killed. But in a situation where the IVC people prevailed, it would be expected that their "advanced culture" would continue i.e the town planning, construction and scriptural evidence from the Pakistan sites would be found pretty much unadulterated in the Bharat sites. Now is that the case?



Noone really knows the answers, because noone except Indians are allowed to run tests on the samples from those sites. 

They might have adopted the same IVC culture and traded with the ones from Pakistan. They could have been different people, but part of the same civilization if you like. I don't really have a problem with that POV, the main problem I have is 

The sudden appearance of lots of new Bharati IVC sites happening to coincide with BJP's rise to power and influence in government. 
No neutral research being done on the Bharati IVC sites 
The number of websites that spout all these cultures and achievements are "Indian" when in fact the Vedic culture, Panini's achievements, Vedic mathematics, Brahmagupta's mathematics were all ancient Pakistani. 
 Evidence as loose as an extinct river that *probably* existed are given. Then all the new sites miraculously fit around the river geography.


----------



## Neo

*Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were NOT Hindu !​*
There has been a strong campaign by Hindu fundamentalists and Indian nationalists in trying to make wild hegemonic claims on ancient peoples who have very little to do with them. Unfortunately, a few respected scholars have also been manipulated into promoting their agendas and vested interests. This article in particular covers the ancient peoples of Indus Valley (Pakistan) called Harappans and Rigvedic Aryans (who were the ancestors of most Pakistanis) with facts that prove they were not Hindu debunking those Hindu/Indian claims. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were Hindu. 

*Harappans:*

Not a single Hindu idol/deity/temple has been excavated at Indus sites. Plus evidence shows that Harappans ate beef and buried their dead. This is what the renowned historian John Keays states on the religion of Harappans: 

"The religion of Harappans is unknown. No site has certainly been identified as a temple and most suppositions about sacrificial fires, cult objects and deities rest on doubtful retrospective references from Hindu practices of many centuries later. Such inferences may be as futile as, say, looking to Islamic astronomy for an explanation of the orientation of the pyramids. In short, these theories are all fanciful and do not bear scrutiny. 

"Depicted on some Harappan seals, is that of a big-nosed gentleman wearing a horned head-dress who sits in the lotus position, an air of abstraction and an audience of animals. He cannot be the early manifestation of Lord Shiva as Pashupati, `Lord of the Beasts.' Myth, as has been noted, is subject to frequent revision. The chances of a deity remaining closely associated with the specific powers - in this case, fertility, asceticism, and familiarity with the animal kingdom - for all of two thousand years must raise serious doubts, especially since, during the interval, there is little evidence for the currency of this myth. Rudra, a Vedic deity later identified with Shiva, is indeed referred to as Pasupati because of his association with the cattle, but asceticism and meditation were not Rudra's specialties nor is he usually credited with an empathy for animals other than kine. More plausibly, it has been suggested that the Harappan figure's heavily horned headgear bespeaks a bull cult, to which numerous other representations of bulls lend substance. 

"Similar doubts surround the female terracotta figurines which are often described as mother goddesses. Pop-eyed, bat-eared, belted and sometime miniskirted, they are usually of crude workmanship and grotesque mien. Only a dusty-eyed archaeologist could describe them as `pleasing little things.' The bat-ears, on closer inspection, appear to be elaborate head dresses or hairstyles. If, as the prominent and clumsily applied breasts suggest, they were fertility symbols, why bother with millinery? Or indeed miniskirts?" 

The Harappan seals depicting the sitting man/deity wearing horned headdress (which Hindus claim as so called Shiva) is as follows: 
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/de.jpg 

Similar to this horned Harappan man/deity is the horned Celtic Cernunnos that was worshipped in parts of ancient Europe: 
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/dei.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/350px-Cernunnos.jpg 
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/cernun3.jpg 

On the other hand, Hinduism's Shiva looks totally different: 
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/shiva.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/B-16shiva.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/statueShiva.jpg 

So obviously Harappans did not worship Shiva, not even close! With Hindu hegemonic claims would ancient Europeans also be considered Hindu since the Celtic Cerrunos looks very similar to the horned Harappan deity? By the way, it is the cow that's worshipped in Hinduism whereas bull has a minor role. Bull was much more sacred in ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures similar to the popular Harappan bull. 

This is further supported by Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"The Bull Cult was a prehistoric religious practice that originated in the eastern Aegean Sea and extended from the Indus Valley of Pakistan to the Danube River in eastern Europe .... The Bull Cult continued into historic times and was particularly important in the Indus Valley and on the Grecian island of Crete. In both places the bull's 'horns of consecration' were an important religious symbol."

On the non-Hindu beliefs/customs of Harappans, Richard K. Hines states:

"Similar to the cultures of ancient Middle East, it appears that the Indus religion recognized some type of life after death. Unlike Hindus who practice cremation, Indus people carefully buried their dead in wooded coffins with their heads facing north and the feet pointing south. Included in the graves were pottery jars containing food and weapons for use in the afterlife."

And on beef as a common aspect of Harappan diet, Dr. Kamal Lodaya states:

"Meat was an important part of Harappan diet which included beef, mutton, fowl, fish, and other animals."


*Rig Vedic Aryans:*

Now coming to the Aryans.. The concept of Aryan Race is nonsense invented by the Nazis. But what is historically correct is that Aryans were an ancient people who originally inhabited Central Asia and later migrated southwards to the regions stretching from Iran to northwest India. These early Aryans had a similar language, race, culture, and religion with many variations. The Aryans of Iran were later influenced by the Elamites and Babylonians. The Aryans of Pakistan were later influenced by the Harappans. The Aryans of north India were later influenced by the Dravidic-Mundic natives giving birth to Hinduism. Of course in later centuries other peoples also invaded/migrated bringing other influences/mixing. 

The Aryans associated with the Rig Veda and Sapta Sindhu (i.e. today's Pakistan region) were definitely not Hindu because they did not follow the Hindu caste system, they ate beef, sacrificed cows, culturally were closer to Avestan Iranians, forbade idolatry, etc. Also, not a single Hindu idol/temple has been excavated from the Rig Vedic Aryan period.

Here are some excerpts that support my views: 

&#8220;The evidence of the Rig Veda shows that during the centuries when the Aryans were occupying the Punjab and composing the hymns of the Rig Veda, the north-west part of the subcontinent was culturally separate from the rest of India. The closest cultural relations of the Indo-Aryans at that period were with the Iranians, whose language and sacred texts are preserved in the various works known as the Avesta, in inscriptions in Old Persian, and in some other scattered documents. So great is the amount of material common to the Rig Veda Aryans and the Iranians that the books of the two peoples show common geographic names as well as deities and ideas&#8221;. (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown) 

According to A. L. Stravrianos on the non-Hindu nature of Rig Vedic Aryans: 

"The word Veda means knowledge. There were originally four Vedas, but the most important is the Rigveda, which is also the oldest. The Rigveda is a primary source for study of the early Aryans; it is in essence a collection of 1028 hymns arranged in ten books. Per the Vedas, Aryans worshiped elements of nature in personified forms, and idolatry was forbidden. 

"In Rig Veda, the gods of Dyaus is the same as the Greek Zeus (Roman Jupiter), Mitra is the same as the Graeco-Roman Mithras, Ushas is the same as the Greek Eos (Roman Aurora), and 

Agni is the same as the Graeco-Roman Ignis. 

"The image of the Aryans that emerges from Vedic literature is that of a virile people, fond of war, drinking, chariot racing, and gambling. Their god of war, Indra, was an ideal Aryan warrior: &#8216;he dashed into battle joyously, wore golden armor, and was able to consume the flesh of three hundred buffaloes and drink three lakes of liquor at one time&#8217;. 

"When they first arrived in the South Asia the Aryans were primarily pastoralists. Their economic life centered around their cattle and wealth was judged on the basis of the size of herds. As the newcomers settled in fertile river valleys, they gradually shifted more to agriculture. They lived in villages consisting of a number of related families. Several villages comprised a clan, and several clans a tribe, at the head of which was the king. The king&#8217;s authority depended on his personal prowess and initiative, and was limited by the council of nobles, and in some tribes by the freemen. 

"The outstanding characteristics of this early Aryan society was its basic difference from the later Hinduism. Cows were not worshipped but eaten. Intoxicating spirits were not forsaken but joyously consumed. There were classes but no castes, and the priests were subordinate to the nobles rather than at the top of the social pyramid. In short, Aryan society resembled much more the contemporary Indo-European societies than it did Hinduism that was to develop in later centuries in the Gangetic Valley." 

Further supports how a few Aryans who later migrated eastward towards India slowly became Hindu because of Dravidic-Mundic influences: 

"The castes were hardened by the time the Aryans occupied the middle land i.e., the Gangetic Valley and distinguished themselves from their brethern in Sind and the Punjab who were despised by them for not observing the rules of caste .... and for their non-Brahmanical character.&#8221; (Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakur) 

&#8220;While some Aryans had by now expanded far into India, their old home in the Punjab, Sind and the north-west was practically forgotten. Later Vedic literature mentions it rarely, and then usually with disparagement and contempt, as an impure land where sacrifices are not performed.&#8221; (The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham) 

This is further supported by Dr. Gurupdesh Singh: 

"From geographical information in the RigVeda, the Vedic Period (1500-500 BC) was confined to the northwest. The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets of the northwest (Saptha Sindhva) tell that the Vedic peoples worshipped non-Brahmanical Gods (Indra, Varuna, Mitra), ate cows, elected their chiefs, drank liqor, considered the Punjab rivers to be sacred, and refer to people living to the south in the gangetic region as 'Dasyas'! None of the gangetic Brahmanical gods (e.g Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma, etc.) are mentioned in RigVeda hyms nor do they appear in connected Aryan Avestan texts and Hittite tablets. Avestan terms for soldiers ('rathaestar') and citizens ('vastriyo') are similar to Vedic-derived terms (kshatriyas, vasihyas) but the Avestan term for priest ('athravan') is not even close to 'Brahmanas'. Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharta and VarnaAshramDharma of Manu call the Vedic Aryans in Saptha Sindhva 'mlechas', 'sudras' and 'vratyas'; 'forbid Brahmins' from even visiting the northwest country ('Vahika-desa'); and depict dark Dravidian Gods like Krishna fighting and defeating Vedic Aryan gods like Indra (Mahabharta). Similarly, the RigVeda contains taboos and injunctions against the 'dasya-varta' region to the south of Saptha Sindhva and praises Indra (god of thunderbolt) for victories over 'dasya-purahs' (dasya cities). 

"Both early RigVedic and gangetic Puranic sources clearly point to ethnic, cultural and religious differences and a 'clash of civilizations and nations' at the ganga indicating that the Vedic people and culture of the northwest did not accept the gangetic priests, their gods, shastras, religion, culture and Brahmanical caste ideology. The eastern gangetic heartland is not only historically a separate region, but geographically resides over 1500 miles to the southeast of the Saptha Sindhva country. Uptil the advent of Mohammed Ghori in the 13th century, the northwest was politically unified with southasia only 92 years under the Mauryas (out of 27 centuries) since the start of Saptha Sindhva&#8217;s Vedic period (1500 BC). 

"A few Vedic tribes from Saptha Sindhva broke RigVedic norms and migrated southward. These numerically outnumbered groups expanding into the trans-gangetic region near the end of the Vedic period (8-6th century BC) tried to use the indigenous Dravidian priesthood to entrench themselves as the new ruling order. Within a few generations of acquiring control over the foreign Gangasthan, the minority Vedic tribes were usurped by the indigenous 'borrowed' priesthood; their Aryan religion, gods and customs mostly deposed and supplanted with indigenous gangetic gods and mythologies; and their new social order (varna or color based) replaced with the pre-existing profession (jati) based Brahmanical caste system ('chatur-varna' ). Through religious manipulation and intrigue, the Vedic in-comers to Gangasthan were usurped and made to surrender their political rule and soon pigeon-holed into becoming the loyal obedient chownkidars of their 'superior' dravidic Brahmanas." 

Now coming to idolatry which is an integral part of Hinduism, there are clear evidences of early Aryans rejecting it : 

&#8220;They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakrti&#8212;the material cause of the world&#8212;in place of the All-pervading God, but those who worship visible things born of the Prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time.&#8221;&#8212;Yajur Veda 40:9. 

&#8220;The Formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have no material representation, likeness or image.&#8221;&#8212;Yajur Veda 32:3. 

Also, early Aryans had a Monist belief of worshipping elements of nature (in non-idolatrous personified forms): &#8220;There is only one God, worship Him&#8221; (Rig Veda, Vol. 6, Hymn 45 vs 16 ) and &#8220;Do not worship any one beside Him&#8221; (Rig Veda Bk. 8, Hymn 1, Vs 1)

Then there are clear evidences in the Rig Veda that Aryans regularly ate beef and sacrificed cows for religious purposes which are strictly forbidden in Hinduism: 

Hymn CLXIX of the Rig Veda says: "May the wind blow upon our cows with healing; may they eat herbage ... Like-colored various-hued or single- colored whose names through sacrifice are known to Agni, Whom the Angirases produced by Ferbvour - vouschsafe to these, Parjanya, great protection. Those who have offered to the gods their bodies whose varied forms are all well known to Soma" [The Rig Veda (RV), translated by Ralph H. Griffith, New York, 1992, p. 647]. In the Rig Veda (RV: VIII.43.11) Agni is described as "fed on ox and cow" suggesting that cattle were sacrificed and roasted in fire. 

Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, &#8220;On the occasion of a girl&#8217;s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered&#8221;, and Rigveda (6/17/1) states that &#8220;Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.&#8221; 

Quoting from Rigveda, historian H. H Wilson writes, &#8220;the sacrifice and consumption of horse and cow appears to have been common in the early periods of the Aryan culture.&#8221; 


*Conclusion:*

Finally, to claim that Hinduism has been evolving is simply a very weak argument. Every religion is identified with a set of beliefs and customs making it distinct and recognizable from others, including Hinduism. Any people and religion can claim of their beliefs and customs evolving, but when a change occurs it represents a new identity. For example, Catholic Christianity is not the same religion as ancient Roman Paganism. Therefore, since Harappan and Rig Vedic Aryan religions were very different from Hinduism's beliefs and customs, they cannot be Hindu. Additionally, Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans of Indus/Pakistan region were geographically a distinct people having no association with Gangetic Valley and the rest of most India where Hinduism was born in later centuries, nor did they call themselves Hindu. 

In conclusion, all the evidence proves that Harappans and early Aryans were not Hindu. The hegemonic and imperialistic Hindu fanatic and Indian nationalist claims on them are simply false propaganda based on myths and distorted history. 

Ancestors of Pakistanis were not Hindu

Google Image resultaat voor http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/india/wpakpre1947.gif

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Yup. That's true. Harrapans weren't Hindu, they certainly weren't Dravidian. I've found the paper where the proof of this is. Hemphill's papers are good for this. But anyway, if it was Dravid, and they were pushed out by invaders (as one theory goes, then they would have taken the Harrapan designs with them, and built South Indian cities like Harrapa, which they didn't. Instead it remained stuck in the Neolithic period


----------



## Scorpius

I was reading this thread at uni today and my sikh m8 asked me what it was about, after reading a bit he wasn't surprised at attempts by hindus to claim everything as being hindu or of hindu origin.

He has previously told me of oppression against sikhs and that hindus try to claim that sikhs are actually hindus. He showed me a video about the RSS I believe (hindu extremists). 

However on topic, Pakistan has a rich history sadly much of it is overlooked either due to internal islamic fundemantalists or Indians trying to claim it as theres.

I once read about the buddhist/greco kingdom on wikipedia, very interesting apparently alot of the culture was mixed.



> Greco-Buddhism, sometimes spelt Graeco-Buddhism, is the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed between the 4th century BCE and the 5th century CE in the area modernly covered by Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is a cultural consequence of a long chain of interactions begun by the Greek forays into India from the time of Alexander the Great, carried further by the establishment of Indo-Greek rule in the area for several centuries, and extended during flourishing of the Hellenized empire of the Kushans.



From: Greco-Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## roadrunner

roadrunner said:


> Yup. That's true. Harrapans weren't Hindu, they certainly weren't Dravidian. I've found the paper where the proof of this is. Hemphill's papers are good for this. But anyway, if it was Dravid, and they were pushed out by invaders (as one theory goes, then they would have taken the Harrapan designs with them, and built South Indian cities like Harrapa, which they didn't. Instead it remained stuck in the Neolithic period



Some proof IVC weren't Dravidian at least. Craniometric analysis in this case. QAW (samples from Xianjiang, non-Dravidian people), cluster with TMG (Swat), CEMH, HARR. At least craniometrically, the IVC people weren't Dravidian it would seem.


----------



## niaz

Scorpius said:


> I was reading this thread at uni today and my sikh m8 asked me what it was about, after reading a bit he wasn't surprised at attempts by hindus to claim everything as being hindu or of hindu origin.
> 
> He has previously told me of oppression against sikhs and that hindus try to claim that sikhs are actually hindus. He showed me a video about the RSS I believe (hindu extremists).
> 
> However on topic, Pakistan has a rich history sadly much of it is overlooked either due to internal islamic fundemantalists or Indians trying to claim it as theres.
> 
> I once read about the buddhist/greco kingdom on wikipedia, very interesting apparently alot of the culture was mixed.
> 
> 
> 
> From: Greco-Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hon Scorpius,

These were called Indo Greeks, mainly the military governors left behind by Alexander turned independent. A numismatist friend of mine advised me that some 40 Indo Greek Kings have been identified between 3rd century B.C until the first century CE thru coins issued by them. Most of these Kings ruled the area what is now Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan. Thus these can be called ancient Pakistani Kings with little or no relationship to the area what is now called India.


----------



## Plasma

Hi guys, I stumbled onto this thread somehow and i found it really interesting.

Just wanted to say that you have a lot of knowledge about this stuff and i actually read all 21 pages. I find this sort of history very cool and was actually looking for something like this a few weeks a go. 

Ok I'll ask the question here again, you guys might have a better answer to this. I always thought that Pakistanis were different and not mixed with the Hindus. I wanted to check what wikipedia said about Janjuas, because i am one, and the first thing it said was "The Janjua Rajput" 

Now Rajput is an indian caste i think, so why is this said? Is it a mistake or something??


----------



## roadrunner

Plasma said:


> Hi guys, I stumbled onto this thread somehow and i found it really interesting.
> 
> Just wanted to say that you have a lot of knowledge about this stuff and i actually read all 21 pages. I find this sort of history very cool and was actually looking for something like this a few weeks a go.
> 
> Ok I'll ask the question here again, you guys might have a better answer to this. I always thought that Pakistanis were different and not mixed with the Hindus. I wanted to check what wikipedia said about Janjuas, because i am one, and the first thing it said was "The Janjua Rajput"
> 
> Now Rajput is an indian caste i think, so why is this said? Is it a mistake or something??



You're safe. Rajput is an *ethnic group*. Hinduism places Rajputs into the Ksatriya caste. If you were a Hindu, you would be a Ksatriya caste. But since you are not, it doesn't apply to you. 

In terms of being mixed with Hindus, you're right, Pakistanis are not mixed with Hindus. Their ancestries are non Hindu also (dare I say that word, but the Muhajirs are perhaps the only ones with Hindu ancestry in Pakistan - this might cause an uproar, so could be edited in future ).


----------



## Proud to be Pakistani

roadrunner said:


> You're safe. Rajput is an *ethnic group*. Hinduism places Rajputs into the Ksatriya caste. If you were a Hindu, you would be a Ksatriya caste. But since you are not, it doesn't apply to you.
> 
> In terms of being mixed with Hindus, you're right, Pakistanis are not mixed with Hindus. Their ancestries are non Hindu also (dare I say that word, but the Muhajirs are perhaps the only ones with Hindu ancestry in Pakistan - this might cause an uproar, so could be edited in future ).



If we look in to ancestary then you will know that all the Muslims in these regions are convertes... No pure breed muslim will be available in these Indo Pak Sub continent.

If you broaden your perspective no muslim other then 1 who started it all can claim that he is a pure born muslim without conversion.

Our Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) is the One who is the Only Pure Muslim for whom all the Universe was created and it was his destiny to fulfill and complete the religion given by Allah -- ISLAM.


----------



## roadrunner

PtbP, Alright..but that wasn't his question.


----------



## Plasma

roadrunner said:


> You're safe. Rajput is an *ethnic group*. Hinduism places Rajputs into the Ksatriya caste. If you were a Hindu, you would be a Ksatriya caste. But since you are not, it doesn't apply to you.
> 
> In terms of being mixed with Hindus, you're right, Pakistanis are not mixed with Hindus. Their ancestries are non Hindu also (dare I say that word, but the Muhajirs are perhaps the only ones with Hindu ancestry in Pakistan - this might cause an uproar, so could be edited in future ).



Oh, alright. Thanks for the answer.


----------



## Logic note

> Originally Posted by roadrunner View Post
> You're safe. Rajput is an ethnic group. Hinduism places Rajputs into the Ksatriya caste. If you were a Hindu, you would be a Ksatriya caste. But since you are not, it doesn't apply to you.
> 
> In terms of being mixed with Hindus, you're right, Pakistanis are not mixed with Hindus. Their ancestries are non Hindu also (dare I say that word, but the Muhajirs are perhaps the only ones with Hindu ancestry in Pakistan - this might cause an uproar, so could be edited in future



Rajput is not an Ethinic Group .. its a caste in Hindu social Hierarchy which is based on your social work . 

Brahman - Knoweldge seekers 
Rajput of Khastriya - Wariors
Vaishya - Business Man or traders
Shdura - Rest Others


----------



## Logic note

The Indus civilization had a polytheistic religion. They worshipped gods and goddesses in male and female form. Certain animals and human figures were worshipped. A bust of a priest was found which means they had priests. The religion also had rituals and ceremonies. Many terra-cotta statues of Mother Goddess have been found and she was worshipped in nearly every home. A seal shows seated horned deity surrounded by wild animals which could be the Hindu god Shiva as Pasupati, Lord of Beast. This *could have* been the early religious practices of Hinduism.

Religion of Harrappan Civilisation is still a controversy , both the opinion, wether they were Hindu or non hindu, has not been proved .
but I think My Pakistani brothers have proved that they were not Hindu - great research work .


----------



## UnitedPak

The "Harappan Priest" could be a statue of anybody. They found a statue and knew next to nothing about it. Because of the pose the man had (eyes closed, respect comes to mind) they referred to him as a Priest.

As for worshipping, once again nothing can be said. Their texts have not been deciphered, so its all assumption.
The only thing we can say for sure is that Indus Valley existed, and Harappa and Mohenjo Daro were the centres of the civilisation. This can only be said because there is concrete proof. Information regarding their culture, religion, language and customs is most likely invented by people with agendas.


----------



## UnitedPak

This is the "priest" in question. The statue is displayed in a museum in Karachi I believe:


----------



## roadrunner

Logic note said:


> Rajput is not an Ethinic Group .. its a caste in Hindu social Hierarchy which is based on your social work .
> 
> Brahman - Knoweldge seekers
> Rajput of Khastriya - Wariors
> Vaishya - Business Man or traders
> Shdura - Rest Others



Well you're just manipulating now. The middle caste are Ksatriya. The Rajput ethnic group fall into the Ksatriya caste. Rajput is not a caste, but it forms part of a caste. 

Finding one statue of something *you think *is Hindu means nothing when you've got whole Buddha statues and scrolls, along with Vedic artifacts all over the country.


----------



## Logic note

> Well you're just manipulating now. The middle caste are Ksatriya. The Rajput ethnic group fall into the Ksatriya caste. Rajput is not a caste, but it forms part of a caste.



Yes thats what i am saying . its not an ethinic group . its a part of HINDU CASTE System 



> Finding one statue of something you think is Hindu means nothing when you've got whole Buddha statues and scrolls, along with Vedic artifacts all over the country.



I clearly mentioned nothing has been established , there are various point of views. 
it has not been proved thats its a hindu priest 
it has not been proved that its not hindu 
The "Harappan Priest" could be a statue of anybody. so you cant say its NOT a hindu priest 

There are other evidences also . like 

Seal of Pashupati.. in yogic postures 
there s controversies about this also . so as i said nothing has been proved conclusively . but saying that it is defintly not hindu (without any concrete proof ) shows sign of immaturity 
here is the link to read
Pashupati - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Logic note

In view of the large number of figurines found in the Indus valley, it has been suggested that the Harappan people worshipped a Mother goddess symbolizing fertility; however, this interpretation is not unanimously accepted. Some Indus valley seals show swastikas which are found in other later religions and mythologies. In the earlier phases of their culture, the Harappans buried their dead; however, later, especially in the cemetery H culture of the late Harrapan period, they also cremated their dead and buried the ashes in burial urns. Many Indus valley seals show animals; for example, a seal showing a figure seated in a yoga-like posture and surrounded by animals has been compared to the "lord of creatures," Pashupati.

The hands of Pashupati, in both seals, are resting on the his knees which is the traditional resting place for hands during meditation. However it is difficult to say with any confidence if the hands are in a particular hand posture, or mudra. On the Gundestrup Cauldron we find that Cernunnos's hands, instead of resting, are in fact holding the ram-horned serpent and the torque. Being a God so closely associated with fertility these could be representative of the male and female creative forces. Although Pashupati is holding nothing which indicates an association with fertility, he does display an erect penis, a symbol of what must, at least in part, be his association with fertility.

Today in India the God Shiva, of whom Pashupati is considered to be the proto-type , is offered worship through the linga (the phallus). In Shiavite temples what is more common than a statue of Shiva is a stone linga, usually with a yoni (the vulva). This is known as the Shivalinga and the first Shivalinga in existence, according to one legend, is said to have arose from the earth in the Sleshmantaka forest, the forest of Pashupati. W hat is believed to be Shivalingas have also been found in the Harappan remains, evidence that the cult of the linga has been practiced for thousands of years. The suggestion arising from this combination of references, both archaeological and mythical, is that like Cernunnos, Pashupati is a God of fertility.


----------



## roadrunner

Logic note said:


> Yes thats what i am saying . its not an ethinic group . its a part of HINDU CASTE System



ALL the people fall into somewhere within the Hindu caste system. Even the Orissans. But Rajput is still an ethnic group. 



> I clearly mentioned nothing has been established , there are various point of views.
> it has not been proved thats its a hindu priest
> it has not been proved that its not hindu
> The "Harappan Priest" could be a statue of anybody. so you cant say its NOT a hindu priest
> 
> There are other evidences also . like
> 
> Seal of Pashupati.. in yogic postures
> there s controversies about this also . so as i said nothing has been proved conclusively . but saying that it is defintly not hindu (without any concrete proof ) shows sign of immaturity
> here is the link to read
> Pashupati - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



wiki is a weak link. And there was no significant presence of Hinduism in modern Pakistan. I'll post better proof than anything you've showed soon.


----------



## Logic note

> ALL the people fall into somewhere within the Hindu caste system. Even the Orissans. But Rajput is still an ethnic group.



The term ethnic means of or pertaining to a group of people recognized as a class on the basis of certain distinctive characteristics such as religion, language, ancestry, culture or national origin.
Hence Rajput is not an ethinic group . 



> wiki is a weak link. And there was no significant presence of Hinduism in modern Pakistan. I'll post better proof than anything you've showed soon.



there is a very interesting book *Men Beast and Zombie * by Kenan Malik.plz read it once . he is a scientist . *We belive, what we want to belive* .
in a whole book we tend to highlight only those points which justifies our perception .


> And there was no significant presence of Hinduism in modern Pakistan.



Lol , we all know why . they all have been chased out from *the land of Pure*
but do you remember Taxilla , Gandhara and Raja Porus ?


----------



## Logic note

> And there was no significant presence of Hinduism in modern Pakistan.



* Because they are not looked after and they are vanishing *


Pakistan's ancient ruins fast disappearing
By Robert Birsel
Sun Mar 18, 2007

LAHORE, Pakistan (Reuters) - Many Pakistani archaeological sites from its thousands of years of rich history are crumbling away as officials tussle over who should look after them.

A cradle of ancient civilizations and crossroads of Greek, Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim cultures, Pakistan has a treasure-trove of ruins but many are being built over, pilfered by art thieves and villagers or succumbing to the elements.

The federal government's archaeology department has control over most of the country's main sites but provincial officials argue they should be in charge of looking after their ruins.

Orya Maqbool Jan, head of the Punjab provincial government's archaeology department, says the province has a history of conservation and preservation dating back to British colonial times at the beginning of the last century.

"But for the last 50 years things were shifted back to the federal government and Punjab was not given the responsibility of looking after its own heritage," Jan said in an interview in his office in the city of Lahore, the provincial capital.

Jan said federal authorities' neglect had led to the destruction of 32 sites in Punjab.

"People have razed them to the ground and built houses over them. It's a big loss."

Restoration efforts by federal authorities had also caused irrevocable damage, he said.

"The principles of conservation laid down by UNESCO have not been adhered to," he said.

"DONE NOTHING"

*Three years ago, the federal government handed Jan's department responsibility for three sites -- the Mughal-era Shalimar Gardens in Lahore, the Lahore Fort and the Katas Raj Hindu temple.*

Jan says he has improved the sites though he says up to half of his spending has gone on correcting the wrongdoing of the federal authorities. He says he wants to take over responsibility for all of the province's monuments.

Across town in his office in the huge Lahore Fort, federal government archaeological engineer Muhammad Tanweer scoffs at Jan's assertions.

"They've done no conservation work, no restoration work. They've not spent a single penny," Tanweer said.

"They've just done the gardens," he says, pointing to lawns inside the magnificent 500-year-old fort where school children in red and blue uniforms were playing.

Federal Minister of Culture Sayed Ghazi Gulab Jamal bristles when asked about Jan's criticism.

"The provincial government has not done a great job with what belongs to them," he said. But he said responsibility for more monuments could be handed over if provinces showed they could improve sites and had the capacity to handle more.

"The main aim of everyone is to conserve and improve the sites so if somebody else can show it, why not?"

NO PROTECTION

The federal government has 380 registered sites that it is responsible for.

But Pakistan's most prominent archaeologist, Ahmad Hassan Dani, said many more sites were not registered under a colonial-era act and they got no protection at all.

"There are so many monuments that have not been brought under that act," said Dani, who has worked as an archaeologist across South Asia since 1944.

"They are not looked after by them at all, in fact, they do not know about them at all," he said.

Only about a third of Pakistan's sites had been excavated, he said.

*Villagers often looked after old mosques, but Buddhist and Hindu ruins were often pillaged by thieves supplying artefacts to the international black market, and picked over by people looking for masonry to build their homes, he said.*

"They will disappear."

Dani said authorities should work together: "If the federal government can't look after them, then the provincial government can or the district council can."

Another huge problem for whoever is in charge is encroachment. Sites are meant to be protected by a 200-foot (60-meter) buffer zone but unregulated construction crowds many.

The ornate pavilions and fountains of the Shalimar Gardens, built by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in 1642, are an island of tranquillity in a traffic-clogged Lahore suburb.

Up to now, the garden's walls have kept out most of the din and fumes and kept at bay the sprawl of concrete and tarmac. But illegal construction up against the thick, white walls is causing flooding and damaging artwork inside the gardens, experts say.

Jan said 106 structures built illegally against the wall had been earmarked for demolition, but some residents said they would refuse to go.

"We'll set ourselves on fire in protest," said factory worker Mohammed Saeed who lives in tiny house in the shadow of the wall.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070319/...tan_ruins_dc_1


----------



## roadrunner

Logic note said:


> Three years ago, the federal government handed Jan's department responsibility for three sites -- the Mughal-era Shalimar Gardens in Lahore, the Lahore Fort and *the Katas Raj Hindu temple.*
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070319/...tan_ruins_dc_1



Well Katasraj is a Vedic temple from around 800 BC, not a Hindu temple.


----------



## Logic note

> Well Katasraj is a Vedic temple from around 800 BC, not a Hindu temple.



WOW thats new .. lol Vedic temple is differnt from Hindu Temple ????
where did u get this from ?


----------



## roadrunner

Logic note said:


> WOW thats new .. lol Vedic temple is differnt from Hindu Temple ????
> where did u get this from ?



Read before. Vedism is a completely different religion to Hinduism of today. 

Therefore Vedic temples are not Hindu temples. 

It's like saying Jewish synagogues are the same as Islamic Mosques. Not even this in fact.


----------



## Logic note

> Read before. Vedism is a completely different religion to Hinduism of today.
> 
> Therefore Vedic temples are not Hindu temples.
> 
> It's like saying Jewish synagogues are the same as Islamic Mosques. Not even this in fact.



    

Where did u invent this from ?
do you know Veda= Religious books of Hindu

Vedism 
there is nothing called as vedism 
I belive in Advaita Hinduism , rather advaita is one of the Philosophical schools of Hinduism and is derived from Veda


----------



## roadrunner

The Vedic religion (Rig Vedic religion it should be) is all but extinct now. But it used to exist. These temples are Vedic temples, not Hindu temples


----------



## Logic note

> The Vedic religion (Rig Vedic religion it should be) is all but extinct now. But it used to exist. These temples are Vedic temples, not Hindu temples



The Vedas (Sanskrit v&#65533;da &#2357;&#2375;&#2342; "knowledge") are a large corpus of texts originating in Ancient India. They form the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature[1] and the oldest sacred texts of Hinduism.[2]

According to Hindu tradition, the Vedas are apauru&#7779;eya "not human compositions"[3], being supposed to have been directly revealed, and thus are called &#347;ruti ("what is heard").[4][5] Vedic mantras are recited at Hindu prayers, religious functions and other auspicious occasions.

Philosophies and sects that developed in the Indian subcontinent have taken differing positions on the Vedas. Schools of Indian philosophy which cite the Vedas as their scriptural authority are classified as "orthodox" (&#257;stika). Two other Indian philosophies, Buddhism and Jainism, did not accept the authority of the Vedas and evolved into separate religions. In Indian philosophy these groups are referred to as "heterodox" or "non-Vedic" (n&#257;stika) schools.[6]. In addition to Buddhism and Jainism, Sikhism also does not accept the authority of the Vedas.[7] [8]

The Four Vedas
Rigveda (padapatha) manuscript in Devanagari, early 19th century
Rigveda (padapatha) manuscript in Devanagari, early 19th century

The canonical division of the Vedas is fourfold (tur&#299;ya) viz.,[21]

1. Rig-Veda (RV)
2. Yajur-Veda (YV, with the main division TS vs. VS)
3. Sama-Veda (SV)
4. Atharva-Veda (AV)

Of these, the first three were the principal original division, also called tray&#299;, "the triple Vidy&#257;", that is, "the triple sacred science" of reciting hymns (RV), performing sacrifices (YV), and chanting (SV).[22][23] This triplicity is so introduced in the Brahmanas (ShB, ABr and others), but the Rigveda is the only original work of the three with the other two largely borrowing from it.


----------



## Logic note

here is complete Translation of Rigveda hymns in english .
you are an intelligent guy Roadrunner , and would suggest that instead of proving what you believe in, you shall try to expand the horizon of your knowledge . 

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/rigveda/rigveda1_1.asp


----------



## roadrunner

Rig Veda formed the religion of the Vedic people. This isn't the same as Hinduism. Beef eating was permitted for example in the Rig Veda, cows were slaughtered, but later books forbade the killing of cows..which is why it's been banned in several Indian states today. Also Vedism was a monotheistic religion, Hinduism isn't. There are verses from the Rig Veda that prove these are part of Vedism, but Hinduism has banned these. Therefore they're not the same religion. The Gangetic people have evolved the Vedic religion into something completely unrecognizeable.


----------



## Logic note

> Rig Veda formed the religion of the Vedic people. This isn't the same as Hinduism.



veda is the religious book of hindus .I have given the link of translated rig veda .. read it 
I think the confusion is in your mind because you know nothing about hindusim ( vedism )



> Beef eating was permitted for example in the Rig Veda, cows were slaughtered, but later books forbade the killing of cows..which is why it's been banned in several Indian states today



Unlike Islam and Christianity, Hindusim is not set of rules . it is based on various intellectual or philosophical schools of thinking which constitutes various Hindu sects . 
these philosophical thinkings keeps on reforming themselves and have diffrent interpretation by diffrent ppl . some Hindus still eat Meat and others are vegetarians .



> Also Vedism was a monotheistic religion, Hinduism isn't.



As I said , you have no idea about Hindusim . Hinduism is a Monotheistic religion .( I know thats surprising for you )



> There are verses from the Rig Veda that prove these are part of Vedism, but Hinduism has banned these.



There is no Final authority like Pope or Imam in Hindusim because it is against the basic principle of Hindusim which is the freedom of an individual to search for truth hence There is No concept of BANNING in Hindusim.
 can you plz tell me , which verses have been Banned 



> The Gangetic people have evolved the Vedic religion into something completely unrecognizeable.



As I said , you are ignorant about the Hindusim , what you know is from your precpetion which is made by , your society and your education system 

Vedism and hindusim is like Quranism and Islam - both are same

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Logic note

Hindusim is Monothestic religion . 

According to Hindusim ( Advaita School)

God is not the ultimate Truth 

Brahman is the ultimate truth which is Supreme Cosmic Spirit it is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is often described as neti neti meaning "not this, not this" because it cannot be correctly described as this or that.

*Brahman is also beyond the senses *

God or Ishvar is *our Perception about that Truth .*
Like YOur allah is your perception about that truth . your brahamn has attributes of being judgemental . (if you dont follow Quran you will be Punished in Hell)
Same is about Christian god . or say a hindu layman who prays an Idol which has Physical attributes .

Since it is difficult to Worship that shapless god . we need something which we can focus our sense organ, everyone has the freedom to see divinity in his creation and find his god . 

here is a link to understand Advaita philosophy of hinduism (which is from Veda)

Advaita Fellowship
Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## roadrunner

Logic note said:


> veda is the religious book of hindus .I have given the link of translated rig veda .. read it



It might be a religious book of Hinduism. However, Hindus do not have anything to do with Vedism. They have a hundred other books that contradict it. One example is cow eating. If you followed Vedism, you should be slaughtering the cow, and eating it merrily. Why is the cow held to be sacred in Hinduism then? 



> I think the confusion is in your mind because you know nothing about hindusim ( vedism )



I've given you the argument. Prove it wrong. 



> these philosophical thinkings keeps on reforming themselves and have diffrent interpretation by diffrent ppl . some Hindus still eat Meat and others are vegetarians .



The cow is sacred in Hinduism. Some states in India have banned its slaughter. Do you deny this? 



> There is no Final authority like Pope or Imam in Hindusim because it is against the basic principle of Hindusim which is the freedom of an individual to search for truth hence There is No concept of BANNING in Hindusim.



There is no final authority in Islam like a Pope either. However there is such a thing as banning in Hinduism. 

And why is Professor Jha's book causing such an noise in India if cows are not sacred. 

Here's some Hindu scripture references. 

*"The guilt incurred by a beastial crime with a cow, has been explained by the rule regarding the killing of a female of he Sudra Caste" *
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/dharma/vash4.asp


*Cows are considered sacred by many of India's Hindus.* 
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | India targets cow slaughter 

Do you deny the cow is sacred in Hinduism still? 

I can prove to you the cow was not sacred in Vedism if you like. 



> can you plz tell me , which verses have been Banned



I didn't say any verses had been banned. I said cow slaughter had been banned in several states in India. 



> As I said , you are ignorant about the Hindusim , what you know is from your precpetion which is made by , your society and your education system



Prove me wrong then. 



> Vedism and hindusim is like Quranism and Islam - both are same



No. Vedism and Hindusm are like Judaism and Islam. Recognized as completely different religions!


----------



## roadrunner

I've found a better quote from the Mahabharata. 

"*All that kill, eat and permit the killing of cows rot in hell for as many years as there are hairs on the body of the cow so slain*" 
"Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah" 

Do you still deny that Hinduism does not allow the killing or eating of cows in its holiest scriptures? 

Do you still want the Vedic (Rig) scriptures that permit cow eating and slaughter? 

All this proves that Vedism and Hinduism were two totally different religions. You cannot have such contradictions in a religion or a philosophy.


----------



## Logic note

> It might be a religious book of Hinduism



Good, so there is Progress in reformation 



> However, Hindus do not have anything to do with Vedism. They have a hundred other books that contradict it



First, there is nothing , as vedism 
Secondly , you havent read any Veda nor do you understand Hinduism , so how can you say it is different from Teachings of Veda ? your perception?

Thirdly - Hinduism is what veda teaches , if you read veda and come and see the various schools of Hinduism , you will understand .



> One example is cow eating. If you followed Vedism, you should be slaughtering the cow, and eating it merrily. Why is the cow held to be sacred in Hinduism then?



LOL , as i said you havent read anything about Rigveda . according to Rigveda , Cows are symbol of abundance, of the sanctity of all life and of the earth that gives much while asking nothing in return. 



> *Rig Veda*: She is like the mother of the cosmic Forces, the daughter of the cosmic Matter, the sister of cosmic Energy, the centre of the ambrosia. I address to men of wisdom --kill not her, the sinless inviolate cow.
> 
> The divine cow, herself is skilled in eloquence, gives speech to others, who comes surrounded by every kind of utterance, who helps me for my worship of the divine forces, it is only the fool that abandons her.
> 
> May cows come and bring us good fortune; let them stay in our cowsheds and be content in our company. May many colored cows bring here prolific milk for offerings to the resplendent Lord at many dawns.
> 
> The resplendent Lord bestows affluence on the devotee who offers worship and oblations. He takes not what belongs to the worshiper and gives him more; thereby increasing his wealth more and ever-more, he places the devotee in fortified positions, free from danger.
> 
> Let not the cows run away from us, let no thief carry them away; let no hostile weapon fall upon them. May the master of the cattle be long possessed of them, with the milk products of which he makes offerings and with which he serves the godly men.
> 
> Let not the cows fall a victim to the arrogant, dustspurning war-horse. Let them not fall into the hands of a butcher or his shop. Let the cattle of the man, the householder, move about freely and graze without fear.
> 
> May the cows be our affluence; may the resplendent Lord grant us cattle; may the cows yield food (milk and butter) of the first libation. These cows, O men, are sacred as the Lord resplendent Himself --the Lord whose blessings we crave for, with head and heart.
> 
> O cows, you strengthen even the worn-out and fatigued and make the unlovely beautiful to look on. Your lowing is auspicious, and makes my dwelling prosperous. Great is the abundance that is attributed to you in our religious ceremony.
> 
> May you, O cows, have many calves grazing upon good pastures and drinking pure water at accessible ponds. May no thief be your master. May no beast of prey assail you and may the dart of vital Lord never fall on you.
> 
> O resplendent Lord, a showerer of virility as you are, may we have by your blessings the sturdy bulls for insemination and let us have plenty of nourishment for the cows.
> 
> *Rig veda viii , 102, 15-16; vi , 28, 1-8*





> I didn't say any verses had been banned. I said cow slaughter had been banned in several states in India.



Please dont lie, because thats not a good quality . you clearly said that certain verses have been banned . I am quoting what you posted 




> Rig Veda formed the religion of the Vedic people. This isn't the same as Hinduism. Beef eating was permitted for example in the Rig Veda, cows were slaughtered, but later books forbade the killing of cows..which is why it's been banned in several Indian states today. *Also Vedism was a monotheistic religion, Hinduism isn't. There are verses from the Rig Veda that prove these are part of Vedism, but Hinduism has banned these*. Therefore they're not the same religion. The Gangetic people have evolved the Vedic religion into something completely unrecognizeable.





> Prove me wrong then.



I did .



> No. Vedism and Hindusm are like Judaism and Islam. Recognized as completely different religions!



This clearly depicts your prejudice mentality . without knowing or understanding anything , you start criticising it .


----------



## Flintlock

RR, have you heard of Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj?


----------



## roadrunner

I meant Hinduism has banned what was permitted in the Rig Veda. 



> Rig Veda: She is like the mother of the cosmic Forces, the daughter of the cosmic Matter, the sister of cosmic Energy, the centre of the ambrosia. I address to men of wisdom --kill not her, the sinless inviolate cow.



This is based on a deliberate mistranslation. "The adjective *Aghnya* applied to the cow in the Rig Veda means a cow that was yielding milk and therefore not fit for being killed." 



> The divine cow, herself is skilled in eloquence, gives speech to others, who comes surrounded by every kind of utterance, who helps me for my worship of the divine forces, it is only the fool that abandons her.



The veneration of the cow is expected form an agricultural community like the Rig Vedic Aryans. 



> May cows come and bring us good fortune; let them stay in our cowsheds and be content in our company. May many colored cows bring here prolific milk for offerings to the resplendent Lord at many dawns.



Nothing here that says cows should not be eaten. 



> The resplendent Lord bestows affluence on the devotee who offers worship and oblations. He takes not what belongs to the worshiper and gives him more; thereby increasing his wealth more and ever-more, he places the devotee in fortified positions, free from danger.
> 
> Let not the cows run away from us, let no thief carry them away; let no hostile weapon fall upon them. May the master of the cattle be long possessed of them, with the milk products of which he makes offerings and with which he serves the godly men.
> 
> Let not the cows fall a victim to the arrogant, dustspurning war-horse. Let them not fall into the hands of a butcher or his shop. Let the cattle of the man, the householder, move about freely and graze without fear.
> 
> May the cows be our affluence; may the resplendent Lord grant us cattle; may the cows yield food (milk and butter) of the first libation. These cows, O men, are sacred as the Lord resplendent Himself --the Lord whose blessings we crave for, with head and heart.
> 
> O cows, you strengthen even the worn-out and fatigued and make the unlovely beautiful to look on. Your lowing is auspicious, and makes my dwelling prosperous. Great is the abundance that is attributed to you in our religious ceremony.
> 
> May you, O cows, have many calves grazing upon good pastures and drinking pure water at accessible ponds. May no thief be your master. May no beast of prey assail you and may the dart of vital Lord never fall on you.
> 
> O resplendent Lord, a showerer of virility as you are, may we have by your blessings the sturdy bulls for insemination and let us have plenty of nourishment for the cows.
> 
> Rig veda viii , 102, 15-16; vi , 28, 1-8



This refers to "aghnaya" cows. These cows that must not be slaughtered in the Rig Veda, because they are giving milk. You can see this is true from the quote "may *the cows yield food (milk and butter)* of the first libation. *These cows, O men, are sacred *as the Lord resplendent Himself ". Those sacred cattle are the ones yielding food (milk and butter). It's clearly stated there. 
Further evidence.. 

"Those Cows who yield, (leave) unharmed, their nectar, Spouses of the Far-Strider, everyoung, united." RIG VEDA BOOK THREE 

Obviously the Rig Veda distinguishes between "yielding cows" and ones to be slaughtered. 

If this were not the case, and all cows were supposed not to be slaughtered then the Rig Veda would not make sense. Because it is clear cows (and ox) were to be slaughtered to please Agni. 

"Cow was cut up with a sword or an axe" 
"Agni fed on the ox and the barren cow"


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> RR, have you heard of Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj?



The Arya Samaj are not Hindus. From their website. 

"Arya Samaj was founded in the pre-independence era of India. The purpose was to move the Hindu Dharma away from all the fictitious beliefs, and go back to the teachings of Vedas." 

This suggests that the modern day Hinduism is based on fictitious beliefs, and is not the same as the Rig Veda. 

A follower of Judaism might say exactly the same things about Islam. Or a follower of Islam might say exactly the same things about Judaism. Two different relgions.


----------



## Logic note

> I meant Hinduism has banned what was permitted in the Rig Veda.



another lie .
You clearly said *verses* have been Banned 

"Also Vedism was a monotheistic religion, Hinduism isn't. There are verses from the Rig Veda that prove these are part of Vedism, but Hinduism has banned these"



> This is based on a deliberate mistranslation. "The adjective Aghnya applied to the cow in the Rig Veda means a cow that was yielding milk and therefore not fit for being killed."



Mistranslation ? is this your perception??

Aghnya is an adjective in Sanskrit which means &#8216;one who does not deserve to be killed&#8217;
why do you add this "cow that yields milk" ????
Seems you are stuck with your own perception and cant see truth 



> Nothing here that says cows should not be eaten.



LOL , where does it say , it should be or could be eaten?



> Obviously the Rig Veda distinguishes between "yielding cows" and ones to be slaughtered.



Where ? Please show me ? 
As I told you Aghnya is an Adjective, which means &#8216;one who does not deserve to be killed&#8217;
I have given you the link of Rig veda . Plz read it properly before you start forcing your biased views on anything.



> If this were not the case, and all cows were supposed not to be slaughtered then the Rig Veda would not make sense. Because it is clear cows (and ox) were to be slaughtered to please Agni.
> 
> "Cow was cut up with a sword or an axe"
> "Agni fed on the ox and the barren cow"



I gave you the Link of Rigveda .. and showed you what it says about the sacredness of cow . now you show me which verse , which Page of Rigveda .. dont just quote from thin air .


----------



## Logic note

> The Arya Samaj are not Hindus. From their website.
> 
> "Arya Samaj was founded in the pre-independence era of India. The purpose was to move the Hindu Dharma away from all the fictitious beliefs, and go back to the teachings of Vedas."
> 
> This suggests that the modern day Hinduism is based on fictitious beliefs, and is not the same as the Rig Veda.
> 
> A follower of Judaism might say exactly the same things about Islam. Or a follower of Islam might say exactly the same things about Judaism. Two different relgions.




Seems that you have a very biased perception and hatred has made you blind. you cant even read from your own quote .


> The purpose was to move the Hindu Dharma away from all the fictitious beliefs, and go back to the teachings of Vedas."


 Its a Hindu Reformist Movement , whos main purpose is to Move the *Hindu Dharma* from fictitious belief .


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> The Arya Samaj are not Hindus. From their website.
> 
> "Arya Samaj was founded in the pre-independence era of India. The purpose was to move the Hindu Dharma away from all the fictitious beliefs, and go back to the teachings of Vedas."
> 
> This suggests that the modern day Hinduism is based on fictitious beliefs, and is not the same as the Rig Veda.
> 
> A follower of Judaism might say exactly the same things about Islam. Or a follower of Islam might say exactly the same things about Judaism. Two different relgions.



Lol...why don't you ask the members of Arya Samaj themselves whether they are Hindus?

Your problem is that you've defined hinduism in a very narrow way, and you are oversimplifying the issue by saying that those people who don't follow your definition of Hinduism aren't Hindus.

The followers of Arya Samaj believe that the Hindu Dharma has moved away from its original teachings, i.e. those in the Rigveda.
They are just one among the innumerable sects in Hinduism.


----------



## roadrunner

Logic note said:


> another lie .
> You clearly said *verses* have been Banned
> 
> "Also Vedism was a monotheistic religion, Hinduism isn't. There are verses from the Rig Veda that prove these are part of Vedism, but Hinduism has banned these"



Look, I said Hinduism has banned what the Rig Veda made acceptable. Nothing else. Stop interpreting what I said to suit your ridiculous denial. 



> Mistranslation ? is this your perception??
> 
> Aghnya is an adjective in Sanskrit which means &#8216;one who does not deserve to be killed&#8217;
> why do you add this "cow that yields milk" ????
> Seems you are stuck with your own perception and cant see truth



Aghnya refers to milk cows. Milk cows are not to be killed. Barren cows are meant to be killed. The Rig Vedic people were pragmatic people, and dis not worship cows for being cows. They used cows for food, and when they were finished giving, they slaughtered them. This is clear from the Rig Veda. 

*"HYMN CLXIX. COWS.
1. MAY the wind blow upon our Cows with healing: may they eat herbage full of vigorous juices.

2 Like-coloured, various-hued, or single-coloured, whose names through sacrifice are known to Agni,*

Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CLXIX. COWS. 

I have now given you a clear reference that cows were slaughtered to please the Gods of the Rig Veda. These were barren cows of course, not the milk cows. 



> LOL , where does it say , it should be or could be eaten?
> As I told you Aghnya is an Adjective, which means &#8216;one who does not deserve to be killed&#8217;
> I have given you the link of Rig veda . Plz read it properly before you start forcing your biased views on anything.



Agnhya refers to milk cows in the Rig Veda. 



> I gave you the Link of Rigveda .. and showed you what it says about the sacredness of cow . now you show me which verse , which Page of Rigveda .. dont just quote from thin air .



I have given you one quote proving cows were slaughtered by the Rig Vedic people, who were not Hindu. I shall now give you a second quote, though I could give you many more if I wanted to.. 

*11 Let us serve Agni with our hymns, Disposer, fed on ox and cow,
Who bears the Soma on his back.*
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 8: HYMN XLIII. Agni.

Proof that cows were slaughtered by the Rig Vedic people has been presented. I have presented proof that the Mahbharata BANNED the practise of cow slaughter. 

*"All that kill, eat and permit the killing of cows rot in hell for as many years as there are hairs on the body of the cow so slain" *
"Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah" 

Two different rules, and two different religions..Rig Vedism (based on the Rig Veda), and Hinduism. 

For the meaning of Aghnaya, just read some of Jha's work, or the majority of scholars that agree with him.


----------



## Vinod2070

> Two different rules, and two different religions..Rig Vedism (based on the Rig Veda), and Hinduism



Didn't know we had such big theological scholar here who will tell the Indians the meaning of Vedas. 

Is this theory (Hinduism being different from the Vedic religion) your own great invention or you have an iota of proof from any respected theological scholar to back it up.

If Hinduism is not the Vedic religion then which religion is the Vedic religion? 

If you mean that the religion as it is practiced now after all these thousands of years has certain differences with as it was practiced back then, it could well be true. But to say that it is a different religion is taking it a bit too far IMHO.


----------



## Logic note

> Look, I said Hinduism has banned what the Rig Veda made acceptable. Nothing else. Stop interpreting what I said to suit your ridiculous denial.



Firstly, you have said verses have been banned . but lets accept that it was a mistake .
I have made it very clear there is nothing banned because In Hindusim the individuals freedom to find his truth is the most important .
Can you show which verses or where it has been Banned ? Please give me the authentic source . 



> Aghnya refers to milk cows.



Please , read Sanskrit dictionary before blabbering &#8211;
Aghnya means- &#8220; not to be killed or violated &#8220;



> Barren cows are meant to be killed. The Rig Vedic people were pragmatic people, and dis not worship cows for being cows. They used cows for food, and when they were finished giving, they slaughtered them. This is clear from the Rig Veda.



LOL , Don&#8217;t force your narrow perceptiveness .kindly show me the verse which says Cow can be eaten . I have shown you verses which says Cows are Aghnya ( not to be killed or violated )
Lets see the Verse you have quoted 


&#8220;whose names through sacrifice are known to Agni,&#8221;

In Rig Veda, the word 'bali' means offering, not killing, as in Balivaishvadev which is a Vedic ritual observed to offer food to celestial gods. You seems to be unfamiliar with Vedic grammar. Even Panini has defined 'goghn' as the receiver, not the killer, of the cow. 

Secondly it is true that animals were sacrificed to honour gods in the Vedic era, or even in todays time, by certain Hindu Sects this was usually the male ox, buffalo or goat. The sacrifice was a special communit event and not an act of individual consumerist eating.



> Agnhya refers to milk cows in the Rig Veda.



Please it&#8217;s a request , Read Sanskrik dictionary before you blabber 
Aghnya means- &#8220; not to be killed or violated &#8220;



> Proof that cows were slaughtered by the Rig Vedic people has been presented. I have presented proof that the Mahbharata BANNED the practise of cow slaughter



LOL, There is no banning in Hindusim , There can be opinions ,Ramanuja must have propogated Vegetarianism but its his view . there are millions of hindus who eat Non veg and beef .



> For the meaning of Aghnaya, just read some of Jha's work, or the majority of scholars that agree with him.



LOl Jha's work has been proved Wrong. so Dont blabber By saying Majority of scholars agree with him .
Please Use Facts not biased Imagination. I am posting the facts on which Jha's Work has been disproved .


----------



## Logic note

Jha's Wrong Facts .



> Some Bull
> D.N. JHA (Paradox of the Indian cow, December 17) referred to a sentence from the Rig Veda which means " Indra has special liking for bulls". 'Bull' is the wrong meaning for the word vrishabh used here. Its actual meaning in this context is 'cloud'. So the actual sentence is; " Indra has special liking of clouds". In the Puranas, Indra is also known as the god of rain. - AMIT DUA, DELHI
> Overkill
> THE ARTICLE Paradox of the Indian cow by D.N. Jha reveals his prejudices. In Rig Veda, the word 'bali' means offering, not killing, as in Balivaishvadev which is a Vedic ritual observed to offer food to celestial gods. Jha seems to be unfamiliar with Vedic grammar. Even Panini has defined 'goghn' as the receiver, not the killer, of the cow. J.K. BENIWAL, DELHI
> A perennial paradox
> WHILE DIGGING into the Vedas for beef, D.N. Jha (Paradox of the Indian cow, December 17) seems to be oblivious of the intricacies of Vedic language which is an esoteric field. Wherever one finds gau in Vedas, it does not invariably stand for cow. If the author things cows were sacrificed in gomedh, will he say that pitars were sacrificed in pitrimedh?
> Two thousand years from now, scholars of Jha's caliber might find the mention of hotdogs in 'ancient' books and jump to the conclusion that dog meat was the staple food of Americans and Europeans in the 20th Century. We know Bombay duck is fish. But if at some point of time, someone insists on translating Bombay duck as a kind of duck, truth will be casualty.
> 
> He has stated that various varieties of meat, particularly of cows and bulls, were a part of the cuisine of early Indians and further indicated textual evidence of beef-eating. He has said that the Sangh parivar has turned its guns at historians, instead of at Indian scholars. This is a misconception since we Aryans believe in the Mundokupnishad (3.1.6) - Satyamev Jayate nanritam - that is, only the truth triumphs and not the false hood. We are willing to argue and counter the contrary opinion on the textual evidence.
> I mention the word rishibh which means bull. But it is also the name of an aushdhi (medicine). It also means surya (sun) the Sanskrit word mahisha means an animal and also denotes padarth (substance) and vighn (obstacle). The word Soma, besides an aushadhi, also means aishvara (an elevated position).
> The conclusions based on literal meanings have misled the early commentators and because of this we should be open to correcting these misgivings. In the light of correct meanings, the thesis in the article will collapse under its own weight.
> Jha has singled out some hymns of the Vedas whose misinterpretation has led to wrong conclusions. I have come across ample textual evidence in the Vedas where the cow has been glorified saying it needs to be worshipped. The Vedas prescribe punishment for the cow's butcher.
> The entire Sukta 28 of Mandal VI (eight hymns) of Rig Veda is devoted to the glorification of the cow; 28.3 states amitrah assam vyathih n aaddharshti - enemy may not use any astra (weapon) on cows; 28.4 states n sanskritam upayanti to abhi - nobody should take them to the slaughterhouse to kill them; 28.5 states - gavah somyasaya prathamasya bhakhshah - in the first ahuti (offering) of Somras, only cow's milk is used.
> The glory of the domestic cow is revealed in the Rig Veda hymn II. 35.7. It is also emphasised in Atharv Veda (AV) hymns V.28.3; IV.21.6; IV.21.7; also in the hymn XIX. 48.5 which directs us to protect all animals. Refer the book Swadhyaya Sandoh by Swami Vedanand Teerth, (pg 25-26 and 296, besides referring to the Vedic texts.
> AV in its hymn I. 16.4 prescribes punishment to the killer of the cow. Vedic rishis never allowed such killings which Jha tries to prove b singling out solitary references in Taittirya Brahmana, Satapatha Brahmana. Even the name of Ajnavalk and Valmiki Ramayana is referred to fortify his claim. The entire thesis is based on misinterpretations.


----------



## rrs

roadrunner said:


> The Vedic religion (Rig Vedic religion it should be) is all but extinct now. But it used to exist. These temples are Vedic temples, not Hindu temples




Denial Denial denial
Typical Islamic response. 

Islamic rulers used to destroy the other cultures, religion and civilization. 
This trend still continues, erase or change the damn history of Hindus


----------



## Vinod2070

roadrunner said:


> Rig Veda formed the religion of the Vedic people. This isn't the same as Hinduism. Beef eating was permitted for example in the Rig Veda, cows were slaughtered, but later books forbade the killing of cows..which is why it's been banned in several Indian states today. Also Vedism was a monotheistic religion, Hinduism isn't. There are verses from the Rig Veda that prove these are part of Vedism, but Hinduism has banned these. Therefore they're not the same religion. The Gangetic people have evolved the Vedic religion into something completely unrecognizeable.



RR, due to some reason, you feel that you can authoritatively comment on other religions. You can tell the Hindus what their religion is and how its not the Vedic religion. You can even claim that Budhdhism is not an Indian religion! You claim with not a shred of proof that Bhama Gupta was *probably *Budhdhist, when all the links prove otherwise! 

All this is to somehow convince yourself of some imaginary points based on which you have built some imaginary case in your own mind.

When the reverse happens and someone quotes you Quranic verses to support their contentions, you claim that they don't know Islam and context and so on.

Do I see a big hypocricy going on here?


----------



## solid snake

I don't understand why the history curriculum is so flawed in Pakistan. Year after year after year students are made to cram the same dull facts and dates and then recreate them on paper. What can be expected with this kind of education? It all starts with the arrival of the Brits, mentions the Mughals, but is mostly focussed on on post 1900 history. 

Why aren't our students taught the rich history before that time? Our history textbooks should start from as far back as Mehrgarh (7000 BC). The Indo-Greek empire was a very interesting as well, but I had never heard of it until I stumbled upon the article on Wikipedia.

Also, why are little kids who haven't even procured proper reading/writing skills made to study history? Kids do not understand the political, social and economic factors that one must understand in order to fully grasp history. Most of the major historical topics should be introduced for the first time during high school so that the meterial is new and interesting to the students instead of the same thing they've been spweing like robots for years without appreciating it.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Well Katasraj is a Vedic temple from around 800 BC, not a Hindu temple.



Well, here is wikipedia for a start:



> Jump to: navigation, search
> 
> Katasraj temple is a Hindu temple situated in Chakwal district of Punjab in Pakistan. Dedicated to Lord Shiva, the temple has existed since the days of Mahabharata and the Pandava brothers spent a substantial part of their exile at the site. The Pakistan Government is considering nominating the temple complex for World Heritage Site status. It also proposes to spend about Rs 20 million in three phases for the restoration of the complex.





> Architecture
> 
> The Katas site houses the Satgraha, a group of seven ancient temples, remains of a Buddhist stupa, a few medieval temples, havelis and some recently constructed temples, scattered around a pond considered holy by Hindus. The temples at Katas are mostly constructed on square platforms. The elevation of the sub shrines seems to form a series of cornices with small rows of pillars, crowned by a ribbed dome.
> 
> The Ramachandra temple is situated to the east of the Hari Singh Haveli and is closed from all sides except for an entrance on the east. The double-storied structure has eight rooms of various dimensions on the ground floor and a staircase at the south leading to the first floor. The temple has two jharokas (balconies) that have been severely damaged.
> 
> The *Hanuman temple* is on the western extreme of a high rectangular enclosure with entrances on the south and the north. The temple's ceiling is undecorated, and lime-plastered. The *Shiva temple* is also built on a square platform. Its entrance is a recessed round arch with faint cusps and a rectangular opening to the north. Katas Raj temple complex is believed to date back to the Mahabharata era. There are stories about the Pandavas spending time there during their long exile. The lake in the complex is believed to have magical powers and supposed to be where Yudhishtir defeated the Yaksha with his wisdom to bring his brothers back to life.





> Legends
> 
> Many legends are associated with it, some of them involving Shiva himself. Legend says that the five Pandava brothers, heroes of the Sanskrit epic Mahabharata, stayed here for four out of the 14 years that they spent in exile.
> 
> Another legend involves the death of Shiva's wife Satti, so the story goes that when she died he cried so much and for so long, that his tears created two holy ponds - one at Pushkara in Ajmer and the other at Ketaksha, which literally means raining eyes, in Sanskrit. It is from this name that the word Ketas is derived. Another version of the legend mentions the two pools at Katasraj and Nainital.



Here is a nice article on its recent restoration:

SPECIAL STORY


----------



## Flintlock

solid snake said:


> I don't understand why the history curriculum is so flawed in Pakistan. Year after year after year students are made to cram the same dull facts and dates and then recreate them on paper. What can be expected with this kind of education? It all starts with the arrival of the Brits, mentions the Mughals, but is mostly focussed on on post 1900 history.
> 
> Why aren't our students taught the rich history before that time? Our history textbooks should start from as far back as Mehrgarh (7000 BC). The Indo-Greek empire was a very interesting as well, but I had never heard of it until I stumbled upon the article on Wikipedia.
> 
> Also, why are little kids who haven't even procured proper reading/writing skills made to study history? Kids do not understand the political, social and economic factors that one must understand in order to fully grasp history. Most of the major historical topics should be introduced for the first time during high school so that the meterial is new and interesting to the students instead of the same thing they've been spweing like robots for years without appreciating it.



I completely agree.

Students must be presented with a comprehensive and deep history syllabus that doesn't try to glorify one particular historical period over another.

They must be taught more about the nature of history as change and progress, rather than the triumph of their favourite king over the other one.

Only then will society develop a good understanding of the dynamics of society...and not hark back to the "golden age" every time there is a crisis.

I think Indian history books offer a much more comprehensive view of history, by including everything from the Aryan migration to the Independence movement.

However, the books present a very "marxist" view, for the lack of a better word.
They should give a better look at history that enables students to understand the conditions in modern india better, rather than talk about each empire in glowing terms, thus presenting us with a paradox when we look at the conditions in present day India.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Well, here is wikipedia for a start:



Wikipedia is not a credible reference.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Wikipedia is not a credible reference.



Dude, I know what wikipedia is credible for and what it isn't 

While describing a famous site like the Katasraj temples, it obviously won't make any errors.
If the author says that there is a hanuman temple, then there probably is one.

Anyways, why don't you check the news article below?

SPECIAL STORY


----------



## Flintlock

*Fine, here's a Pakistani site:*



> *Katasraj Temples grandeur to be restored *
> Written by Shoaib Ahmed, *The Daily Times Pakistan*
> Tuesday, 27 June 2006
> 
> LAHORE: Three-phased restoration work on the Katasraj Temples will begin next month and Rs 30 million is expected to be spent on the first phase, sources in the Punjab Archeology Department (PAD) told Daily Times on Monday. The Katasraj Temples were transferred to the PAD recently.
> 
> Sources said a list of recommendations had been finalised for the restoration suggested by Pakistani and Indian officials from the archeology departments of both countries. They said that a comprehensive study had been made in this regard. The ponds at the temples would be cleaned and enlarged, they said, adding that the ponds would also be fenced. They said the *Shiva Temple* and the adjacent area would be restored and debris would be removed. The missing staircase would be rebuilt and the walls would be plastered, they added.
> 
> 
> Sources said that proper pathways leading to the pools, Shiva Temple, *Hanuman Temple,* *Ramachandra Temple*, *Stupa* and Hari Singh&#8217;s Haveli would be built.
> 
> They said that the flight of steps to the haveli&#8217;s eastern entrance and the damaged wooden doors would also be repaired.
> 
> New benches would be set there and new changing rooms for male and female pilgrims would be built, they said, adding that the youth hostels would be upgraded and proper facilities for toilets and drinking water would be provided. A website on Katasraj Temples and a publicity camping of the area will also be launched.
> 
> In phase two of the plan the *Satghara Temples*, Hanuman Temples and Ramchandara Temples will be restored. All paintings in the Hanuman and Ramchandra temples will be treated chemically, and lodging facilities for tourists will also be provided.
> 
> In phase three, a site museum will be established, and the Satghara Temples, Stupa and the slopes of the hillock overlooking the pond will be landscaped.
> 
> An open-area with parking facilities on the eastern road leading to Kallar Kahar will be established, and a road leading to the site from various locations will also be built. Sources said the government would fund the project to be completed at an estimated cost of $25 million.
> 
> The restoration of Katasraj Temples was planned during LK Advani&#8217;s (a Lok Sabha leader) visit to Pakistan in 2005. The leader laid the foundation stone for the restoration of the temples and assured his assistance for this purpose.
> 
> On September 1, 2005, a meeting was held on Katasraj Temples between Chauhdry Shujaat Hussain and Shiv Shankar Menon (the Indian high commissioner to Pakistan).
> 
> Sources said that Pakistani and Indian politicians had agreed that once the Katasraj Temples were restored, Babri mosque in India would be rebuilt.
> *
> Katas, famous for the Katasraj Temples dedicated to Lord Shiva, is an important site for Hindu pilgrims in Pakistan*. The Katasraj shrine stands on a site believed to be visited by the Pandava Brothers of the great Indian epic Mahabharta. Katas is located on River Jhelum&#8217;s right bank, 26 kilometres away from Pind Dadan Khan and 30 km from Chakwal. There are several myths associated wit the Katasraj Temples.
> 
> Punjab Heritage - Katasraj Temples grandeur to be restored


----------



## roadrunner

The Katsaraj Temples were built around 600 BC in Pakistan. This means they could not have been Hindu temples, since Hinduism originated elsewhere much later. Hamayun, the monkey God, is not mentioned in the Rig Veda. He is mentioned in poetry much later than 600 BC. If there is a "Hamayun Temple", then it was added on later to this clearly Vedic temple (it would have to be Vedic if it was built in 600 BC. ) It must have started out Vedic, then some of the Punjabi Hindu worshippers must have extended it and renamed it. So yes, it might have been re-structured into a Hindu temple, but it wasn't one originally.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> The Katsaraj Temples were built around 600 BC in Pakistan. This means they could not have been Hindu temples, since Hinduism originated elsewhere much later. Hamayun, the monkey God, is not mentioned in the Rig Veda. He is mentioned in poetry much later than 600 BC. If there is a "Hamayun Temple", then it was added on later to this clearly Vedic temple (it would have to be Vedic if it was built in 600 BC. ) It must have started out Vedic, then some of the Punjabi Hindu worshippers must have extended it and renamed it. So yes, it might have been re-structured into a Hindu temple, but it wasn't one originally.



Man, your hinduism theories are hilarious.

Hinduism evolved from Vedic religion into the present one. There is no clear boundary line that says "This is where Vedism ends and hinduism begins"

All you are trying to do is brand Vedic religion as "anything but hinduism", in order to dissociate Pakistan's history from hindus.

Also, it doesn't matter what the site was in 600 BC. At the time of partition, the site contained hindu and buddhist temples, which were abandoned.

P.S>. Its Hanuman, not Hamayun.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

solid snake said:


> I don't understand why the history curriculum is so flawed in Pakistan. Year after year after year students are made to cram the same dull facts and dates and then recreate them on paper. What can be expected with this kind of education? It all starts with the arrival of the Brits, mentions the Mughals, but is mostly focussed on on post 1900 history.
> 
> Why aren't our students taught the rich history before that time? Our history textbooks should start from as far back as Mehrgarh (7000 BC). The Indo-Greek empire was a very interesting as well, but I had never heard of it until I stumbled upon the article on Wikipedia.



That history is beginning to be taught - the MMA threw a fit over it. It is sad that so many generations missed out on knowing the ancient peoples and civilizations that make up current Pakistan, but nonetheless it is being corrected.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> The Katsaraj Temples were built around 600 BC in Pakistan. This means they could not have been Hindu temples, since Hinduism originated elsewhere much later. Hamayun, the monkey God, is not mentioned in the Rig Veda. He is mentioned in poetry much later than 600 BC. If there is a "Hamayun Temple", then it was added on later to this clearly Vedic temple (it would have to be Vedic if it was built in 600 BC. ) It must have started out Vedic, then some of the Punjabi Hindu worshippers must have extended it and renamed it. So yes, it might have been re-structured into a Hindu temple, but it wasn't one originally.



Oh, and did we forget the Shiva temple?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

This has been a very informative thread, as have the recent back and forth posts. 

Lets please refrain from impolite remarks about ones "credentials to debate". One does not have to be an expert in a particular field to participate in a discussion. If you believe any information being presented is incorrect, a simple rebuttal with support is enough. If a poster clarifies the context and meaning of a remark understood by others to convey something different than intentioned, then there is no need to continue to push the issue.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> "*All that kill, eat and permit the killing of cows rot in hell for as many years as there are hairs on the body of the cow so slain*"
> "Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah"
> 
> Do you still deny that Hinduism does not allow the killing or eating of cows in its holiest scriptures?
> 
> Do you still want the Vedic (Rig) scriptures that permit cow eating and slaughter?
> 
> All this proves that Vedism and Hinduism were two totally different religions. You cannot have such contradictions in a religion or a philosophy.



Lol...Hinduism is all contradiction to those who don't understand what makes it tick!! 

A look at the picture below should help you out!! 



Lets look at it this way:

A monotheistic alien lands in the USA, and tries to understand the "religion" of the Americans from his own perspective of rigid rules and laws.
But what he sees completely shocks him!!

On one hand, he sees the Christians worshipping Jesus and following all these laws. On the other hand he sees all these other people who seem to follow none of the christian rules at all.
He looks at the mass media and gets completely confused by the seemingly contradictory views being expressed all the time.
Then he looks that the universities and they seem to follow some religion of their own...concerned with daily ritual gatherings in "lecture halls".

He watches a raunchy american music video and decides that this must be a part of their religion, but then he chances on an Amish community who refuse even electricity and running water, forget about exposing their bodies.
He sees pictures of Elvis everywhere, and decides that this must be one of their gods.

Basically, all the western/Islamic attempts to understand hinduism in the past have been flawed because they looked at it from their own rigid monotheistic glasses.
What they didn't realize that this was a completely different world with a variety of different ideas floating about, and there was no "religion" as such which applied to one and all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Man, your hinduism theories are hilarious.
> 
> Hinduism evolved from Vedic religion into the present one. There is no clear boundary line that says "This is where Vedism ends and hinduism begins"



The relationship between Hinduism and Vedism is like that between Judaism and Christianity, or even between Islam and Christianity. Some aspects of Vedism do exist in Hinduism, but there are clear differences, even contradictions, in much the same can describe the relationship between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. However, I doubt anyone would classify Judaism, Christianity or Islam as the same religions. 



> All you are trying to do is brand Vedic religion as "anything but hinduism", in order to dissociate Pakistan's history from hindus.



I'm not trying to do anything, just stating undeniable facts under all shades of neutrality. 



> Also, it doesn't matter what the site was in 600 BC. At the time of partition, the site contained hindu and buddhist temples, which were abandoned.



I don't disagree with this point of yours. I'd need to research Katsiraj more. But if Katsiraj was built in 600 BC, it was undoubtedly Vedic, not Hindu. 



> P.S>. Its Hanuman, not Hamayun.



I see


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Oh, and did we forget the Shiva temple?



The Shiva Temple was probably added on later. Shiva was a villainous God around 600 BC, so noone would have devoted a temple to him. When Hinduism arose from the Ganges, Shiva became the saviour of the Dravidians. I suspect the Shiva Temple is a very recent addition by some Punjabi Hindus who probably have migrated to India by now.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> The relationship between Hinduism and Vedism is like that between Judaism and Christianity, or even between Islam and Christianity. Some aspects of Vedism do exist in Hinduism, but there are clear differences, even contradictions, in much the same can describe the relationship between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. However, I doubt anyone would classify Judaism, Christianity or Islam as the same religions.



That is where you are wrong.

There is a very sharp dividing line between Christianity and Islam.

That dividing line occurs with the arrival of Muhammed. 

Hinduism is not a revealed religion. It is a natural religion, and I might add, one of the world's last surviving ones.

If you can point out to me exactly in which year Hindus started ignoring Indra and began to worship Ganesha, please do so.

Otherwise, It is better to learn a bit more about how each of the important hindu deities, prinicipally Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Hanuman, Ganesh, Kali, Saraswati, Durga, Vishnu etc. evolved from their earliest forms to the present ones.

Trust me, it will be quite fascinating.



> I don't disagree with this point of yours. I'd need to research Katsiraj more. But if Katsiraj was built in 600 BC, it was undoubtedly Vedic, not Hindu.



Well according to wikipedia, the earliest surviving temple dates from 6th century AD.

According to this blogsite, the plaque outside the temples reads:

*Katas: Kohistan Mountains, Central Chakwal --- according to the legend of the Mahabharata, when Lord Shiva lost his wife Parvati, he felt so upset that the ponds at the eastern and western ends of the temple got filled by his tears. In Sanskrit it is also known as 'Katak Sheel' which means flow of tears. Later on the name got twisted to 'Katas'. The place is of great significance for the Brahmins.*

Also written in the blog:

*Even Al-Bairuni wrote an interesting history of the temple in his 'Kitab-ul-Hind' where he depicts that he learnt Sanskrit and science at Katas. Not only this, quite interestingly, he even learnt many Vedic traditions. Renowned historian Panikkar states that 'Kitab-ul-Hind' brings a very honest and first-hand account of history at that time. It is also mentioned in Bairuni's book that Katas happened to be the most revered Mandir after Punjab's Jwalamukhi Mandir. This fact is also confirmed by Liaqat Ali Khan Niyazi, the Deputy Commissioner of Chakwal. Al-Bairuni also mentioned about other Pakistani temples like Panch Mukhi ka Hanuman Mandir, Nagnath Baba Mandir and Darya Lal Mandir.*

I am not sure whether I will be able to verify these things better. Perhaps a look at the "kitab-ul-hind" itself should clarify things.

Needless to say, the temple is in a pretty bad shape, and has been looted of its paintings and idols long time ago. I'm glad that Pakistan govt. has finally decided to do something before the structures disappear altogether.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> The Shiva Temple was probably added on later. Shiva was a villainous God around 600 BC, so noone would have devoted a temple to him. When Hinduism arose from the Ganges, Shiva became the saviour of the Dravidians. I suspect the Shiva Temple is a very recent addition by some Punjabi Hindus who probably have migrated to India by now.



Well, here is what i know about Shiva:

He is worshipped by practically all hindus as one of their gods.

He evolved from a Rigvedic deity called "Rudra". Even today, "Rudra" is one of Shiva's 108 names.

I think he first appears in the puranas, however, his evolution from Rudra is obscure. More likely, he is a composite deity formed by the Rigvedic Rudra and some other deities.

His other major name is Shankar, which means "benificient" , denoting his positive aspects.

Additionally, he appears as Natraja, or the lord of the dance, and is worshipped by Hindu dancers.

In one of his forms he is an asetic sage, and in another he is depicted with a wife Parvati and son Ganesha....both coexisting (paradox alert)

He has been called Agni, Indra, Vayu and Prajapati and they are also among his names....probably his personality borrows heavily from these deities.

That is all I can remember offhand....

I"m not sure about the "Savior of the Dravidians" part....

Also I didn't get what you mean by "villanous".

Also, yes, the Katasraj Temple was abandoned during partition, and crumbled to its present state.

Oh, and I remember an interesting Vedic Rock song with some sanskrit lyrics:\

(purists will fume at this video...because a "tandav" is supposed to be a very refined dance...not the random jumping and flailing depicted here)

7xVFgCjJm44[/media] - Indian Vedic Rock: Agnee (Agni) - Mrityunjaya - Tandav 



...and he was mentioned in a recent hollywood movie "Michael Clayton". 
This guy says "I am Shiva...god of death"....which isn't actually correct since its not really "death" but "destroyer" and "bringer of change", but nevertheless...


----------



## Flintlock

One of the reasons that people don't understand hinduism is because its roots and evolution is plain for all to see.

Christianity on the other hand, has done well to hide its pagan past, so it appears a lot more "logical" on the surface.

If you dig deeper, you will find that even the so called "revealed" religions have their own long line of ancestors.


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> That is where you are wrong.
> 
> There is a very sharp dividing line between Christianity and Islam.
> 
> That dividing line occurs with the arrival of Muhammed.



You obviously don't know enough about Islam or Christianity. Islam considers Christianity to be the same..they are "people of the book", but this of course refers to the original Bible (which Muslims believe to be the same as the Qu'ran). You can see that there would much overlap between Islam and Christianity, but for those parts which Muslims believe have been changed from the original Bible. Examples on similarities between Christianity and Islam, or the Bible and Qu'ran are shown 

Islam and Christianity - Similarities and Differences 

There are plenty more similarities (and differnces), so both Islam and Christianity share some beliefs, just as Vedism and Hinduism share some beliefs. However, Islam and Christianity are considered as separate religions, just as Vedism and Hinduism are considered separate religions by any logical thinker. 



> Hinduism is not a revealed religion. It is a natural religion, and I might add, one of the world's last surviving ones.



Hinduism is a very recent religion. 



> If you can point out to me exactly in which year Hindus started ignoring Indra and began to worship Ganesha, please do so.



My opinion is when Hindu beliefs contradict previous books, THEN this is no longer Hinduism. I believe by the time of the Mahabharata and even the Yajur Vedic times and so on, beliefs had already contradicted the Rig Veda. The Dravidians from the Yajur Veda, Mahabharata etc, villified Indra, defeated and humiliated him at the hands of the Dravidian Gods..This would never have happened in the Rig Veda where Indra and Agni reigned supreme. Therefore they are different religions. Let's call them Rig Vedism and Hinduism. 



> Well according to wikipedia, the earliest surviving temple dates from 6th century AD.
> 
> According to this blogsite, the plaque outside the temples reads:
> 
> *Katas: Kohistan Mountains, Central Chakwal --- according to the legend of the Mahabharata, when Lord Shiva lost his wife Parvati, he felt so upset that the ponds at the eastern and western ends of the temple got filled by his tears. In Sanskrit it is also known as 'Katak Sheel' which means flow of tears. Later on the name got twisted to 'Katas'. The place is of great significance for the Brahmins.*
> 
> Also written in the blog:
> 
> *Even Al-Bairuni wrote an interesting history of the temple in his 'Kitab-ul-Hind' where he depicts that he learnt Sanskrit and science at Katas. Not only this, quite interestingly, he even learnt many Vedic traditions. Renowned historian Panikkar states that 'Kitab-ul-Hind' brings a very honest and first-hand account of history at that time. It is also mentioned in Bairuni's book that Katas happened to be the most revered Mandir after Punjab's Jwalamukhi Mandir. This fact is also confirmed by Liaqat Ali Khan Niyazi, the Deputy Commissioner of Chakwal. Al-Bairuni also mentioned about other Pakistani temples like Panch Mukhi ka Hanuman Mandir, Nagnath Baba Mandir and Darya Lal Mandir.*
> 
> I am not sure whether I will be able to verify these things better. Perhaps a look at the "kitab-ul-hind" itself should clarify things.
> 
> Needless to say, the temple is in a pretty bad shape, and has been looted of its paintings and idols long time ago. I'm glad that Pakistan govt. has finally decided to do something before the structures disappear altogether.



So? My point is that in 600 BC, the Katiraj Temples were Vedic, because there was no Shiva worshipping then. Some Hindus have added these temples on later and even this plaque. Incidentally Al-Beruni quoted Brahmagupta as born in Multan too.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> You obviously don't know enough about Islam or Christianity. Islam considers Christianity to be the same..they are "people of the book", but this of course refers to the original Bible (which Muslims believe to be the same as the Qu'ran). You can see that there would much overlap between Islam and Christianity, but for those parts which Muslims believe have been changed from the original Bible. Examples on similarities between Christianity and Islam, or the Bible and Qu'ran are shown
> 
> Islam and Christianity - Similarities and Differences



Oh trust me, I know enough.

Is that why Muslims and Christians hate each other? Because they are so similar? 

Look, it is well know that the Quran is a modified version of the bible with some additions.

The point is, that Islam chose to separate itself from Christianity and the other pagan religions from which it derived its practices.

Both Christianity and Islam are loathe to delve into their past.

This is how the line is drawn....by dogma.



> There are plenty more similarities (and differnces), so both Islam and Christianity share some beliefs, just as Vedism and Hinduism share some beliefs. However, Islam and Christianity are considered as separate religions, just as Vedism and Hinduism are considered separate religions by any logical thinker.



I don't know of any logical thinker who considers Hinduism and Vedism separate.

Please, do name the prophet of Hinduism and in which year he appeared.




> My opinion is when Hindu beliefs contradict previous books, THEN this is no longer Hinduism.



Lol, in that case you will have to name a new hinduism every 100 years!! 

I guess you still haven't understood the nature of hinduism as ever changing, both over time, and from person to person.



> I believe by the time of the Mahabharata and even the Yajur Vedic times and so on, beliefs had already contradicted the Rig Veda.



...and which year would that be?

Would the coming of the Adi Shankaracharya also mean that Hinduism changed and therfore was no longer Hinduism?

Would the Bhakti movement also indicate that Hinduism can no longer be called by that name?

You have just taken one change, and drawn a line across it. What about the numerous other changes that hinduism underwent till this date? 

What about the numerous regional variations in hinduism?

Also, let me remind you that the Vedas are still the most important books in Hinduism. Only, their interpretations might have changed over time.



> The Dravidians from the Yajur Veda, Mahabharata etc, villified Indra, defeated and humiliated him at the hands of the Dravidian Gods..This would never have happened in the Rig Veda where Indra and Agni reigned supreme. Therefore they are different religions. Let's call them Rig Vedism and Hinduism.



Can you clarify that? With a link?



> So? My point is that in 600 BC, the Katiraj Temples were Vedic, because there was no Shiva worshipping then. Some Hindus have added these temples on later and even this plaque. Incidentally Al-Beruni quoted Brahmagupta as born in Multan too.



As far as I know, the temples were first built in 600AD not BC....please give me a link.

The Plaque was added by the Archaeological Survey of Pakistan apparently.

Also, Al-Beruni, if I remember correctly, described Brahmagupta as being born in Bhinmal. (Wasn't that debate over?)


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Oh trust me, I know enough.
> 
> Is that why Muslims and Christians hate each other? Because they are so similar?



Good God, I'm not saying they're very similar. That's my whole point! They're different religions because they have SOME different beliefs, but there are also SOME similar beliefs, just as in Vedism there are SOME different beliefs, and SOME similar beliefs to Hinduism. Do you see the point now? 



> Look, it is well know that the Quran is a modified version of the bible with some additions.
> 
> The point is, that Islam chose to separate itself from Christianity and the other pagan religions from which it derived its practices.



Christianity is not a pagan religion, but Islam just is not Christianity because there are a different set of beliefs. Vedism is not Hindusm because there are a different set of core beliefs. Look at it like this if you want to consider "religious evolution". 

Islam + Original Christianity = Same

Original Christianity evolves into modern Christianity. 

Modern Christianity (evolved) + Islam = Different religions now. 

Evolution that changes a religion makes it into a different religion, when the doctrines presented in those religions begin to contradict the other one, or the basic tenets differ. This has happened for Hinduism and Vedism. 



> Both Christianity and Islam are loathe to delve into their past.
> 
> This is how the line is drawn....by dogma.



Not sure what you mean. 



> I don't know of any logical thinker who considers Hinduism and Vedism separate.
> 
> Please, do name the prophet of Hinduism and in which year he appeared.



Each of your books was written by a sage. 



> Lol, in that case you will have to name a new hinduism every 100 years!!
> 
> I guess you still haven't understood the nature of hinduism as ever changing, both over time, and from person to person.



I don't think you understand the logic of what you're proposing here. You're saying that any belief system in history can be classified as Hinduism. This is nonsense. There is only one way to describe a belief system..Either as a belief system or as a religion. You cannot call it Hinduism, because Hinduism is a set of beliefs as written down in the Mahabharata and various books. For example, a Hindu must believe that the sons of Pandu and Dhrishtrava battled it out for Bharat at the City of Elephants. These are Hindu beliefs, none of which are Islamic beliefs or Christian beliefs. Therefore you cannot apply Hinduism to just any religion. There is a boundary. The obvious boundary that Hinduism crosses is when Indra becomes relegated to a defeated God, at the mercy of the Dravidian Gods, when he reigned supreme under Vedic beliefs. If one religion has an all powerful God, how can this be the same as another set of beliefs that has him being beaten by other Gods? Obviously he is not not all powerful. This is because Vedism and Hinduism are separate religions. 



> ...and which year would that be?



Sometime after the Rig Veda and before the Mahabharata. 



> Would the coming of the Adi Shankaracharya also mean that Hinduism changed and therfore was no longer Hinduism?



Only if the Hindu Gods became irrelevant. 



> Would the Bhakti movement also indicate that Hinduism can no longer be called by that name?
> 
> You have just taken one change, and drawn a line across it. What about the numerous other changes that hinduism underwent till this date?
> 
> What about the numerous regional variations in hinduism?
> 
> Also, let me remind you that the Vedas are still the most important books in Hinduism. Only, their interpretations might have changed over time.



The Vedas are only Hindu by name according to the priests. They form a separate religion. The Rig Veda especially. 



> Can you clarify that? With a link?



One example 

When the dreadful battle rose to a high pitch causing horripilation, Vritra became very angry and suddenly caught hold of Indra and denuding him of all clothes and armours swallowed him; he, then, remembering his former enmity, became very glad and stayed there. When Indra was thus devoured by Vritra, the Devas were overwhelmed with terror and cried out frequently, with great distress :-- O Indra! O Indra! All the Devas became very dejected and grieved in their hearts to see Indra denuded of his armour and clothes in the belly of Vritra and bowed down to Brihaspati and said :-- O Indra of the Brâhmans! You are our best Guru what are we to do now? Though the gods tried their best to save Indra still Vritra has devoured him. We are all powerless, what can we do without Indra? 
The Devi Bhagavatam: The Sixth Book: Chapter 4 

Other examples 

The Formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have no material representation, likeness or image. .. Yajur Veda 32:3. 

The beef eating verses in the Rig Veda, but the ban on beef eating later is another example + plenty more. 



> As far as I know, the temples were first built in 600AD not BC....please give me a link.



A Hindu Indian link 
Apart from the 600 BC temples, which are in a dilapidated condition, there is a sacred pool with mythical association with Lord Shiva
Hindu temple in Pakistan to get a make-over « Hindu Mommy 



> The Plaque was added by the Archaeological Survey of Pakistan apparently.



It might very well have had a Shiva story to one temple built later on, but not the original complex, because Shiva was not around at that time in a worshipable state anyway.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Good God, I'm not saying they're very similar. That's my whole point! They're different religions because they have SOME different beliefs, but there are also SOME similar beliefs, just as in Vedism there are SOME different beliefs, and SOME similar beliefs to Hinduism. Do you see the point now?



Look, the nature of Monotheism and Hinduism are fundamentally different.

In Hinduism, change is gradual, and very accomodative of new streams of thought.

in Monotheism, change occurs suddenly, with the arrival of a prophet, and the new religion removes all traces of the old one.

Here is a nice quote: 


With the coming of the Muslims, the peoples of India encountered for the
first time a large-scale influx of bearers of a civilization as sophisticated,
if not as ancient, as their own. They were also confronted by a religious
system that was in many ways the very opposite of their own. Hinduism (the
predominant Indian religion at that time) was open, tolerant, and inclusive of
widely varying forms of religious devotion - from idol worship to meditation -
in search of union with the supernatural source of all creation. Islam was
doctrinaire, proselytizing, and committed to the exclusive worship of a
single, transcendent God.

Islam, The Coming Of Islam To South Asia 



> Christianity is not a pagan religion, but Islam just is not Christianity because there are a different set of beliefs. Vedism is not Hindusm because there are a different set of core beliefs. Look at it like this if you want to consider "religious evolution".



Look, you have already made your first mistake by defining Hinduism on the lines of a rigid monotheism.
Hinduism isn't like that. Its a compilation of varied beliefs.

I didn't say that Christianity is a pagan religion, I'm saying that it has borrowed a lot of stuff from the preexisting pagan religions.

Now, Hinduism doesn't even have a set of core beliefs. You name a belief, and I"ll name a sect which doesn't follow it. 

The fact is that Classical Hinduism evolved from Vedism gradually, over a long period of time. Some beliefs/rituals were retained and some were forgotten, and some new ones were added. 

Similarly, Classical hinduism changed its form several times before arriving at its present state.

I quoted two major changes earlier...the Adi Shankaracharya and the Bhakti Movement.

The more recent changes are the reform movements of the 18th century.

Until and Unless Hinduism uniformly discards the Rigveda as "un-hindu", all interpretations of the Rigveda, past and present, must be considered hindu.



> Islam + Original Christianity = Same



Which original christianity? I'm not sure...could you be more specific?



> Original Christianity evolves into modern Christianity.
> 
> Modern Christianity (evolved) + Islam = Different religions now.



As far as I am concerned, Islam was created by Muhammed who claimed to be a prophet. He modified the bible and added some new material.

Then, he named his religion Islam.

Now, Islam and Christianity are different because they choose to be different.

They have a different history, and have influenced different parts of the world.

On the other hand, Hinduism is just an evolved form of the original Vedism. There is no conflict between the two, and even today, some isolated communities of the original have survived.
The holy books used are exactly same...with little or no modification. 



> Evolution that changes a religion makes it into a different religion, when the doctrines presented in those religions begin to contradict the other one, or the basic tenets differ. This has happened for Hinduism and Vedism.


 
Which basic tenets? Hinduism has no basic tenets.

Here's a quote from wikipedia:

Hinduism is an extremely diverse religion. Although some tenets of the faith are accepted by most Hindus, scholars have found it difficult to identify any doctrines with universal acceptance among all denominations.[12] Prominent themes in Hindu beliefs include Dharma (ethics/duties), Sams&#257;ra (The continuing cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth), Karma (action and subsequent reaction), Moksha (liberation from samsara), and the various Yogas (paths or practices).

The very nature of Hinduism is to absorb contradictory beliefs.



> Not sure what you mean.


 
What I mean is, that Hinduism rarely has prophets. It more often has gurus, who persuade people to change their beliefs by convincing them.

On the other hand, Monotheism always needs a prophet, who then denounces and denies that his religion had any roots in earlier beliefs.
The new religion becomes the only religion, and the true religion.
Try telling a devout Christian that Christmas was celebrated by his pagan ancestors in a similar fashion. He will refuse to accept it.
But a devout Hindu will acknowledge that his religion has changed.

This is because Hinduism is a bottom-up approach. It is man's effort to understand the universe.

Whereas Christianity/Islam is top-down: God himself came and said "this is who I am and that is my religion".



> Each of your books was written by a sage.


 
A sage mind you, not a prophet. 

Even so, most books haven't changed. 

What has changed is their interpretation. Men have interpreted these books differently. Thats all.



> I don't think you understand the logic of what you're proposing here. You're saying that any belief system in history can be classified as Hinduism.



I am saying that the Vedic religion is nothing but an early form of Hinduism.



> This is nonsense. There is only one way to describe a belief system..Either as a belief system or as a religion. You cannot call it Hinduism, because Hinduism is a set of beliefs as written down in the Mahabharata and various books. For example, a Hindu must believe that the sons of Pandu and Dhrishtrava battled it out for Bharat at the City of Elephants. These are Hindu beliefs, none of which are Islamic beliefs or Christian beliefs. Therefore you cannot apply Hinduism to just any religion. There is a boundary. The obvious boundary that Hinduism crosses is when Indra becomes relegated to a defeated God, at the mercy of the Dravidian Gods, when he reigned supreme under Vedic beliefs. If one religion has an all powerful God, how can this be the same as another set of beliefs that has him being beaten by other Gods? Obviously he is not not all powerful. This is because Vedism and Hinduism are separate religions.



Dude, if you place an Indra statue in front of a hindu today, he will pray to it.
On the other hand, if you place a Christ statue in front of a muslim, he won't pray to it.
That is the difference.
Indra is still regarded as a hindu god, even though he is not popular for worship.
Indian traditional dances/art forms still depict Indra.
Rigvedic Hyms that invoke indra are still chanted in rituals.

Here are photos of Indra idols in Hindu temples:

Lord Indra at Baroda:






Indra and his consort, the elephant:





Indra at Pushkar:






Gods defeat other gods in Hinduism all the time!! Try reading up on various other god-on-god battles.
Different gods are more powerful or less powerful depending on your hindu sect.

What about Vishnu? Isn't Vishnu still worshipped, even though he is in the Rigveda? 
What about Saraswati?




> Only if the Hindu Gods became irrelevant.



...its not just about which gods you worship....there are innumerable details involved.




> The Vedas are only Hindu by name according to the priests. They form a separate religion. The Rig Veda especially.



Then why are Rigvedic mantras still so popular if they are part of a different religion?

Do Christians recite the quran?


----------



## roadrunner

Stealth Assassin said:


> Look, the nature of Monotheism and Hinduism are fundamentally different.
> 
> In Hinduism, change is gradual, and very accomodative of new streams of thought.
> 
> in Monotheism, change occurs suddenly, with the arrival of a prophet, and the new religion removes all traces of the old one.
> 
> Here is a nice quote:
> 
> 
> With the coming of the Muslims, the peoples of India encountered for the
> first time a large-scale influx of bearers of a civilization as sophisticated,
> if not as ancient, as their own. They were also confronted by a religious
> system that was in many ways the very opposite of their own. Hinduism (the
> predominant Indian religion at that time) was open, tolerant, and inclusive of
> widely varying forms of religious devotion - from idol worship to meditation -
> in search of union with the supernatural source of all creation. Islam was
> doctrinaire, proselytizing, and committed to the exclusive worship of a
> single, transcendent God.
> 
> Islam, The Coming Of Islam To South Asia



When one religious concept changes and contradicts the previous one, then the religion itself is not the same. To call it the same religion is disingenuous. 

If I write down a theory that proves the moon is made out of cheese and call it RR's theory, then someone else writes down a theory that proves the moon is made out of anorthositic rock and calls it RR's theory again, then you have one name meaning different things. If you discard the original RR's theory (the cheese one), then you can legitimately use the second name for the anorthositic rock theory. But not same name for two different theories unless you change the first one. 

Likewise you cannot say Rig Vedism is Hinduism when Vedism directly contradicts later Hindu holy books. Either those books are Hinduism, or Rig Vedism is Hinduism. Since Hindus generally do not follow Rig Vedic philosophy (see cow killing, monotheistic worship, non-casteism etc), Rig Vedism cannot be described as Hinduism.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakistanFront

Salam

It is nice to see that the Pakis are very keen to know more about the history. And do know the facts.

As far as the Indian History is concern, I believe if we call it South Asian Civilisation, in this case it would be more appropriate. And that is another case if Indians are not willing to do so.

First of all, I would like to ask a question from our Indian friends in this forum. Why do you give that much importance to Ashoka's Empire ???

You must admit that you were nothing, never in your known history. This is us, the Muslims, who united you for the first time in the history and keep you united for more than 1000 years ?

Let me give you a little overview of Ashok's so called empire.

After Alexander went back to Babylon in 324 BC, a man named Chandragupta was able to overthrow the old Aryan kingdom of Nanda and form a big new empire over all of northern India and into Afghanistan. When people asked him how he had done it, he said (according to Greek historians) that he got the idea from Alexander. Chandragupta conquered the Indus valley back from the Greeks and as part of the peace treaty he married the daughter of Seleucus, who had succeeded Alexander, and gave Seleucus 200 elephants

Chandragupta died in 298 BC and was succeeded by his son Bindusara. Bindusara's son Ashoka made the Mauryan Empire even stronger, ruling some of southern India as well as the north

But Ashoka's victories at Orissa were so bloody and awful, that (at least according to tradition) after that battle he gave up warfare for the rest of his life. Ashoka converted from *traditional Indian Hinduism *to the new faith of *Buddhism*, and he used his power to convince millions of other people to convert to Buddhism too, all over Central Asia

After Ashoka died in 231 BC, though, his sons and grandsons were not as strong rulers as he was, and the Mauryan Empire gradually fell apart

And from the above, you can easily understand that the Ashoka converted to buddhist and this is not it. But he also did great service to budhism. Infact, he spread budhism all over India and send delegations to neighbouring countries too. So If you say that Ashoka Empire was Hindu empire. THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Secondly, how long this empire exist. 30 years. And another question is that this empire was established by his grand father. So why you Indians do not start counting that empire from there.

Another question is that immediatly before the Ashoka's empire, there was another empire, Nanda Empire. The empire which was concoured by Ashoka's grandpa. Why you don't count that one your great empire, probably that is because the nanda empire was half of what ashoka establised ?

And was the nanda empire also a hindu empire.

How Ashoka's grandpa managed to conqour that big empire all at once. What history told you about this. 

Is this the defination of empire in your school books that empire exists only for 3 decades ?

Is this the defination of empire you have taught by your history gurus that the empire consisit of just one region, the south asia ?

Do you found yourself comfortable while comparing this 30 year empire with the one, we saw in Europe or with the Muslim Empire.

Thanks for your guidence

Pakistan Front


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi,

My indian colleagues can correct me on this----I have been told by a very well educated bangladeshi friend that hinduism has the flexibility to absorb any religion within itself. If such is the case then I would like some idnian members or other knwledgeable people to participate. Thanks.


----------



## UnitedPak

*Remains of one of the largest Kushan cities discovered in Pakistan
*


> 11/16/2007
> PESHAWAR: A team of archaeologists led by Vice Chancellor of the Hazara University Prof Dr Ihsan Ali has discovered the remains of one of the largest Kushan city sites in Chittar Kot, Mansehra, the NWFP.
> 
> The site Chittar Kot is located on a high spur overlooking the Biran River, offering one of the most spectacular views of the river and the surrounding area, a press release stated. The site is located at 34" 22.356' N and 73" 08.214' E at an elevation of 945 meters from mean sea level in a pine forest in the Hamsherian Union Council of district Mansehra.
> 
> The site was earlier spotted by Abdul Hameed and Muhammad Ashfaq of the Hazara Cultural Museum during a survey of archaeological sites in Mansehra.
> 
> Chittar Kot is believed to have been derived from the word Chittra meaning an umbrella or an elevated place represents a large Kushan settlement site, protected by a similar defensive structure on the west and the exposed structure spreading over a mile on the steep hill.
> 
> The strategic location of the site warranted an effective control of the surrounding area from all four directions, and thus could have been of multi-faceted defensive settlement, with far-reaching consequences for the establishment of cultural profile of Mansehra district. It gives an unhindered view of the present settlements of Nawa-Shehr, Kherian and Bhir Khund.
> 
> This excavation will also provide extensive material to the newly established Hazara Cultural Museum at the Hazara University and will shed new light on the people of the area living 2,000 years ago.
> 
> Furthermore, the Hazara University will ensure the preservation of the exposed structures at the site and will provide security, thus this site will be established as a major tourist attraction in the area and will bring prosperity by opening up new job prospects for the local population. It is to be mentioned here that during 2006, the Hazara University discovered more than 250 archaeological sites in Mansehra district, 304 in Abbottabad district and 100 in Haripur district, dating from 2nd millennium BC to the Sikh-British period, and is actively pursuing the preservation and documentation of the endangered cultural assets of the area.


Archaeologists discover largest


----------



## UnitedPak

*Pakistanis refuse to call it &#8220;partition&#8221;. In 1947 it was independence or separation*



> &#8220;Pakistan&#8221; as it existed 5000 years ago. Today Many call it the &#8220;Indus Valley Civilization&#8220;. They also called it Meluhha and other names. However China 5000 Yers ago is not called &#8220;The Yangtze Civilizatoin&#8221; and Egypt is not called &#8220;The Nile Civilization&#8221; and India is not called &#8220;The Gangetic Valley Civilization&#8221;.
> 
> How could there be a &#8220;partition&#8221; when &#8220;Pakistan&#8221; has been in existance from the dawn of history, 5000 years ago as the Indus Valley Civilization&#8221;. Even before that, 150,000 years ago Pakistanis roamed the Soan River valley&#8230;where there was ice everywhere else.
> 
> THE THESIS: &#8220;There was no &#8216;partition&#8217;.&#8221;


*Read the rest here: Link:*
Pakistanis refuse to call it &#8220;partition&#8221;. In 1947 it was independence or separation &#171; Green Views-Rupee News: Moin Ansari&#8217;s Disquisitions and Fulminations


----------



## Flintlock

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> My indian colleagues can correct me on this----I have been told by a very well educated bangladeshi friend that hinduism has the flexibility to absorb any religion within itself. If such is the case then I would like some idnian members or other knwledgeable people to participate. Thanks.




It is true to some extent, Hinduism has absorbed a number of influences and changed considerably during its evolution.
Also, it has expanded in both depth of thought, and variety of thought.
Within the Hindu stable, you can find practices ranging from the most primitive animism to the most complex philosophical thought.

I guess it also depends on how you define hinduism. Some people like to think of Hinduism as the sum total of all religions of India, which would include sikhism, jainism, buddhism etc. and other philosophies.

Others like to separate what they call "mainstream hinduism", i.e. the most widespread practices, from the rest, perhaps classifying others as Indian philosophy, animism etc. and treating buddhism, jainism, sikhism etc. as separate religions.

In any case, it is easily seen that India has the ability to accomodate a massive number of conflicting philosophies, with some help from unifying theories like advaita etc.

The notable exception in this has been orthodox islam, which is unwillling to compromise and be counted among the indian religions. It stands apart, aloof and distant from hinduism.

The biggest disadvantage of this plurality is the lack of social cohesion, which has led to massive fragmentation within Indian society, and consequently massive inequality.
The Abrahmic Monotheisms have always emphasised the "Purity" of the faith, and avoided "corrupting" influences like the plague. This has certain advantages, in the military arena for example, and also for the formation of cohesive societies. 
However its biggest disadvantage is the lack of freedom to express, and consequently a stifling of new thought and ideas.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> When one religious concept changes and contradicts the previous one, then the religion itself is not the same. To call it the same religion is disingenuous.
> 
> If I write down a theory that proves the moon is made out of cheese and call it RR's theory, then someone else writes down a theory that proves the moon is made out of anorthositic rock and calls it RR's theory again, then you have one name meaning different things. If you discard the original RR's theory (the cheese one), then you can legitimately use the second name for the anorthositic rock theory. But not same name for two different theories unless you change the first one.



Can you define exactly what the theory of Hinduism is? Please do so.

In any case, the Rigvedic practices are not extinct, and are still followed by a small minority.




> Likewise you cannot say Rig Vedism is Hinduism when Vedism directly contradicts later Hindu holy books. Either those books are Hinduism, or Rig Vedism is Hinduism. Since Hindus generally do not follow Rig Vedic philosophy (see cow killing, monotheistic worship, non-casteism etc), Rig Vedism cannot be described as Hinduism.




Infact, I am repeating this, but you are trying to define hinduism on the basis of a monotheistic religion. Hinduism is not a monotheism. 

Again, by your logic, the Christianity of today and the christianity of the dark ages is completely different. Check the shape of the earth, gravity, astronomical theories, biblical interpretation etc.

Also, no denomination of Islam can be called Islam at all, because the original Islam split into Shia and Sunni sects right after the death of Muhammed.

I have already pointed out that the Arya Samaj follows Rigvedic philosophies, only this time, the interpretation is metaphorical rather than literal.


----------



## UnitedPak

Stealth Assassin said:


> Can you define exactly what the theory of
> Again, by your logic, the Christianity of today and the christianity of the dark ages is completely different. Check the shape of the earth, gravity, astronomical theories, biblical interpretation etc.
> 
> Also, no denomination of Islam can be called Islam at all, because the original Islam split into Shia and Sunni sects right after the death of Muhammed.
> 
> I have already pointed out that the Arya Samaj follows Rigvedic philosophies, only this time, the interpretation is metaphorical rather than literal.



The core values of Christianity and Islam remain the same. One God, Heaven, hell etc. 
The 180 degree spin from Vedic religion to modern Hinduism cannot be compared to Christians changing their testament gradually to make it compatible with modern science. Not to mention their cases are well documented.


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> The core values of Christianity and Islam remain the same. One God, Heaven, hell etc.
> The 180 degree spin from Vedic religion to modern Hinduism cannot be compared to Christians changing their testament gradually to make it compatible with modern science. Not to mention their cases are well documented.



Please explain how Hinduism is a "180 degree" spin from Vedic religion. 

Also, I remember mentioning that some _Shrautins_ still practice the Rigvedic rituals, the Arya Samaj practices a different interpretation of the Rigvedic rituals, and Rigvedic deities are still found in Hindu temples, though they are not popular for worship.
What do you have to say about that?

Also, please tell me what the core values of Hinduism are.


----------



## Vinod2070

UnitedPak said:


> The core values of Christianity and Islam remain the same. *One God, Heaven, hell* etc.
> The 180 degree spin from Vedic religion to modern Hinduism cannot be compared to Christians changing their testament gradually to make it compatible with modern science. Not to mention their cases are well documented.



Is that all there is to core values! One would assume there would be much more to the core values.

Islam fervently believes that the Christian Bible in its current form is corrupted. In fact I believe that is one of it's core ideas. Else why would you need another revealation.

No self-respecting Christian would ever agree to that. Islam believes that Mohammed is the last and greatest prophet and his teachings over-ride any earlier ones. Christians don't even recognize him as a prophet and at least some of them have unflattering views as one can see from the Pope's statements.

All Hindus consider Vedas to be their holiest texts. Even though few ever read or understand them. All religions evolve over time. Evolution is the way of life in nature. Hinduism being one of the oldest surviving religions, there are bound to be changes in practice from it's earliest forms. But our sacred texts still remain sacred to us.

There is no war of civilizations going on between Hinduism and Vedic religion (if it is a separate entity as you believe). In fact they are one and the same.


----------



## UnitedPak

Muslims believe in the one God and his prophet. This is from the Kalma, and one of the basics of Islam. And then there are the five pillars of Islam.
I didnt give a detailed description of the core values of Islam, but merely pointing out how they have always stayed the same. Please dont twist my words.


----------



## Vinod2070

UP, no intention on my part to twist your words. I didn't mean to sound that way.

Only pointing out that there are differences in Islam and Christianity (as per the little knowledge that I have). More so than the so called differences between Hinduism and Vedic religion.

In fact this is not even an issue in India. Hinduism is the Vedic religion or at least the inheritor of it. May be the practices have changed beyond recognition over thousands of years, but it is an evolution. Not a separate religion.


----------



## Logic note

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> My indian colleagues can correct me on this----I have been told by a very well educated bangladeshi friend that hinduism has the flexibility to absorb any religion within itself. If such is the case then I would like some idnian members or other knwledgeable people to participate. Thanks.



Dear Mastan,

He is wrong and right at the same time . Hinduism is not a religion .. it doesnt have any book or authority .. it can be best defined as spiritualism . it is based on Philosophy or quest .
out of many philosophy which can be Theistic or Atheistic (without God) ADVITA , DVAITA, SHAMKHYA ,NVAYA, BUDDHISM , JAINISM are Few . 

Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Samkhya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nyaya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modesn Hinduism mostly accepts Advaita School along with others 

Islam and Christianity starts with " I belive" . 
Spiritualism in Hinduism start with "I dont belive "

but hinduism accepts every other faith as "Right" . because Faith is Personal and hence according to Hinduism You and me both will find peace unlike islam or Christianity which says that you will find peace because u are Muslim and I will go to hell because I am not .


----------



## Flintlock

^^Logic has a point there.

Islam was made to replace "idolaters" and "polytheists" and "heathens". 

On the other hand, Hinduism has no theological reason to be anti-Islamic.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*QuickSilve*r,

There is a reason for having a limit on posts before certain features are available, and the limits are not imposed so that nonsensical one liners can be used to find a way around them.

Please do not try and circumvent the rules again.


----------



## QuickSilver

I have been reading the posts by all of you guys (RR, Stealth and others). Kudos to you for taking time and effort to trace the history of the region. I am sure it would have been a very enriching experience. The patriotism of each of you is very commendable.

However, I have a few questions on the nature of the debate here. Since I am new to this forum, I can be making a mistake of sorts. If thats the case, please point it out to me.

First,I was pained to see RR repeatedly pointing out that every thing said by an Indian does not have credibility - That all Indians have a hindutva agenda- It will be as foolish as say saying all pakistanis are etremists.

Second, if you can assimilate all the content in this thread (provided by both sides), It seems more suggestive that we did have a shared back ground. The idea that since most of the sites of IVC are in Pakistan and hence people of Pakistan only have the rights for the IVC seems more like saying 'Since the earliest records of man evolving from Africa are true, the whole of mankind is African and there is no Pakistani or Indian or Chinese'.

Third, please note that because the initial sites of the IVC that were discovered(and the first sites to be discovered - not created, pls do note this) happened to be on the Indus banks, it is IVC. Had any of the other sites been discovered earier than this, elsewhere, the name would have been different - the name 'INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION' is a GIVEN name and no one knows for sure how much farther or narrower these people have settled. (proven by the fact that sites are being discovered pretty frequently)

Finally, the Hindu society revers the Rig Vedic culture even now 



> The presiding deity of the Gayatri Mantra is Lord Sun. Gayatri is personified as a goddess, the consort of Brahma (Sarasvati), and mother of the Vedas.



here is the link to the page from which I have taken the above quote:
Gayatri

Note that the gayatri mantra is still practiced by all brahmins and note the connection to goddess 'Saraswati' and in this context, the relationship to the river in IVC - Sarasvati.

Also note that one main 'diety' of Hinduism is Brahma ( from which comes the term Brahman ) and his consort is Saraswati - again a really HUGE reference to the river a

Incidentally the gayatri mantra is regarded as the mother of all vedas. (Which am sure you wouldnt want to agree - I will get back to you with references on this, but for now, let me continue the debate)




As per defining that the borders of India were confined to Indus, here goes an article by a 'neutral' observer (Sir William Jones)



> India then, on its most enlarged scale, in which the ancients appear to have understood it, comprises an area of near forty degrees on each side, including a space almost as large as all Europe; being divided on the west from Persia by the Arachosian mountains, limited on the east by the Chinese part of the farther peninsula, confined on the north by the wilds of Tartary, and extending to the south as far as the isles of Java. This trapezium, therefore, comprehends the stupendous hills of Potyid or Tibet, the beautiful valley of Cashm&#237;r, and all the domains of the old Indoscythians, the countries of N&#233;p&#225;l and But&#225;nt, C&#225;mr&#249;p or As&#224;m, together with Siam, Ava, Racan, and the bordering kingdoms, as far as the Ch&#237;na of the Hindus or S&#237;n of the Arabian Geographers; not to mention the whole western peninsula with the celebrated island of Sinhala, or Lion-like men, at its southern extremity. By India, in short, I mean that whole extent of country, in which the primitive religion and languages of the Hindus prevail at this day with more or less of their ancient purity, and in which the N&#225;gar&#236; letters are still used with more or less deviation from their original form.
> 
> 
> 
> The link for the above quote :
> A Reader in Nineteenth Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics: The Third Anniversary Discourse, On the Hindus
> chapter 1
> 
> (The book is from university of texas, surely, you woudnt want to think they are biased)
Click to expand...


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> Third, please note that because the initial sites of the IVC that were discovered(and the first sites to be discovered - not created, pls do note this) happened to be on the Indus banks, it is IVC. Had any of the other sites been discovered earier than this, elsewhere, the name would have been different - the name 'INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION' is a GIVEN name and no one knows for sure how much farther or narrower these people have settled. (proven by the fact that sites are being discovered pretty frequently)



I believe that at this point in time (archaeologists may discover more as the years go by) the majority of signs of the IV civilization are located in Pakistan, and concentrated in a certain area, hence the argument that it is part of Pakistani history.

On the question of "shared background", I don't think it would be plausible to claim that the peoples comprising Pakistanis and Indians have lived in isolation for all of history. Every culture and society interacts with its neighboring, and sometimes not neighboring cultures and societies. Lands comprising Pakistan were ruled by the Greeks, Arabs, Mayrya, and Durrani - so there is tremendous interaction between all cultures throughout history.


----------



## Vinod2070

By the same logic would you say that the current Turkish people are the inheritors of the history of the Greco-Roman empire! Because Constantinople was the capital of that empire. Obviously no-one ever can say so. The current Turkish people may live in that land, but they own only the history of their ancestors, not the land where they happen to live now.

Now let's see the same situation from Pakistan's POV. Almost 70&#37; people (as per the some articles I have read written by Pakistani authors) claim to be Arabs or other ethnicities. Anything but native to Pakistan (or then India). How can they lay any claim to the history of this land which happened thousand years before they came here.

So we are left with the 30 % who are natives of the land (India + now Pakistan). How many of them are Muhajirs? So how does a person who migrated from UP become an inheritor of the history in that land but his erstwhile neighbours don't.

Again, the currently discovered sites leave out the NWFP areas AFAIK, so all Pashtuns are left out as also the Balochis? And I am not even talking about the Bangladeshis who were the majority of Pakistanis at the time of independence and two more decades!

And what about the millions of refugees who exchanged countries in the Punjab. How do you allocate the history between them. Between the Sindhis in both countries? Between the numerous Chaudharis, Bhattis, Jats, Rajputs in the two countries.

The ones who converted and are in Pakistan inherit the history while the others don't!


----------



## Vinod2070

Complete silence!

Yes. No. May be.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> By the same logic would you say that the current Turkish people are the inheritors of the history of the Greco-Roman empire! Because Constantinople was the capital of that empire. Obviously no-one ever can say so. The current Turkish people may live in that land, but they own only the history of their ancestors, not the land where they happen to live now.
> 
> Now let's see the same situation from Pakistan's POV. Almost 70&#37; people (as per the some articles I have read written by Pakistani authors) claim to be Arabs or other ethnicities. Anything but native to Pakistan (or then India). How can they lay any claim to the history of this land which happened thousand years before they came here.
> 
> So we are left with the 30 % who are natives of the land (India + now Pakistan). How many of them are Muhajirs? So how does a person who migrated from UP become an inheritor of the history in that land but his erstwhile neighbours don't.
> 
> Again, the currently discovered sites leave out the NWFP areas AFAIK, so all Pashtuns are left out as also the Balochis? And I am not even talking about the Bangladeshis who were the majority of Pakistanis at the time of independence and two more decades!
> 
> And what about the millions of refugees who exchanged countries in the Punjab. How do you allocate the history between them. Between the Sindhis in both countries? Between the numerous Chaudharis, Bhattis, Jats, Rajputs in the two countries.
> 
> The ones who converted and are in Pakistan inherit the history while the others don't!



I have expressed multiple POV's on this, one of which is the view expressed in my past post.

However in another thread (do Muslim monuments belong to Pakistanis,or some such thing) I argued initially that the history of South Asia belongs to all South Asians, and indeed the world (we also interacted with Afghanistan, Persia, Central Asia etc.), because there was so much interaction and overlap.

The point you raise applies throughout the world. 

Populations and civilizations have migrated, changed, interbred, gone extinct etc. 

No country can claim most ancient history in that case, since most countries today never existed in ancient days, and neither were there populations static.

India, and many other countries, does much the same, claiming history for the modern political entity created in 1947. 

Why should Pakistan be any different?


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I have expressed multiple POV's on this, one of which is the view expressed in my past post.
> 
> However in another thread (do Muslim monuments belong to Pakistanis,or some such thing) *I argued initially that the history of South Asia belongs to all South Asians, and indeed the world (we also interacted with Afghanistan, Persia, Central Asia etc.), because there was so much interaction and overlap.*
> 
> The point you raise applies throughout the world.
> 
> Populations and civilizations have migrated, changed, interbred, gone extinct etc.
> 
> No country can claim most ancient history in that case, since most countries today never existed in ancient days, and neither were there populations static.
> 
> India, and many other countries, does much the same, claiming history for the modern political entity created in 1947.
> 
> Why should Pakistan be any different?



It seems to me that we are on the same side!

Yes, my point is also that the ancient civilization is not the "Bapauti" (crude slang for inheritance) of any one nation. In fact it belongs to whoever feels part of that.

But then this was exactly what was sought to be challenged by claiming the IVC and even Rigveda, Buddhism and Sanskrit as exclusively Pakistani!

My post is not to say that they are not shared heritage, just to say that they are certainly not exclusively Pakistani.

The demography of Pakistan does not support that claim as much as the demography of Turkey does not support their inheritance of Greco-Roman empire's heritage.

Nor should there be any need for that.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> It seems to me that we are on the same side!
> 
> Yes, my point is also that the ancient civilization is not the "Bapauti" (crude slang for inheritance) of any one nation. In fact it belongs to whoever feels part of that.
> 
> But then this was exactly what was sought to be challenged by claiming the IVC and even Rigveda, Buddhism and Sanskrit as exclusively Pakistani!
> 
> My post is not to say that they are not shared heritage, just to say that they are certainly not exclusively Pakistani.
> 
> The demography of Pakistan does not support that claim as much as the demography of Turkey does not support their inheritance of Greco-Roman empire's heritage.
> 
> Nor should there be any need for that.



However, while the two of us may agree that history belongs to all peoples, nations do not work that way, and unless nations get together and agree to teach and project their history in a non-nationalistic light, the "hoarding" of history on the basis of geographical boundaries will continue.

I expressed the view that India and Pakistan (and possibly other South Asian nations) should get together and "re-brand" the history of the sub-continent as "South Asian history".

I was surprised at the extent of hostility that opinion garnered, from people whose posts are generally quite logical - being accused of "not recognizing India", and "seeking to deny its existence throughout ancient history" (well yes I do, but thats not the point).

Some even said that it shouldn't happen because modern India does have a claim to that history, and Pakistan's, its only Pakistan that is a subset.

So long as those kinds of attitudes exist, and honestly Vinod, you know that nationalism with respect to a retroactive claiming of history is on the rise in India, expect the equivalent effort in Pakistan and from Pakistanis (including myself, who would ideally want to support the position we agree upon).


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> However, while the two of us may agree that history belongs to all peoples, nations do not work that way, and unless nations get together and agree to teach and project their history in a non-nationalistic light, the "hoarding" of history on the basis of geographical boundaries will continue.
> 
> I expressed the view that India and Pakistan (and possibly other South Asian nations) should get together and "re-brand" the history of the sub-continent as "South Asian history".
> 
> I was surprised at the extent of hostility that opinion garnered, from people whose posts are generally quite logical - being accused of "not recognizing India", and "seeking to deny its existence throughout ancient history" (well yes I do, but thats not the point).
> 
> Some even said that it shouldn't happen because modern India does have a claim to that history, and Pakistan's, its only Pakistan that is a subset.
> 
> So long as those kinds of attitudes exist, and honestly Vinod, you know that nationalism with respect to a retroactive claiming of history is on the rise in India, expect the equivalent effort in Pakistan and from Pakistanis (including myself, who would ideally want to support the position we agree upon).



I feel that there is little stomach to face the truth about our history in South Asia.

Many of us feel the need to validate some theories and make the history a tool to achieve that. Till the time that continues, we will continue to have opposing views of the same events in history.

There is little or no tradition of honest analysis of even great events in our recent history. It still takes westerners to provide that account.

Recently I just flipped through the "The Last Mughal" (again written by an Englishmen). It was an eye opening book about the state of affairs at the point with superb research and great honesty. 

I am sure no history books in India or Pakistan provide an honest and broad based account of our history though for different reasons. In India it is because the leftist "intellectuals" control what is taught as history, and in Pakistan for some other reasons.


----------



## Vinod2070

And I am afraid even I do not agree with your formulation (of denying India as a historical entity). But I don't grudge you that opinion.

I am sure there is no other way Jinnah or Iqbal (for most part of their lives) or the Mughal rulers (especially Akbar onwards) would describe themselves except as Indians or Hindustanis.

And India (as a nation) carries on the torch of the Pre-Independence "India" (courtesy Vish) as Russia does it for the USSR.

This is not to undermine the other parts that came out of the "re-organization" (your term), just to say the facts as I (and most people) see them.

Other parts are significant and important in themselves but there is only one that carries the torch.


----------



## Vinod2070

Mr. 23 March, instead of snide private remarks like "go away" why don't you reply to my post openly?

Let everyone know your views openly.


----------



## UnitedPak

Vinod2070 said:


> And I am afraid even I do not agree with your formulation (of denying India as a historical entity). But I don't grudge you that opinion.
> 
> I am sure there is no other way Jinnah or Iqbal (for most part of their lives) or the Mughal rulers (especially Akbar onwards) would describe themselves except as Indians or Hindustanis.



What about Punjabis, Sindhis, Mughals, Afghans, Pathan? There was no such thing as "India".



> And India (as a nation) carries on the torch of the Pre-Independence "India" (courtesy Vish) as Russia does it for the USSR.



Pre British India was the Mughal Empire, which was split up into 100s of smaller countries which are now the provinces of South Asia. And it was a Muslim empire so who carries what "torch"?

"India" was simply a geographical term during British rule (as Churchill put it). It was clear as daylight to everybody that the people of the subcontinent were very different, so to claim the history of the entire subcontinent for modern India is nonsensical. You are simply abusing the term India and all the meanings it has had.



> This is not to undermine the other parts that came out of the "re-organization" (your term), just to say the facts as I (and most people) see them.



Most people dont see it like you, thats why we have a problem.



> Other parts are significant and important in themselves but there is only one that carries the torch.



Again, you cant carry the "torch" if you are not the descendants of the people you claim you carry the "torch" of.

There is a reason why Pakistanis dont claim to be the descendants of the Assamese people of India. Why do Indians then claim to be the descendants of Pakistani ethnic groups?


----------



## QuickSilver

> Pre British India was the Mughal Empire, which was split up into 100s of smaller countries which are now the provinces of South Asia. And it was a Muslim empire so who carries what "torch"?



Pre mughal empire it was Hindu and Buddhist dominated
dint the Islamic descendents claim the same history now? I mean if I go by your argument then I should say 'Muslims claiming a rigvedic history??' doesnt hold good in both cases!!



> "India" was simply a geographical term during British rule (as Churchill put it). It was clear as daylight to everybody that the people of the subcontinent were very different, so to claim the history of the entire subcontinent for modern India is nonsensical. You are simply abusing the term India and all the meanings it has had.


 Churchill is not a historian he is a politician. Imagine 100 years from now people quoting Mr.Zardari or Mr.Musharraf or even Mr.Bal Thackeray and taking their words to be the truth!!(gives a smile to me!!)




> Most people dont see it like you, thats why we have a problem.



its called difference of opinion and its quite normal. And that is why we have a debate here or elsewhere!!





> Again, you cant carry the "torch" if you are not the descendants of the people you claim you carry the "torch" of.



It is not established that we are not the descendants of that people so you cannot say 'you are not the decedents' the debate is still on and I dont think it has been solved even in scientific/archeological circles



> There is a reason why Pakistanis dont claim to be the descendants of the Assamese people of India.


good. we seem to agree on this here. in fact, neither am I a descendant of the assamese origin (i think so because i dont seem to have any features that their ethnicity has!!)



> Why do Indians then claim to be the descendants of Pakistani ethnic groups?



because IVC is not exclusive to Pakistani ethnic groups.

Cheers.


----------



## Vinod2070

UnitedPak said:


> What about Punjabis, Sindhis, Mughals, Afghans, Pathan? There was no such thing as "India".



Then why the famous Iqbal song?

"Saare Jahan se achchha Hindustan hamara".

Just think about it.

And by your logic, even Pakistan is not a nation, as it still has those ethnicities!



UnitedPak said:


> Pre British India was the Mughal Empire, which was split up into 100s of smaller countries which are now the provinces of South Asia. And it was a Muslim empire so who carries what "torch"?
> 
> "India" was simply a geographical term during British rule (as Churchill put it). It was clear as daylight to everybody that the people of the subcontinent were very different, so to claim the history of the entire subcontinent for modern India is nonsensical. You are simply abusing the term India and all the meanings it has had.



Churchill may have put it that way and it does not mean it is true. Churchill was an imperialist with contempt for India and Indians (and that included all Indians even Muslims) as well as Islam (I bet you didn't know this else you won't quote him.). 

Just try to find his views on Islam and you will never quote him again as if he was a supreme authority.

Again your assumption that Pakistan is the sole inheritor of Islamic legacy in India is flawed, as you have just 1/3 pf the Muslims of undivided India.

Also we are discussing here about ancient history. The pre-Islamic period, so again this argument does not hold water.



UnitedPak said:


> Most people dont see it like you, thats why we have a problem.
> 
> Again, you cant carry the "torch" if you are not the descendants of the people you claim you carry the "torch" of.
> 
> There is a reason why Pakistanis dont claim to be the descendants of the Assamese people of India. Why do Indians then claim to be the descendants of Pakistani ethnic groups?



I answered that in my post about the demography of Pakistan.

OK, tell me. Do you think Turks inherit the legacy of the Greco-Roman empire by virtue of having their capital in Istanbul (erstwhile Constantinople)?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

QuickSilver said:


> Pre mughal empire it was Hindu and Buddhist dominated
> dint the Islamic descendents claim the same history now? I mean if I go by your argument then I should say 'Muslims claiming a rigvedic history??' doesnt hold good in both cases!!



Not religious groups - _people_. It is the people of Pakistan claiming that history which occurred largely within the borders of Pakistan.



> Churchill is not a historian he is a politician. Imagine 100 years from now people quoting Mr.Zardari or Mr.Musharraf or even Mr.Bal Thackeray and taking their words to be the truth!!(gives a smile to me!!)


Churchill's comments serve to highlight the truth about the nature of the subcontinent at that time - a region composed of many peoples and many nations, that the British unified into one colony after conquering it.


> It is not established that we are not the descendants of that people so you cannot say 'you are not the decedents' the debate is still on and I dont think it has been solved even in scientific/archeological circles


Perhaps, but as Vinod and I agreed above, almost in any modern nation one cannot claim that the residents of that nation are all one hundred percent descendants of the ancient inhabitants of that area.

Yet nations and modern peoples still claim the ancient history of those lands as their own. I think that the most likely explanation currently is that the peoples inhabiting the lands comprising Pakistan are descendent's of the ancient peoples of Pakistan - the onus would be on those that disagree to show some cataclysmic event that wiped out the population entirely from Pakistan - mass migration, disease, famine etc.

Bar that, the simplest explanation is that the IVC people are the ancestors of Pakistanis.



> because IVC is not exclusive to Pakistani ethnic groups.


At this point in time, the majority of the IVC falls in Pakistan. The area it covers in Pakistan, also happens to be the most densely populated in Pakistan, and contributes to about 70 percent of Pakistan's total population.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> Then why the famous Iqbal song?
> 
> "Saare Jahan se achchha Hindustan hamara".
> 
> Just think about it.
> 
> And by your logic, even Pakistan is not a nation, as it still has those ethnicities!



We are nations now because the peoples comprising Pakistan and India have chosen to unite under the banner of a single nation.

I thin Iqbal's song represented a time when Modern Indian nationalism and nationhood was forming. Of course in time a competing nationalism and sense of nationhood in the form of Pakistan came around to which Iqbal ended up subscribing to.

I think a lot of that sense of nationhood arose from the sense of being an occupied people, and in a way Modern India has to thank the British for unifying such a disparate region, and uniting it first against a common foe, and then in pursuit of nationhood.



> Churchill may have put it that way and it does not mean it is true. Churchill was an imperialist with contempt for India and Indians (and that included all Indians even Muslims) as well as Islam (I bet you didn't know this else you won't quote him.).
> 
> Just try to find his views on Islam and you will never quote him again as if he was a supreme authority.



As I said above, Churchill's comments serve to highlight the political nature of the subcontinent, which has nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity, but is merely an observation of the political status of the region - myriad nations.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Yet nations and modern peoples still claim the ancient history of those lands as their own. I think that the most likely explanation currently is that the peoples inhabiting the lands comprising Pakistan are descendent's of the ancient peoples of Pakistan - the onus would be on those that disagree to show some cataclysmic event that wiped out the population entirely from Pakistan - mass migration, disease, famine etc.
> 
> Bar that, the simplest explanation is that the IVC people are the descendants.



And that is the reason, I started with the facts about the demography of the Pakistani population. That proves that the vast majority of the current population is not of the IVC descent. And the people who could be of IVC descent in Pakistan are almost impossible to separate from their Indian counterparts (except may be their religious identity).

Many cataclysmic events did take place, not the least of which was the partition. This land was repeatedly attacked from the western side and the consequent hardships of the people there could have forced migration. Obviously we have no facts and figures but the demography does tell that story.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> We are nations now because the peoples comprising Pakistan and India have chosen to unite under the banner of a single nation.
> 
> I thin Iqbal's song represented a time when Modern Indian nationalism and nationhood was forming. Of course in time a competing nationalism and sense of nationhood in the form of Pakistan came around to which Iqbal subscribed ended up subscribing to.
> 
> I think a lot of that sense of nationhood arose from the sense of being an occupied people, and in a way Modern India has to thank the British for unifying such a disparate region, and uniting it first against a common foe, and then in pursuit of nationhood.
> 
> As I said above, Churchill's comments serve to highlight the political nature of the subcontinent, which has nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity, but is merely an observation of the political status of the region - myriad nations.



While there is no doubt that India was divided into smaller provinces for most of the history (and the lack of unity is the reason for the sad history of long occupations by outsiders), this is no different from many other nations. Large nations were difficult to administer in earlier days and people did not have that much consciousness of the nation state worldwide.

I have been quoting only Muslim examples so as not to be accused of pushing a Hindutva agenda. But our history talks of the idea of "Bharat" since the "Mahabharat" days. That would be thousands of years old.

Churchill: The less said about him the better. He was a bigot in these matters. If we go down a little in history even his country could be called what he called India.


----------



## Vinod2070

UnitedPak said:


> You seem to think Pakistani genes changed when they converted to Islam?
> 
> Islam is a way of thinking and living, doesnt change who Pakistanis used to be.
> 
> You have a very limited view if you ask me. But what to expect from a bunch of phoney people with nothing better to do.



Actually, I feel the shoe is on the other foot.

Indians have nothing to do with what you mention here. It is a theme common to all converts to Islam that they start denying (and hating) their original identity. True for Persians, Egyptians, Pakistanis (and many other Indian converts) and even SE Asian converts. Everyone starts to ape Arabs.

Arabs call their pre-Islamic history as Jahiliyah and all (or most) converts too do that. Look at this issue within Pakistan and you will find all the answers. Indians never said that you don't belong to that history, it's you who said that and said your history starts with when a foreigner invaded your land and showed you the "right way". Now if you want to return back and agree that it was not Jahiliyah before Bin Qasim invaded your land, you are welcome to do that.

In fact I feel good about this change. It is basically an internal matter for you. You need to convince your fellow countrymen about this. Indians never felt that their pre-Islamic history was Jahiliyah. In fact that is a most proud history.


----------



## Flintlock

Vinod has a point, the same one I had made earlier:

How many Pakistanis are actually of Persian/Afghan/Arab descent?

If the majority of Pakistanis are foreign migrants, then they cannot claim the history of the people they replaced.

I had written earlier that there is evidence to show the migration of the Indus people eastward into the Gangetic plains. This is testified by the fact that small harappan settlements have been discovered in central and south-western India which had flourished after Harappa and Mohenjodaro declined


----------



## Vinod2070

I somehow see the current thread as stage two in a three stage evolution of Pakistani thinking. This is a bit over simplified obviously.

Stage 1: Totally dissociate from the past. call it Jahiliyah. Don't even accept that you are native to the land. Call yourself Arab origin etc. Basically totally dissociate from your pre-conversion identity. Hate others who shared that identity with you.

Stage 2: Start to discover your pre-Islamic identity but violently deny that you share that with any non-Muslims. Try to claim that exclusively. This is still limited to a very small section of the population. Most folks are in stage 1.

Stage 3: Be totally comfortable with your Muslim identity as well as with your pre-Islamic history. No problem in accepting that the ancient history is a shared heritage and being able to take pride in it without necessarily having to first appropriate that exclusively. this stage has even lesser people than stage 2. But there are some who are here and many of the stage 2 people can gradually progress to this with a little more broadening of their horizons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

And a little digression here.

What is more important to the Pakistani friends here?

To have pride in their ancient history and accept it and get it accepted by the country at large by giving its due place in history books, national discourse etc.

OR

First making sure that this history is identified as an exclusively Pakistani history with no links to India whatsoever.

Sadly I see most people (certainly one honorable member with a lot of prejudices included) more interested in the 2nd part. It gives the feeling that more than actually being interested in any ancient history some people just want to make sure that it is denied to India.

While I am sure such an effort just can not succeed (because I don't think it really has legs to stand on. The ancient history is not nearly as cut and dry as the 60 years old Radcliffe line), it would be good to see some members trying to honestly discover the answers instead of coming through as the know-alls they pretend to be.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> Vinod has a point, the same one I had made earlier:
> 
> How many Pakistanis are actually of Persian/Afghan/Arab descent?
> 
> If the majority of Pakistanis are foreign migrants, then they cannot claim the history of the people they replaced.
> 
> I had written earlier that there is evidence to show the migration of the Indus people eastward into the Gangetic plains. This is testified by the fact that small harappan settlements have been discovered in central and south-western India which had flourished after Harappa and Mohenjodaro declined



Are the majority of Pakistanis foreign immigrants? 

People migrate all the time. Small settlements are not proof of a mass exodus of the IVC people Eastwards. 

A mass exodus or extinction could occur if you had a famine, sever drought or other cataclysmic event. 

Barring such an event, it is not reasonable to postulate that a majority of the IVC people simply packed their bags and left an extremely fertile land.

Their is a similar mystery over what happened to the Mayan City States in Latin America. Many historians have postulated that the Cities grew too large and concentrated too many people placing a larger demand on local resources than was possible to sustain over a long period.

In addition, the thriving city States proved to be attractive targets for plunder and attack, which could have in conjunction with the drying up of resources, contributed to an exodus from the City States into the surrounding countryside. You would have also seen some people migrating East or West, who would have carried the knowledge of the IVC with them.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Are the majority of Pakistanis foreign immigrants?



In the context of IVC, it would seem that way.

A simple wikipedia search reveals that most of Pakistan's population is either Indo-Aryan or Iranian/Afghan/Central Asian/Arab in descent.

The indigenous people who would have populated the IVC have long disappeared.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> In the context of IVC, it would seem that way.
> 
> A simple wikipedia search reveals that most of Pakistan's population is either Indo-Aryan or Iranian/Afghan/Central Asian/Arab in descent.
> 
> The indigenous people who would have populated the IVC have long disappeared.



What genetic pool did the IVC belong to?

Assuming thousands of years of migration from surrounding regions into the fertile Indus Valley, would that not dilute the IVC people? 

Modern Pakistanis would still possibly be descendants of the IVC (if they weren't wiped out by some cataclysmic event).


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> In the context of IVC, it would seem that way.
> 
> A simple wikipedia search reveals that most of Pakistan's population is either Indo-Aryan or Iranian/Afghan/Central Asian/Arab in descent.
> 
> The indigenous people who would have populated the IVC have long disappeared.



What genetic pool did the IVC belong to?

Assuming thousands of years of migration from surrounding regions into the fertile Indus Valley, would that not dilute the IVC people? 

Modern Pakistanis would still possibly be descendants of the IVC (if they weren't wiped out by some cataclysmic event).


----------



## Vinod2070

Again a little digression on the topic of how much do people really identify with the civilization being talked about here.

Anyone who identifies with a civilization typically relishes its spread. Like most Indians will like it when they see the "Samudra Manthan" scene at the Bangkok airport or on knowing about the "Angkor Wat" or on knowing about the fact that the Indian civilization had an impact as far as Korea (with links since the days of Ramayana) in the east and Afghanistan or may be beyond in the west and central Asia in the north. Same for the spread of Buddhism.

Every culture wants to spread itself. True for Germany about its "Kultur", true for France or Britain or USA or Islam.

I know Muslims everywhere including Pakistanis feel happy when they hear about conversions to Islam anywhere.

But in this particular case, we have people who are determined to somehow prove that the civilization was limited in scope to a particular geography.

And if it was limited, what is it that you can so perceptibly see across vast swathes of Asia? As far across as Cambodia and Korea?

Wonder why!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> And I am afraid even I do not agree with your formulation (of denying India as a historical entity). But I don't grudge you that opinion.
> 
> I am sure there is no other way Jinnah or Iqbal (for most part of their lives) or the Mughal rulers (especially Akbar onwards) would describe themselves except as Indians or Hindustanis.
> 
> And India (as a nation) carries on the torch of the Pre-Independence "India" (courtesy Vish) as Russia does it for the USSR.
> 
> This is not to undermine the other parts that came out of the "re-organization" (your term), just to say the facts as I (and most people) see them.
> 
> Other parts are significant and important in themselves but there is only one that carries the torch.



I was reading back over the posts and came across this, and you are wrong here.

Russia carries the torch of the USSR perhaps, which was a unified political entity whose ruling elite and power was derived from modern Russia. There is a huge difference here between the Indian subcontinent which was never a political union like the USSR, and even when large tracts were unified, it was under conquest and empire. 

The second flaw in your analogy is that Russia is not the "torch bearer" of the culture and history of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan or any of the other newly formed republics, and rightly so. Tajik culture and history is their own not Russian, as is Pakistani history.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> I somehow see the current thread as stage two in a three stage evolution of Pakistani thinking. This is a bit over simplified obviously.
> 
> Stage 1: Totally dissociate from the past. call it Jahiliyah. Don't even accept that you are native to the land. Call yourself Arab origin etc. Basically totally dissociate from your pre-conversion identity. Hate others who shared that identity with you.
> 
> Stage 2: Start to discover your pre-Islamic identity but violently deny that you share that with any non-Muslims. Try to claim that exclusively. This is still limited to a very small section of the population. Most folks are in stage 1.
> 
> Stage 3: Be totally comfortable with your Muslim identity as well as with your pre-Islamic history. No problem in accepting that the ancient history is a shared heritage and being able to take pride in it without necessarily having to first appropriate that exclusively. this stage has even lesser people than stage 2. But there are some who are here and many of the stage 2 people can gradually progress to this with a little more broadening of their horizons.



I would argue that Indians are in their own "stage 2".

Making statements like "India is the sole torch bearer", or that it has "a larger claim to subcontinental history" or statements akin to "Pakistan is a subset of India" are indicative of a superior claim. 

They are not indicative of "history belongs to everyone in South Asia".

So to throw back at you your question to Pakistanis:

What is more important to Indians - that they claim that modern India has a larger claim to Subcontinental history, and is the sole or greater torch bearer, or that they realize that Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka are all Torch bearers of South Asian history?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> And that is the reason, I started with the facts about the demography of the Pakistani population. That proves that the vast majority of the current population is not of the IVC descent. And the people who could be of IVC descent in Pakistan are almost impossible to separate from their Indian counterparts (except may be their religious identity).
> 
> Many cataclysmic events did take place, not the least of which was the partition. This land was repeatedly attacked from the western side and the consequent hardships of the people there could have forced migration. Obviously we have no facts and figures but the demography does tell that story.



You mentioned some articles you read which seem to be articulating "opinions" not facts.

Whether most Pakistanis believe they are descendant from Arabs or whatnot is not relevant to the discussion. That is merely opinion.

With respect to proving that the vast majority are not IVC through your arguments, you have not done so.

Over thousands of years the IVC people would have interbred with all sorts of peoples migrating to the fertile lands of the Indus - there would also have been migration out of the region to some extent (as happens with any society - people move and resettle). 

So it is quite clear that modern Pakistanis would not be "pure IVC", but that does not in any way "prove", as you say, that they are not the descendants of the IVC people.

Even the migration that occurred during partition only resulted in a very small percentage of the original population of the region resettling in India. That to is not "proof" that modern Pakistanis are not descendants of the IVC. 



> While there is no doubt that India was divided into smaller provinces for most of the history (and the lack of unity is the reason for the sad history of long occupations by outsiders), this is no different from many other nations. Large nations were difficult to administer in earlier days and people did not have that much consciousness of the nation state worldwide.



It was not divide into smaller provinces - they were independent nations, kingdoms, States and empires.

You cannot look at South East Asia today and claim that it is one entity. And therefore it would be just as flawed if 200 years in the future there was a united nation called ASEAN, and they tried to claim that the region it was comprised of was always one nation.

The same with Europe. If one day the EU does become a complete political union, that does not mean that it was always one nation. When it does become a union in every sense of the word, it will be because all the nations and peoples that are part of it chose to go that route, but it will not take away from the fact that Europe was always comprised of multiple nations and peoples, all fiercely independent.

And those nations that refuse to become a part of the EU will not then automatically lose their history to a larger entity that purports to represent Europe, nor will they be considered "partitioned" from the EU. 



> I have been quoting only Muslim examples so as not to be accused of pushing a Hindutva agenda. But our history talks of the idea of "Bharat" since the "Mahabharat" days. That would be thousands of years old.



Yes but even Muslim thinkers and history speak of a pan-Islamic Caliphate, and to an extent such a union even existed in varying degrees, but we do not look at the entire history of the regions under such Caliphates as being part of Saudi Arabia' history or Turkish History. The history of each region and peoples belongs to them.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I would argue that Indians are in their own "stage 2".
> 
> Making statements like "India is the sole torch bearer", or that it has "a larger claim to subcontinental history" or statements akin to "Pakistan is a subset of India" are indicative of a superior claim.
> 
> They are not indicative of "history belongs to everyone in South Asia".
> 
> So to throw back at you your question to Pakistanis:
> 
> What is more important to Indians - that they claim that modern India has a larger claim to Subcontinental history, and is the sole or greater torch bearer, or *that they realize that Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka are all Torch bearers of South Asian history?*



Personally, I have no issues with your last statements and most Indians on this thread have also expressed similar sentiments.

I guess the discussion is too subjective for us to come to a consensus but was worth having nevertheless.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> You mentioned some articles you read which seem to be articulating "opinions" not facts.
> 
> Whether most Pakistanis believe they are descendant from Arabs or whatnot is not relevant to the discussion. That is merely opinion.
> 
> With respect to proving that the vast majority are not IVC through your arguments, you have not done so.
> 
> Over thousands of years the IVC people would have interbred with all sorts of peoples migrating to the fertile lands of the Indus - there would also have been migration out of the region to some extent (as happens with any society - people move and resettle).
> 
> So it is quite clear that modern Pakistanis would not be "pure IVC", but that does not in any way "prove", as you say, that they are not the descendants of the IVC people.
> 
> Even the migration that occurred during partition only resulted in a very small percentage of the original population of the region resettling in India. That to is not "proof" that modern Pakistanis are not descendants of the IVC.



You are right. I have not "proved" the &#37; of actual Arabs in Pakistani population. I doubt there is any such authentic data available, nor about the IVC descendants in India or Pakistan. Much of this thread is subjective and should be treated as such.

I feel it does not matter what the actual Arab percentage is. The point is you can't claim to be of Arab descent and at the same time claim the IVC or any other ancient civilization before the Arabs came here.

Again I feel that we are ignoring the many quirks of history which went into shaping the modern boundaries of Pakistan (may be India too but that is not the point right now). e.g. Pashtuns are a part of Pakistan only because Maharaja Ranjit Singh conquered a large part of that land. Otherwise it is reasonable to assume that they would be part of Afghanistan! So if my assumption that Mr. RR is a Pashtun is correct, he would be having an Afghan nationality and won't be defending the "IVC belongs to Pakistan" line. Especially because no part of IVC would have fallen in that land.

The modern boundaries of Pakistan are contested by Afghanistan from the west and were a topic of hot discussions on the east in 1947 with tempers being raised on both sides on this or that area.

We tend to accord the modern boundaries far more sanctimony than they have had throughout history, and so to assume that the ancient history followed the restrictions of the modern Radcliffe and Durand lines is something I find difficult to swallow, especially when they are not respected by many people even now.

I am getting the feeling that there are two separate issues at discussion here, which are getting intertwined and creating the confusion.

*Ancient history not respected by Pakistanis (as the title says)*

*And*

*Is it an exclusive Pakistani history that religiously and miraculously followed the boundaries which M/s Radcliffe and Durand were to create thousands of years later! (This is what 95 % of the discussion has been about)
*
I am not sure I have made myself very clear or proven anything at all. But then such is the topic of this thread!


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I would argue that Indians are in their own "stage 2".
> 
> Making statements like "India is the sole torch bearer", or that it has "a larger claim to subcontinental history" or statements akin to "Pakistan is a subset of India" are indicative of a superior claim.
> 
> They are not indicative of "history belongs to everyone in South Asia".
> 
> So to throw back at you your question to Pakistanis:
> 
> What is more important to Indians - that they claim that modern India has a larger claim to Subcontinental history, and is the sole or greater torch bearer, or that they realize that Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka are all Torch bearers of South Asian history?



I will not contest which state Indians are in. Some may feel that Pakistanis have abrogated the right to the ancient civilization by virtue of embracing (in their opinion) the Arabian civilization (and also forgetting the ancient common civilization for a thousand years or more). But no one denies that many of our historically significant events occurred within the current Pakistani boundaries. Whether they could be characterized as Pakistani (when Pakistan was thousands of years into the future) is altogether a separate discussion.
*
AM, are you contesting the point that the sole basis of partition was religious and the communal politics as it played out during the last few decades of independence?*

If yes, I would love to understand how. 

If no, what is the reason to now talk about the ancient civilization? It was never the basis of partition and why do people want to partition the ancient civilization now?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> I feel it does not matter what the actual Arab percentage is. The point is you can't claim to be of Arab descent and at the same time claim the IVC or any other ancient civilization before the Arabs came here.



Vinod, 

Why not? If the Arabs intermarried with the locals, lets assume the locals were IVC descendants, then some Pakistanis would be absolutely correct in claiming that they were descendent's of the Arabs, but that does not take away the part of their identity that belongs to the lands of Pakistan.

I personally do not know of any part of my family that is Arab, maternal or paternal side.

Both sides of the family are Rajput, though not related.

There are many, many more people in Pakistan with similar family history's - that do not have any recollection of Arab ancestry (which does not mean it may not exist). So just because of people like myself and others who claim no Arab ancestry or claim both Arab and local ancestry, we have a right to claim the IVC.


> So if my assumption that Mr. RR is a Pashtun is correct, he would be having an Afghan nationality and won't be defending the "IVC belongs to Pakistan" line. Especially because no part of IVC would have fallen in that land.



Yes, but by that same argument India could have become a dozen nations after the British left as well, and then those in the South would not be claiming the history of the North, and neither would be claiming the history of the East.

Pakistanis who speak Punjabi, Pushto, Sindhi, Urdu, Balochi or whatever are claiming the IVC as Pakistanis, not on the basis of individual ethnicities - just as Modern Indians are claiming Modern India's history regardless of their individual ethnicities, or whether their particular region had anything (or very little) to do with that history.


> The modern boundaries of Pakistan are contested by Afghanistan from the west and were a topic of hot discussions on the east in 1947 with tempers being raised on both sides on this or that area.



The various peoples comprising Pakistan, including the Pashtun who voted overwhelmingly in a referendum for Pakistan, decided that they subscribed to a sense of shared nationhood and nationalism and chose to join Pakistan. The fact that they chose this new idea over the long established idea of an Afghan nation is indicative of how powerful that sense of nationhood was.

In the end, it does no matter whether Afghanistan or India covet Pakistani territory, or whether China covets Indian territory - it is the fact that the people decided what their nation was, what it meant, and what their destiny was - and they roundly rejected Afghanistan and the idea of joining India.



> AM, are you contesting the point that the sole basis of partition was religious and the communal politics as it played out during the last few decades of independence?



Quite honestly I don't think it matters what basis India and Pakistan were created on. Any way you look at the idea behind nations, they are formed on the basis of divisiveness.

Whether the justification is shared "culture", "race", "ethnicity", "history" or faith, it is ultimately a divisive rationalization: "I want a nation separate from everyone else because of XYZ."

But just to answer your question, Pakistan was formed because the sense of being a separate identity, and therefore not getting fair treatment in India was too strong. It doesn't matter what the reason was, ultimately wanting a separate nation boils down to a fear of not having a particular community's interests being taken care of.

That is why the peoples under the control of the British, including those in the colony of British India, chose to separate from the British empire.

Continuously trying to cast the creation of Pakistan as some sort of horrible communal event is a very intellectually dishonest canard.


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

woah, where did you guys get the idea that most pakistanis' are arab descent? I meant many pakistanis' are of arab/persian/afghan descent, not all. 

as agnostic said, he's from a Rajput family. most pakistanis' belong to the land. another example, look at our COAS, general Kayani. go look at his family roots, he's a Gakhar. 

pakistanis, as Roadrunner confirmed, are compromised of many different ethnic groups. Sindhis (smack dab at the indus valley), Punjabis (land of the five rivers), pashtuns (afghans, greco-bactrian, kushan culture), etc.

look at Tahmina Daultana, she's from a famous Rajput clan. check out her website and family tree. (no i don't like her)
Daultanas of Ludden ~ Tahmina Daultana ~ This website is a tribute to Begum Tahmina Daultana


----------



## Malang

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Vinod,
> Why not? If the Arabs intermarried with the locals, lets assume the locals were IVC descendants, then some Pakistanis would be absolutely correct in claiming that they were descendent's of the Arabs, but that does not take away the part of their identity that belongs to the lands of Pakistan.



lands of Pakistan? Pakistan as I have said was created by the British it could well have been anywhere where the muslims were in majority.. 
what about Bangladesh?



> I personally do not know of any part of my family that is Arab, maternal or paternal side.
> Both sides of the family are Rajput, though not related.



A non Hindu Rajput to me is an oxymoron as per historical and ancient scriptures..



> There are many, many more people in Pakistan with similar family history's - that do not have any recollection of Arab ancestry (which does not mean it may not exist). So just because of people like myself and others who claim no Arab ancestry or claim both Arab and local ancestry, we have a right to claim the IVC.



How do you have a right to claim IVC, when quite clearly HIndus and Muslims were 2 different nations with nothing in common.. so if IVC was Muslim then yes you have a right.. otherwise NO..

Similarly tomorrow if Pakistan is divided then the community who has been arbitrarily given those lands can claim IVC?



> Yes, but by that same argument India could have become a dozen nations after the British left as well, and then those in the South would not be claiming the history of the North, and neither would be claiming the history of the East.



Do you as a Rajput claim history of Turkics like Babur? Tipu Sultan? Habshi Kingdoms of Bengal? Maharana Pratap of Mewar? Ranjit Singh of Punjab? Shahi Kingdoms of NWFP?




> Pakistanis who speak Punjabi, Pushto, Sindhi, Urdu, Balochi or whatever are claiming the IVC as Pakistanis, not on the basis of individual ethnicities - just as Modern Indians are claiming Modern India's history regardless of their individual ethnicities, or whether their particular region had anything (or very little) to do with that history.



Claiming IVC then Claiming Mughal History etc.. 
Then why are Muslims not allowed in places of non Muslim worship in Pakistan even though you claim them as being built by your ancestors?


[quote[The various peoples comprising Pakistan, including the Pashtun who voted overwhelmingly in a referendum for Pakistan, decided that they subscribed to a sense of shared nationhood and nationalism and chose to join Pakistan. The fact that they chose this new idea over the long established idea of an Afghan nation is indicative of how powerful that sense of nationhood was.[/quote]

How is it possible that a minority can dictate a division of a nation? 
Do you think that the migrant workers of UAE have a right to a nation?
or that tomorrow Shias will be allowed a seperate state within Pakistan? will Baloch be granted be freedom etc,?

Referendum is valid if majority votes not minority..



> In the end, it does no matter whether Afghanistan or India covet Pakistani territory, or whether China covets Indian territory - it is the fact that the people decided what their nation was, what it meant, and what their destiny was - and they roundly rejected Afghanistan and the idea of joining India.



these people were minority.. I can get a minority in Pakistan who will reject Pakistan and accept Afghanistan will they be allowed a new nation? or will the non muslims or shias for eg will be allowed to have a new nation for themselves?

and if those nations hypothetically created over IVC then Pakistanis lose right to IVC and the new nationality so created has an exclusive right to IVC?




> Quite honestly I don't think it matters what basis India and Pakistan were created on. Any way you look at the idea behind nations, they are formed on the basis of divisiveness.



Pakistan was created by British to protect the interests of eltists muslims which is unethical...

tomorrow a new ruler comes in Pstan and a few minority elements want a new nation and vote for it. then he gives them the right.. their insecurity and minority beliefs allows them a new nationality?



> Whether the justification is shared "culture", "race", "ethnicity", "history" or faith, it is ultimately a divisive rationalization: "I want a nation separate from everyone else because of XYZ."



Then why are Baloch etc. being not allowed to liberate?




> But just to answer your question, Pakistan was formed because the sense of being a separate identity, and therefore not getting fair treatment in India was too strong. It doesn't matter what the reason was, ultimately wanting a separate nation boils down to a fear of not having a particular community's interests being taken care of.



300million Indians couldn't do jack about 300,000 Britishers I doubt those Hindu Indians would've decimated Muslims.. and in any case irresp if Muslims were insecure or not if a majority vote was not there then they could not have a seperate country.. how can a minority override majority?

if tomorrow some Balochs vote against Pakistan will they get independence??



> That is why the peoples under the control of the British, including those in the colony of British India, chose to separate from the British empire.
> Continuously trying to cast the creation of Pakistan as some sort of horrible communal event is a very intellectually dishonest canard.



I am dumbfounded by the fact that an ethnically Indian community converts to a foreign religion and suddenly they have a new identity.. and if majority of Pakistanis are of foreign ancestry then they should be kicked out and not allowed a seperate nation they should go back to their motherland...

Similiarly if Pstan is allowed then why is the problem with Israel? Israelis claim Israel to be their motherland and rightfully took it over and in an overwhelming referendum chose to form a seperate nation...


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Welcome back Malang,


Malang said:


> lands of Pakistan? Pakistan as I have said was created by the British it could well have been anywhere where the muslims were in majority..
> what about Bangladesh?


What does that have to do with anything? India was created by teh British as well - it could have taken any form or size if certain territories had chosen not to join it.



> A non Hindu Rajput to me is an oxymoron as per historical and ancient scriptures..


Rajput is a clan from what I understand, and that is how they are described in Pakistan. A clan does not have to be a particular religion, so it may be an oxymoron to you, but it is perfectly understandable to me. My ancestors apparently converted from Hindu Rajput's to Muslim Rajput's.



> How do you have a right to claim IVC, when quite clearly HIndus and Muslims were 2 different nations with nothing in common.. so if IVC was Muslim then yes you have a right.. otherwise NO..
> 
> Similarly tomorrow if Pakistan is divided then the community who has been arbitrarily given those lands can claim IVC?


I have quite clearly explained why Pakistanis have a right. You can address the arguments I raised in my last post.


> Do you as a Rajput claim history of Turkics like Babur? Tipu Sultan? Habshi Kingdoms of Bengal? Maharana Pratap of Mewar? Ranjit Singh of Punjab? Shahi Kingdoms of NWFP?


I am claiming the history of all the peoples of Pakistan, not as a Rajput, but as a Pakistani. The Rajput mention was merely to point out to Vinod that there are people in Pakistan who do not claim descent from Arabs or Persians.

I might be interested in Rajput history as a matter of personal interest, to understand the history of my clan, similar to how Irish, Italian Americans etc. are interested in their Irish or Italian roots/history, but that does not make their Irish history American history.



> Claiming IVC then Claiming Mughal History etc..
> Then why are Muslims not allowed in places of non Muslim worship in Pakistan even though you claim them as being built by your ancestors?


This is related to politics, and the evolution of Pakistan's government and laws and society, not history.



> How is it possible that a minority can dictate a division of a nation?
> Do you think that the migrant workers of UAE have a right to a nation?
> or that tomorrow Shias will be allowed a seperate state within Pakistan? will Baloch be granted be freedom etc,?
> 
> Referendum is valid if majority votes not minority..
> 
> these people were minority.. I can get a minority in Pakistan who will reject Pakistan and accept Afghanistan will they be allowed a new nation? or will the non muslims or shias for eg will be allowed to have a new nation for themselves?
> 
> and if those nations hypothetically created over IVC then Pakistanis lose right to IVC and the new nationality so created has an exclusive right to IVC?
> 
> Pakistan was created by British to protect the interests of eltists muslims which is unethical...
> 
> tomorrow a new ruler comes in Pstan and a few minority elements want a new nation and vote for it. then he gives them the right.. their insecurity and minority beliefs allows them a new nationality?
> 
> Then why are Baloch etc. being not allowed to liberate?
> 
> 300million Indians couldn't do jack about 300,000 Britishers I doubt those Hindu Indians would've decimated Muslims.. and in any case irresp if Muslims were insecure or not if a majority vote was not there then they could not have a seperate country.. how can a minority override majority?
> 
> if tomorrow some Balochs vote against Pakistan will they get independence??
> 
> I am dumbfounded by the fact that an ethnically Indian community converts to a foreign religion and suddenly they have a new identity.. and if majority of Pakistanis are of foreign ancestry then they should be kicked out and not allowed a seperate nation they should go back to their motherland...
> 
> Similiarly if Pstan is allowed then why is the problem with Israel? Israelis claim Israel to be their motherland and rightfully took it over and in an overwhelming referendum chose to form a seperate nation...



Alll of the above is flawed since it assumes that a nation existed that Pakistanis separated from - no single nation existed before the British, nor during the British rule.

The British combined various territories, peoples and nations into one colony for governing purposes, and when they decide to leave was when the roots of two nations took hold. 

The premise that a minority separated from a majority is wrong - there was no majority or minority. Several peoples and territories "reorganized" into two nations (for the most part), from no nation at all.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Rajput is a clan from what I understand, and that is how they are described in Pakistan. A clan does not have to be a particular religion, so it may be an oxymoron to you, but it is perfectly understandable to me. My ancestors apparently converted from Hindu Rajput's to Muslim Rajput's.



Rajput is a caste. Are you following the caste system Agno?



> I am claiming the history of all the peoples of Pakistan, not as a Rajput, but as a Pakistani. The Rajput mention was merely to point out to Vinod that there are people in Pakistan who do not claim descent from Arabs or Persians.



Rajputs are descendants of the Sakas/Huns that invaded India during Vedic period.
They are not indigenous to the Subcontinent.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> Rajput is a caste. Are you following the caste system Agno?



err. Like I said, in Pakistan it is considered a clan, not a caste. The British seem to have considerd them a "separate race", and your next statement indicates distinction based on race/ethnicity as well - descent from a certain community.



> Rajputs are descendants of the Sakas/Huns that invaded India during Vedic period.
> They are not indigenous to the Subcontinent.



I am not certain who Rajput's are descendent's of. But is anyone "indigenous" to the subcontinent?

Life did not pop up spontaneously in the subcontinent, people have migrated to it throughout history, (human migration theory). Just depends how far back in history you go.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> err. Like I said, in Pakistan it is considered a clan, not a caste.



In India also its a clan. Clans are also classified under the caste system.


> I am not certain who Rajput's are descendent's of. But is anyone "indigenous" to the subcontinent?
> 
> Life did not pop up spontaneously in the subcontinent, people have migrated to it throughout history, (human migration theory). Just depends how far back in history you go.



Rajputs are descendants of Central Asian/ Iranian migrants during and after the Vedic period. 

The "foreign" tag is obviously in the context of the IVC. I thought that was obvious.

I don't claim that humans evolved from apes on the subcontinent. That happened in Africa.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> In India also its a clan. Clans are also classified under the caste system.



Perhaps caste got dropped due to conversion to Islam, though in some cases in Pakistan, "Biradri/Clan" based prejudice can occur. 



> Rajputs are descendants of Central Asian/ Iranian migrants during and after the Vedic period.
> 
> The "foreign" tag is obviously in the context of the IVC. I thought that was obvious.



Oh gotcha. But I am not arguing that "pure IVC" people live in Pakistan, or for that matter anywhere. Migration into the region would have ensured that whatever people were there, interbred with the migrants.

With the CA/Persian migrants, that would be true as well, unless the region was completely unpopulated, so there would be ties to whomever was there before the migrants. 


> I don't claim that humans evolved from apes on the subcontinent. That happened in Africa.



lol


----------



## Vinod2070

asaad-ul-islam said:


> woah, where did you guys get the idea that most pakistanis' are arab descent? I meant many pakistanis' are of arab/persian/afghan descent, not all.



It is not my idea and I don't even believe it to be true.

It is what I have read that many Pakistanis claim. And the articles were by Pakistani writers.

I think you also mentioned your Saudi roots somewhere. Musharraf too has done so in his book!

The point is that those who tout their Arab origins (and obviously they feel that to be their predominant identity) don't feel any affinity to the Pre-Islamic history of this ancient land of ours. And they can't claim any of that.

They consider it Jahiliyah just as the Arabs do so. And such people are in a majority. It includes almost all of the cleric class. Even if these people are lying about their Arab connection, they don't belong to that ancient history and civilization. They have rejected it and vice versa.

Good riddance, I will say. On both sides.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> The point is that those who tout their Arab origins (and obviously they feel that to be their predominant identity) don't feel any affinity to the Pre-Islamic history of this ancient land of ours. And they can't claim any of that.



Is Assad (and for that matter anyone who claims Arab ancestry) denying his ancient history, even though he claims descent from Arabs, or are you merely assuming that?

Europeans refer to a part of their history as the Dark ages (similar to Jahiliyyah), that does not mean they lose claim to that part of their history.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Is Assad (and for that matter anyone who claims Arab ancestry) denying his ancient history, even though he claims descent from Arabs, or are you merely assuming that?



Well I guess it's a bit of assumption based on my observations and reading. I will let Assad or any member who claims Arab ancestry answer this question.

Let them say how they feel related to the IVC and the pre-Islamic civilization before the invasion by Bin-Qasim.

And I am wiling to change my opinion if I am convinced that my understanding was incorrect. Let me get their thoughts on this matter.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Europeans refer to a part of their history as the Dark ages (similar to Jahiliyyah), that does not mean they lose claim to that part of their history.



Well, it's a bit debatable.

In a physical sense you are right. But not in the psychological and emotional sense.

I would say that all those who separated in 1947 lost their right to be called Indian even though they (their ancestors) were "Indians" for thousands of years (I can almost guess your answer  ). Some may feel the same way for civilization. The land is just a minor piece of the civilizational jigsaw puzzle. It may change hands as we saw for Turkey and the Greco-Roman empire.

It is the human beings who matter more.

And again I feel IVC is being too much importance in this discussion. Not much is known about that civilization, its extent, its people, its script has not been read.

The ancient civilization was much more than IVC. India still lives it. Pakistan doesn't.

*P.S.:* I agree that there could be some (?) Pakistanis who may feel the way you described. I don't know what ratio they would be among the Arab origin people. I guess very few but I could well be wrong.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> And again I feel IVC is being too much importance in this discussion.


IVC is just a representative of the ancient history in the lands of Pakistan. While reference is made to the IVC specifically, the arguments extend to all of Pakistani history.



> The ancient civilization was much more than IVC. India still lives it. Pakistan doesn't.



There isn't enough known about the IVC to make the claim that modern India "still lives it". The Greeks do not worship the ancient Greek God's anymore either, nor do they follow ancient Greek practices - Greek history is still their history.

Bit even if we were to know conclusively what beliefs the IVC followed, your argument of "India still lives it" would be the equivalent of Muslims outside the Arab world (assuming the Arabs stopped following Islam), at some distant time in the future, saying that Arab Islamic history was their history, since non-Arab Muslims "still lived it".


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> IVC is just a representative of the ancient history in the lands of Pakistan. While reference is made to the IVC specifically, the arguments extend to all of Pakistani history.



Fair enough.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> There isn't enough known about the IVC to make the claim that modern India "still lives it". The Greeks do not worship the ancient Greek God's anymore either, nor do they follow ancient Greek practices - Greek history is still their history.



There is a major difference in the Greek case and the case with subcontinental history. It is too obvious to bear repetition.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Bit even if we were to know conclusively what beliefs the IVC followed, your argument of "India still lives it" would be the equivalent of Muslims outside the Arab world (assuming the Arabs stopped following Islam), at some distant time in the future, saying that Arab Islamic history was their history, since non-Arab Muslims "still lived it".



When I said India still lived it, it was basically to denote that our civilization still continues the same basic thread.

While we don't know the customs of the IVC people, many of the ancient traditions (documented in our scriptures thousands of years back) and practiced in Indian lands since time unknown still continue.

I really don't see the analogy you presented here. I would say that if a minority but significant portion of Arabs started following a new religion (and totally forgetting Islam for a 1000 years, also let's say those people include the Arabs in Madina where the prophet first gained power) claims it after a 1000 years, the others would surely feel a sense of puzzlement even amusement. 

The converted Arabs may do well to say that we shared that past but to say that because Madina is with them now, they own the Islamic heritage would not be sound logic. At least I won't be convinced.

What do you think their motive would be in such a case?


----------



## Flintlock

I am basing my post on what I got from Wikipedia:

First Quote:


> The most important tribes within Punjab include the Arains, the Gakhars, the Gujjars, the Jats, the Rajputs, the Punjabi Shaikhs and the Syeds. Other smaller tribes are the Awans, Rawns and the Maliks. In Central Punjab, there is a significant population who are descendants of settlers from the Kashmir Valley


All of these tribes are descendants of settlers from Central Asia, Persia or Arabia. Hence, it is safe to assume that the genetic pool of the IVC has been mostly, if not completely, supplanted by these tribes.

Second Quote:


> The Sindhis as a whole are composed of original descendants of an ancient population known as Sammaat, various sub-groups related to the Siraiki or Baloch origin are found in interior Sindh. Sindhis of Balochi origin make up about 30&#37; of the total population of Sindh, while immigrant Urdu speaking indian refugees make up 15% of the total population of the province. Also found in the province is a small group claiming descent from early Muslim settlers including Arabs, Turks, Jews, Afghans and Persians. Most of the indian refugees given shelter by the Sindhi nation in the big cities of Sindh, Karachi and Hyderabad in 1947.
> 
> 'Sammaat are Rajput by race, and they are the long dwellers of the region. Sammaat came to Sindh with Aryan immigrants and since then have lived in the region.



Again, on examining the quote, we find that none of the population groups are indigenous to Sindh in the context of IVC.

Third Quote:


> The Baloch are an Iranian People.



Iranian tribes are the Aryan migrants which came to the Iranian region rather than the Indian one.

Fourth Quote


> NWFP is mostly made up of Pashtun Tribes



Since Pashtuns are also an Iranian tribe which migrated after the demise of IVC, they are foreign from the perspective of IVC.


Considering these 4 quotes, and considering that wikipedia probably accurate on such elementary issues, we can safely say that almost all of the Pakistani gene-pool is "foreign" to the IVC gene pool.

Now, if the theories that suggest an eastward migration of the IVC people are validated, then perhaps modern day Indians could have the Harappan genes, thus making them the true inheritors of this civilization.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> All of these tribes are descendants of settlers from Central Asia, Persia or Arabia. Hence, it is safe to assume that the genetic pool of the IVC has been mostly, if not completely, supplanted by these tribes.



If a majority of the IVC people did not migrate, the larger immigrant population would still end up supplanting the IVC gene pool, through interbreeding. But that only means that the IVC over time became the minority, Pakistanis would still be descendant from them.

The only way Pakistanis would not be descendants from the IVC people would be if, like I Said earlier, it could be shown conclusively that the vast majority of the IVC population migrated out of the region, or was destroyed.



> Now, if the theories that suggest an eastward migration of the IVC people are validated, then perhaps modern day Indians could have the Harappan genes, thus making them the true inheritors of this civilization.


Actually, if the IVC migrated Eastwards, the arguments you raised above, of the Gene pool being supplanted over time by increasing numbers of other immigrants, would be valid. It would still make Indians descendants of the IVC people, as I have argued that Pakistanis are still descendants of teh IVC, reagrdless of how much the original IVC genepool has been supplanted, but I just want to point out that you are making two contradicting arguments.

Your first argument says Pakistanis are not IVC descendants because the gene pool got supplanted through migration into the region (which I argued is false -in the sense that Pakistanis would still be descendants of the IVC).

The second refuses to acknowledge the same effect Eastward migration into an already populated region would have on the gene pool of the IVC.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> Fair enough.
> There is a major difference in the Greek case and the case with subcontinental history. It is too obvious to bear repetition.
> 
> When I said India still lived it, it was basically to denote that our civilization still continues the same basic thread.
> 
> While we don't know the customs of the IVC people, many of the ancient traditions (documented in our scriptures thousands of years back) and practiced in Indian lands since time unknown still continue.



I am not sure why you don't see the connection. You are raising the issue of "India still lives it" presumably to indicate a greater claim of modern India to that history, which as I have argued is false given that following or not following an ancient belief system (as in the Greeks) is not indicative of whether the hsitory of your lands belongs to you.



> I really don't see the analogy you presented here. I would say that if a minority but significant portion of Arabs started following a new religion (and totally forgetting Islam for a 1000 years, also let's say those people include the Arabs in Madina where the prophet first gained power) claims it after a 1000 years, the others would surely feel a sense of puzzlement even amusement.
> 
> The converted Arabs may do well to say that we shared that past but to say that because Madina is with them now, they own the Islamic heritage would not be sound logic. At least I won't be convinced.
> 
> What do you think their motive would be in such a case?



You completely lost me with what you were trying to say.

Perhaps you are being confused since you are treating all of the subcontinent as one race, like teh Arabs, it is not, and hence my argument used non-Arabs (who never lived in Arab lands and do not live in Arab lands) claiming Arab Islamic history. 

Arab-Islamic history would belong to the Arabs. Other Muslims would teach it as the history of their faith, but not as the history of their nations.

The closest I can understand your comments above is by assuming that teh Saudis converted to another religion, while the Yemenis and others did not. In such a case, only Saudi Arabia as a nation could claim the history of Medina and Makkah. Islamic history in Saudi Arabia would be a part of Saudi History.


----------



## Flintlock

> Your first argument says Pakistanis are not IVC descendants because the gene pool got supplanted through migration into the region (which I argued is false).
> 
> The second refuses to acknowledge the same effect Eastward migration into an already populated region would have on the gene pool of the IVC.



Here is another Wikipedia Quote:



> The chronology of the occupation of the site at Surkotada is not the same as other Harappan / Indus Valley Civilization sites. The dates from Surkotada are later than most Harappan sites but conform well with the occupational dates from Lothal and Kalibangan. In other words, the Harappans did not establish a settlement in Surkotada in the earliest phase of Harappan maturity but did so almost towards the end. The site of Surkotada was occupied for a period of 400 years with no breaks or desertions



Basically, Lothal, Kalibangan, Surkotada are chronologically much later than the Pakistani sites. 
This would indicate a large-scale eastward migration, since small groups cannot establish full-fledged Harappan cities. 

Several small settlements Harappan in character have been found as far as Maharashtra and east of Delhi, which appear to flourish when the settlements in Pakistan are in their dying stages or have been abandoned.

I cannot say as of now, exactly what proportion of Harappans migrated east, but considering the theory of the drying Saraswati (Ghaggar-Hakra) river and the other evidence, it would seem that quite a substantial migration took place.

Regarding the "mixing" of Aryan settlers and indegenous people, it is possible. It is also possible that the Harappan sites were abandoned well before the arrival of the Aryan migrants. I'll have to find out about that.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

^^^ Now we are getting back to the arguments that have already been covered in this thread. The validity of the claims and the Saraswati river theories etc.

Lets first agree that the only way Pakistanis would not be descendants of the IVC is if it could be conclusively shown that a vast majority of the IVC civilization was destroyed or migrated.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I am not sure why you don't see the connection. You are raising the issue of "India still lives it" presumably to indicate a greater claim of modern India to that history, which as I have argued is false given that following or not following an ancient belief system (as in the Greeks) is not indicative of whether the hsitory of your lands belongs to you.



OK. The fault is mine. I was not clear enough. Let me try again.

I guess there is a bit of mixing up of civilization and history going on here. When I said India lives the civilization it has no bearing on the history of the respective lands. You are right, it doesn't mean that India owns that history, but I never claimed that in the first place.

The problem only happens when a shared resource is divided. That is not the case in Greece. Even in Iran people have started discovering their pre-Islamic heritage but they don't have to contest that with another group (only with their own clergy.)

The case of the subcontinent is more complex. We now have two contenders (at least on defence.pk) vying for the same heritage. Each one sure that they are the rightful owners.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> You completely lost me with what you were trying to say.
> 
> *Perhaps you are being confused since you are treating all of the subcontinent as one race, like teh Arabs, it is not, and hence my argument used non-Arabs (who never lived in Arab lands and do not live in Arab lands) claiming Arab Islamic history. *
> 
> Arab-Islamic history would belong to the Arabs. Other Muslims would teach it as the history of their faith, but not as the history of their nations.
> 
> The closest I can understand your comments above is by assuming that teh Saudis converted to another religion, while the Yemenis and others did not. In such a case, only Saudi Arabia as a nation could claim the history of Medina and Makkah. Islamic history in Saudi Arabia would be a part of Saudi History.



I didn't say nor meant that its a single race. If we assume that we are talking not of just IVC but the whole pre-Islamic civilization, that would surely include the Vedic civilization, the great epics of Hiduism, the number system (including zero) created by the Hindu scholars, the ancient temples found all the way from Kataraj in Pakistan up to Tamilnadu and even upto Angkor wat in Combodia.

All these and much more were the fruits of the civilization. What out of them was exclusive Pakistani and what was shared?

Applying modern geography to an ancient civilization is a futile exercise imho. 

But then it is upto the people to decide what they want to do.

*OK, just so to make sure that I am not confusing the issue, what exactly is it that is sought to be called exclusive Pakistani. Pl. be a bit specific.*


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> ^^^ Now we are getting back to the arguments that have already been covered in this thread. The validity of the claims and the Saraswati river theories etc.



Ah, well then in that case we will simply have to wait til one of your favourite archaeologists decides to personally involve himself in the excavations.



> Lets first agree that the only way Pakistanis would not be descendants of the IVC is if it could be conclusively shown that a vast majority of the IVC civilization was destroyed or migrated.



I would not agree with that either. Modern Pakistanis would need to have a substantial proportion of harappan genes in order to claim this.

From what I can see, the majority of Pakistanis share little or no DNA with the original harappans. 

It is impossible for any gene pool to remain pure. Obviously, Pakistanis today probably mixed with Greeks as well. That doesn't make them inheritors of the Greek civilization.

On the other hand, the gene pool within modern India has remained largely static throughout history. This would make it far more likely that modern day Indians carry a substantial harappan genetic component.

It could also be possible that the descendants of harappan tribes remained largely "pure" due to restrictions on inter-tribal mixing brought about by the caste system.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> Ah, well then in that case we will simply have to wait til one of your favourite archaeologists decides to personally involve himself in the excavations.



No need to get snotty, Just go back and read the discussion on these issue, and we can pick up from wherever it left off. This thread has gone on many tangents since then.



> I would not agree with that either. Modern Pakistanis would need to have a substantial proportion of harappan genes in order to claim this.
> 
> From what I can see, the majority of Pakistanis share little or no DNA with the original harappans.
> 
> It is impossible for any gene pool to remain pure. Obviously, Pakistanis today probably mixed with Greeks as well. That doesn't make them inheritors of the Greek civilization.
> 
> On the other hand, the gene pool within modern India has remained largely static throughout history. This would make it far more likely that modern day Indians carry a substantial harappan genetic component.
> 
> It could also be possible that the descendants of harappan tribes remained largely "pure" due to restrictions on inter-tribal mixing brought about by the caste system.



Why would Pakistanis claim Greek history? It was not on our land.

The IVC was, and that combined with the probability that modern Pakistanis are descendants of the original IVC people is what leads to claiming that history.

I really think you are having trouble understanding the argument related to descent here. 

Assume a race lived in a region that was walled of from the rest of the world, with no way to leave, but immigrants could come in. The immigrants arriving far outnumbered the local race, so over a period of time the local race's gene pool would be very diluted. So thousands of years later the people in that walled off are would still be descendants of that original race, that race was part of their genetic makeup, no matter how diluted its gene pool got due to external immigrants.

My argument is that there is nothing conclusive showing the migration of a majority of the IVC people out of the region of modern Pakistan, hence regardless of how diluted the Harappan gene got through migration into the region, Pakistanis are still their descendants, as they are of other groups that came into the region.

That Modern India's gene pool has remained static (going by what you said) only indicates that the influence of migration into the region has been limited - most of the migrants influenced what is Pakistan.

On a slight digression, you are in essence agreeing with RR's argument that Pakistanis are genetically different from Indians with your gene comments.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> No need to get snotty, Just go back and read the discussion on these issue, and we can pick up from wherever it left off. This thread has gone on many tangents since then.



I think you mean snooty.




> Why would Pakistanis claim Greek history? It was not on our land.
> 
> The IVC was, and that combined with the probability that modern Pakistanis are descendants of the original IVC people is what leads to claiming that history.
> 
> I really think you are having trouble understanding the argument related to descent here.
> 
> Assume a race lived in a region that was walled of from the rest of the world, with no way to leave, but immigrants could come in. The immigrants arriving far outnumbered the local race, so over a period of time the local race's gene pool would be very diluted. So thousands of years later the people in that walled off are would still be descendants of that original race, that race was part of their genetic makeup, no matter how diluted its gene pool got due to external immigrants.



I do understand your argument, and I don't agree with it.
I say that a population has to retain a substantial component of the earlier genetic makeup.

I don't buy the "descent" argument, since the concept becomes meaningless after the original genes have been diluted to the extend of being inconsequential. 



> My argument is that there is nothing conclusive showing the migration of a majority of the IVC people out of the region of modern Pakistan, hence regardless of how diluted the Harappan gene got through migration into the region, Pakistanis are still their descendants, as they are of other groups that came into the region.



I'll get back to that part of the argument.



> That Modern India's gene pool has remained static (going by what you said) only indicates that the influence of migration into the region has been limited - most of the migrants influenced what is Pakistan.



Well, the region of Gujarat, Punjab, J&K, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and parts of Rajasthan share a significant portion of DNA with the existing populations of Sindh and Pakistani Punjab.



> On a slight digression, you are in essence agreeing with RR's argument that Pakistanis are genetically different from Indians with your gene comments.



I already responded to that above.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Stealth Assassin said:


> I think you mean snooty.



Snooty means uppity. Snotty is analogous to a "brat" - I was calling you a brat.D



> I do understand your argument, and I don't agree with it.
> I say that a population has to retain a substantial component of the earlier genetic makeup.
> 
> I don't buy the "descent" argument, since the concept becomes meaningless after the original genes have been diluted to the extend of being inconsequential.


Stealth,



> Descent definition : Hereditary derivation; lineage:



I fail to see how, given the argument of little migration and no extinction, Pakistanis would not qualify as "descendants" of the IVC people


----------



## niaz

An interesting news item published in today's Dawn.



History is different from farce: Dr Mubarak


By Farman Ali

ISLAMABAD, July 8: Eminent historian and thinker Dr Mubarak Ali says the history written in Pakistan had been dictated by the ruling Establishment and represents its wilful perversion of facts to accord with a fabricated ideology.

No authentic history has yet been written about Pakistan and its independence. There is a lot of confusion among the so-called pro-Establishment historians and educationists. Whatever has been written so far is distortion of history and entirely unbalanced, Dr Ali told Dawn in an interview.

Unless the distortions were removed and facts told as they existed, the nation could not hope to make any real progress, he said, adding: This is the lesson history has taught us.

Dr Ali, who was interviewed over the weekend after he gave a lecture on the subject at Safma Media Centre the other day, said writing history in an ideological state was a problem.

We project the deeds of our leaders out of proportion and ignore their crimes and blunders. Our modern history is also in a quagmire of confusion as our historians do not know the direction their work should take. They were unmindful of societys need for truth and confused whether Pakistans history begins from the Indus civilization, or from Mohammad bin Qasims attack on Sindh or from 1947 the year it was born.

Historians like Dr Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, S.M. Ikram and Moinul Haq wrote history, as dictated by dictators like Gen Ayub Khan, on two premises: the two-nation theory and greater national unity. There writings are more anti-Hindu than about British colonialism.

Some historians negated our ancient Indian and South Asian roots and tried to establish our links with Central Asia or with the Middle East which was historical and intellectual dishonesty, said Dr Ali.

Fanciful novels written by Maulana Abdul Haleem Sharar, Naseem Hijazi and the likes were taken for history.

Gen Ayub in fact replaced the subject of history in school curriculum with social studies and the history departments of the universities in the country accordingly produced textbooks which contained articles by pro-Establishment writers who excluded the whole ancient South Asian history and blamed the downfall of the Muslim rule on Emperor Akbar, not Aurangzeb, he said.

Akbar and his courtiers never used the expression Deen-i-Ilahi but the textbooks projected this opinion as if he had invented a new religion, he added.

Asked how the history of Pakistan could be rewritten, Dr Ali said an independent institute should research the regional and small nationalities history and their role in the anti-colonial struggle from the perspective of masses, not of rulers.

History is not just compiling and recording past events. Its real work lies in analysing the events, he said, stressing that objective interpretation of past societies and civilisations was important to correct past mistakes and move forward in the right direction.

For that he called for grooming independent researchers outside the control of government institutions. Dictatorship was fatal for research and objective recording of facts and correct analysis, he observed.

History, like culture, is influenced by politics. Any system based on oppression, coercion and authoritarianism was the first problem in the way of writing history, he noted.

Dr Ali emphasised that no country could progress in any field unless it learned from its past and that would be possible only when independent historians record and analyse historical events in their true perspective.


History is different from farce: Dr Mubarak -DAWN - National; July 09, 2008


----------



## Cheeta

((((So why why and why do we allow India to take credit of everything?
They talk about "Pakistan being created", like Pakistan is a baby, and Pakistanis didnt exist before 1947. This is the whole reason why Indian nationalists believe they own Pakistan.
They take it one step further and our leaders like Quid-e-Azam are officially known as "Indians", (look it up on wikipedia).))))

The country lying from the River Amu or 'Jehun' to Burma is inter related with the inter-mingled cultural, historical and social ties. You can not do claim that Indus is itself a separate territory and a valley like 'Nile'. That is not the question of Pakistan and India only but for Afghanistan also. Afghanistan claims all Muslim rulers to be from Kabul and makes agitation that their heroes have been named after Pakistani missiles like Babur, Ghori etc. One can not draw a single line to demarcate the boundry that from beyond this point there is lying another nation or racial breed ahead. As far as getting the credit of Indus valley for Pakistan, it is the weakness of the Muslims who have lost the country beyond Indus and if become only satisfied with that is also a sign of exhaustion. Yes we can but name the anciant civilization of the valley as Indus valley civilization and do study about that. 
Pakistanis and people of most eastern counties even have no intention of study anything. The libraries are the most vacant parts of the cities of Pakistan. A man seen carrying a book is considered to be a theologian of Islam or a person related with teaching only. That is the culture of the area where the knowledge is just often got upto one's profession.


----------



## Vinod2070

> They take it one step further and our leaders like Quid-e-Azam are officially known as "Indians"



How else would have Mr. Jinnah described himself for 90&#37; or more of his life?


----------



## Cheeta

Actually India is not the political division of boundary in wahgah, it is the name of the land. Almost all those major clans who defended the land of India are now Muslims, like the people of Potohar, Gakkars, Rajputs of Punjab etc. Similarly a typical Iraqi is actually an Arab. No matter.


----------



## Luftwaffe

Niaz i agree the land now called Pakistan was before Arabs came to this land...
Had not Arabs came you would have been sitting in front of kali ma asking for a pair of jeans lol. Thanks to Arabs
by the way MMA is sicko part but i will not included all of them to be sicko some of them are good people don't label everyone extremist if you have no knowledge ty.


----------



## deltacamelately

UnitedPak said:


> I dont doubt Tamil history, but I doubt any claims which link Indians to the Pakistan region. Unless of course you can explain the origin of the Pakistani people before ranting about how the ancient people of Pakistan made a habit of mass migrating to India.


Okay, let me tell you this, these claims and counter claims are because some people from both sides of the border are either ignorant of their origin, or at best, wants to equivocally live in a stage of denial. The IVC was a civilization, that was scattered in an area comprising of the present day political entities, India and Pakistan. The present day Upper caste North Indians and Pakistanis are NOT two different ethenic races, who need to claim or counter claim as to who own the present day Pakistan or Indian states or the IVC in particular, because they belong to the same ancestors, living in the same geographic areas and most importantly are of the same genetic family, namely the R-2, Y-Chromosome Haplogroup, characterized by the genetic marker M124. Now stop treading on the typical Mulla/RSS stuff and keep going ahead like matured men and not like two disgrunted men scorning at a 60 year old glass of spilled milk.


> *Races in India*
> The concept of human races has often been misused, and the whole issue has therefore come under intense criticism. Though it is unlikely that there exist populations of humans that have been reproductively isolated for long enough to have diversified to the same extent as races of other biological organisms, many genetic traits do show geographical (and demographical) distributions demonstrating historical endogamical traits. When the lines separating many of these characters roughly coincide, it is useful to refer to the common borders as race divisions.
> 
> Social Stratification
> The majority (about 80%) of Indian society is broken up into about 2000 castes which can be further broken down into endogamous units which are called subcastes, the total number of these units in India is estimated to have been 75000 at its peak, and still about 43000. Any genetic study needs to take these into account, as well as the gotras (roughly speaking, exogamous lineages) within these. A preliminary study showed that about 87% of the subcastes were strictly endogamous, and about 5% allowed anuloma (hypergamous: woman marrying socially above herself) marriages. In almost all cases, the society is patrilocal (and patriarchal), and caste follows the father.
> 
> In addition to the Hindus who belong to the caste system, *******, and other established religious groups, the rest of the mainland Indian population, about 7%, is tribal in nature; 427 separate tribes are officially recognized. These are usually divided into the tribes of the Himalayan, Middle, Western and Southern India; Bengal has tribes belonging to the first two groups (1941 census: population of tribal and aborigines defined linguistically as bhoTiYA, cAkamA, dAmAi, guruM, hadi, kAmi, khAsa, kuki, lepacA, lim_bu, maMgara, meca, mru, muNDA, neoyAra, orAõ sÃotAla, sAraki, sunuoYAra, and Tip_rA: totalling in west bengal 1368780, in east bengal 287217, in Coochbehar 2435, in hilly Chattagram 233392, in Sikkim 63206, and in Tripura 33633. Note that this is not an exhaustive list by any means: khand, lusAi, gAro, hAjaM, bediYA, bAheliYA, bh&Utilde;YA, jh&itilde;jhiYA, pAna, pAsi, dosAda, rAbhA, nATa, ghAsi, kAchAD.i, nAgesiYA, bhUmija, korA, thAru, mAlapAhAD.iYA, ho, mAhali, turi, beruYA, binda, doYAi, jimadAra, thAmbu, khAmi, khiYAM, kurmi, kaora, mAla, murami, rAYa, ToTo, shabara might also be mentioned). Knowledge of the exact affinities of the tribal with Australian or African Negrito populations would be interesting, but investigations have not been able to uncover direct genetic affinities except for known or suspected cases of recent contact. The tribes in bengal have sometimes been divided into a australasiatic like sÃotAla, ÕrAo, muNDA, etc, Chinese-mongoloid like gAro, kAchAD.i, hadi, etc., the Tibetan-mogoloid like bhoTiYA, guruM, lepcA, neoYAr, and the Arakan-burmese like cAk_mA, kuki.
> 
> The castes can roughly be broken down into the upper castes, the middle castes, and the lower castes based on their social status. The division, especially between the upper and middle castes, varies according to region. Genetic evidence points to the different social groups and geographical regions having different set of Y chromosomes, pointing to the social identity staying unchanged along male lines; similar data from mtDNA studies show only slightly higher admixture in the female lines. However, the statistical signficance of all these results is weak except to support a tribal versus caste hindu divide.
> 
> Historical Migrations
> A study of the skulls from ancient South Asia showed presence of three groups of people.
> 
> Most of the hunter-gatherer skulls from South Asia clustered with upper paleolithic skulls from Europe.
> The skulls from Harappa were sharply distinct from these.
> The foraging and farming populations of South and Central India are intermediate between the other two.
> In India, from anthropometric studies, one used to find traces of seven races of humans who intermixed to create the Indian race. Modern studies within regional contexts are still rare; so one mostly has to look back to the global genetic studies. Northwest India shares with west Asia and eastern Europe (and pockets in Africa and South East Asia) the maximum heterozygosity known among world populations, with means between 0.35 and 0.37; and the rest of India (and Europe) is only slightly lower: 0.33 to 0.35. This shows the vast amount of admixture that has gone on in these regions: to be contrasted against Australia which has a homozygosity of less than 0.25. It is currently accepted that at least four strata are visible in the populations in different parts of India.
> 
> An australoid-veddoid substratum.
> A migration from the east of Austrasiatic and sino-tibetan language speaking groups.
> Neolithic migrations from western Iran, probably proto-Dravidian.
> The aryan expansion from north of Caspian sea via Turkmenia and Northern Iran.
> Thus, for example, some researchers have concluded that the most likely synsthesis of different lines of evidence is that
> 
> the Austric language speakers came to India c. 5065 Ka BP from the northeast
> the Dravidian speakers c. 84000 BC from the mideast with knowledge of wheat cultivation and cattle, sheep, and goat domestication (all middle eastern developments around 8000 BC),
> the Indo-europeans in several waves since 40001500 BC with horses (domesticated c. 4000 BC around Ukraine; appears to move from northwest India in about 1900 BC to southeast India in 100 BC) and/or iron (used around 3000 BC in Anatolia; also appears to move from North West India in 900 BC to South East India in 400 BC; iron and horses were almost certainly distinct cultural traits which were not associated with one another), they had distinctive burial styles and may have performed cremation, the painted grey ware pottery associated with these people fits the iron users more than the horse riders;
> and in this mix, the Sino-Tibetans joined in in several waves since 86 Ka years BP bringing in rice cultivation (if it is not of separate origin in the Indian region, it may have started in south-east Asia around 8 Ka BP).
> DNA evidence
> The differences between different groups is small overall. But the differences that exist can be used to trace the history of human migrations. One word of caution is, however, due: human groups are rarely defined strictly genealogically. More often, it is cultural transmission that defines the groups one is studying, and this transmission has both vertical (concordant with genetics) and horizontal (possibly discordant with genetics) components. Thus a group like Indoeuropeans is defined by cultural features (language spoken, pastural nature, milk and domestic meat based diet, importance of the domesticated horse, a certain polytheistic religion with light/dark or day/night contrast symbolism etc.) and may correlate with a certain genetic makeup. On the other hand, except for genes like lactose tolerance which probably were important for surviving with their dietary peculiarities, no other gene need correlate with this cultural pattern. It is completely possible that the Indoeuropeans in various parts of the world, or associated with migrations at different times and places, have different genetic make up. Whether that is the case for any group (like the Indoeuropeans) needs specific study.
> 
> Overall, though with those caveats, the DNA data prefers the hypothesis that the Austro-asiatic speaking tribals predate the Dravidian and the Tibeto-Burmese tribals in India (see here for one timing study). The caste populations are of more recent origins. The North-Indian muslims and the Tibeto-Burmese tribes stand apart in most comparisons (see here and here), though there is some support for a grouping of north Indian muslims and the Indo-european upper castes of the same region. The Dravidian speaking groups seem to be related by paternal lineage. A change of Dravidian tribals to Indoeuropean caste population by an elite dominance phenomenon is consistent with the data. However, there is significant admixture of the Central Asian populations, more in the North than the South and even less in the Northeast, and more among the upper castes than among the lower.
> 
> mtDNA
> Early mitochondrial DNA (which is maternally inherited) studies indicated that a vast number of Indian mtDNA lineages cluster with the East Asians, probably reflecting the proto-Dravidian. They also seem to be closely related to African (e.g. Ethiopian) populations, probably indicative of the Australoid-Veddoid substratum.
> 
> Modern studies indicate that the major mtDNA lineages in India belong to the typically asian M haplogroup (see here and here), whose Indian variety (T at np16223) probably originated around 48000 +/- 1500 years before present (i.e. about 46000 BC), and more than 98% of the M individuals carry this variety. This haplogroup is most common in the tribal population (for example, 96.7% amongst the Kotas of the South) and decreases as we go up in caste (reaching 18.5% amongst the Brahmins of Uttar Pradesh). It is also rare in the north Indian muslim community. Among its lineages M2 is the most diverse and occurs in significantly higher frequency among the Austro-asiatic tribals. The M3 (frequent among Dravidian tribals), M4, and M5 are also found in significant numbers. See here for relations between these.
> 
> The U haplogroup shows a contrasting distribution: it is most common among the North Indian muslim community (more than 30%), present at 1520% in the various castes, and less than 10% among the tribals. The haplotype U2i separated from an West Eurasian lineage around 53000 +/- 4000 before present (i.e. about 51000 BC). The relative frequency of this subhaplogroup compared to the haplogroup U in general is highest amongst the tribals. Conversely, the tribals almost entirely lack the the West Eurasian subhaplogroup U2e which is more common among the upper castes and shows a caste linked gradation. The other subgroups significantly represented in Indian population are U1 and U7.
> 
> A small fraction of the Indian population (about 510%) belongs to lineages (W,H,K in upper castes; J,T in other castes) also common in Europe, and which have more recent divergence dates. They probably have caste linkages, but the data set is, as yet, too small to be definite. Also, the divergence times have not been estimated, so it is difficult to pinpoint which migration this refers to.
> 
> Previous research, which had not detected the caste linkage of the European haplotypes had concluded that, assuming they were largely of Western Eurasian origin (e.g. in accord with the Dravidian-protoElamite or the Indo-european hypothesis), the divergence time is about 9300 +/- 3000 BP (i.e. about 7300 BC), which is deduced as an average over various number of unknown founders (i.e. gradual migration model, rather than concentrated invasion model). Some minor geographical gradients from the Punjab to the Andhra in distribution of European haplotypes also needs further study.
> 
> Y chromosome
> The Y chromosome (which is paternally inherited) data is broadly similar, but shows higher diversity than the mtDNA data (see here). India groups clearly with the South/Southeast Asia cluster (lineage M9(xM45) or K*(xO,P)?), though North India has a large fraction of R1a(M17) as illustrated by the map (YAP = DE, M130 = O?, M89 = F, M9 = K, M45 = P, M173 = R1*(xR1a1), M17 = R1a1; F is inherently F*(xK), K is K*(xP) and P is P*(xR)) of prevalence of the markers around Eurasia.
> 
> The Central Asian P* is significantly rarer among the tribals. The European ancestral lineage BR* is more common among the tribals, especially the Dravidian tribals, than the caste populations: the lineage itself may, however, be a heterogeneous group. The Tibeto-Burmese, and to a smaller extent Austro-asiatic, tribals have higher frequencies of K*. It has been suggested that haplogroup J shows clines showing diffusion of agriculture from the middle east: Indian data does not show any clear evidence of this. The Indoeuropean R1a and the L haplogroup are also found in significant numbers. See here for details, and here for one estimate of their ages in India.
> 
> The major European haplotype (M173 or R1b?) is pretty rare, but some European haplotypes are found amongst the upper castes, and in Punjab and Pakistan. A North African/Middle Eastern variety (M89(xM9) or F) is found at low levels all over India, but many of the Indian haplotypes seem to be of Indian origin, possibly due to genetic drift in small endogamous units.
> 
> The interesting aspect is the much stronger caste linkage in the genetic distance between the Indian and European populations found in these studies compared to those dealing with the maternally inherited mtDNA. The data also shows multiple bottleneck events showing that the ethnic subgroups of India may have formed by widespread fission resulting from pressures on natural resources and because of social regulations.
> 
> A paper to be published soon has done a far more detailed study, and claims a revision of this standard scenario is in order. The much larger and varied sampling, especially of the tribals, predictably leads to much better resolution of the phylogeny and greater clarity of the haplotype distributions, sometimes correcting the details of previous analyses. Thus they find that the haplogroups H* and its subclades H1*, H1c, H1a and H2 form the most common (26.4%) haplogroup in their Indian sample followed by R1a1-M17 (15.8%), O2a-M95 (14.6%), R2-M124 (9.3%), J2-M172 (9.1%), O3e-M134 (8.0%), L1-M76 (6.3%), F*-M89 (5.2%) and others accounting for the rest 4.2%. Geographically, India lies between Pakistan (where they found R1a1-M17 which is predominant (24.4%), followed by L*-M20 (13.1%), J2-M172 (11.9%), R2-M124 (7.4%), R1b-P25 (7.4%), G-M201 (6.3%), C3-M217 (6.8%), H*-M69 (6.3%), L1-M76 (5.1%), and others, each less than 5%, accounting for the rest rest 16.4%) and East Asia (where O3e-M134 (15.4%), C3-M217(13.1%), N3-TAT (12.0%), O2a-M95 (10.9%), O3-M122(xO3e) (11%), N-M231(xN3) (6.3%) and R1b2-M73 (6.3%) are more than 5% and account for 75.4%). It is, however, in the study of diversity and divergence times that there are hints of disagreement with the standard model. The prevalence and diversity of H1, R1a1, and the R2 haplogroups peak in different regions. Overall, the Indoeuropean speaking groups are more similar to the Pakistani populations than to the East Asian populations, and than the Dravidian, Tibeto-Burman, and Austro-asiatic groups are to the Pakistani population. As to the origin of the haplotypes, they note that C5-M356, F*-M89, H*-M69 (including H1-M52 and H2-APT), R2-M124 and L1-M76 probably arose in India, and F*-M89 and H*-M69 may have shared demographic history. Similarly, J2a-M410 and J2b-M12 probably came through the Indus valley, whereas O2a-M95 and O3e-M134 came from SE Asia, the former probably through Orissa.
> 
> The same study also finds considerable diversity in R1a1-M17 (and R2), especially in the northwest, possibly exceeding 10-15 Ka. This may be inconsistent with a single recent (i.e. about 5 Ka) entry of the comparatively recent (about 7 Ka) linguistic group called Indoeuropeans into India, though complicated exogamy rules can confound such simple conclusions. In fact, since the maximal diversity is around the Hindukush mountains, one can even postulate that as the source region, but the strong association with the Indoeuropean languages (which are unlikely to have arisen in that region), and its higher frequency (and lower diversity!) among caste Indians compared to tribals, both features confirmed in this study as well, points to a more complicated demographic history than the paper describes as its results. Similar remarks apply to the spread of the other haplogroups like the Dravidian and neolithic associated J.
> 
> The R1a1 fraction in different populations (Sengupta et al. and Qamar et al.: West Bengal Brahmins: 72%, Konkanasth Brahmins: 63%, Muslims: 58%, Sindhi Pakistani: 52/49%, Kashmiri Pakistani: 51%, Pathan Pakistani: 49%, Balti Pakistani: 46%, Tanti: 41%, Pathan Pakistan: 40/49%, UP Brahmins: 36%, Rajput: 31%, Baluchi Pakistanis: 28%. J2a is more common in India amongst the Iyengar, Iyer, and Kurumba and in Pakistan among the coastal, Sindhis, Makranis, and Baluchis.
> 
> One possible summary
> The National Geographic site tries to assign times to these migrations as follows: There were two ancient migrationshaplogroup C (marker M130) that arose in Arabian region around 50000 years ago out of the M168 lineage of Nonafrican Adam who may have lived 80000 yrs ago in the African rift valley region of Sudan or Ethiopia, and spread through the coastal regions of Southern India, Sri Lanka and further on; and haplogroup D (marker M174) which probably branched off from M168 early in Africa and accompanied them along the same coastal route (not found in mainland India, but in the Andamans). About 30000 years ago, two Indian lineages arose and populated large tracts of India for the first timehaplogroup L (marker M20) from Eurasian/American ancestor haplogroup K (marker M9) which arose around 40000 years ago from the haplogroup F (marker 89) in Central Asia; and the slightly later haplogroup H (marker M52) which arose out of an M69 lineage (called the Indian marker, though it arose possibly in south central Asia around 30000 years ago), ultimately from the same common nonAfrican haplogroup F (marker M89) which itself had arisen out of the M168 lineage 45000 years ago. The precise relation of the haplogroup G (marker M201) which arose around 20000 years ago in the Indus region is not clear. The haplogroup O (marker M175) which arose 35000 years ago from haplogroup K (marker M9) might also have moved through eastern India. North India also has a large fraction of R1a individuals, probably associated with the Indoeuropean speakers, though one should be careful about possible caveats in genetically characterizing any cultural group. I myself belong to this lineage, and you can see its history as part of my genealogy. A different branch of the R* M207 lineage described there is the M124 R2 lineage which probably arose 25000 years ago in Central Asia and a branch of them reached India. Similarly from the M45 P lineage described there, the Q M242 lineage arose, probably in Siberia around 15 to 20 thousand years back. This is the lineage that populated the Americas, but a few clades, such as the Q6 (M346) and Q1 (M120, M265=N14), especially Q1a (M378), is found in small proportions in India and Pakistan; and in East Asia.
> 
> On the female side, the African haplogroup L3 originated in the same region about the same 80000 years ago, and gave rise to the haplogroup M which then spread out into Southern Asia including India, after the daughters C, D, and Z branched off. L3 also gave rise to N* in Africa. This gave rise to many of the lineages of Eurasia and Americas. In particular, the R arose somewhere in the middle east out of this group, and a few of its descendants are typical Indian. About 55000 years ago the haplogroup U arose from this somewhere in central Asia and some of its lineages are prominent in India. Haplogroup K arose 16000 years ago as a part of this and spread mainly in Europe. Haplogroups J and T arose 10000 years ago from the R, and have been associated with the spread of farming. H and V arose in Europe around 1020000 years ago out of the preHV that arose around 40000 years ago from the R. The haplogroups A, B, F, and X are also possibly daughters of R. The haplogroups N1, I, and W are daughters of the N*.
> 
> It should be noted that the history of one or two blocks on our chromosome is not the history of the entire human populations. The difference between these is discussed briefly in my page on human evolution.
> 
> Autosomal DNA
> A similar caste linkage is also found in the autosomal studies: overall upper caste Indians are significantly closer to Europeans than other Indians.
> 
> Physical Anthropological evidence
> Physical anthropological studies very clearly separates the Indian populations (except some Andamanese tribals) from most of the other Asian populations, with people from the persian gulf, Arabia, Burma, SW China, Vietnamese and Malayan forming the border along the first principle coordinate. This component seems to be highly correlated with stature, and hence with temperature. The second principle coordinate, which mainly measures facial and nasal shape, serves to separate the various groups of Indians: (i) Maharashtra upper caste, (ii) Gujarat and Konkan, (iii) West tribal and lower caste, (iv) Central and Eastern tribal, (v) Bihar and Bengal, (vi) Vedda and South Deccan tribal, (vii) Orissa upper caste, (viii) UP upper caste, (ix) Pahari bhotia, (x) South India and Ceylon and (xi) Kashmiri, Punjabi and Pahari. The third component clarifies the separation of (i)-(iv), (v)-(vii) and (ix) out of the rest.
> 
> In a limited genetic tree, Indians form a number of distinct clusters: (i) Central Indian and Brahmins, together with South Indians cluster with Westen Asians (cluster formed by Iranians, Uzbeks, Caucasians, Lebanese and Turkish, Jordanian, Assyrian, Armenians), (ii) Sri Lankans and South Dravidians break off earlier, and (iii) North and Central Dravidians along with the East Indians break off before the cluster formed by the previous two groups and the Arabians including Bedouins. The first two principle components do not separate the Indian population: they only separate the caucasoid group discussed so far, from the South East Asians with Gurkhas, and from the North East and East Asians with the Bhutanese.
> 
> When only the Indian populations are analyzed, the branching order changes somewhat. Now, the third of the Indian clusters mentioned is an inner group and consists of a cluster of Munda and North Dravidians with Central Dravidians and a separate one of Marathan and Maharashtrian Brahmins with Bhils and then Rajbanshis, with a cluster consisting of Bengali Brhamins and Parsis splitting off its base. A cluster consisting of the second and most of the first of the previous groups is sister to it. (The first group, of course, is now resolved: Punjabi, Central Indian form a group with Punjabi Brahmins and the Rajputs; Vania and Jats form a sister cluster with Bombay Brahmins. Koli and Kerala Brahmins along with Pakistanis form a cluster off the base of all this.) Kanet and UP Brahmins seem to form a cluster branching off earlier, and Gurkha and Tharu a cluster even earlier. The Kerala Kadar seems to come from a completely different branch.
> 
> The detailed structure of the clusters probably needs more data to be established. As far as Bengal is concerned, the tribals cluster with North and Central Dravidians; and Bengalis as a whole cluster with these and Maharashtrians. However, the importance of caste shows up; except in Punjab and Maharashtra, the Brahmins do not cluster with the other castes. On the other hand, the Brahmins of different regions do not cluster together either; in a two principle component analysis, brahmins from Bombay, Kerala, UP, Punjab, Maharashtra and West Bengal show a steady progression along the diagonal. This could be due to genetic drift in these highly endogamous units.
> 
> Miscellaneous genetic evidence
> An old study in bengal found that the main blood group is O, though B dominates among the kAYastha caste (vaNika show both), and A among the tribals and shaGkhavaNika. A later study agreed that the main blood group was O, but found the same in kAYastha and vaidya; but found B dominate the rest. The muslim population shows all of O, A, and B.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deltacamelately

For references, google for these gentlemen.
R. Qamar - Y Chromosome DNA variation in Pakistan.
A. Basu - Ethnic India: A Genomic view, with special reference to people and structure.
S. Sengupta - Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India. et al.


----------



## gezgin

I believe pakistan had all indian soils at past.English crusaders supported non muslim grups in old pakistan.Sorry we couldn't help pakistan.Because our naval forces burned by our traitor amiral.


----------



## UnitedPak

I havent been following this thread for some time, but I will start replying to all the comments again.

Regards.


----------



## roadrunner

deltacamelately said:


> Okay, let me tell you this, these claims and counter claims are because some people from both sides of the border are either ignorant of their origin, or at best, wants to equivocally live in a stage of denial. The IVC was a civilization, that was scattered in an area comprising of the present day political entities, India and Pakistan. The present day Upper caste North Indians and Pakistanis are NOT two different ethenic races, who need to claim or counter claim as to who own the present day Pakistan or Indian states or the IVC in particular, because they belong to the same ancestors, living in the same geographic areas and most importantly are of the same genetic family, namely the R-2, Y-Chromosome Haplogroup, characterized by the genetic marker M124. Now stop treading on the typical Mulla/RSS stuff and keep going ahead like matured men and not like two disgrunted men scorning at a 60 year old glass of spilled milk.



There UPPER caste North Indian Brahmins, such as from Uttar Pradesh may definitely have some Pakistani ancestry. 

But how much of India's population do they represent? A fraction is the answer. Perhaps 0.00001%. By now, they too will have reproduced with the locals and would be of a different subrace to the Pakistanis. 

In fact, the Kapoors, Raj Kapoor was from the land mass known as Pakistan, but emigrated to India after Partition. These are the types of Indians that can claim relations to Pakistan. 

The Muhajirs also can claim association with India. 

In the studies you quote. Well, your conclusions have been disproven a long time ago. The subhaplogroups contained within Pakistan and India tend to be different. There has not been an extensive study of this, but there is as much continuity between India and Pakistan, as there is between Iran and Pakistan, perhaps even less, since several times in history, Iran was merged with Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock said:


> Here is another Wikipedia Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, Lothal, Kalibangan, Surkotada are chronologically much later than the Pakistani sites.
> This would indicate a large-scale eastward migration, since small groups cannot establish full-fledged Harappan cities.
> 
> Several small settlements Harappan in character have been found as far as Maharashtra and east of Delhi, which appear to flourish when the settlements in Pakistan are in their dying stages or have been abandoned.
> 
> I cannot say as of now, exactly what proportion of Harappans migrated east, but considering the theory of the drying Saraswati (Ghaggar-Hakra) river and the other evidence, it would seem that quite a substantial migration took place.
> 
> Regarding the "mixing" of Aryan settlers and indegenous people, it is possible. It is also possible that the Harappan sites were abandoned well before the arrival of the Aryan migrants. I'll have to find out about that.



You dont seem to understand the evolution of cities. As people progress they build technologically superior and bigger cities. Not smaller and more primitive.
There are no cities like Harappa and Mohenjo Daro in India. There are settlements dating to a period far later, and they are nowhere near the size or complexity as Harappa and Mohenjo Daro.

Let me put it this way, without Harappa and Mohenjo Daro to define the Indus Valley, the other settlements wouldnt receive another look.

As for the Indus Valley people migrating? Any evidence of this what so ever? If there is, do you have any explanation for the people completely abandoning their architecture and love for massive cities?

The other theory points out the emergence of Pakistani cities some time after Indus Valley disappears, like Peshawar, Lahore, Multan etc.

I would suggest that you be more realistic than assuming everyone going eastward, and Pakistan becoming barren and uninhabitable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock said:


> Ah, well then in that case we will simply have to wait til one of your favourite archaeologists decides to personally involve himself in the excavations.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not agree with that either. Modern Pakistanis would need to have a substantial proportion of harappan genes in order to claim this.
> 
> From what I can see, the majority of Pakistanis share little or no DNA with the original harappans.
> 
> It is impossible for any gene pool to remain pure. Obviously, Pakistanis today probably mixed with Greeks as well. That doesn't make them inheritors of the Greek civilization.
> 
> On the other hand, the gene pool within modern India has remained largely static throughout history. This would make it far more likely that modern day Indians carry a substantial harappan genetic component.
> 
> It could also be possible that the descendants of harappan tribes remained largely "pure" due to restrictions on inter-tribal mixing brought about by the caste system.



Once again, see my above post. You are assuming Pakistan became barren and uninhabitable, so the people moved East.
You are also assuming India (only 5000 years ago) was uninhabited and nearly empty?
5000 years, relatively speaking is not long ago. Human migration into India happened way way before.

The Indus Valley came to an end, and not long after we had the emergence of Pakistani cities like Peshawar, Lahore and Multan.
So are you telling me that Pakistan became barren and uninhabitable, only to flourish again in a very short period of time?
Geography doesnt work this way.

Your theories involve ultra fast geographical changes, mass migrations, vanishing rivers, and then fail to explain why Pakistan has continuously been inhabited for the past 5000 years, and why the land is still very much fertile if said Geographical changes did happen.

Yes Pakistan has seen the invasions of plenty of people, but the original population has never been wiped out entirely, (or even partly) like you are trying to prove.

Reactions: Like Like:

1


----------



## deltacamelately

roadrunner said:


> There UPPER caste North Indian Brahmins, such as from Uttar Pradesh may definitely have some Pakistani ancestry.


Correction, Aryan, not Pakistani ancestory. The state of Pakistan is a very recent developement. 


> But how much of India's population do they represent? A fraction is the answer. Perhaps 0.00001%. By now, they too will have reproduced with the locals and would be of a different subrace to the Pakistanis.


That's incorrect. Almost all the upper castes Hindus and also others like Sikhs, Dogras, Haryanwis, Dogras, Garhwalis, Kumaonis etc etc have the same genetic marker.


> The Muhajirs also can claim association with India.


The only problem is that the Mohajirs are expatriot Biharis, UPites, MPites etc etc, and they migrated from India to Pakistan and not vice versa, so do you find them inferior to Sindhis and Punjabis?



> In the studies you quote. Well, your conclusions have been disproven a long time ago. The subhaplogroups contained within Pakistan and India tend to be different. There has not been an extensive study of this,


I've provided the names of the authors who have done quite an extensive study on that. If you want to counter their studies, produce evidence.


> but there is as much continuity between India and Pakistan, as there is between Iran and Pakistan, perhaps even less, since several times in history, Iran was merged with Pakistan.


Could you corroborate as to when Iran was merged with Pakistan? Back your arguments with facts, else I don't have any appetite for a pi$$ing contest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

deltacamelately said:


> Correction, Aryan, not Pakistani ancestory. The state of Pakistan is a very recent developement.



The term Aryan is overused in India. 

I'll accept that 0.00000001&#37; of India might be truly Aryan, but these too will have substantially mixed with the locals over time. Either way a much greater proportion of Pakistanis would be, since these "Aryans" would have derived from regions within Pakistan. 



> That's incorrect. Almost all the upper castes Hindus and also others like Sikhs, Dogras, Haryanwis, Dogras, Garhwalis, Kumaonis etc etc have the same genetic marker.



You don't understand genetic markers. This much is clear. 

Sharing one or two markers is irrelevant, as subsharans and Europeans even will share some. 



> The only problem is that the Mohajirs are expatriot Biharis, UPites, MPites etc etc, and they migrated from India to Pakistan and not vice versa, so do you find them inferior to Sindhis and Punjabis?



Inferior is your word, not mine. 

Why do you have a caste system that places the indigenous Indian people in a lower rank, and the foreigner, lighter skinned ones (such as the Pakistani derived upper castes of Northwest India), as upper rank? 



> I've provided the names of the authors who have done quite an extensive study on that. If you want to counter their studies, produce evidence.



A lot of research, especially by Indian authors on India is unbalanced. I've already refuted this, as have other researchers. Will write it up again later. 



> Could you corroborate as to when Iran was merged with Pakistan? Back your arguments with facts, else I don't have any appetite for a pi$ contest.



The Archemid Empire was one. I could name several others. And India was not part of the Archemid Empire, before you try to claim it as well!


----------



## Flintlock

Watch This (BBC Documentary) : Answers several questions about the end of the Indus Valley Civilization and the beginnings of civilization into the Gangetic plain.

Also explains the shift of civilization eastward into the Gangetic plains after the end of IVC, which we have been arguing over for quite some time:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

Great video. Explains how the center of gravity of the civilization moved to the Eastern parts of India from the North Western corner.


----------



## UnitedPak

Climate change is not an explanation.

The video doesn't explain why Pakistan has been continuously inhabited if said climate changes and mass migrations did occur. The video just seems to focus on Ganges and portraying it as something overly holy.
The professor even shows his bias with his ramblings about the Ghakkar Hakra river, at at time Harappa and Mohenjo Daro were at their peak. I cant take him seriously if he chooses to ignore the *main* Indus Valley cities and simply focus on eastern settlements in an attempt to link the civilisation to Ganges. Which he does...


----------



## roadrunner

The investigator is obviously of Indian descent, but I'm not interested in that. What he says is more important. 

I watched the first 30 seconds of it. Here are my thoughts so far. 

He's trying to establish a link between sites of the IVC and a HYPOTHETICAL Saraswati River. There's ample proof the Saraswati did not exist. He's hypothesizing it does exist based on what ground effect? 

I'll pull up an article that shows it is impossible for the Saraswati to exist which would entirely contradict all that clip. 

Secondly, there may have been an eastward flow of culture. This is not the same as an eastward flow of people. You guys tend to copy Pakistan a lot by adopting Pakistan's cultures. It is of no surprise if you adopted this culture. 

I'll come back to it later.


----------



## Flintlock

You guys are simply nit-picking, scrambling to prove that he's somehow biased. Indian descent - ignored the Indus River - Ganges as "overly holy" - can't take him seriously etc. etc. 

By the way, he's Dr. Sanjeev Gupta from Imperial College London:

HONOURS and AWARDS-s.gupta

Try and disprove what he's saying, preferably with peer-reviewed paper or a similar interview with a Geologist of the same or better reputation, that contradicts what he says here.

He's the same guy, BTW, who headed the research into the Geological history of Britain which showed that a catastrophic flood resulted in the creation of the British Isles:

http://www.physorg.com/news103980956.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7151/full/7151xva.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

deltacamelately said:


> Correction, Aryan, not Pakistani ancestory. The state of Pakistan is a very recent developement.



So is the state of India...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> You guys are simply nit-picking, scrambling to prove that he's somehow biased. Indian descent - ignored the Indus River - Ganges as "overly holy" - can't take him seriously etc. etc.
> 
> By the way, he's Dr. Sanjeev Gupta from Imperial College London:
> 
> HONOURS and AWARDS-s.gupta
> 
> Try and disprove what he's saying, preferably with peer-reviewed paper or a similar interview with a Geologist of the same or better reputation, that contradicts what he says here.
> 
> He's the same guy, BTW, who headed the research into the Geological history of Britain which showed that a catastrophic flood resulted in the creation of the British Isles:
> 
> Catastrophic flood separated Britain from Europe: study
> 
> Access : Making the paperSanjeev Gupta : Nature


Along with questioning the authors motives, I believe both RR and UP have also argued against his observations and theories ..


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Along with questioning the authors motives, I believe both RR and UP have also argued against his observations and theories ..



UnitedPak is focussed on how the Professor is somehow biased, and RR here talks about Saraswati river (which the prof never mentioned), along with some strange reasoning about "you guys tend to copy Pakistan a lot". Ha ha? 

If the culture shifted, may I ask what happened to the people? How did they go from large cities to no evidence of settled life? The only reasonable explanation is that because of climate change, the large cities were no longer sustainable, so they evolved into smaller, less sophisticated communities which shifted progressively over several centuries into the Gangetic plain, which is basically what the prof is saying. The regions of the older Harappan sites became uninhabitable, so people began to the region with a more favourable climate.

By bringing the current British-drawn border into the picture and asserting that "you guys copy us therefore", he's simply showing how immature his thinking is, and why nobody is going to take him seriously.


----------



## DarkStar

Vinod2070 said:


> Great video. Explains how the center of gravity of the civilization moved to the Eastern parts of India from the North Western corner.



Doesn't explain the 1500 to 2000 year gap between the end of the late Harappan era and the vedic era (which is not a historical era at all, as no event, place or person of the vedic era has any proven hostiricity). The gap is enormous, and cannot be wished away.

As for disproving the Geologist's claims, how can one disprove conjecture and speculation? The mythical river of saraswati was believed to meet the gunga jamuna at sangam, not run parallel to them. If not the saraswati, what other mythical river is he talking about?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> If the culture shifted, may I ask what happened to the people? How did they go from large cities to no evidence of settled life?



I have mentioned this before was well, that a similar abandonment of cities occurred in the Mayan civilization that was also equally inexplicable.

The theories were that large cities acted as magnets for invasion and burgeoning populations in a small areas placed severe strains on easily available local resources, eventually resulting in a collapse of these cities as people migrated back into the surrounding countryside in smaller groups.

Not sure why similar arguments woudl not apply here - they are a lot less dramatic than these 'enormous natural calamity' explanations, though not as 'exciting'.

Cultural similarities are easily explained through natural human migratory behaviour.

Again, all of this is a sort of mundane and simple picture of a an evolving region, and not as fanciful and earth shattering as explanations of massive disasters, but it does not have to be the latter case - simple explanations work too.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> The only reasonable explanation is that because of climate change, the large cities were no longer sustainable, so they evolved into smaller, less sophisticated communities which shifted progressively over several centuries into the Gangetic plain,



I realized later that in a way your argument is similar to mine - however, a 'massive climactic change/natural disaster' is not the only way to account for the shift,a s I mentioned. Nor does it indicate that the entire peoples, or even a majority shifted East.

The simpler explanation remains that the natural human migratory pattern continued and therefore there was a diffusion of people and culture to the East, and the original peoples of the land comprising Pakistan continued existing there.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I realized later that in a way your argument is similar to mine - however, a 'massive climactic change/natural disaster' is not the only way to account for the shift,a s I mentioned. Nor does it indicate that the entire peoples, or even a majority shifted East.



If you watch the video a bit further, the narrator clearly mentions that the people moved into the Gangetic plains. 



> The simpler explanation remains that the natural human migratory pattern continued and therefore there was a diffusion of people and culture to the East, and the original peoples of the land comprising Pakistan continued existing there.



Well, then where is the evidence of settlements? Why are all the settlements in the east?


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> UnitedPak is focussed on how the Professor is somehow biased, and RR here talks about Saraswati river (which the prof never mentioned), along with some strange reasoning about "you guys tend to copy Pakistan a lot". Ha ha?



First, I'm totally serious when I'm saying, you guys (Indians) have historically adopted every single culture that arose in Pakistan, and then claimed it as your own. Even the naming of your country, India, was originally a variant of the name for Pakistan. You've adopted Sanskrit, you've adopted as your researcher is quoting, the IVC, and you've adopted Rig Vedic cultures in the past. All these are established as arising in Pakistan. 

The "Professor", which also is incorrect, for he is just an ordinary researcher, but do you know where Dr Sanjiv Gupta grew up? Do you know who is funding this project of his?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> And I suppose after the abandonment of cities, they simply vanished without a trace? No villages, no small settlements?


No one quite knows is what I gathered (and this is all from memory from a introductory class in Latin American History, so I could be wrong) - the explanations are that an entire people vanishing does not make sense, so the likely explanation is that the current tribes in the region are descendants of the inhabitants of the cities, who settled in the surrounding countryside in smaller groups and villages.



> What enormous natural calamiity? The explanation is one of gradual climate change.



Gradual climate change? You would need a complete desertification of the lands comprising Pakistan, a complete shift in the path of the Indus, or its complete drying up to make the region inhabitable, and make the majority of inhabitants migrate away.

That is a pretty major event/calamity with no evidence.

Why does the simpler theory of a natural diffusion of people and culture to the East not work for you?


----------



## roadrunner

> If the culture shifted, may I ask what happened to the people? How did they go from large cities to no evidence of settled life? The only reasonable explanation is that because of climate change, the large cities were no longer sustainable, so they evolved into smaller, less sophisticated communities which shifted progressively over several centuries into the Gangetic plain, which is basically what the prof is saying. The regions of the older Harappan sites became uninhabitable, so people began to the region with a more favourable climate.



Climate change did not occur. There was simply no River there. 

If there was massive climate change, why was it only Ghakkar-Hakra that was affected by it? Why not the River Indus, or the Sutlej, that are right next to it? 

For such a large river to just disappear (larger than the Indus), you can't seriously be saying only one river in the huge river system would have been affected. 



> By bringing the current British-drawn border into the picture and asserting that "you guys copy us therefore", he's simply showing how immature his thinking is, and why nobody is going to take him seriously.



You are free to not take it seriously. I'm quite serious. The British have nothing to do with this.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> If you watch the video a bit further, the narrator clearly mentions that the people moved into the Gangetic plains.


I am contesting the argument that a majority of the inhabitants moved East, rather than a natural migration as populations expanded.


> Well, then where is the evidence of settlements? Why are all the settlements in the east?



I am not sure I understand your question - if the migration occurred during the decline of the IVC cities, then you would not have large cities in the East, since the trend would be going from City to small settlement, and the migrants would have been absorbed into whatever peoples were already inhabiting the East.


----------



## roadrunner

There's cranial measurements anyway that show that Gandhara and the IVC fairly similar. You can't be suggesting Gandharans moved into South and East India? 

_"Our multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of an ancient Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and Gandhara peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discrete traits that point to a high degree of biological affinity.&#65533;102 "_K.A.R. Kennedy: &#65533;Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?&#65533;, in George Erdosy, ed.: The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, p.49.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I am contesting the argument that a majority of the inhabitants moved East, rather than a natural migration as populations expanded.
> I am not sure I understand your question - if the migration occurred during the decline of the IVC cities, then you would not have large cities in the East, since the trend would be going from City to small settlement, and the migrants would have been absorbed into whatever peoples were already inhabiting the East.



The thing is that there were no settlements in the Ganges plain before the eastward migration - it was a "forested world" as the narrator tells us. 

The sites in the east are not large cities, but they are infact smaller settlements, which would be expected. On the other hand, there are not settlements in the areas of the older Harappan settlements, which indicate that these areas were deserted/abandoned.


----------



## Flintlock

> Gradual climate change? You would need a complete desertification of the lands comprising Pakistan, a complete shift in the path of the Indus, or its complete drying up to make the region inhabitable, and make the majority of inhabitants migrate away.
> 
> That is a pretty major event/calamity with no evidence.
> 
> Why does the simpler theory of a natural diffusion of people and culture to the East not work for you?



Look at the direct evidence - why are the post-harappan settlements all in the Gangetic plains? 
If you have no settlements, how can you claim human habitation?


----------



## Flintlock

Wow - that's the most myopic worldview I have ever encountered. Marvellous, keep your blinkers on. The better for us Indians.



roadrunner said:


> First, I'm totally serious when I'm saying, you guys (Indians) have historically adopted every single culture that arose in Pakistan, and then claimed it as your own. Even the naming of your country, India, was originally a variant of the name for Pakistan. You've adopted Sanskrit, you've adopted as your researcher is quoting, the IVC, and you've adopted Rig Vedic cultures in the past. All these are established as arising in Pakistan.
> 
> The "Professor", which also is incorrect, for he is just an ordinary researcher, but do you know where Dr Sanjiv Gupta grew up? Do you know who is funding this project of his?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> The thing is that there were no settlements in the Ganges plain - it was a "forested world" as the narrator tells us.
> 
> The sites in the east are not large cities, but they are infact smaller settlements, which would be expected. On the other hand, there are not settlements in the areas of the older Harappan settlements, which indicate that these areas were deserted/abandoned.



People likely evolved and changed lifestyles as they moved into a different climate and terrain and interacted with people already existing there.

Smaller settlements in the Indus region could have been constructed over, land used for grazing crops, or just decayed away, or destroyed by later populations.

And even then, given the dismal attention archeology gets in Pakistan, who knows what hasn't been discovered, and likely never will be given the population explosion and expansion in settlements in modern times.


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> Wow - that's the most myopic worldview I have ever encountered. Marvellous, keep your blinkers on. The better for us Indians.



Why's it myopic? 

I just saw the rest of the clip. 

Guess what it says. Sanskrit did not originate in India. Thanks God for that. It's not ignoring obvious evidence. 

He goes to Peshwar for that. The Rig Veda did not originate in India either. 

So your own video clip says what I'm saying. These are adoptions of Pak/Afghan cultures.


----------



## Flintlock

Friend, settlements are always constructed over older ones, which is why archaeological digs are done in "levels". If the Harappan sites have been excavated, they would have to uncover the most recent settlements first and the older settlements later. Obviously, that would mean that the post-harappan settlements (if any) would have been discovered. 

You could possibly argue that there are some undiscovered settlements which are waiting to be uncovered, but that's mere speculation for now, and highly unlikely IMO. 



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> People likely evolved and changed lifestyles as they moved into a different climate and terrain and interacted with people already existing there.
> 
> Smaller settlements in the Indus region could have been constructed over, land used for grazing crops, or just decayed away, or destroyed by later populations.
> 
> And even then, given the dismal attention archeology gets in Pakistan, who knows what hasn't been discovered, and likely never will be given the population explosion and expansion in settlements in modern times.


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> RR here talks about Saraswati river



Which river is he talking about then? 

Aren't you guys trying to claim it as the Saraswati civilization instead of the Indus Civilization?


----------



## DarkStar

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Why does the simpler theory of a natural diffusion of people and culture to the East not work for you?



Respectfully, I do not think that there is even evidence of that. 

The Harappan Empire had already expanded to the areas of Rajasthan and Northern PUnjab and U.P, and the most famous site in Rajasthan Kalibangan was actually abandoned around the same time as Mohenjo Daro was.

Nothing of the culture, customs, arteifacts, designs, architecture of the Harappans can be found in the later doab settlers.

The decline of the Harappans was not sudden, but a gradual affair, over many centuries. The later Harappan era is markedly different to the early and mature phase, because of the lower quality of the utensils, artefacts, etc. 

"Dispersal or dilution are evident from the prevalence of non Harappan pottery styles, impoverishment and disruption from the gradual disuse of the script and from the disappearance of the more fanciful manifestations of Harappan culture, including that obsessive standardisation"

The impoverishment was gradual, as the later ceramics lost their quality, the weights lost their uniformity, the roads lost their alignment.

I think a prolonged economic recession might be one of the main causes of this dissolution, especially the decline of trade with other civilisations which underwent their own upheavels. 

It has been proved that the Harappans invested much of their surplus in commodities, which they exchanged with other civilisations. The decline in this trade would have forced them to leave their cities, and concentrate more upon agriculture.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

^Was harappa an empire? I think it was more of a culture than an empire with a central authority.


----------



## roadrunner

The guy at the beginning of the clip talks of the "Ghakkar-Hakra" River. 

This is the same river the Hindutva fanatics are trying to claims as the Saraswati - it's all part of the process stealing more Pakistani history. 

I'll summarize it. 

The Ghakkar-Hakra is some minor dried out river afaik which is being made out to have been some booming river bigger and more important than the Indus. Yet there's no evidence for any of this from the paleochannels that are supposed to have fed it, to the actually bulk of the Saraswati itself. It's simply superimposed. 

The image he's showing at the start does locate a lot of sites in Cholistan, Pakistan with one or two along the Ghakkar River. This looks like an attempt to establish the Ghakkar as the Saraswati to me, indirectly. Discover one or two sites along the alleged Saraswati, then say it must have existed, else why these sites? 

There is no evidence, in fact it's almost impossible for the Ghakkar-Hakra to have been a major river. Therefore, as water was important to all civilizations in the past, they would have located their sites along the Indus. This was the major river. There is no evidence to suggest Ghakkar-Hakra was anything more than a trickle.


----------



## DarkStar

Is this the same Ghakka river which used to flow near Kalibangan Harappan settlement? It has been conjectured that the drying up of the said river precipitated the abandonment of Kalibangan.


----------



## DarkStar

Flintlock said:


> ^Was harappa an empire? I think it was more of a culture than an empire with a central authority.



Well, this is the conclusion of Shireen Ratnagar (Bharatiya Scholar), an authority on Harappan history and commerce. I added this because i liked the sound of it. I knew it would elicit a response from you, though. 

On a serious note, do you think its political structure was that of a federation?


----------



## Flintlock

darkStar said:


> Well, this is the conclusion of Shireen Ratnagar (Bharatiya Scholar), an authority on Harappan history and commerce. I added this because i liked the sound of it. I knew it would elicit a response from you, though.



It would, because I don't think I've seen it being referred to as an empire before.



> On a serious note, do you think its political structure was that of a federation?



I don't think there was political order at all. It could have been some sort of ritual order, but even that would be within the citiies themselves.

The cities maintained links with one another mainly through trade and commerce rather than some sort of formalized administration.


----------



## DarkStar

Flintlock said:


> It would, because I don't think I've seen it being referred to as an empire before.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there was political order at all. It could have been some sort of ritual order, but even that would be within the citiies themselves.
> 
> The cities maintained links with one another mainly through trade and commerce rather than some sort of formalized administration.



But how would that explain the complete uniformity of seals, figurines, bricks, streets, standardised weights, etc, in a society without an overriding political structure.

Research points towards something approaching a State, and with such far flung settlements as Gujrat, Baluchistan, and unto the Oxus river in Central Asia, this could definitely be an Empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

It would seem astonishing, but if you consider the fact that there were no competing cultures with the Harappan one, which could jostle for influence, its not so surprising.

Actually, there is very little evidence for any sort of state machinery at all. Infact, the most basic tool of the state to exert its power - a standing army - is completely missing. 

This indicates if there was ever a power structure, it would have been a ritualistic one based on common beliefs rather than one imposed by a coercive machinery which is the trademark of an empire.



darkStar said:


> But how would that explain the complete uniformity of seals, figurines, bricks, streets, standardised weights, etc, in a society without an overriding political structure.
> 
> Research points towards something approaching a State, and with such far flung settlements as Gujrat, Baluchistan, and unto the Oxus river in Central Asia, this could definitely be an Empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Thinking about it. 

Let's assume the IVC was actually distributed along the saraswati, and that a climatic shift caused the Saraswati/GhakkarHakra to disappear (ridiculous, but let's imagine). So the IVC people, as the proponents of Hindutva say, decided to migrate Eastwards (despite there being a bigger river just west of them, the Indus!). 

Why then would the people of the Rig Veda settle the Indus Valley, if there was a reduction in the monsoons or whatever? 

There was no huge climatic effect that affected only the Saraswati. It's a fictitious river that never existed. The Ghakkar might have existed, and the Hakra too, but it was not a major river, and no existence of paleochannels or anything is evident.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Thinking about it.
> 
> Let's assume the IVC was actually distributed along the saraswati, and that a climatic shift caused the Saraswati/GhakkarHakra to disappear (ridiculous, but let's imagine). So the IVC people, as the proponents of Hindutva say, decided to migrate Eastwards (despite there being a bigger river just west of them, the Indus!).



The river is clearly not the only factor involved. Dr. Gupta mentions a weakening of the Summer monsoon.



> Why then would the people of the Rig Veda settle the Indus Valley, if there was a reduction in the monsoons or whatever?



Because they were nomadic peoples, used to far harsher climates of Central Asia, so they probably found the Indus valley hospitable in comparison.



> There was no huge climatic effect that affected only the Saraswati. It's a fictitious river that never existed. The Ghakkar might have existed, and the Hakra too, but it was not a major river, and no existence of paleochannels or anything is evident.



Why bring up the Saraswati at all? The Ghaggar-Hakra riverbed is clearly visible in the satellite photos, and it looks big enough for me, and big enough for Michael Wood and Dr. Gupta too, it would seem.

Reactions: Like Like:

1


----------



## Vinod2070

darkStar said:


> Doesn't explain the 1500 to 2000 year gap between the end of the late Harappan era and the vedic era (which is not a historical era at all, as no event, place or person of the vedic era has any proven hostiricity). The gap is enormous, and cannot be wished away.



I think the video did cover some of that. It talked of the historic value of Hastinapur of Mahabharat fame, of Kurukshetra, of the acrchaelogical findings there etc.

See, these epics are thousands of years old, there can be no doubts about that. They may contain elements of myth but they surely would have been influenced by the society and its working when they were created.

The same way as your Hadhiths. Some or many of them may be myths. But they do point to the way the early Arab society functioned.



darkStar said:


> As for disproving the Geologist's claims, how can one disprove conjecture and speculation? The mythical river of saraswati was believed to meet the gunga jamuna at sangam, not run parallel to them. If not the saraswati, what other mythical river is he talking about?



I think Flintoff has covered it in this thread. I defer to him on this. He obviously is the more knowledgeable on this issue than me.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> So is the state of India...



But not the Indian civilization!


----------



## UnitedPak

Vinod2070 said:


> But not the Indian civilization!



This thread is about Pakistani civilisations from the Mehrgarh/Indus Valley period onwards. Any statements on 1947 independence or drive by arguments which have been covered at least twice on each page of this thread should be discouraged.

We seem to have moved on from the stage where Indian members were obsessing about Pakistanis being created 60 years ago and having no links to their history dating 61 years ago. Lets not go back to square one.


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> The river is clearly not the only factor involved. Dr. Gupta mentions a weakening of the Summer monsoon.



This is all related to water and proving the existence of the Saraswati, *when no Saraswati existed in history. * Look at his map. He's giving the impression IVC sites were located along this fictitious Saraswati River. 

The Ghakkar-Hakra river was at best a minor river that perhaps did dry up. But it was not a major river, such that inhabitants would look to settle along it as opposed to the Indus. The Indus always was the main river in the region. That is why Harrappa and Mohenjendara (which Michael Wood mentions by name in your clip), were located along the Indus. 



> Because they were nomadic peoples, used to far harsher climates of Central Asia, so they probably found the Indus valley hospitable in comparison.



This is as speculative as the rest of your ideas. 

Your reason for the IVC inhabitants allegedly leaving, is that their water source (monsoons, rivers etc) drying up. 

If this was the case, then the Rig Vedic people would leave also, they had more advanced technology for travelling. 

*This theory of yours that everyone one day decided to pack their bags and leave what was their home is absurd.*. The IVC inhabitants were not animals they migrate from place to place in search of fresh pastures. IVC was their home, such a migration you're talking about has never happened in history, and it wouldn't ever happen. 

Then there's your suggestion that it was a harsher climate in central asia is just speculation. First the Rig Vedic people coming from central asia is an assumption. Second, *the Rig Vedic people evolved whole languages, cultures, and civilizations in the Indus Valley, so it was clearly not an uninhabitable place where the IVC inhabitants could not live.* 



> Why bring up the Saraswati at all? The Ghaggar-Hakra riverbed is clearly visible in the satellite photos, and it looks big enough for me, and big enough for Michael Wood and Dr. Gupta too, it would seem.



Michael Wood is not a researcher, he's a presenter. His academic opinion means very little. He's doing an investigative piece. I could cite some other things, but no need. 

It's good enough for Dr Gupta. However, those LANSAT maps do not show the existence of a major river. They show the existence of the Ghakkar-Hakra River afaik, *and that's it*. They do not show the main bulk of the Saraswati, and provide no evidence it was a major river. That is all extrapolated. 

This is a quote from Oldham's 19th century archaeology: 

_"Between Sutlej and Yamuna there is no opening in the Himalaya through which a large river could have entered the plains"_ 

In order for the Saraswati to have existed, the paleochannels creating the confluence that produced the Saraswati would have needed to arise between the present day Yamuna and Sutlej. It is geologically impossible for any major water source to confluesce and produce a major river (of which there is no evidence of). 

The summary of all this is. *There was no major "Saraswati civilization".* IVC inhabitants were distributed along the Indus River predominantly, which was the major river in the region throughout all of recent history. 

Your researcher, Dr Gupta, is trying to make it look like IVC sites were only located along the Ghakkar Hakra River. This is blatantly false.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

UnitedPak said:


> This thread is about Pakistani civilisations from the Mehrgarh/Indus Valley period onwards. Any statements on 1947 independence or drive by arguments which have been covered at least twice on each page of this thread should be discouraged.
> 
> We seem to have moved on from the stage where Indian members were obsessing about Pakistanis being created 60 years ago and having no links to their history dating 61 years ago. Lets not go back to square one.



I have seen no good answer to my below post. I feel you guys are just plain confused about what you want. A history based on the current geography created by M/s. Radcliffe and Durand or a history based on what was mentioned by the founders of the Pakistan movement?

I feel strongly that these post facto efforts to come up with a new identity based on pre-Islamic history is welcome (in that you finally are realizing to a small extent what you really are, not trying to be fake Arabs or Central Asians or Persians finally) but if you take it to the logical conclusion, some interesting scenarios emerge.

I hope at least some people would find the courage to think through what this belated embrace of the glorious pre-Islamic civilization means!



Vinod2070 said:


> No, I am just pointing out the lacuna in the story that some Pakistanis spin. The current geography of your nation is just an accident of history. Where Indian Muslims happened to be in majority!
> 
> That is the basis on which Pakistan was *created* in 1947. That is why you had your majority population in Eastern Pakistan who shared nothing else with Western Pakistanis other than the fact that you were both Indian Muslims who happened to be in states/districts with Muslim majority. That is why your father of the nation wanted Kashmir too.
> 
> I guess Pakistanis feel that they are also the inheritors of the Mughal and other Muslim rule in India and even people like Tipu Sultan (in deep South!). So obviously you have no concern for the current geographic boundaries of Pakistan when it suits you.
> 
> Now suddenly you forget all that and want to claim even Sanskrit and the pre-Islamic civilization! Tell me, how many schools teach Sanskrit in Pakistan? Is there even one? Are there people even in single digit in Pakistan who know the first grade Sanskrit? Don't the majority of you population consider the pre-Islamic period as Jahiliya when people were waiting to be liberated by invaders?


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> This is all related to water and proving the existence of the Saraswati, *when no Saraswati existed in history. * Look at his map. He's giving the impression IVC sites were located along this fictitious Saraswati River.



Arey Bhai, the term Saraswati doesn't appear till much later in the Rig Veda. Here we are discussing a satellite image which clearly shows the bed of an extinct river, and numerous harappan sites located strung along it. 



> The Ghakkar-Hakra river was at best a minor river that perhaps did dry up. But it was not a major river, such that inhabitants would look to settle along it as opposed to the Indus. The Indus always was the main river in the region. That is why Harrappa and Mohenjendara (which Michael Wood mentions by name in your clip), were located along the Indus.


 
Actually, in terms of numbers, the sites along the Ghaggar -Hakra river system far outnumber the ones along the Indus. 

In a survey conducted by M.R. Mughal between 1974 and 1977, over 400 sites were mapped along 300 miles of the Hakra river.[8] The majority of these sites were dated to the fourth or third millennium BCE.[9]
_
S. P. Gupta however counts over 600 sites of the Indus civilization on the Hakra-Ghaggar river and its tributaries.[10][11] In contrast to this, only 90 to 96 Indus Valley sites have been discovered on the Indus and its tributaries (about 36 sites on the Indus river itself.)[12][13][14] V.N. Misra[15] states that over 530 Harappan sites (of the more than 800 known sites, not including Late Harappan or OCP) are located on the Hakra-Ghaggar.[16] The other sites are mainly in Kutch-Saurashtra (nearly 200 sites), Yamuna Valley (nearly 70 Late Harappan sites) and in the Indus Valley, in Baluchistan, and in the NW Frontier Province (less than 100 sites).
_
Ghaggar-Hakra river - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> This is as speculative as the rest of your ideas.



Speculative? Its hard cold fact. The FACT is that the climate of Central Asia is far harsher and much less hospitable than the climate of the Indian subcontinent. The soil is far less fertile also. Which is why the Aryan migrants were nomads and not settled people. Infact if you examine the history of Central Asia, you will find a predominance of nomadic hunter-gatherers over settled life.



> Your reason for the IVC inhabitants allegedly leaving, is that their water source (monsoons, rivers etc) drying up.



Not only that, but change in climatic patters like the strength of the monsoon, the duration of the monsoons, the weather patterns. All these factors can lead to the decline of a civilization.



> If this was the case, then the Rig Vedic people would leave also, they had more advanced technology for travelling.



Bhai, this is not a railway platform, and nobody had perfect information. The Rig Vedic people settled progressively from west to east, is it not? Didn't they settle in the Gangetic plains as well, and fight wars among themselves, as attested in Rig Ved, and later Mahabharata? 




> *This theory of yours that everyone one day decided to pack their bags and leave what was their home is absurd.*. The IVC inhabitants were not animals they migrate from place to place in search of fresh pastures. IVC was their home, such a migration you're talking about has never happened in history, and it wouldn't ever happen.



You're joking right? Humans migrate all the time. This is getting ridiculous. The history of humanity is the history of migrations, first out of Africa into South India, then progressively northwards, and then reverse migrations from the northern parts of the globe into the southern parts (Iranians, Indian Aryans, Mediterranean tribes etc.). 




> Then there's your suggestion that it was a harsher climate in central asia is just speculation. First the Rig Vedic people coming from central asia is an assumption. Second, *the Rig Vedic people evolved whole languages, cultures, and civilizations in the Indus Valley, so it was clearly not an uninhabitable place where the IVC inhabitants could not live.*



Again its not an assumption. Its a fact. Why don't you google the climate of central asia? 
The Rig Vedic people did Indeed come from Central Asia. Infact, they found one of the settlements of the Aryan tribes in Central Asia. It is shown in the BBC documentary as well. Why don't you watch the entire documentary from start to finish, so that we can have a more informed discussion? 



> Michael Wood is not a researcher, he's a presenter. His academic opinion means very little. He's doing an investigative piece. I could cite some other things, but no need.



Obviously, he has a whole team of researchers behind him, as well as the BBC editorial board. Don't be ridiculous please. The documentary is as legit as it can possibly be. If you want to somehow insinuate that the BBC is allied with "Hindutva groups" then you are fooling yourself and also in a complete and utter state of denial.

Reminds me of your ridiculous denials and obfuscations in the light of mounting evidence that the Mumbai attackers were from Pakistan. Haha - the Pakistani Media, the Pakistani establishment, the Americans, the British, the Indians, the Indian media - everybody said that the attackers were from Pakistan. But No. Mr. RoadRunner here refuses to believe it, like an ostrich with his head in the sand refusing to lift up his head and see the real world around him. 



> It's good enough for Dr Gupta. However, those LANSAT maps do not show the existence of a major river. They show the existence of the Ghakkar-Hakra River afaik, *and that's it*. They do not show the main bulk of the Saraswati, and provide no evidence it was a major river. That is all extrapolated.



Dr. Gupt is not a historian. He is Geologist, and one of the most reputed ones in Britain to boot. If he says its a major river, then it probably is a major river. Nobody, except perhaps your like-minded groupies will take your word against his. Grow up already. 

And agian your bringing the Saraswati into it. Don't. Saraswati is related to the Aryans of the Rig Veda, nothing to do with Harappans.



> This is a quote from Oldham's 19th century archaeology:
> 
> _"Between Sutlej and Yamuna there is no opening in the Himalaya through which a large river could have entered the plains"_



19th century? You are quoting from a book which is 200 years old, and I am quoting from the most recent research. Guess which is more valid? 



> Your researcher, Dr Gupta, is trying to make it look like IVC sites were only located along the Ghakkar Hakra River. This is blatantly false.



What? When did he do that? "He's trying to make it look like" - that's just your perception, and nothing to do with reality. He was infact focussing on the Ghaggar-Hakra riverbed, so obviously he wouldn't mention the Indus River, which by the way is described in detail in the earlier parts of the documentary. 
You are trying your best to introduce a perception of bias where there is none.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Flintlock

The first point of contention is that you must avoid exclusivist and isolationist interpretations (Pakistan was always separate, was always independent, always different etc.) which are basically not true.

Pakistan and India have a shared history, and it is impossible to study the history on the western side of the Radcliffe line without studying the history on the eastern side.

The other point of contention is that since Pakistan for so long refused to acknowledge (and still does) the great history of the land it was founded on, focussing instead on the 'glorious coming of Islam', and denigrating the achievements of the pre-Islamic civilizations, it is rather strange to now find Pakistanis in one context, dissing the Indic civilization, and on the other hand, glorifying those sections of Indic history which happened on Pakistani land. That is just cynical double-dealing of the worst kind.

And not only that, trying to somehow claim the word India as well, based on bogus thinking that the meaning of a word must remain the same as the meaning of its root. All you have to do is spend a little time studying etymology, but you'd rather use selective interpretation to further your own ends.

The fact is that discussions on this forum are not going to change history, only real reasearch can do that, so even if you manage to do a bit of wordplay and convince your fans of your ideas, it is not going to convince the people who matter - the experts and opinion makers. 


UnitedPak said:


> This thread is about Pakistani civilisations from the Mehrgarh/Indus Valley period onwards. Any statements on 1947 independence or drive by arguments which have been covered at least twice on each page of this thread should be discouraged.
> 
> We seem to have moved on from the stage where Indian members were obsessing about Pakistanis being created 60 years ago and having no links to their history dating 61 years ago. Lets not go back to square one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock, You have repeatedly shown your delusion of the British Indian empire existing before colonialism. What you fail to understand is that not only was Pakistan separate from India, but there were multiple kingdoms in Pakistan separate from each other too.
Your definition of ancient India is basically an empire of Kingdoms. This is an absurd nationalist distorted version of history.

For the umpteenth time, I am not basing my arguments on modern borders. When I speak of Ghandara, Porus Kingdom and the Indus valley, I have never denied any overlaps but I speak of these kingdoms because they were based where the Pakistani people live today. You want to classify this as Indian history despite the fact that Indian people cant relate to it. And you are the one who has to use colonial events to justify this revisionism.

Go through the posts. Only Indian members have been talking about mass migrations from Indus to Ganges. These statements are so blatantly aimed at denying Pakistanis their history because of modern events.
Give me one instance where I have used the British created Punjab border to argue about the ancient history of the region.

Pakistani civilisations have always been based around the Indus rivers. The kingdoms were based around these rivers. This is where you invent the mass migration theories and shared history.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Flintlock, You have repeatedly shown your delusion of the British Indian empire existing before colonialism. What you fail to understand is that not only was Pakistan separate from India, but there were multiple kingdoms in Pakistan separate from each other too.
> Your definition of ancient India is basically an empire of Kingdoms. This is an absurd nationalist distorted version of history.



Well, then how is Pakistan as a single entity separate from India if the kingdoms within Pakistan were separate from each other as well? We can go on and on about this, or else we can stop labelling everything and take a more authentic and broad look at the history of the Indic civilizations. 



> For the umpteenth time, I am not basing my arguments on modern borders. When I speak of Ghandara, Porus Kingdom and the Indus valley, I have never denied any overlaps but I speak of these kingdoms because they were based where the Pakistani people live today. You want to classify this as Indian history despite the fact that Indian people cant relate to it. And you are the one who has to use colonial events to justify this revisionism.



Indian people can and do relate to Gandhara. Of course they do - the Gandharan culture was nothing but one of the the predecessors of the modern Indian culture, so obviously trying to label as "anything but Indian" is completely false. 



> Go through the posts. Only Indian members have been talking about mass migrations from Indus to Ganges. These statements are so blatantly aimed at denying Pakistanis their history because of modern events.
> Give me one instance where I have used the British created Punjab border to argue about the ancient history of the region.



Frankly, it shouldn't matter who makes the statements, what the "aim" or the "ulterior motive" of these statements are. The fact is that the successor cultures of the Harappan did shift eastward into the Gangetic plains, as corroborated by scientific evidence. If you choose to ignore the evidence because it doesn't suit your agenda then you are simply fooling yourselves.


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> You're joking right? Humans migrate all the time. This is getting ridiculous. The history of humanity is the history of migrations, first out of Africa into South India, then progressively northwards, and then reverse migrations from the northern parts of the globe into the southern parts (Iranians, Indian Aryans, Mediterranean tribes etc.).



Look, Flintlock, I'm going to take your post one step at a time, since this is obviously a little much for you. 

First this, as it's very important. 

Humans do not pack up and all leave their home, like some mass migrating animals. 

Groups of humans may well migrate, but whole populations do not migrate and never have. 

If the first Africans all migrated out of Africa, there would be no Africans remaining there today! 

This is not the case. What you're suggesting is so bogusly wrong and desperate, that it would be laughed off by any serious historian or population study. 

I've seen AM trying to explain this to you as well. You've not grasped this simple point for well over 20 pages now. 

Do you understand it?


----------



## Flintlock

^First of all, this isn't a seasonal mass-migration like a herd of animals, so stop making it out to be one.

It is a progressive eastward shift of settlements due to changes in climate over several centuries. Do you get it? 

Please tell us, that why are the post-harappan cultures which immediately follow the decline of the IVC nearer to the Gangetic plains than before? 
If there were indeed post-harappans civilizations in the exact same location as the harappan ones, where is the archaeological evidence? 
Or did your Harappans suddenly turn into nomads?

Here are Harapan Sites: (before 1700 BC)






Here are the Cemetery H culture maps (after 1700 BC) and the succeeding Painted Gray Ware Culture (after 1100 BC)



That is the "Shift in the Center of Gravity" that the Documentary talks about. The people moved over time further into the gangetic plains (which btw were uninhabited during the Harappan era) and established new cultures over there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> ^First of all, this isn't a seasonal mass-migration like a herd of animals, so stop making it out to be one.
> 
> It is a progressive eastward shift of settlements due to changes in climate over several centuries. Do you get it?



You still havent grasped the point. This is the final time I'll repeat it for you. If you fail to grasp it now, you're simply not listening and choosing to be in denial. 

What YOU are suggesting is the people simply got up and evacuated the Indus Valley and resettled at some point gradually going Eastward. 

This is NOT, NEVER, EVER the migrational process. Populations simply do not just get up and leave their homelands. Populations even in modern day do not relocate ubiqutously when there are genocidal famines. We know that the Rig Vedic people settled in the Indus Valley after the IV civilization, and created their own civilization that flourished. Therefore, the area of the Indus Valley was quite habitable even after the demise of the IVC. 

Therefore your thinking that the population of the IVC simply got up and evacuated the IVC and settled in the Ganges is bogus. Migration has never been like you describe. AM has understood this point, it's taken you 20 pages to not understand it. What's the problem here? 

I'll tell you why there's an Eastward shift of cultures, such as Painted Ware in your maps. Because it's precisely as the maps suggest. A shift in culture, and not people!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> What YOU are suggesting is the people simply got up and evacuated the Indus Valley and resettled at some point gradually going Eastwar
> Therefore your thinking that the population of the IVC simply got up and evacuated the IVC and settled in the Ganges is bogus. Migration has never been like you describe. AM has understood this point, it's taken you 20 pages to not understand it. What's the problem here?
> 
> I'll tell you why there's an Eastward shift of cultures, such as Painted Ware in your maps. Because it's precisely as the maps suggest. A shift in culture, and not people!!



So are you saying that the Harappans simpy stopped building houses, making pottery, and generally doing what a settled people do, after the demise of the IVC? Why are there no (or less) post-harappan settlements in the Indus Valley? 

I think its you who is finding it hard to understand that there is very little archaeological evidence of human habitation in the region of the harappan sites after the demise of the IVC.

You are also finding it hard to understand that the Gangetic plains were largely devoid of human habitation before the Harappan people migrated in to create the Cemetary H and Painted Gray Ware cultures.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## niaz

IMO the main problem is the definition of &#8220;India&#8221;. The region is so big and diverse that it is not a country but a&#8221; Subcontinent&#8221;. On this basis both the arguments that i.e. Pakistan is separate entity and also that it is part of India can be successfully argued. Frontiers of the modern British India extended beyond the limits of ancient definition of India. For example, Baluchistan has historically never been a part of &#8216;Bharat&#8217;. Baluchistan alternated between Iran and Afghanistan. 

At Naqshe Rustam in Iran, there is a tablet which mentions various Satrapies or provinces of the Sasanian Empire. Punjab area is mentioned as the one generating the most revenue. Thus most of what is Pakistan was part of Iran for a few centuries.

If one examines the extent of area under different kings; all except Ashoka, Alauddin Khilji and Aurangzeb; only ruled north India. Great Kanishka rule included central Asia, Punjab and Uttar Pardesh. Other great Indian kings, such as Chandra Gupt Maurya only ruled North India. Gupta&#8217;s kingdom was also north of the Deccan plateau. Last of the great Indian kings Harshvardhna did no better.

Indo Greeks (180 BC to 10 AD) ruled the areas of NWFP and Punjab including Haryana. Ghaznavids, after being kicked by the Suljuqis ruled Punjab until 1180. At that time India proper started at Sirhind, on the border of Punjab. Arabs ruled extended to Sindh and parts of Southern Punjab.

Raja Man Singh had trepidations crossing the Indus River when he was made Governor of Kabul by Akbar, say thing Bart ended at Attock. South had several centuries of Independent Bahmani and Vijaynagar kingdoms.

Indus civilization is so old; the name of country is meaningless. It is called Indus valley civilization rather than Indian civilization. Therefore the whole debate appears pointless.


----------



## Vinod2070

> For example, Baluchistan has historically never been a part of &#8216;Bharat&#8217;. Baluchistan alternated between Iran and Afghanistan.



That is correct. Pakistan is composed of two clearly distinct entities: The tribal areas West of Sindhu (which were mostly Westward looking) and the areas East of Sindhu which have always had a distinct affinity to their East. It has always been a challenge for Pakistan to effectively merge these two distinct entities.

The 1947 partition did happen in a manner that combined these two disparate entities 

The Indus valley civilization lies mostly to the East of Sindhu AFAIK and has little to do with the tribal people West of Sindhu.

I guess the areas East of Sindhu are the heart of Pakistan, the vast majority of Pakistani population lives there, the majority of industries, agriculture and cultural aspects are also in these areas. These are the areas that will take Pakistan forward as a nation. they account for the majority of advancements happening in the country.

These are exactly the areas which are most difficult to separate from the ancient Indian civilization.


----------



## roadrunner

niaz said:


> Frontiers of the modern British India extended beyond the limits of ancient definition of India.



Difficult to say. 

The actual definition of ancient India is what? The Greek definition, then perhaps this is right, or the Rig Vedic definition, in which case it's not right. 



> For example, Baluchistan has historically never been a part of &#8216;Bharat&#8217;. Baluchistan alternated between Iran and Afghanistan.



Balochistan has never been part of Bharat, true, but it was a predecessor of the IVC, and in fact related to the IVC. 

But it has not been part of Iran. Persia as Iran was historically known, was not related closely to the Nal culture of Balochistan, but this was related to the IVC culture. 



> Indus civilization is so old; the name of country is meaningless. It is called Indus valley civilization rather than Indian civilization. Therefore the whole debate appears pointless.



I'll disagree to that. The IVC is old, but this does not mean one should disregard any of the history. There's no cut-off where history becomes insignificant. What makes a civilization insignificant is the degree of advancement of it. The IVC was very advanced, and therefore is an important civlization (together with its names) of the Indus Valley. 

Calling it the Indus Valley Civilization just illustrates the confusion that has been created in recent years due to the naming at partition.


----------



## TopCat

niaz said:


> IMO the main problem is the definition of India. The region is so big and diverse that it is not a country but a Subcontinent. On this basis both the arguments that i.e. Pakistan is separate entity and also that it is part of India can be successfully argued. Frontiers of the modern British India extended beyond the limits of ancient definition of India. For example, Baluchistan has historically never been a part of Bharat. Baluchistan alternated between Iran and Afghanistan.
> 
> At Naqshe Rustam in Iran, there is a tablet which mentions various Satrapies or provinces of the Sasanian Empire. Punjab area is mentioned as the one generating the most revenue. Thus most of what is Pakistan was part of Iran for a few centuries.
> 
> If one examines the extent of area under different kings; all except Ashoka, Alauddin Khilji and Aurangzeb; only ruled north India. Great Kanishka rule included central Asia, Punjab and Uttar Pardesh. Other great Indian kings, such as Chandra Gupt Maurya only ruled North India. Guptas kingdom was also north of the Deccan plateau. Last of the great Indian kings Harshvardhna did no better.
> 
> Indo Greeks (180 BC to 10 AD) ruled the areas of NWFP and Punjab including Haryana. Ghaznavids, after being kicked by the Suljuqis ruled Punjab until 1180. At that time India proper started at Sirhind, on the border of Punjab. Arabs ruled extended to Sindh and parts of Southern Punjab.
> 
> Raja Man Singh had trepidations crossing the Indus River when he was made Governor of Kabul by Akbar, say thing Bart ended at Attock. South had several centuries of Independent Bahmani and Vijaynagar kingdoms.
> 
> Indus civilization is so old; the name of country is meaningless. It is called Indus valley civilization rather than Indian civilization. Therefore the whole debate appears pointless.



Alll true but there are missing pieces... How the hell Buddism ended up in Afganistan????


----------



## Flintlock

iajdani said:


> Alll true but there are missing pieces... How the hell Buddism ended up in Afganistan????



For that matter, how were large parts of Afghanistan ruled by Hindu Shahi kings.


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock said:


> For that matter, how were large parts of Afghanistan ruled by Hindu Shahi kings.



Hinduism is a very poorly defined religion. Didn't the Supreme Court of India once state that Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are sub sects of Hinduism?
Even today the religion can hardly be defined, so when talking about a period 1400 years ago, certain Historians ignorantly claim all non-Muslims to have been Hindus in one form or another.

And this vague definition of Hinduism goes on to define 'Ancient India'.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> Indian people can and do relate to Gandhara. Of course they do - the Gandharan culture was nothing but one of the the predecessors of the modern Indian culture, so obviously trying to label as "anything but Indian" is completely false.



That makes no sense - many civilizations and people have had influences from other civilizations and cultures, that does not mean that every set of peoples impacted by another can lay claim to that people or culture.

Pakistanis have been impacted significantly by the Arabs and Islam, but Arab history is not our history, nor is their culture our culture, nor would it be appropriate for Pakistanis to claim it (unless some believe they are descendant from Arabs I suppose).


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> But not the Indian civilization!



No such thing.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Friend, settlements are always constructed over older ones, which is why archaeological digs are done in "levels". If the Harappan sites have been excavated, they would have to uncover the most recent settlements first and the older settlements later. Obviously, that would mean that the post-harappan settlements (if any) would have been discovered.
> 
> You could possibly argue that there are some undiscovered settlements which are waiting to be uncovered, but that's mere speculation for now, and highly unlikely IMO.



Again, if the settlements were continuously inhabited, torn down, new structures raised on the same spot or torn down and used for agriculture, what would remain of them?

Secondly, it is a far more fantastic explanation and leap of faith to argue (without any evidence) that the entire region became uninhabited and barren, than it is to suggest that the region was populated continuously.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> The Indus valley civilization lies mostly to the East of Sindhu AFAIK and has little to do with the tribal people West of Sindhu.



Not completely true:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...ns-ancient-ties-pakistan-5000-bc-present.html


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> No such thing.



Achievements of ancient Indian civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> Achievements of ancient Indian civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Which has been recommended for merger with "Ancient India" (the region), which itself lists various civilizations and cultures.

Sorry, no such thing as an "Indian civilization".


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Not completely true:
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...ns-ancient-ties-pakistan-5000-bc-present.html



Yes, I have seen that thread. A small part of Baluchistan immediately adjoining the Sindhu was a part of the IVC.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Which has been recommended for merger with "Ancient India" (the region), which itself lists various civilizations and cultures.
> 
> Sorry, no such thing as an "Indian civilization".



Correct, that civilization is a shared heritage of all peoples of the region.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> Yes, I have seen that thread. A small part of Baluchistan immediately adjoining the Sindhu was a part of the IVC.




Mehergarh is pretty far West according to this map, close to Quetta.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> Correct, that civilization is a shared heritage of all peoples of the region.



That is 'a civilization' and 'a culture', among the numerous others that existed in the region, hence no such thing as 'Indian civilization'.

Your statement above has nothing to do with your initial incorrect argument.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> That is 'a civilization' and 'a culture', among the numerous others that existed in the region, hence no such thing as 'Indian civilization'.
> 
> Your statement above has nothing to do with your initial incorrect argument.



I stand corrected on the issue of the spread of IVC to Baluchistan.



> hence no such thing as 'Indian civilization'.



This is obviously something that no reputed historian in the world will agree to. Just see any among the hundreds of books on the topic, do an internet search, take a history course anywhere outside Pakistan, see the various documentaries on BBC or other TV channels and you will find this term that correctly identifies the civilization of this land of ours. Not to take away anything from the local variations which are again incredibly rich in themselves but combined they create a beautiful mosaic.

Sorry, this is just a view held by a very small clique in Pakistan!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> This is obviously something that no reputed historian in the world will agree to. Just see any among the hundreds of books on the topic, do an internet search, take a history course anywhere outside Pakistan, see the various documentaries on BBC or other TV channels and you will find this term that correctly identifies the civilization of this land of ours. Not to take away anything from the local variations which are again incredibly rich in themselves but combined they create a beautiful mosaic.
> 
> Sorry, this is just a view held by a very small clique in Pakistan!



By that argument, that 'mosaic' also flows into Afghanistan and Persia, and from there into the Islamic/Arab heartlands as influences from various regions overlap - the same to the East of India, where cultures and peoples slowly blend and weave into different identities. There is hardly ever any abrupt end/beginning of culture.

I do see the term "ancient Indian civilizations", as being accurate. However, in the context of Delta and your comments, the usage was incorrect, or your comment of 'there was an Indian civilization' was incorrect - since you chose to tie it to the modern Indian state, when the usage of that term (ancient Indian civilizations) refers to a region.


----------



## niaz

My post has raised many questions. I shall try to answer these one by one.

There is an inscription in Qandhar which suggests that the city was part of the Ashoka&#8217;s Empire (perhaps the greatest King of subcontinent). Additionally, Begram in Afghanistan was one of the Capitals of the Kushans of Mahayana Buddhist Faith and Gandhara was one the seats of learning in the Buddhist world. I would say that area of modern Afghanistan was under the Buddhist influence for 500 years until 300 AD. Probably this was among the regions ceded to Chander Gupt Maurya by Seleucids.

Hindu Shahi Kings who ruled the area of modern Afghanistan were Scythians (Sakas). These were East Iranian people who replaced Indo Greeks as rulers of Modern Afghanistan and Punjab and adopted Hindu faith. They were still around until the advent of Islam.

Hon Roadrunner, there is no such thing as Vedic definition of India. In Mahabharata epic, the areas of Pakistan mentioned are Gandhara, Panchala and Sindhu Desh. There is no mention of any state located in what is now called Baluchistan.

I would tend to agree with Hon Vinod2070 that parts of Pakistan West of Indus have little historical connection to India whereas East of Indus region of Pakistan has a lot in common with the north Indians. Additionally, there have been long periods of history when even East of Indus region has been separate kingdom such as during the Indo Greeks, White Huns or Hephtalites (capital Sialkot), Arabs and Ghaznavids.

Thus my assertion that both arguments have historical basis. As Kuldip Nayyar says, he found Pakistanis as friend and foe combined into one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Flintlock

Gosh, I dunno, is worshipping Ganesh and Shiva considered Hinduism? 
_
Kolkata, Jan 4: A stone inscription in Sanskrit, recovered from the city of Mazar-i-Sharif of northern Afghanistan a few years ago, has thrown new light on the reign of the Hindu Shahi ruler `Veka' in that country.

The recovery and significance of the inscription, telling a story of the Hindu ruler Veka and his devotion to lord `Siva', was told by leading epigraphist and archaeologist Prof Ahmad Hasan Dani of the Quaid-E-Azam University of Islamabad at the ongoing Indian History Congress here.

The inscription, with eleven lines written in `western Sarada' style of Sanskrit of 10th century AD, had several spelling mistakes. ``As the stone is slightly broken at the top left corner, the first letter `OM' is missing'', he said._
Inscription throws new light to Hindu rule in Afghanistan

Ganesh idol recovered from Gardez:



Afghan Association of America website:

AfghanHindu.com - Afghan Hindu Association





UnitedPak said:


> Hinduism is a very poorly defined religion. Didn't the Supreme Court of India once state that Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are sub sects of Hinduism?
> Even today the religion can hardly be defined, so when talking about a period 1400 years ago, certain Historians ignorantly claim all non-Muslims to have been Hindus in one form or another.
> 
> And this vague definition of Hinduism goes on to define 'Ancient India'.


----------



## Flintlock

Erm, even if they were torn down or whatever, they would have left evidence - pottery, tools, gems, human remains etc. etc. 

You don't seem to understand how archaeology works. If there was post-harappan habitation, the evidence would have been found and the maps would have been marked with "x-culture". But they are not.

Also, direct evidence is not a leap of faith. What is a leap (a giant one at that) is that inspite of there being no human remains, you are claiming human habitation.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Again, if the settlements were continuously inhabited, torn down, new structures raised on the same spot or torn down and used for agriculture, what would remain of them?
> 
> Secondly, it is a far more fantastic explanation and leap of faith to argue (without any evidence) that the entire region became uninhabited and barren, than it is to suggest that the region was populated continuously.


----------



## Flintlock

God, you people are tying yourself up in knots. 

Lets see your various claims:

There was no ancient Indian civilization (contradicts most historians, but fine)

There was an ancient Pakistani civilization (gosh, and somehow the same arguments that are used to trash the concept of Indian civilization don't seem to apply here!)

Pakistan is actually Ancient India,( and yet, Pakistani civilization isn't Ancient Indian civilization!)

Look. Most historians (except perhaps our two resident historians UP and RR) refer to Ancient Indian civilization as a single entity with variou sub-branches. 
If you don't want to accept that, fine by me, but that doesn't change the facts in the real world. 

Check out the number of google books on "Indian Civilization":

ancient indian civilization - Google Book Search

ancient indian civilization - Google Book Search



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> That makes no sense - many civilizations and people have had influences from other civilizations and cultures, that does not mean that every set of peoples impacted by another can lay claim to that people or culture.
> 
> Pakistanis have been impacted significantly by the Arabs and Islam, but Arab history is not our history, nor is their culture our culture, nor would it be appropriate for Pakistanis to claim it (unless some believe they are descendant from Arabs I suppose).


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> God, you people are tying yourself up in knots.
> 
> Lets see your various claims:
> 
> There was no ancient Indian civilization (contradicts most historians, but fine)
> 
> There was an ancient Pakistani civilization (gosh, and somehow the same arguments that are used to trash the concept of Indian civilization don't seem to apply here!)
> 
> Pakistan is actually Ancient India,( and yet, Pakistani civilization isn't Ancient Indian civilization!)
> 
> Look. Most historians (except perhaps our two resident historians UP and RR) refer to Ancient Indian civilization as a single entity with variou sub-branches.
> If you don't want to accept that, fine by me, but that doesn't change the facts in the real world.
> 
> Check out the number of google books on "Indian Civilization":
> 
> ancient indian civilization - Google Book Search
> 
> ancient indian civilization - Google Book Search



Again, in the context of referring to the various cultures and regions of 'ancient India - synonymous with South Asia,i.e region, the usage is correct, as would be the reference 'ancient Asian civilization' etc.

Given Delta, Vinod and my exchange however, the context was more in terms of nationhood. 

I think the only ones tying themselves in knots are the ones claiming some sort of homogeneous entity and civilization throughout thousands of years in South Asia.


----------



## roadrunner

niaz said:


> My post has raised many questions. I shall try to answer these one by one.
> 
> There is an inscription in Qandhar which suggests that the city was part of the Ashoka&#8217;s Empire (perhaps the greatest King of subcontinent). Additionally, Begram in Afghanistan was one of the Capitals of the Kushans of Mahayana Buddhist Faith and Gandhara was one the seats of learning in the Buddhist world. I would say that area of modern Afghanistan was under the Buddhist influence for 500 years until 300 AD. Probably this was among the regions ceded to Chander Gupt Maurya by Seleucids.



Noone denied that Afghanistan was a centre of Buddhist learning and advancement, did they? 



> Hindu Shahi Kings who ruled the area of modern Afghanistan were Scythians (Sakas). These were East Iranian people who replaced Indo Greeks as rulers of Modern Afghanistan and Punjab and adopted Hindu faith. They were still around until the advent of Islam.



No. This is false. The term "Hindu" is trivialized by many, just as the term "India" is trivialized. Whether it's laziness or whatever. 

The derivation of Hindu is this. From Sindhu comes Hindu. Now, Hindu was simply a "citizen" of Sind to the Persian foreigners who knew of the Saptha Sindhu. Remember Hindu is actually a Persian word. 

Therefore when you say Hindu in this quote of yours, you're referring to a time when Hindu was not in reference to religion, but as a citizenship. 

I do hope you know the derivation of the word "Hindu", and that Hinduism per se was never practised in its current form in Afghanistan. 

Vedism was practised in Afghanistan to a degree, but this was a completely separate philosophy to Hinduism. 



> Hon Roadrunner, there is no such thing as Vedic definition of India. In Mahabharata epic, the areas of Pakistan mentioned are Gandhara, Panchala and Sindhu Desh. There is no mention of any state located in what is now called Baluchistan.



Well, that's all confused. 

The Mahabharata is a Hindu book, not a Vedic book. 

The Mahabharata was written somewhere in the Ganges. 

It does include references to Gandhara, to perhaps Sindhu Desh ( I have not read it), but the important point is that the Mahabhrata was written much later than the Rig Veda. The Rig Veda was the book of the Vedics, and the Vedic people are the ones that "christened" the Saptha Sindhu. 

I noticed a statue of Ganesh on the previous page, as somehow proof that Afghanistan was ruled by Hindus. This is ridiculous by any extent, almost as ridiculous as the one found in the Urals. All this proves is that trade between later day Hindus and Gardez inhabitants did occur. It does not prove they were all Hindus in Gardez or anywhere else. 

Ganesh was a later day God of Hindus. He was not anything to do with Pakistan or Afghanistan. 



> I would tend to agree with Hon Vinod2070 that parts of Pakistan West of Indus have little historical connection to India whereas East of Indus region of Pakistan has a lot in common with the north Indians. Additionally, there have been long periods of history when even East of Indus region has been separate kingdom such as during the Indo Greeks, White Huns or Hephtalites (capital Sialkot), Arabs and Ghaznavids.
> 
> Thus my assertion that both arguments have historical basis. As Kuldip Nayyar says, he found Pakistanis as friend and foe combined into one.



The people of Punjab share a history to an extent with the people of Indian Punjab and a degree with those of the neighbouring state, but definitely not all of North India without clarification. 

It's not really possible to say that there's a big differential between the west and east of Pakistan historically. If you look at most empires they've tended to include both East of the Indus and West of the Indus. You've given a couple of examples which are wrong. All these kingdoms were in a state of flux, constantly. Picking one kingdom during one time period and saying this represents the whole history of that kingdom is just disingenuous. An example here is the Hephthalite kingdom at 500 AD. 







You can see that the kingdom included West and East of the Indus. If you go a bit before this however, you'll find it was only West of the Indus. So to assert the whole empire's chronology was based on the initial hepthalite period is wrong. 

Whether you want to claim lack of movement across the Indus is up to you, I don't think it's particularly relevant. The people have generally been subjected to the same recent histories though.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Erm, even if they were torn down or whatever, they would have left evidence - pottery, tools, gems, human remains etc. etc.
> 
> You don't seem to understand how archaeology works. If there was post-harappan habitation, the evidence would have been found and the maps would have been marked with "x-culture". But they are not.
> 
> Also, direct evidence is not a leap of faith. What is a leap (a giant one at that) is that inspite of there being no human remains, you are claiming human habitation.



You are claiming some sort of massive climactic event or catastrophe, despite nothing to back it up. Shifts from the cities to surrounding countryside have occurred in other parts of the world as well, as I pointed out - it does not mean the population was wiped out.

For the sake of being specific, what periods are you contesting, in terms of the lack of human presence in the areas of Pakistan?


----------



## roadrunner

The whole theory of populations just uprooting themselves and fleeing, despite the fact several highly successful civilization followed the IVC shows imo 

1) That there was no cataclysmic event, of which there's not even any historical or geological proof of 

and 

2) The whole Indus Valley was very inhabitable. 

When you combine it with the fact that not a single population in the history of human existence has smply decided one day to get up and leave a perfectly inhabitable land which was *their home*, it makes the whole theory ludicrous.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock you are way to angry about Pakistanis getting familiar with their roots to understand anything we are telling you. South Asia is massive, there are so many different people in Pakistan alone with their own roots, cultures and history.
To define Pakistani history and civilisation we are looking at the history and identity of *all the Pakistani people.*
'Indian civilisation' should be defined by the history and civilisation of the Indian people instead of being defined by the British Indian empire.

There are always connections with neighbouring regions and nobody has denied this. We can all agree that Middle East has a lot of shared history. But no single country or people can claim everything. Egyptians dont claim Iranian history. Iranians dont claim Egyptian history etc.
Even if all Arabs unite, Moroccans wont claim Palestinian history etc.

You always seem to ignore the fact that South Asia is a very diverse place.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

I'll second that UP, but add further to the example of the Middle East (explained many times here). 

If Morrocco renames itself "Middle East" in the future, with the present Middle East known as "Al-Arabiya", does all the history of Al-Arabiya now become Morrocco's history? 

The answer is a firm no. 

You can see how much confusion this creates. What is annoying is the way Indians are proactively trying to ignore any qualification, which is simple dishonesty, cheating, lying, disingenuity etc etc. A simple, Ancient India (now Pakistan) would suffice. But since this is never going to happen, Ancient Pakistan must be used. I see it as looting imo.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

The confusion with names is only confined to some guys here.

When we talk of Indian civilization, we don't talk of the modern Indian nation. No one claimed as such.

It belongs to all people who were historically a part of that civilization. Whatever be their current country. That civilization is not as cut and dry as modern boundaries.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> By that argument, that 'mosaic' also flows into Afghanistan and Persia, and from there into the Islamic/Arab heartlands as influences from various regions overlap - the same to the East of India, where cultures and peoples slowly blend and weave into different identities. There is hardly ever any abrupt end/beginning of culture.
> 
> I do see the term "ancient Indian civilizations", as being accurate. However, in the context of Delta and your comments, the usage was incorrect, or your comment of 'there was an Indian civilization' was incorrect - since you chose to tie it to the modern Indian state, when the usage of that term (ancient Indian civilizations) refers to a region.



Yes, I would agree that the mosaic may overlap with other civilizations at the boundaries but anyone who wants to see can see a distinct difference between tha major civilizations of our region. The Indian civilization, the Persian civilization and the Chinese civilization.

Persian civilization was pervasive much beyond the borders of Modern Iran, Chinese civilization is pervasive across most of East Asia much outside her current borders and the same is the case with Indian civilization. Its extent was much beyond our current borders.

There are obviously areas where these civilizations merged and the mosaic became possibly even more beautiful and colorful.


----------



## roadrunner

Vinod2070 said:


> The confusion with names is only confined to some guys here.
> 
> When we talk of Indian civilization, we don't talk of the modern Indian nation. No one claimed as such.
> 
> It belongs to all people who were historically a part of that civilization. Whatever be their current country. That civilization is not as cut and dry as modern boundaries.



No, it does not. 

Going back to my example where Morrocco decides to rename itself the Middle East and the Middle East is known as Al-Arabiyah. 

Why is Egyptian history shared with Morroccan history in this case? 

I don't expect you to be able to answer this, but try.


----------



## Vinod2070

Read my second post and think for an hour.

If it is still not clear, do let me know and I will try my best to make it even easier.


----------



## roadrunner

Vinod2070 said:


> Read my second post and think for an hour.
> 
> If it is still not clear, do let me know and I will try my best to make it even easier.



I thought you wouldn't be able to answer it. That proves it all. 

I know AM has tried rationalizing with you, unsuccessfully, so I'm not about to. 

I will say this though, even though I realize you'll choose to be in denial. 

The Middle East has a history of hundreds of civilizations. Therefore the history of the Middle East is not that of a civilization. The history of the Middle East encompasses hundreds of civilizations. Therefore you can say "Ancient Indian civilizations" - Indian civilization is wrong, and it's been pointed out. 

This isn't my point. I don't care whether you want to call it a civilization or civilizations. 

My point is to do with the term "India". This is where the Morrocco/Middle East comparison comes in. 

I'll even adhere to your guidelines to draw an answer out of you. 

Here goes. 

*In 50 years time, Morrocco decides to rename itself the Middle East and the Middle East is known as Al-Arabiyah. Egypt was a Middle Eastern civilization in the past, so can we now say that the pyramids were designed/built by the Berbers of Morrocco? * - this is where the attempted looting of Pakistan's history is occurring - go on Indian websites, and they talk of the IVC, even Gandhara as their own civilizations!!


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> You are claiming some sort of massive climactic event or catastrophe, despite nothing to back it up. Shifts from the cities to surrounding countryside have occurred in other parts of the world as well, as I pointed out - it does not mean the population was wiped out.
> 
> For the sake of being specific, what periods are you contesting, in terms of the lack of human presence in the areas of Pakistan?



No, I'm not claiming anything. I am basing my posts on reputable research. 

The researcher that I'm referring to is not claiming some catastrophe which wiped out the population. I mean comeon. You watched the video, you read my posts, and yet you are typing this. Either you are unwilling to understand or unable to understand. I suspect it is the former rather than the latter. 

Now, what the researcher is saying, which by the way is backed up by archaeological evidence, is that gradual climate change, i.e. weakening of the summer monsoon and drying up of the Ghaggar-hakra river, led to the decline of the Harappan civilization and the gradual migration (not a sudden migration like a flock of birds, but a progressive eastward shift of settlements) of the people eastwards into the fertile gangetic plains. 

The archaeological evidence backs this up. The regions around Harappa and Mohenjodaro do not show evidence of human habitation after the decline of the IVC. The sites around the Ghaggar hakra riverbed were also devoid of human habitation after the decline of the IVC.

On the other hand, the successor cultures, the Cemetery-H culture for example, are located further east of the core Harappan settlements in hitherto uninhabited lands, clearly indicating that the population shifts took place over time. 
The successor of the cemetery H culture - i.e. the Painted Gray Ware culture, is located even further eastward in the Gangetic plains.
*
Even primitive rural habitations leave archaeological evidence.* Infact the Cemetary H and PWG cultures were not urban at all, but rural communities. Urban life in the subcontinent disappeared after the only to reemerge during the Mahajanapada era of Iron age kingdoms, much later.

There was no sudden abandonment, no great catastrophe, no massacre etc. etc. So please stop bringing up red herrings.


----------



## Flintlock

*Hindu Shahi Dynasty in Afghanistan:*
_
Kolkata, Jan 4: *A stone inscription in Sanskrit, recovered from the city of Mazar-i-Sharif of northern Afghanistan *a few years ago, has thrown new light on the reign of the *Hindu Shahi ruler `Veka' i*n that country.

The recovery and significance of the inscription, telling a story of the Hindu ruler Veka and *his devotion to lord `Siva'*, was told by leading epigraphist and* archaeologist Prof Ahmad Hasan Dani of the Quaid-E-Azam University of Islamabad at the ongoing Indian History Congress here.*

The inscription, with eleven lines written in `western Sarada' style of Sanskrit of 10th century AD, had several spelling mistakes. ``As the stone is slightly broken at the top left corner, the first letter `OM' is missing'', he said._
Inscription throws new light to Hindu rule in Afghanistan




_When the Chinese visitor Hsuan-tsang visited Kapisa (about 60 km north of modern Kabul) in 7th century, the local ruler was a Kshatriya king Shahi Khingala.* A Ganesha idol has been found near Gerdez that bears the name of this king, see Shahi Ganesha.*_\
Shahi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Obviously, since the name of the Khatriya King Shahi Kingala is mentioned on the Ganesh Idol, it clearly indicates not only that the Ganesha idol is from the same historical period as the Shahi Kings, but also that it was worshipped by the king. 

Coins:


_Obv: Recumbent bull facing left, trishula on bulls rump, Devnagari Legends : Sri Spalapati Deva. Rev: Rider bearing lance on caparisoned horse facing right._





_Obv: Rider bearing lance on caparisoned horse facing right.Devnagari Legends : 'bhi '?. Rev:Recumbent bull facing left, trishula on bulls rump, Devnagari Legends : Sri Samanta Deva._

Shahi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_

The first Hindu Shahi dynasty was founded in 870 AD by Kallar (see above). The kingdom was bounded on the north by the* Hindu kingdom of Kashmir*,* on the east by Rajput kingdoms*, on the south by the Muslim Emirates of Multan and Mansura, and on the west by the Rashidun Caliphate.* In 671 AD Muslim armies seized Kabul and the capital was moved to Udabhandapura[86], where they became known as the Rajas of Hindustan.*_
_
The Hindu Shahi, a term used by history writer Al-Biruni[92] to refer to the ruling Hindu dynasty[93] that took over from the Turki Shahi and ruled the region during the period prior to Muslim conquests of the tenth and eleventh centuries._
_
Archeological sites of the period, including a* major Hindu Shahi temple north of Kabul and a chapel in Ghazni*, *contain both the pre-dominant Buddhist and Hindu statuary, suggesting that there was a close interaction between the two religions.*
_

Several 6th or 7th century A.D Buddhist manuscripts were found out from a stupa at Gilgit. One of the manuscripts reveals the name of a Shahi king Srideva Sahi Surendra Vikramaditya Nanda. See Gilgit Manuscripts.

_The kings of Kashmir were related to the Shahis through marital and political alliance.* Didda, a famous queen of Kashmir was a granddaughter of the Brahmin Shahi Bhima*, who was married to Kshema Gupta (r. 951 - 959). Bhima had visited Kashmir and built the temple Bhima Keshava._


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Again, in the context of referring to the various cultures and regions of 'ancient India - synonymous with South Asia,i.e region, the usage is correct, as would be the reference 'ancient Asian civilization' etc.



Sure, you're right, but the fact that the people of "Ancient India" followed the same religion, culture and social structure as the modern Indians, means that the modern day India is infact the inheritor of the ancient Indian civilization, even if the region now in Pakistan and Afghanistan has passed into the Middle-Eastern civilization.


.


> I think the only ones tying themselves in knots are the ones claiming some sort of homogeneous entity and civilization throughout thousands of years in South Asia.



Hardly. Nobody is claiming that Indian civilization was homogenous. Indian civilization's trademark is diversity. It is still one civilization, as real historians (not internet warriors) will agree.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

Afghanistan followed Vedism and Buddhism, not Hinduism. 

Shiva was a God, allbeit minor of the Rig Veda - Rudra. 

Now Ganesh is definitely Gangetic. And finding a stature of Ganesh anywhere in the world is not uncommon given the trade links. 

You're trying to find Hinduism everywhere, when not even you intellectuals agree with you. 

_"*It was not hinduism that existed in Afghanistan, it was Vedic culture.*" _
Asian/Middle Eastern History: expanse of hinduism, muslim genocide, river chenab 

-NB The guy is politicizing Kashmir. Kashmir was an influential Buddhist kingdom always.


----------



## Vinod2070

roadrunner said:


> I thought you wouldn't be able to answer it. That proves it all.



Sure it does for you. But then you were always convinced, so nothing new here!



> I know AM has tried rationalizing with you, unsuccessfully, so I'm not about to.
> 
> I will say this though, even though I realize you'll choose to be in denial.



Obviously, I think the same for you. You are almost always in denial. Remember Kasab?



> The Middle East has a history of hundreds of civilizations. Therefore the history of the Middle East is not that of a civilization. The history of the Middle East encompasses hundreds of civilizations. Therefore you can say "Ancient Indian civilizations" - Indian civilization is wrong, and it's been pointed out.



As I said and as all reputed historian agree, it is not wrong. You would find Indian civilization being referred to as such by almost everyone who matters.



> This isn't my point. I don't care whether you want to call it a civilization or civilizations.
> 
> My point is to do with the term "India". This is where the Morrocco/Middle East comparison comes in.
> 
> I'll even adhere to your guidelines to draw an answer out of you.
> 
> Here goes.
> 
> *In 50 years time, Morrocco decides to rename itself the Middle East and the Middle East is known as Al-Arabiyah. Egypt was a Middle Eastern civilization in the past, so can we now say that the pyramids were designed/built by the Berbers of Morrocco? * - this is where the attempted looting of Pakistan's history is occurring - go on Indian websites, and they talk of the IVC, even Gandhara as their own civilizations!!



It is irrelevant for the most part. Your example does not fit the case and will tie you in knots if you dwell too much on it.

I gave you the examples of Persian and Chinese civilizations whose influence was over a much bigger area than the current boundaries of Iran and China. You may take the example of the Roman empire again. Their extent was all over Europe and ME at a time. But modern Italy is much smaller than that. It is still rightly called the Roman empire. Italians (and other people who were a part of it) are definitely the inheritors of that legacy irrespective of the modern borders.

You are not able to see the simple fact that modern geography is not the sole basis for the nomenclature of an ancient civilization. You go to many East Asian countries like Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Cambodia etc. and you will find them heavily influenced by the same Indian civilization. They won't even dispute with the name. The Chinese were majorly influenced by the same civilization and they acknowledge that as such.

I know this will not help you get out of your denial, but hey, I did my bit!


----------



## Vinod2070

Flintlock said:


> Sure, you're right, but the fact that the people of "Ancient India" followed the same religion, culture and social structure as the modern Indians, means that the modern day India is infact the inheritor of the ancient Indian civilization, even if the region now in Pakistan and Afghanistan has passed into the Middle-Eastern civilization.
> 
> Hardly. Nobody is claiming that Indian civilization was homogenous. Indian civilization's trademark is diversity. It is still one civilization, as real historians (not internet warriors) will agree.



Those are exactly my thoughts on the issue too.

The civilization was a common heritage.

We are the only ones that are carrying on with the legacy still. This fact is acknowledge by all.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Afghanistan followed Vedism and Buddhism, not Hinduism.



This is getting ridiculous. This "vedism" you talk about, I don't accept, which is basically an arbitrary line the you've drawn in the evolution of hinduism by citing a few verses from the Rig Veda. 

Even if we do acept that distinction for discussion purposes, the "vedism" that you talk was sometime around 1100 BC. Here we are talking about 1100AD - i.e. 2000 years hence. 



> Shiva was a God, allbeit minor of the Rig Veda - Rudra.



That just shows your narow mentality and thinking. Shiva is a complex diety with many different roots, one of which is rudra of the Rig Veda. 

Having said that, the inscription mentions "Shiva", not "Rudra", and hence it is the modern Shiva of Shaivism, which is practiced all over India.



> Now Ganesh is definitely Gangetic. And finding a stature of Ganesh anywhere in the world is not uncommon given the trade links.



Except that this particular ganesh (if you bothered to read my post which you clearly haven't) has an inscription mentioning the name of the Hindu Shahi King on it. 



> You're trying to find Hinduism everywhere, when not even you intellectuals agree with you.
> 
> _"*It was not hinduism that existed in Afghanistan, it was Vedic culture.*" _
> Asian/Middle Eastern History: expanse of hinduism, muslim genocide, river chenab



God, stop embarassing yourself. Allexperts.com? Really? 

And here I am needlessly citing REAL sources written by REAL historians. 

Your double standards when it comes to sources is so bloody obvious. On one hand you claim that the BBC and a famous researcher at imperial college is promoting the "Hindutva agenda", and on the other hand you quote "allexperts.com" as a source for your claims. 



> -NB The guy is politicizing Kashmir. Kashmir was an influential Buddhist kingdom always.



Kashmir was a Hindu-Buddhist mixed kingdom. God, can't you do a simple google search? Here's the famous Martand temple in Kashmir:





_

The Sun Temple at Martand. Like the Sun Temple at Konark, the Martand temple was one of the greatest Indian temple structures. Kashmir had some of the most important temples in the early period in India. _

Shiva Temple:




_ The Siva temple at Pandarethan, Srinagar, circa eighth to ninth century. _


_ A Siva statue found at the great temple at Fatehgarh, Baramulla district. _


Three-faced Siva. This large and magnificent sculpture, which shows three aspects of Siva and displays the typical Kashmiri style, is one of the finest depictions of the deity in the subcontinent.


_ Vishnu on Garuda, circa 12th century. _




_
*Parihaspura, In the eight century, it was one of the greatest Hindu and Buddhist religious centres in Kashmir, The remains of magnificent stupas and temples testify to the glory of Parihaspura. * _

Source: http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2109/stories/20040507000106500.htm

*Infact, Kashmir has a mixed Hindu-Buddhist past with many sites used simultaneously by both Hindus and Buddhists.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Vinod2070 said:


> I gave you the examples of Persian and Chinese civilizations whose influence was over a much bigger area than the current boundaries of Iran and China. You may take the example of the Roman empire again. Their extent was all over Europe and ME at a time. But modern Italy is much smaller than that. It is still rightly called the Roman empire. Italians (and other people who were a part of it) are definitely the inheritors of that legacy irrespective of the modern borders.
> 
> You are not able to see the simple fact that modern geography is not the sole basis for the nomenclature of an ancient civilization. You go to many East Asian countries like Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Cambodia etc. and you will find them heavily influenced by the same Indian civilization. They won't even dispute with the name. The Chinese were majorly influenced by the same civilization and they acknowledge that as such.
> 
> I know this will not help you get out of your denial, but hey, I did my bit!



You've not answered my question, as I thought you would not. I will ask it you again. 

Anyhow, in the above post, you mention the Persian Empire being a lot larger than modern day Iran, and it is modern day Iran that inherits everything in the Persian Empire. 

I say no it does not. Whatever happened within the borders of modern day Pakistan during the Persian Empire is Pakistani history. Whatever happened within the borders of modern day Iran is Iranian history. 

For example, Pakistan can claim to have been part of the Persian Empire, however it cannot claim to have aided the Persian fight against the Greeks at Thermopyle since it had nothing to do with it, despite being part of the Persian Empire at the time. 

You perhaps can see that Pakistan cannot claim anything that the land or the people of Pakistan's ancestors were not involved in. 

This, however is a bad example. 

The Persian Empire is fine. It's not like they've renamed their country that that of another historical country and claimed the history of that historical country. So your digressing, poorly I might add.


----------



## Vinod2070

The name Kashmir itself has been derived from the tale of Rishi Kashyap.



> The Valley of Kashmir was once the great lake Satisar. According to Hindu texts, the Hindu sage Kashyapa drained a lake lying north of the Pir Panjal Range by cutting the mountain near Varamulla. The sage then encouraged people from India to settle in the valley that was formed after the lake was drained. *The locals named the valley Kashyap-Mar and Kashyap-Pura in honour of the sage. The name Kashmir is derived from ka (the water) and shimeera (to desiccate), so the word Kashmir implies land desiccated from water. The lake was very holy to the population until it drained*.



Jammu and Kashmir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> *Infact, Kashmir has a mixed Hindu-Buddhist past with many sites used simultaneously by both Hindus and Buddhists.*



What on earth are you trying to prove with these silly little pictures of statues and temples? 

They prove absolutely nothing, except make you feel like you've answered some question satisfactorily using a load of baloney and junk. 

Kashmir was a centre of Buddhism, yes. 

It was not significantly Hindu at anytime in its history. 

Yes, you can find Siva idols there (Siva is a Rig Vedic God too), and yes you can find Vedic Temples there. 

This proves what exactly? Absolutely nothing. You can find statues of Ganesh all over the world, in the Ural mountains, or in Greece, anywhere. 

You can find temples to Buddhism and Vedism in Kashmir, yes, these were popular religions. 

What you will not find in Kashmir are any substantial amounts of statues or temples of Krishna or the other Gangetic Gods, because these are all arisen from Hinduism.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

Vinod2070 said:


> The name Kashmir itself has been derived from the tale of Rishi Kashyap.
> 
> 
> 
> Jammu and Kashmir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



LOL. Kashmir derives from a meaning that is "land from water". That is its literal translation. 

What you've quoted is a story


----------



## roadrunner

You two are sidetracking the major issues with irrelevant postings, like of the meaning of Kashmir, and the rest of the junk. 

The major issue is this. You've still not answered it. 

I'll post it again 

*"In 50 years time, Morrocco decides to rename itself the Middle East and the Middle East is known as Al-Arabiyah. Egypt was a Middle Eastern civilization in the past, so can we now say that the pyramids were designed/built by the Berbers of Morrocco?" *

If your answer is yes, then give a reason. 

If no, then you've acknowledged that the Indian fraud of stealing Pakistan's history is wrong.


----------



## Vinod2070

roadrunner said:


> You've not answered my question, as I thought you would not. I will ask it you again.
> 
> Anyhow, in the above post, you mention the Persian Empire being a lot larger than modern day Iran, *and it is modern day Iran that inherits everything in the Persian Empire.
> *
> I say no it does not. Whatever happened within the borders of modern day Pakistan during the Persian Empire is Pakistani history. Whatever happened within the borders of modern day Iran is Iranian history.



I never said that.

Iranians can legitimately call themselves the inheritors to that legacy except for the fact that some or many of them may have now started hating that history after their invasions and subsequent events. I know the Ayatollahs there raise their brows over festivals like Navroz now!

If let's say a substantial part of Persia had remained Zoroastrian and still carried forward that legacy, I would surely say that they are the real inheritors of the legacy of Persian civilization though it was a shared one when it happened irrespective of the current geography.

If the other part of Persia had denigrated that legacy for a thousand years before suddenly waking up and calling a major part of that legacy as exclusive to themselves based on the current geography, it would make sense only to themselves!

Please do not mix civilization and history. Anything that happened in any part of Persian empire would be a shared legacy of all parts of that empire.



> For example, Pakistan can claim to have been part of the Persian Empire, however it cannot claim to have aided the Persian fight against the Greeks at Thermopyle since it had nothing to do with it, despite being part of the Persian Empire at the time.
> 
> You perhaps can see that Pakistan cannot claim anything that the land or the people of Pakistan's ancestors were not involved in.
> 
> This, however is a bad example.
> 
> The Persian Empire is fine. It's not like they've renamed their country that that of another historical country and claimed the history of that historical country. So your digressing, poorly I might add.



This renaming thing is only an issue for you. A part of India (actually 2, in the East and West) separated in 1947 and chose to go it's own way based on religious divisiveness. That is all there is to it.

There was no renaming of India. Plain and simple.

Any argument derived from this false premise is false by definition!


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> What on earth are you trying to prove with these silly little pictures of statues and temples?
> 
> They prove absolutely nothing, except make you feel like you've answered some question satisfactorily using a load of baloney and junk.
> 
> Kashmir was a centre of Buddhism, yes.
> 
> It was not significantly Hindu at anytime in its history.



Gosh, then I wonder who financed those massive Hindu temples. Lets see - who gives grants to build religious structures - the King of course! 

its the ruler of the land who grants both land and often finances the construction of religious structures. Are you telling me that the "Silly temples" sprung up on their own without royal patronage.

if you do, then you are seriously historically challenged.



> Yes, you can find Siva idols there (Siva is a Rig Vedic God too), and yes you can find Vedic Temples there.




Haha. Once again showing your ignorance, and completely ignoring my post about how the modern Shiva is NOT a Rigvedic god but he significantly evolved his identity for several thousand years.
The "Rudra" of the Rigved and modern "Shiva" are not the same thing.



> This proves what exactly? Absolutely nothing. You can find statues of Ganesh all over the world, in the Ural mountains, or in Greece, anywhere.



Sure, but you can't find so many temples or such a large amount of artefacts, now can you? 



> You can find temples to Buddhism and Vedism in Kashmir, yes, these were popular religions.



They were also practiced simulataneously, often using the same holy sites, indicating Syncretic traditions.

And BTW - the word is Hinduism, not Vedism, which isn't even a word.

Oh sorry, it is a word:

http://www.vedism.in/



> What you will not find in Kashmir are any substantial amounts of statues or temples of Krishna or the other Gangetic Gods, because these are all arisen from Hinduism.



Gangetic gods? What the hell are those? Are you telling me that Shiva and Vishnu are not popular Indian gods today? Are they not Hindu gods? 

Krishna is just ONE god, out of many. How does the fact that there is no krishna here prove anything? Grow up please.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> You two are sidetracking the major issues with irrelevant postings, like of the meaning of Kashmir, and the rest of the junk.
> .



I believe the title of the thread is "Ancient History", so there are no irrelevant postings here. 

Secondly your "junk" comment clearly shows that its YOU who is sidetracking. 

If you don't want to reply to those posts, then don't! Why are you complaining?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Hinduism is a very poorly defined religion. Didn't the Supreme Court of India once state that Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are sub sects of Hinduism?
> Even today the religion can hardly be defined, so when talking about a period 1400 years ago, certain Historians ignorantly claim all non-Muslims to have been Hindus in one form or another.
> 
> And this vague definition of Hinduism goes on to define 'Ancient India'.



Hinduism might not have an exact definition, but at the same time, it is very easy to distinguish between Hinduism and other religions. 

If you remove Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism from the mix, the major Hindu deities like Surya Dev, Ganesh, Shiva, Vishnu, and many more which are popular even today, would indicate the Hindu religion. 

The fact is that the Hindu Shahi kings worshipped Shiva (and Not the Rigvedic Rudra as RR is trying to claim) and Ganesha (as attested by the Ganesh statue with the King's inscription on it). This would clearly make them Hindus. Not some other religion, and definitely not the primitive hinduism (or "Vedism" as RR calls it) of the Rigvedic times which basically disappeard and evolved into Hinduism a couple of thousand years back.

Your post is akin to claiming that the Greek Paganism was not one religion because they worshipped many gods, some of which were popular or unpopular at different times, and all evolved their identites as time passed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> Haha. Once again showing your ignorance, and completely ignoring my post about how the modern Shiva is NOT a Rigvedic god but he significantly evolved his identity for several thousand years.
> The "Rudra" of the Rigved and modern "Shiva" are not the same thing.



Rudra is Siva. It's a fact Siva exists in the Rig Veda. 

If Afghanistan was following a Hindu religion, why can't you find any Krishna temples, or Krishna insciptions, since Krishna is Hindus main deity. 

I'll tell you why. Because Afghanistan never followed Hinduism. 

It followed Vedism, which was the precursor to modern Hinduism.


----------



## Vinod2070

How many Zoroastrian temples are present in modern Iran?

Did it never follow Zoroastrianism?


----------



## Flintlock

LOL.. learn the basics of Hinduism please:
_
Hinduism as we know it can be subdivided into a number of major currents. Of the historical division into six darshanas, only two schools, Vedanta and Yoga survive.* The main divisions of Hinduism today are Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Smartism and Shaktism.* *The vast majority of present day Hindus can be categorized under one of these four groups, although there are many other, partly overlapping, allegiances and denominations.*
Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_


roadrunner said:


> Rudra is Siva. It's a fact Siva exists in the Rig Veda.
> 
> If Afghanistan was following a Hindu religion, why can't you find any Krishna temples, or Krishna insciptions, since Krishna is Hindus main deity.
> 
> I'll tell you why. Because Afghanistan never followed Hinduism.
> 
> It followed Vedism, which was the precursor to modern Hinduism.



LOL - Krishna is NOT the "main deity". Where do you get this stuff? Infact, Shiva is worshipped by far more people than Krishna in India today. 

Get your basics right Mr. RR, before passing judgment on Hinduism.

Here, read the wikipedia article on Shaivism:

Shaivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And on the basic Hindu denominatons:

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


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> LOL.. learn the basics of Hinduism please:
> _
> Hinduism as we know it can be subdivided into a number of major currents. Of the historical division into six darshanas, only two schools, Vedanta and Yoga survive.* The main divisions of Hinduism today are Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Smartism and Shaktism.* *The vast majority of present day Hindus can be categorized under one of these four groups, although there are many other, partly overlapping, allegiances and denominations.*
> Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> _



I couldnt care less about the modern divisions of Hinduism. 

It was never anything to do with my point, only your proselytizing. 



> LOL - Krishna is NOT a "main deity". Infact, Shiva is worshipped by far more people than Krishna in India today.



I'm not talking about today. Krishna is a latter day God. It is not a Rig Vedic God, and therefore is not found in Afghanistan or Pakistan. 

Krishna is a Gangetic God. This is a Hindu God. 



> Get your basics right Mr. RR, before passing judgment on Hinduism.
> 
> Here, read the wikipedia article on Shaivism:
> 
> Shaivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I've no time for wiki. 

I know who Siva and the Gods of the Rig Vedic people are. I know who the Gods of the Gangetic people are. There's a difference. You can carry on waffling and proselytizing as you like. 

Ask any historian about the differences between the Rig Vedic people, and Hindus. The differences between their societies and Hindu societies. You'll be educated.


----------



## Flintlock

So, erm, the people who worship Shiva in India are following "Rig Vedic Religion"?

Gosh, I wonder what the Shaivites of Tamil Nadu will think about the "Gangetic Gods" and "Non Gangetic Gods". Laughable.

And wait, you totally forgot the Ganesha Idol in Afghanistan with the King's name on it!! 

Not very sharp today, eh RR?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Flint:*


> Now, what the researcher is saying, which by the way is backed up by archaeological evidence, is that gradual climate change, i.e. weakening of the summer monsoon and drying up of the Ghaggar-hakra river, led to the decline of the Harappan civilization and the gradual migration (not a sudden migration like a flock of birds, but a progressive eastward shift of settlements) of the people eastwards into the fertile gangetic plains.



This now brings us back to a discussion we had a while back. The major centers of the IVC were around the Indus, not the alleged Ghagar-Hakra, and there is doubt over whether the Ghagar Hakra even existed. So if the center of the civilization, the Indus plains, and the source of its life (The Indus river) continued to exist, why would the region become uninhabited?

It is possible, as I said earlier, that there was a gradual shifting/migration of people to the east as the population of the IVC grew, and these people dispersed the IVC culture etc as the moved east, but there is nothing to show that the Indus dried up or climactic change rendered both the Indus and the alleged Ghagar Hakra dry, and therefore forced all of the inhabitants East.

The movement of people East was 'overflow', with IVC peoples continuing to inhabit the Indus plains.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *Flint:*
> 
> 
> This now brings us back to a discussion we had a while back. The major centers of the IVC were around the Indus, not the alleged Ghagar-Hakra, and there is doubt over whether the Ghagar Hakra even existed. So if the center of the civilization, the Indus plains, and the source of its life (The Indus river) continued to exist, why would the region become uninhabited?
> 
> It is possible, as I said earlier, that there was a gradual shifting/migration of people to the east, an these people dispersed the IVC culture etc as the moved east, but there is nothing to show that the Indus dried up or climactic change rendered both the Indus and the alleged Ghagar Hakra dry, and therefore forced the inhabitants East.



Okay, I never claimed that the Indus ran dry. But Climate Change does suggest that the Ghaggar-Hakra river ran dry, as shown in the video. 

Now, there were post-Harappan settlements along the Indus river, but for some reason, they were few and far between. 

Clearly, we don't know the reason. But what _is _clear, is that the bulk of the post-Harappan settlements moved further from the Indus and deeper into the Gangetic plains as time progressed.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> It belongs to all people who were historically a part of that civilization. Whatever be their current country. That civilization is not as cut and dry as modern boundaries.



I disagree - if the Indus Civilization only had a peripheral impact on the people in South India and East India, then what claim do they have on this civilization and culture?


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> So, erm, the people who worship Shiva in India are following "Rig Vedic Religion"?
> 
> Gosh, I wonder what the Shaivites of Tamil Nadu will think about the "Gangetic Gods" and "Non Gangetic Gods". Laughable.
> 
> And wait, you totally forgot the Ganesha Idol in Afghanistan with the King's name on it!!
> 
> Not very sharp today, eh RR?



You're just being silly now, and following me round my threads. 

This is not worth a reply, but i'll give it one. 

A statue of Ganesh means very little. There's such things as trade routes and I don't doubt some Bharatis used these trade routes and brought with them statues of Ganesh and whatever else. This proves very little, except trade did occur. 

You're now deliberately confusing the issue about the Rig Vedic Gods. You know perfectly well that I'm right, and so you're resorting to obfuscation. 

I'll put it clear. 

You can worship Shiva in modern day India and be a Hindu. 

You could have worshipped Siva in Ancient Afghanistan and been a Vedic. 

Shiva/Rundra is not the crucial piece of the puzzle. 

It's the Gangetic Gods like Krishna that are never found in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Why is this? I'll tell you why. Because Hinduism in its modern form with the Gangetic Gods was never practised in Afghanistan or Pakistan. 

Vedism was. 

It's clearly explained. I don't need to repeat this again.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I disagree - if the Indus Civilization only had a peripheral impact on the people in South India and East India, then what claim do they have on this civilization and culture?



Do the achivements of Islamic Civilization belong to all Muslims? Sincere question.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Okay, I never claimed that the Indus ran dry. But Climate Change does suggest that the Ghaggar-Hakra river ran dry, as shown in the video.
> 
> Now, there were post-Harappan settlements along the Indus river, but for some reason, they were few and far between.
> 
> Clearly, we don't know the reason. But what _is _clear, is that the bulk of the post-Harappan settlements moved further from the Indus and deeper into the Gangetic plains as time progressed.



But here we are just quibbling over numbers. 

More discovered does not mean that the majority of the people moved East. We after all can only get snapshots of history through archeology, and some areas offer richer information than others, depending upon a variety of factors.

I am familiar with the argument of the Ghagar-Hakkra, but at the same time it seems illogical that when that river dried, the entire existing IVC people, even those around the Indus, started shifting East. 

While some would shift East, it is reasonable to expect that many, humans seeking familiarity as part of their nature, would shift West to become part of the remainder of the IVC along the banks of the Indus.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Do the achivements of Islamic Civilization belong to all Muslims? Sincere question.



Personally, I do not see an Arab's achievement as being mine. I think the answer will vary depending upon the individual.

I think I posited on this before - people have layers of identity. These layers are composed of nationality, ethnicity, faith etc. The order and importance of these layers varies for each individual - for me faith is a part of my idnetity, but not strong enough for me to claim the achievements of Arabs, Indonesians or Malaysians. They are different people.

From the point of view of 'faith', yes, the achievements of Muslims belong to all Muslims, since Islam talks of a bond of brotherhood amongst all Muslims, but the achievements of Iraqis and Iranians do not belong to Pakistanis, nor do we claim them in our history books as Pakistanis.

That make sense?


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> But here we are just quibbling over numbers.



Its all in the numbers bhai. 



> More discovered does not mean that the majority of the people moved East. We after all can only get snapshots of history through archeology, and some areas offer richer information than others, depending upon a variety of factors.



In that case lets stop studying archaeology! Sorry, but we have to go where the archaeological evidence takes us. 



> I am familiar with the argument of the Ghagar-Hakkra, but at the same time it seems illogical that when that river dried, the entire existing IVC people, even those around the Indus, started shifting East.



Well, I guess the BBC lacks common sense then. 

But look at the map:


There are settlements along the Indus valley as you can see, but there is a clear eastward shift in the "centre of gravity". 

Dr. Gupta said in the video that the Summer Monsoon had weakened, which IMO means that less rainfall, erratic rainfall, probably that's the reason why they chose to migrate eastward. 
After all, they were not irrigation farmers, they depended on the rain for harvests. So if the monsoon weakened, the river would be of no use without some irrigation system, so they moved to areas with better rainfall.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> You could have worshipped Siva in Ancient Afghanistan and been a Vedic.
> 
> Shiva/Rundra is not the crucial piece of the puzzle.
> 
> It's the Gangetic Gods like Krishna that are never found in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
> 
> Why is this? I'll tell you why. Because Hinduism in its modern form with the Gangetic Gods was never practised in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
> 
> Vedism was.
> 
> It's clearly explained. I don't need to repeat this again.



Except, my friend, the "Vedism" that you talk about died out, lets see, in 500BC!! 
_
The beliefs and practices of the* pre-classical era (1500&#8211;500 BCE) *are called* the "historical Vedic religion".* _
Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hindu Shahi Kings ruled during the* 8th to 10th centuries AD*, clearly indicating that they were worshipping the deity Shiva as he is recognized in current day Hinduism, and not the Rigvedic deity. Get the point?

One more Important thing - the word SHIVA is never mentioned in Rig Veda. Infact, the word Shiva first appears here: 

_The &#346;vet&#257;&#347;vatara Upanishad (400 - 200 BCE)[21] is the earliest textual exposition of a systematic philosophy of Shaivism.[22]_
History of Shaivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shiva is a product of the Gupta age - of Classical Hindiusm !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Well, I guess the BBC lacks common sense then.
> 
> But look at the map:
> 
> 
> There are settlements along the Indus valley as you can see, but there is a clear eastward shift in the "centre of gravity".
> 
> Dr. Gupta said in the video that the Summer Monsoon had weakened, which IMO means that less rainfall, erratic rainfall, probably that's the reason why they chose to migrate eastward.
> After all, they were not irrigation farmers, they depended on the rain for harvests. So if the monsoon weakened, the river would be of no use without some irrigation system, so they moved to areas with better rainfall.



What I gather about the cemetery H culture is that it was one of 3 cultures that developed out of the IVC. Cemetery H out of the northern IVC. There was also the Gandhara grave culture that remained largely exclusive to Pakistan.

So I do not see a shift in the 'center of gravity of the IVC'. I see the decline of the IVC and its remnants branching off into various cultures, one of which 
was the Cemetery H.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> What I gather about the cemetery H culture is that it was one of 3 cultures that developed out of the IVC. Cemetery H out of the northern IVC. There was also the Gandhara grave culture that remained largely exclusive to Pakistan.
> 
> So I do not see a shift in the 'center of gravity of the IVC'. I see the decline of the IVC and its remnants branching off into various cultures, one of which
> was the Cemetery H.



Erm, the Gandhara Grave Culture is associated with the arrival of the Aryan migrants from Central Asia (BMAC). (1500 BC to 500 BC)

The Cemetary - H culture (1900 BC) was a significant shift eastward from the IVC, and the later Painted Gray Ware culture (1100 BC) succeeded the Cemetery H culture.

Remember, before Cemetery H, the Gangetic plains were uninhabited, thickly forested.

The painted gray ware culture on the other hand is associated with the Mahabharata.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

And the question still remains, what happened to the IVC people settled along the banks of the Indus, that did not go dry?


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> And the question still remains, what happened to the IVC people settled along the banks of the Indus, that did not go dry?



Well, they seem to have moved out! 

The actual number of sites along the Indus is quite less:


*In a survey conducted by M.R. Mughal between 1974 and 1977, over 400 sites were mapped along 300 miles of the Hakra river.*[8] The majority of these sites were dated to the fourth or third millennium BCE.[9]

*S. P. Gupta however counts over 600 sites of the Indus civilization on the Hakra-Ghaggar river and its tributaries.*[10][11] *In contrast to this, only 90 to 96 Indus Valley sites have been discovered on the Indus and its tributaries (about 36 sites on the Indus river itself.)*[12][13][14] *V.N. Misra[15] states that over 530 Harappan sites (of the more than 800 known sites, not including Late Harappan or OCP) are located on the Hakra-Ghaggar*.[16] *The other sites are mainly in Kutch-Saurashtra (nearly 200 sites), Yamuna Valley (nearly 70 Late Harappan sites) and in the Indus Valley, in Baluchistan, and in the NW Frontier Province (less than 100 sites).*

Ghaggar-Hakra river - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Erm, the Gandhara Grave Culture is associated with the arrival of the Aryan migrants from Central Asia (BMAC). (1500 BC to 500 BC)
> 
> The Cemetary - H culture (1900 BC) was a significant shift eastward from the IVC, and the later Painted Gray Ware culture (1100 BC) succeeded the Cemetery H culture.
> 
> Remember, before Cemetery H, the Gangetic plains were uninhabited, thickly forested.
> 
> The painted gray ware culture on the other hand is associated with the Mahabharata.



Gandhara is considered one of the cultures that developed from the IVC, but yes, supposedly in conjunction with the arrival of the Aryan immigrants - which I imagine implies a melding of the two peoples and cultures. So it quite obviously involves the IVC, or it wouldn't be classified as one of three major off shoots of the IVC like the cemetery H would it?

I have also read that the Painted Greyware was influenced by the local (to the Gangetic plains) Black and Redware culture along with the cemetery H, how does that tie in with uninhabited Gangetic plains?


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> Except, my friend, the "Vedism" that you talk about died out, lets see, in 500BC!!
> _
> The beliefs and practices of the* pre-classical era (1500&#8211;500 BCE) *are called* the "historical Vedic religion".* _
> Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The Hindu Shahi Kings ruled during the* 8th to 10th centuries AD*, clearly indicating that they were worshipping the deity Shiva as he is recognized in current day Hinduism, and not the Rigvedic deity. Get the point?
> 
> One more Important thing - the word SHIVA is never mentioned in Rig Veda. Infact, the word Shiva first appears here:
> 
> _The &#346;vet&#257;&#347;vatara Upanishad (400 - 200 BCE)[21] is the earliest textual exposition of a systematic philosophy of Shaivism.[22]_
> History of Shaivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Shiva is a product of the Gupta age - of Classical Hindiusm !



Worshipping Siva in the 10th century does not prove it was anything to do with the Gangetic form of Hinduism. Vedism didn't just stop in 400 BC. People started converting to Buddhism, but remnants of Vedics remained, as do remnants of Zoroastrians in Iran. 

The Vedic society also had Rundra/Siva as a God. These Shahi kings did not come from the Ganges, they were in all likelihood from Central Asia or from Iran. Therefore it would not be the Gangetic form of Hinduism that they would have picked up. 

You are assuming it's Hinduism. I'm explaining to you, your assumption can be wrong, and probably is, due to triviaizing the words "India" and "Hindu". 

Either way, this is a very small time period, and the predominant religions of pre-Islamic Afghanistan were Buddhism and Vedism, not Hinduism.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Gandhara is considered one of the cultures that developed from the IVC, but yes, supposedly in conjunction with the arrival of the Aryan immigrants - which I imagine implies a melding of the two peoples and cultures. So it quite obviously involves the IVC, or it wouldn't be classified as one of three major off shoots of the IVC like the cemetery H would it?


 
Not really - the Gandhara Grave Culture doesn't appear to have mixed with the people of the IVC. 

The later cultures - the Cemetery H for example, are considered the nucleus of the Vedic civilization that fused the culture of the IVC people and the arriving Aryan migrants.



> I have also read that the Painted Greyware was influenced by the local (to the Gangetic plains) Black and Redware culture along with the cemetery H, how does that tie in with uninhabited Gangetic plains?



Erm, Black and Redware culture I think is post-Rigvedic, perhaps late bronze age and early Iron-age.

The Gangetic plains were uninhabited during the IVC period, that's what I meant.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Worshipping Siva in the 10th century does not prove it was anything to do with the Gangetic form of Hinduism. Vedism didn't just stop in 400 BC. People started converting to Buddhism, but remnants of Vedics remained, as do remnants of Zoroastrians in Iran.
> 
> The Vedic society also had Rundra/Siva as a God. These Shahi kings did not come from the Ganges, they were in all likelihood from Central Asia or from Iran. Therefore it would not be the Gangetic form of Hinduism that they would have picked up.
> 
> You are assuming it's Hinduism. I'm explaining to you, your assumption can be wrong, and probably is, due to triviaizing the words "India" and "Hindu".
> 
> Either way, this is a very small time period, and the predominant religions of pre-Islamic Afghanistan were Buddhism and Vedism, not Hinduism.



Erm, except for the fact that the inscription says SHIVA. How did they learn the word Shiva without coming into contact with the Shaivite texts?


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I disagree - if the Indus Civilization only had a peripheral impact on the people in South India and East India, then what claim do they have on this civilization and culture?



You are right. No direct claim. But they would be justified in thinking it to be a part of the broader Indian civilization.

Same as North Indians were no part of the Chola empire but still feel pride of that civilization's achievements. I personally felt that I was in some way a part of that civilization when I recently visited the grand temples of Tamilnadu.

They were mostly Siva temples and also temples to other Hindu Gods/goddesses like Saraswati etc. Extremely unique in their construction and still following the various rituals as they would a 1000 years back.

I don't think I am wrong in thinking that I belong to that civilization as I can directly relate to it. Even though a South Indian can always challenge me to it and he would own it more than me.

Now suppose Tamilnadu became a separate country in 1947. Should it change these dynamics?


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I disagree - if the Indus Civilization only had a peripheral impact on the people in South India and East India, then what claim do they have on this civilization and culture?



Erm because they are part of modern India, so yes, they do have a direct claim. 
If they were not part of the same country today, then things would be different.


----------



## Vinod2070

I see another variant of the discredited kasab kalava theory (and the non-existent Hindi speaking of kasab) playing out all over again.

The facts clearly give a lie to the useless crap of trying to differentiate Vedism/Hinduism. Let's accept this and move on.


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock said:


> Erm because they are part of modern India, so yes, they do have a direct claim.
> If they were not part of the same country today, then things would be different.



Your views dont make any sense. If Tamil Indians have no links to Assamese history, they cant claim Assamese identity even if they both are part of India.
But assuming your logic; this was only the case during the British Raj. Pakistan and India were under one huge empire, and the people were referred to as "Indians".
But now the people of the Indus are not part of the same country/empire, so things *are* different.

Indian people have no links to the Indus region, therefore they cant claim the region as part of their heritage. (in reality they couldn't do this during the British Raj either.)

No wonder you have to make use of the mass migration and vanishing river theories.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rubyjackass

Here is some of what the world knew India for in history.

India was east of Indus(may be you will argue that it just the Present Pakistani region)
India was rich.
India's religion is hinduism(There was no one religion as such. People came to call them collectively as hinduism ).
India was ruled by hindu kings.
India then adopted Buddhism and propogated it.
India was invaded by Muslims.
India was then ruled by muslim rulers with Delhi as its capital.
India a population of many religions.
India ruled by the British.

This is how India was defined in people's minds.

Which geographical region and population now shows most allegiance to the above connections?

Clearly the present India...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Your views dont make any sense. If Tamil Indians have no links to Assamese history, they cant claim Assamese identity even if they both are part of India.
> But assuming your logic; this was only the case during the British Raj. Pakistan and India were under one huge empire, and the people were referred to as "Indians".
> But now the people of the Indus are not part of the same country/empire, so things *are* different.



How many Pakistanis are direct descendants of the IVC people? Not too many. Most are descendants of migrating tribes which arrived in Pakistan long after the demise of the IVC.

So, do these people have a direct claim on the IVC? Yes, you would say. Why? Because they are part of the same country - Pakistan.

Similarly, all Indians have a claim on Indian history.



> Indian people have no links to the Indus region, therefore they cant claim the region as part of their heritage. (in reality they couldn't do this during the British Raj either.)



They do, as I demonstrated in the thread. The Indus people themselves interacted with the Aryan people to give rise to Indian civilization.



> No wonder you have to make use of the mass migration and vanishing river theories.



Guilt by association?


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

Flintlock said:


> How many Pakistanis are direct descendants of the IVC people? Not too many. Most are descendants of migrating tribes which arrived in Pakistan long after the demise of the IVC.


 do you have any proof? I mean solid material that everyone can agree upon. do you have genetic evidence to suggest that the people in Pakistan are not descendants of the Indus people?


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock said:


> How many Pakistanis are direct descendants of the IVC people? Not too many. Most are descendants of migrating tribes which arrived in Pakistan long after the demise of the IVC.



The people of Pakistan have never been replaced by anybody. A small number of invaders mixing with the local population happens everywhere. Pakistanis are the *natives of the land.*

Indians on the other hand have no links to the Indus region. You have not demonstrated anything. Rambling about a vanishing river and ancient mass migrations without any evidence is not going to convince anybody.

Are you seriously claiming that India was uninhabited when IVC declined around 1500 BC? Humans settled in India 30 000 years ago.
I don't understand why you are so obsessed with Pakistani history. Every period has a convenient explanation to associate it with Indian people. Pakistani people don't exist/haven't invaded yet


----------



## Vinod2070

> do you have any proof? I mean solid material that everyone can agree upon. do you have genetic evidence to suggest that the people in Pakistan are not descendants of the Indus people?



But surely far too many claim Arabic or Central Asian or Persian descent!

Who knows that better? Why would an invader settling from Arabia have any claim over that history and not the people of this country itself!


----------



## Flintlock

asaad-ul-islam said:


> do you have any proof? I mean solid material that everyone can agree upon. do you have genetic evidence to suggest that the people in Pakistan are not descendants of the Indus people?



I don't think I have genetic evidence (primarily because I am clueless about haplogroups and genetic markers and all that).

However, all you have to do is make a list of ethnic groups in Pakistan, and then trace their migration histories. I think I once did post something similar in this thread, or the India naming thread. 

Now, it is true that no population groups remain "pure", modern Pakistanis did probably mix with the descendants of the IVC people, but then the same can be said for South Indians also - its not like South Indians were an isolated group of people who never mixed with North Indians.


----------



## Flintlock

Vinod2070 said:


> But surely far too many claim Arabic or Central Asian or Persian descent!
> 
> Who knows that better? Why would an invader settling from Arabia have any claim over that history and not the people of this country itself!



Modern Balochis are an Iranian people I think - they have little to do with the IVC people.
Same for the people of NWFP, FATA and these areas. 

As far as Punjabis and Sindhis are concerned, there have been a number of migrations into these areas throughout the post-harappan history, starting with the Aryan invasions, Sakas, Hunas, Kushans, and finally the Islamic invasions, so a significant portion (I cannot say exactly how much) would be foreign (with respect to IVC obviously).

So would the people of Pakistani who arrived after the decline of the IVC be entitled to claim it as their own civilization? 

The problem is, of course, that it is entirely subjective. Things like "ownership of history" depend on the terms in which you define ownership.

If you define ownership in terms of descent, then things are different. If you define ownership in terms of belonging to the same country, then again, it would be different.


----------



## roadrunner

In much the same way that Indian space technology is bought and adopted from the Russian space program, the spread of Cemetart H abd Painted ware cultures was also adopted. 

The Russians did not migrate, the technology migrated. 

Similarly, the IVC did not migrate, its culture migrated. 

The suggestion that a cataclysmic event of nature occurred is ridiculous given that the River Indus hasn't changed its course for millenia, and flourishing civilizations have occurred straight after the IVC is a far fetched theory which goes against the bulk of evidence.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> In much the same way that Indian space technology is bought and adopted from the Russian space program, the spread of Cemetart H abd Painted ware cultures was also adopted.
> 
> The Russians did not migrate, the technology migrated.
> 
> Similarly, the IVC did not migrate, its culture migrated.
> 
> The suggestion that a cataclysmic event of nature occurred is ridiculous given that the River Indus hasn't changed its course for millenia, and flourishing civilizations have occurred straight after the IVC is a far fetched theory.



Bhai, why don't you counter the evidence instead of re-stating and re-re-stating your position?


----------



## roadrunner

It's been countered before. 

If I said it again would it make a difference?


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> It's been countered before.
> 
> If I said it again would it make a difference?



You didn't, you just sidetracked by claiming that all the evidence is falsified/hindutva propoganda/ridiculous etc.


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock said:


> Now, it is true that no population groups remain "pure", modern Pakistanis did probably mix with the descendants of the IVC people, but then the same can be said for South Indians also - its not like South Indians were an isolated group of people who never mixed with North Indians.



While Pakistani populations did mix with invaders, they are still the natives of the Indus, whereas the Indian population has no links with the Indus region.

Flintlock, when you lose the argument of Pakistanis not being natives to the land, you move on to equally flawed arguments of Pakistanis being "too mixed" to identify with their own ancestors. *Even if* the invaders outnumbered the local population when mixing, Indians are still completely foreign to the Indus region.

Invasions, mass migrations, landscape changes? I can only see these as desperate attempts at eliminating all presence of the Indus civilisation from the region.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> But surely far too many claim Arabic or Central Asian or Persian descent!



That is anecdotal, not a scientific observation, nor does someone claiming somethign make it true. We have gone over this multiple times, yet you insist on repeating this.


> Who knows that better? Why would an invader settling from Arabia have any claim over that history and not the people of this country itself!


If they married into the local population, their offspring would continue to be descendants of the ancient IVC, Aryans and Arabs - so they woudl have a claim to that history.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Erm because they are part of modern India, so yes, they do have a direct claim.
> If they were not part of the same country today, then things would be different.



That is based on the retrospective argument of a modern entity - not a historical association, and in fact validates my point about no "Indian Civilization" vs " ancient Indian Civilizations".

The "Indian Civilization" argument is a result of modern Indian nationalism, and the need to offer a revisionist argument of a historically united entity and civilization.


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Invasions, mass migrations, landscape changes? I can only see these as desperate attempts at eliminating all presence of the Indus civilisation from the region.



Well, perhaps you should contact those desperate researchers instead! 

I'm afraid that your perception of it being a 'desperate attempt' doesn't change facts!


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> That is based on the retrospective argument of a modern entity - not a historical association, and in fact validates my point about no "Indian Civilization" vs " ancient Indian Civilizations".



Fine by me, but I consider all attempts at "owning" history as false because arguments can be made at all levels that would deny such ownership.

As Niaz said the IVC is so old that attempts to associate it with a country are meaningless.

However, if Pakistan wants to claim IVC as a Pakistani civilization, then very strong arguments can be made that IVC was an Indian civilization as well, and if migration patters are anything to go by, then the people of the Gangetic plains are the descendants of the IVC people ( as elucidated in the BBC documentary).



> The "Indian Civilization" argument is a result of modern Indian nationalism, and the need to offer a revisionist argument of a historically united entity and civilization.



As I said, all arguments that associate the IVC with a country are potentially revisionist and nationalist in character.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> That is anecdotal, not a scientific observation, nor does someone claiming somethign make it true. We have gone over this multiple times, yet you insist on repeating this.
> 
> If they married into the local population, their offspring would continue to be descendants of the ancient IVC, Aryans and Arabs - so they woudl have a claim to that history.



Yes, we seem to be going in circles over this.

I don't completely disagree to the second part as long as the person in question does not claim the foreign identity to be his primary one even now after a thousand years.


----------



## asq

hay Flint lock this Argument can go on for ever, without proving any point as u will continue to argue in your favor and so on.

Let me make a point that in today's time we should see what can we done to avoid a catastrophe and what can be done to be reasonable and fair and what can be done to solve all the problems between the two countries.

Every time both sides are near a solution something happens and thing go back to square one.did you ever stop and think that why is that and did you ever think that even though it was terrible what happened in Bombay, that if we do not continue to the end to make peace, only those who intend to see a catastrophe will win.

Why does Indian establishment not see it, i tell you why, they think like a bully. and do not care to make peace, and start a nasty incident and go back to square one. except Bombay indicant which has yet to go through all its phases, all other incidants were carried out by Indian citizens in one way or another.

Wiser are those who under such circumstances work harder to achieve the right goal to signal those who are bent on bringing dooms day that their wished will never come true.

May your leaders see the light and do the right thing.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Not really - the Gandhara Grave Culture doesn't appear to have mixed with the people of the IVC.
> 
> The later cultures - the Cemetery H for example, are considered the nucleus of the Vedic civilization that fused the culture of the IVC people and the arriving Aryan migrants.



How can the Ghandara Grave culture be classified as one of three major phases that developed out of the IVC, as did teh Cemetery H, if it did not have links to the IVC.
*
"The Gandhara grave people have been associated by most scholars with early Indo-Aryan speakers, and the Indo-Aryan migration into India, that, fused with indigenous elements of the remnants of the Indus Valley Civilization (OCP, Cemetery H), gave rise to the Vedic civilization.

The Ghandara Grave culture people shared biological affinities with the population of Neolithic Mehrgarh, which suggests a "biological continuum" between the ancient populations of Timargarha and Mehrgarh.[1]"*

It would appear then that this is more evidence that the land comprising Pakistan was not abandoned by the IVC people - they migrated North, North West, and likely remained in the Indus plains as well, since there is no evidence of any major catastrophe that would have wiped them out.

Obviously the IVC itself died out in what is largely Pakistan today, and its successor people and cultures migrated.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> Yes, we seem to be going in circles over this.
> 
> I don't completely disagree to the second part as long as the person in question does not claim the foreign identity to be his primary one even now after a thousand years.



If one individual claims so, and another doesn't, then do you go and count how many support position X vs position Y? Of course not.

There are Pakistanis who claim their history and ancestry, that is obvious. Whether other Pakistanis do or do not claim their history or ancestry has no bearing on the issue. 

You are focusing solely on the latter group of people.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Fine by me, but I consider all attempts at "owning" history as false because arguments can be made at all levels that would deny such ownership.
> 
> As Niaz said the IVC is so old that attempts to associate it with a country are meaningless.
> 
> However, if Pakistan wants to claim IVC as a Pakistani civilization, then very strong arguments can be made that IVC was an Indian civilization as well, and if migration patters are anything to go by, then the people of the Gangetic plains are the descendants of the IVC people ( as elucidated in the BBC documentary).
> 
> As I said, all arguments that associate the IVC with a country are potentially revisionist and nationalist in character.



The IVC itself largely existed and died in what is today Pakistan, though the descendants of the IVC people possibly live on in Pakistan and India.

I suppose it would be akin to a Greek American claiming that ancient Greek history is US history. The Greek Americans would have a claim on an individual level, but the US would not.


----------



## Omar1984

Wow! This is a really long debate.

Well let me make it simple for you guys:

To see Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro, and Mehrgarh you must travel to Pakistan and get a visa for Pakistan.
To see Lothal you must travel to India and get a visa for India.

As for some of you Indians saying Pakistanis are Arabs, thats funny...even if Arabs came to our region and married some local women, it doesnt make us full Arabs. There were many invasions in the region of Pakistan...Turks, Arabs, Afghans, Mughals, Greeks, throughout history maybe some mixed in with the local population and married some of the locals..who knows? Most people in Pakistan cant trace any foreigners in their family tree...before Pakistan we were Punjabis, Pashtuns, Baloch, Sindhis..each have their own unique history. Before partition, the region of Pakistan was majority Muslim and Indus valley sites are in region of Pakistan...so I guess its Pakistan.
Well you Indians will always have Lothal


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> If one individual claims so, and another doesn't, then do you go and count how many support position X vs position Y? Of course not.
> 
> There are Pakistanis who claim their history and ancestry, that is obvious. Whether other Pakistanis do or do not claim their history or ancestry has no bearing on the issue.
> 
> You are focusing solely on the latter group of people.



Actually it is based on my understanding that a large majority of Pakistanis claim foreign roots based on Pakistani newspaper editorials. If this is not correct and can be proven, I stand corrected.

I am not taking the second group of people as a reference here. What I mean is that you can't claim to be a non-Pakistani native and at the same time claim the history of the land that occurred much before you came here. I agree that intermixing would make the person belong to this land over a period but then the claim of foreign descent should also get progressively diluted. You can't eat the cake as well as have it, right?

This won't be an issue if they claimed that they have become part of the heritage of this land. Trying to claim it exclusively is another matter.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> How can the Ghandara Grave culture be classified as one of three major phases that developed out of the IVC, as did teh Cemetery H, if it did not have links to the IVC.
> *
> "The Gandhara grave people have been associated by most scholars with early Indo-Aryan speakers, and the Indo-Aryan migration into India, that, fused with indigenous elements of the remnants of the Indus Valley Civilization (OCP, Cemetery H), gave rise to the Vedic civilization.
> 
> Its a successor in terms of time period - i.e. it appeared after the end of the IVC. However, the people appeart obe central-asian Migrants, not the IVC people.
> 
> The Ghandara Grave culture people shared biological affinities with the population of Neolithic Mehrgarh, which suggests a "biological continuum" between the ancient populations of Timargarha and Mehrgarh.[1]"*



So, if Mehrgarh people were the predecessors of IVC, then it would seem that the GGC people and the Mehrgarh people might have common ancestor, or possibly the IVC people migrated Northwest? 

If we look at the history of Mehrgarh, the civilization apparently died out around 2600 BC and its inhabitants migrated to the IVC. So did they migrate North to harsher climates?



> It would appear then that this is more evidence that the land comprising Pakistan was not abandoned by the IVC people - they migrated North, North West, and likely remained in the Indus plains as well, since there is no evidence of any major catastrophe that would have wiped them out.



I'm not too sure about them migrating northwest (possible but not probable), but yes they did of course remain in the Northeastern parts of Pakistan (as shown in the Cemetary-H maps) and further east into the Gangetic plains.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The IVC itself largely existed and died in what is today Pakistan, though the descendants of the IVC people possibly live on in Pakistan and India.



True, but significant sites exist in India as well (Lothal, Rakhigarhi, Banawali, Ropar, Dholavira etc). A couple of major sites haven't been excavated either. 

The ratio of sites would be around 70-30 or 60-40 depending on which source you consider. 

Again, if you claim that IVC is a Pakistani civilization based on the fact that the land occupied is the same, its a Nationalist claim isn't it? 



> I suppose it would be akin to a Greek American claiming that ancient Greek history is US history. The Greek Americans would have a claim on an individual level, but the US would not.



Not really, because firstly the US is situated on another continent - it never had a single Greek historical site on its territory.

The Greek American however, can personally claim that Greek history is belongs to him (and his family). Though that claim would be based on descent.


----------



## Omar1984

Vinod2070 said:


> Actually it is based on my understanding that a large majority of Pakistanis claim foreign roots based on Pakistani newspaper editorials. If this is not correct and can be proven, I stand corrected.
> 
> I am not taking the second group of people as a reference here. What I mean is that you can't claim to be a non-Pakistani native and at the same time claim the history of the land that occurred much before you came here. I agree that intermixing would make the person belong to this land over a period but then the claim of foreign descent should also get progressively diluted. You can't eat the cake as well as have it, right?
> 
> This won't be an issue if they claimed that they have become part of the heritage of this land. Trying to claim it exclusively is another matter.



It depends on the clan like Syyed is a clan in Pakistan that do have Arab roots. Moghals also have foreign roots. I think Gujjars, Jatts, Rajputs, Raos exist in both Pakistan and India. I think there are some Sindhi Hindus in India too. Most Pakistanis dont claim foreign roots, but there have been lots of invasions in our land throughout history so who knows.


----------



## roadrunner

Pakistan has very little Arab influence. 

Can we get over this? 

It is proven through studies, that the Arab influence is very minor throughout.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

Omar1984 said:


> It depends on the clan like Syyed is a clan in Pakistan that do have Arab roots. Moghals also have foreign roots. I think Gujjars, Jatts, Rajputs, Raos exist in both Pakistan and India. I think there are some Sindhi Hindus in India too. Most Pakistanis dont claim foreign roots, but there have been lots of invasions in our land throughout history so who knows.



I actually read (by Pakistani writers) that the majority of Pakistanis claim foreign descent. That there are more Quraishis (fake or real) in Pakistan than in Arabia!

Then all those Turks, Persians and other exotic locations. I am not sure what is the fact. I have not seen any real scientific data.

But personally I would think that after over a 1000 years they should either start considering themselves as the people of this land or.... Well I leave it to them.

You know some people here are so happy with Babur's tasteless comments about their own motherland and their own forefathers! Can those guys still come back and claim any kind of heritage of this land, pre-Islamic heritage!

Seriously, people need to make up their minds once and for all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

> You know some people here are so happy with Babur's tasteless comments about their own motherland and their own forefathers!



So true. And very funny at the same time.


----------



## Vinod2070

roadrunner said:


> Pakistan has very little Arab influence.
> 
> Can we get over this?
> 
> *It is proven through studies*, that the Arab influence is very minor throughout.



Which studies? Give some proof.

Can you deny that there are more people in Pakistan who call themselves Quraishis than in Arabia?


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

Vinod2070 said:


> I actually read (by Pakistani writers) that the majority of Pakistanis claim foreign descent. That there are more Quraishis (fake or real) in Pakistan than in Arabia!
> 
> Then all those Turks, Persians and other exotic locations. I am not sure what is the fact. I have not seen any real scientific data.
> 
> But personally I would think that after over a 1000 years they should either start considering themselves as the people of this land or.... Well I leave it to them.
> 
> You know some people here are so happy with Babur's tasteless comments about their own motherland and their own forefathers! Can those guys still come back and claim any kind of heritage of this land, pre-Islamic heritage!
> 
> Seriously, people need to make up their minds once and for all.


claiming lineage doesn't mean anything unless they have solid proof to back it up. trust me, the majority of people living in Pakistan are not of arab descent. only a small handful claim to be of arab descent, a few hundred thousand at most. An even smaller portion of that minority is truly of arab descent. Believe me, these people have no proof of their lineage, not even a single family tree. When people migrated from india to Pakistan during partition, a large number of people magically became "quraishi" or "sayyid". the point is, they're all liars. I know a person that changed their name over and over again, they became "Siddiqui" and then later on a "Sayyid".  it's all a bunch of bullsh!t. *there's equally the same amount of muslims in India claiming to be of arab lineage*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UnitedPak

@Vinod and Flintlock

Why are you so concerned that some Pakistanis consider themselves Arabs and not the people of the land, when you have been arguing all week that Pakistanis are invaders in the region, and that Indus natives really moved to Ganges plains?

Pakistanis are the natives, always have been. Some uninformed people in Pakistan, and agenda driven Indian nationalists do not change facts.

Here is an interesting quote from Professor Wei Chuyu from Xu Beihing, Fine Arts College of China:



> *&#8216;Pakistan&#8217;s ancient sites need to be preserved properly&#8217;*
> Tuesday, February 03, 2009
> ISLAMABAD: There is a need to properly preserve Pakistan&#237;s ancient sites and cultural heritage to keep the national iden-tity alive, said Professor Wei Chuyu from Xu Beihing, Fine Arts College of China here on Monday.
> 
> Lauding the efforts of the government for establishing museums like Ethnology Museum of Lok Virsa and Lahore Museum, he said the government and people of Pakistan should also make efforts to preserve the sites of Taxila in its true form.
> 
> Prof Wei Chuyu is a visiting delegate from China, who is an artist by profession and currently visiting various cities of Pakistan to collect the country&#237;s culture and traditions on his canvas and exhibiting them at China for introducing Pakistani art and culture worldwide.
> 
> Working in the field of art for past 35 years, Prof Chuyu paints human nature, landscapes and calligraphy while he has also created a portrait PPP&#237;s founder, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.* &#8220;Pakistan has a diversity of ancient heritage and, if preserved properly, these sites can become a hub of tourists from across the world,&#8221; *the artist remarked at a dinner hosted by Culture Ministry in honour of the visiting delegates from China.
> 
> Secretary Ministry of Culture, Shahid Rafi, Additional Secretary, Akram Shaheedi, Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan and the Chinese Embassy officials were present on the occasion. Prof Chuyu presented his calligraphic works to the ministry while Secretary Culture, Sahid Rafi gave him Pakistani art pieces and books regarding heritage.


&#8216;Pakistan&#8217;s ancient sites need to be preserved properly&#8217;

Note the word, *Heritage.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

asaad-ul-islam said:


> claiming lineage doesn't mean anything unless they have solid proof to back it up. trust me, the majority of people living in Pakistan are not of arab descent. only a small handful claim to be of arab descent, a few hundred thousand at most. An even smaller portion of that minority is truly of arab descent. Believe me, these people have no proof of their lineage, not even a single family tree. When people migrated from india to Pakistan during partition, a large number of people magically became "quraishi" or "sayyid". the point is, they're all liars. I know a person that changed their name over and over again, they became "Siddiqui" and then later on a "Sayyid".  it's all a bunch of bullsh!t. *there's equally the same amount of muslims in India claiming to be of arab lineage*



I tend to agree that most are fakes. Neither here nor there.

In the context of this thread, I meant they are also the people who can't claim any pre-Islamic heritage. Most likely vast majority of them will not bother as they will consider that period as jahiliyah.

I am sure there are many such people in India. The whole Ashraf thing, the superiority complex from claiming foreign origins!

Boggles the mind especially when the religion is supposed to be egalitarian!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> I tend to agree that most are fakes. Neither here nor there.
> 
> In the context of this thread, I meant they are also the people who can't claim any pre-Islamic heritage. Most likely vast majority of them will not bother as they will consider that period as jahiliyah.
> 
> I am sure there are many such people in India. The whole Ashraf thing, the superiority complex from claiming foreign origins!
> 
> Boggles the mind especially when the religion is supposed to be egalitarian!



Yes, but when you bring those arguments into a thread that quite obviously has Pakistanis arguing from the opposite spectrum - Pakistanis that claim their ancient heritage and history - then it is quite tasteless. 

I think that the fact that the GoP has claimed this history as part of Pakistani heritage, has sponsored the archaeological department to preserve it and research it (though nowhere close to where it should be, but what else is new) indicates that there is a recognition of our heritage at both the individual and official level. 

People who reject this obviously exist, but for you to merely take their claims and bandy them about as representative of Pakistanis is disingenuous. 

I think this issue should be dead and buried, its insulting to those of us who claim our history for you to keep harping on that theme. Raise it with a poster who claims only Arab heritage, not with those who do not.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> True, but significant sites exist in India as well (Lothal, Rakhigarhi, Banawali, Ropar, Dholavira etc). A couple of major sites haven't been excavated either.
> 
> The ratio of sites would be around 70-30 or 60-40 depending on which source you consider.
> 
> Again, if you claim that IVC is a Pakistani civilization based on the fact that the land occupied is the same, its a Nationalist claim isn't it?



Claim it as Pakistani based on the fact that both Mehrgarh, the predecessor to the IVC, the IVC itself, and good chunk of the Cemetery H plus the Gandhara Grave Cultures existed in the lands comprising Pakistan, and being descendants of the IVC people, along with the other migrants to the region.

Thats a strong argument on several levels, not just on the basis of having the majority of sites including the major centers of the civilization. 




> Not really, because firstly the US is situated on another continent - it never had a single Greek historical site on its territory.
> 
> The Greek American however, can personally claim that Greek history is belongs to him (and his family). Though that claim would be based on descent.



The distinction you made is valid - I suppose Macedonia and Greece woudl be better examples. But my argument for the Pakistani claim I made above.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

Please understand that I am only countering those who want to claim any king of exclusive copyright over a shared history (from Indian perspective) and in that context it is not unfair to point out this argument if it is applicable to a large number of Pakistanis.

People who don't feel so are obviously excluded from this logic. But again when you talk of ancient "Pakistani" civilization, you are not talking of individuals but about the country as a whole.

But I agree that this issue doesn't need to be stretched any further. Let's bury it.


----------



## DarkStar

I've missed much of the discussion, but let me counter something that flintock suggested a few pages back. The Harappan/IVC people were no nomads, and civilisation begins when the nomadic way of life is replaced by urban society.


----------



## rubyjackass

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Claim it as Pakistani based on the fact that both Mehrgarh, the predecessor to the IVC, the IVC itself, and good chunk of the Cemetery H plus the Gandhara Grave Cultures existed in the lands comprising Pakistan, and being descendants of the IVC people, along with the other migrants to the region.
> 
> Thats a strong argument on several levels, not just on the basis of having the majority of sites including the major centers of the civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The distinction you made is valid - I suppose Macedonia and Greece woudl be better examples. But my argument for the Pakistani claim I made above.



People feel too much attachment about civilizations that existed and lost their links with the continuum of time.

The point is that civilizations that existed then do not correspond to today's nations in such a great way. Only the ethnic composition is a signature of those days in today's people.

Pakistan definitely has right for heritage from the IVC. But people are not sure as to what present population correspond to IVC. Dravidian perhaps, which means the present south Indian people Tamils, Kerala, Telugu and Kannada people. Telugu and Kannada are relatively modern(only relatively) languages. Some theories suggest an Aryan invasion that pushed Dravidians to the south. In any case the pre-independence India has predominantly mixed population with too much diffusion of ethnicity. Now many people even can't tell if they are Dravidian or Aryan(example yours truly). 


Geographically Pakistan may have IVC. But population wise people need not be sentimental about whose civilization it was. Even India should not care. But IVC belonged to either Dravidians or Aryans either way Indian(pre-independence). 
I think Pakistan can consider any part of this Indian history as its in that the population diffusion between the two regions is beyond measurement(from the times of IVC).

But our coming generations should know about all the history without any omissions or misrepresentations. Should they feel it(IVC) theirs is IMO a meaningless question.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

Vinod2070 said:


> I tend to agree that most are fakes. Neither here nor there.
> 
> In the context of this thread, I meant they are also the people who can't claim any pre-Islamic heritage. Most likely vast majority of them will not bother as they will consider that period as jahiliyah.
> 
> I am sure there are many such people in India. The whole Ashraf thing, the superiority complex from claiming foreign origins!
> 
> Boggles the mind especially when the religion is supposed to be egalitarian!


Vinod, come on now, you know 99&#37; of the people in Pakistan have no idea what we're talking about. even the limited amount of kids enrolling in schools, have no access to this kind of information. for them, history books begin with Qasim and Sindh. the cirriculum hasn't changed since the beginning. barely anyone knows about the indus valley civilization. it's not considered jahiliya-jahiliya in the truer sense of the word, means practices that are an abomination in Islam such as burying girls alive, which unfortunately still exists today. I don't need to go into detail about senator zehri, recently declared to be one of the most richest senators we have today, burying girls alive.

however, I agree with you. most people are faking their claims, intentionally or unintentionally. some people have no idea, no proof, but go on declaring themselves to be of such lineage-although it makes no difference in islam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DarkStar

Flintlock said:


> Sure, you're right, but the fact that the people of "Ancient India" followed the same religion, culture and social structure as the modern Indians, means that the modern day India is infact the inheritor of the ancient Indian civilization, even if the region now in Pakistan and Afghanistan has passed into the Middle-Eastern civilization.



Well, you can count the Harappan Civlisation/Empire out of this claim, as Historians are absolutely sure that whatever religion they may have followed, it was nothing at all like Vedism/Hinduism.

It's amazing how you seem to have appropriated our own civilisation from us, cloaked yourself in it, and then shamelessly deprive us of it by trying to push us into the Middle East.

Cultural robbery is what I would call it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DarkStar

This foreign ancestry thing that vinod is talking about is a red herring.

Most Pakistanis affirm local ancestry. We have almost all the north indian and punjabi castes, gotras, that Bharatiyas have.

Punjab is what i am familiar with, and it is the most populous province. Major groups are gujjars, Arain, maliks, Jatts (various gotras), Rajputs (various gotras), dogra, Kyanis (Ghakkar), butt/bhatt (kashmiri pundit ancestry, shaikhs (bunya ancestry), quraishis ( also local ancestry). Then you have the various pathan tribes and baluchis which are also not foreigners. 

Go to karachi, Hyderabad and also Lahore and you will find musilms of every northern "Hindu" surname imaginable, wether it is Mehta, Modi, Lakhani, Sehgal, Mittal, Patel, Jhaveri, etc, etc.

Sindhis' ancestry is also well established, although there is some Baluchi ancestry among many Sindhis too.

We have a few Turkic clans, along with some ARab, Persian descent too. In Baluchistan, we even have the Shidi African tribes, but the majority of people that I have met throughout my whole life in Pakistan, were people whose ancestry is well established in the sub continent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rubyjackass

darkStar said:


> Well, you can count the Harappan Civlisation/Empire out of this claim, as Historians are absolutely sure that whatever religion they may have followed, it was nothing at all like Vedism/Hinduism.
> 
> It's amazing how you seem to have appropriated our own civilisation from us, cloaked yourself in it, and then shamelessly deprive us of it by trying to push us into the Middle East.
> 
> Cultural robbery is how I would call it.



This is from Wiki.


> There are several theories as to the origin of the Indus Valley civilization. The earliest hypothesis was that it was an early form of a Vedic and early Sanskrit civilization which would come to dominate most of South Asia, which was presumed to have been characterized by influence from Indo-European migrations. However, this theory began to be rejected when no signs of the traditional culture associated with the Vedas was uncovered in that of the Indus Valley. The absence of horses amongst the many realistic representations of animals was also considered significant, considering the importance of horses and chariots to the culture described in the Vedas. Detailed bone analysis has revealed that the horse itself was introduced to the subcontinent only at the beginning of the second millennium B.C., which contributes to the chronological problem with this theory.[31][32] Finally, the concept of urban life which dominates the Indus Valley civilization is foreign to the more rural lifestyle which is described in the Vedas.[33]
> 
> The next theory put forward was that the civilization was of proto-Dravidian origin.[34] This theory was first proposed by researchers from Russia and Finland who attempted to show that Indus valley symbols could be derived from the Dravidian language group. Today, the Dravidian language family is concentrated mostly in southern India and northern Sri Lanka, but pockets of it still remain throughout the rest of India and Pakistan (the Brahui language), which lends credence to the theory. Finnish Indologist Asko Parpola concludes that the uniformity of the Indus inscriptions precludes any possibility of widely different languages being used, and that an early form of Dravidian language must have been the language of the Indus people. However, the proto-Dravidian origin theory is far from being confirmed due to an emphasis on linguistic connection while evidence of a broader cultural connection remains to be found.[33]


Indus Valley Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both ways the civilization is Indian in any sense.
Read my previous post about owning the civilization.

If it is not Aryan, and there is truth in Aryan invasion theory, the population certainly must have moved into present India. Whether they are Dravidians or not is a different question. 

The word Hinduism came much much later as a term for all the beliefs and gods in the region.


----------



## DarkStar

its fromi wiki, so it must be true, right?

How can the Harappan Empire/civilisation be sanskritic, when sanskrit was not even their language, and the earliest evidence of sanskrit is a millenia after the abandonment of the Harappan settlements.

The article you have quoted actually discredits teh theories, if you read it till the end.

The second theory is itself cast into doubt with the last words "However, the proto-Dravidian origin theory is far from being confirmed due to an emphasis on linguistic connection while evidence of a broader cultural connection remains to be found."

No matter how hard Bharatiyas try, the shoe just won't fit. Flintoff and vinod, and others have tried, to become the Cinderella upon whose foot the glass shoe of the Harappan civilisation might fit.

You can have a go too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DarkStar

asaadul islam, how many years have you studied in Pakistani schools?

I only spent three years, and I was taught about Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, so I don't know what you are trying to say.

Almost everybody i know is aware of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa, even my 78 year old grandmother who only went to school until she was 12.

There are even organised public school trips, and a lot of historical and cultural tv programme about the Harappan Empire/civilisation.

And Pakistan's curriculum has been changed. When my father went to school, he had to learn about Henry Hashtam and Richard Sher Dil, and Malika Victoria, etc. 

I'm glad the curriculum was changed, and British History was replaced by Subcontinental History. Yes there is more emphasis on the Mughal era, especially. But that was a golden era of history, and we have much resource material for that time of history, so you can't blame our schools for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rubyjackass

darkStar said:


> its fromi wiki, so it must be true, right?
> 
> How can the Harappan Empire/civilisation be sanskritic, when sanskrit was not even their language, and the earliest evidence of sanskrit is a millenia after the abandonment of the Harappan settlements.
> 
> The article you have quoted actually discredits teh theories, if you read it till the end.
> 
> The second theory is itself cast into doubt with the last words "However, the proto-Dravidian origin theory is far from being confirmed due to an emphasis on linguistic connection while evidence of a broader cultural connection remains to be found."
> 
> No matter how hard Bharatiyas try, the shoe just won't fit. Flintoff and vinod, and others have tried, to become the Cinderella upon whose foot the glass shoe of the Harappan civilisation might fit.
> 
> You can have a go too.



Do you suggest a cultural footprint exclusively in present Pakistan then? Please give sources. 

I did not claim IVC people are definitely Dravidian. I suggested The IVC population must have moved eastward after Aryan influx(into present India).


There would not be any problems of feelings if Pakistan treated Indian descent to the appropriate level.
Unfortunately Pakistanis look at the word Indian for the present India. 

I did not say Pakistan has no connection with IVC. For me 'owning' of the IVC is irrelevant. Read my last two posts.

Populations survive through invasions and live under foreign rule. They mix and propogate their culture. Now asking who owns it is a stupid question.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

asaad-ul-islam said:


> Vinod, come on now, you know 99% of the people in Pakistan have no idea what we're talking about. even the limited amount of kids enrolling in schools, have no access to this kind of information. for them, history books begin with Qasim and Sindh. the cirriculum hasn't changed since the beginning. barely anyone knows about the indus valley civilization. it's not considered jahiliya-jahiliya in the truer sense of the word, means practices that are an abomination in Islam such as burying girls alive, which unfortunately still exists today. I don't need to go into detail about senator zehri, recently declared to be one of the most richest senators we have today, burying girls alive.
> 
> however, I agree with you. most people are faking their claims, intentionally or unintentionally. some people have no idea, no proof, but go on declaring themselves to be of such lineage-although it makes no difference in islam.



It's a very interesting discussion. I would surely be interested in carrying it forward but I guess that may derail this thread.

Let's hope we will have a good discussion about this soon. Let's keep this thread to the ancient history.


----------



## Vinod2070

DarkStar said:


> Well, you can count the Harappan Civlisation/Empire out of this claim, as Historians are absolutely sure that whatever religion they may have followed, it was nothing at all like Vedism/Hinduism.
> 
> *It's amazing how you seem to have appropriated our own civilisation from us, cloaked yourself in it, and then shamelessly deprive us of it by trying to push us into the Middle East.
> 
> Cultural robbery is what I would call it.*



I will only say that the shoe is on the other foot!

It is Pakistan that wants to be (or tried to be) a part of the ME.


----------



## Vinod2070

DarkStar said:


> This foreign ancestry thing that vinod is talking about is a red herring.
> 
> Most Pakistanis affirm local ancestry. We have almost all the north indian and punjabi castes, gotras, that Bharatiyas have.
> 
> Punjab is what i am familiar with, and it is the most populous province. Major groups are gujjars, Arain, maliks, Jatts (various gotras), Rajputs (various gotras), dogra, Kyanis (Ghakkar), butt/bhatt (kashmiri pundit ancestry, shaikhs (bunya ancestry), quraishis ( also local ancestry). Then you have the various pathan tribes and baluchis which are also not foreigners.
> 
> Go to karachi, Hyderabad and also Lahore and you will find musilms of every northern "Hindu" surname imaginable, wether it is Mehta, Modi, Lakhani, Sehgal, Mittal, Patel, Jhaveri, etc, etc.
> 
> Sindhis' ancestry is also well established, although there is some Baluchi ancestry among many Sindhis too.
> 
> We have a few Turkic clans, along with some ARab, Persian descent too. In Baluchistan, we even have the Shidi African tribes, but the majority of people that I have met throughout my whole life in Pakistan, were people whose ancestry is well established in the sub continent.



I am sure you failed to notice some contradictions in this post. They are very obvious to all who would look.

1. This foreign ancestry is not my claim. It is Pakistanis who claim that!

2. If most of your ancestry is the same as North Indians, doesn't that make the ancient civilizational heritage a shared one!


----------



## roadrunner

We're going round in circles here. 

The way I see it is this. 

When the Indians contributing on this thread don't know how to respond, they sink back to the much discredited assertion that most Pakistanis claim to be Arab. 

Can we get past this? 

Science has proved Pakistanis, in fact all Pakistani groups have no lineage relation with Arabs or Persians. 

I personally will state it. 

I do not have any lineage relation to Arabs or Persians. 

Why must you go round in circles? I do not claim a heritage that is Middle Eastern, or one that is Indian (Bharati), or one that is North Indian. 

Simply, all that happened within the borders of modern day Pak. 

Quit leeching and be satisfied with your own history.


----------



## Vinod2070

Let's get past this. I have made my point and no need to keep repeating it. Just saying "no" won't disprove anything, nor would calling something discredited.

Obviously there are several Pakistanis themselves who don't quite agree with you.

And as I said, the people of Afghania (if I call the tribals by that name) have much less in common with North India than the majority Pakistanis in Sindh and Punjab. Their history is mostly shared and entwined.


----------



## roadrunner

Some Pakistanis will be vehement in stating that Pakistanis are Indian (and some are, like the Muhajirs), some Pakistanis will be vehement in stating they're Afghani (like the refugees who are), so it stands to reason some will be Arab. 

However it's a scientific fact that most Pakistanis are not Arab 

Neither are they Indian or Afghani, but instead have antescendants from the land mass known today as Pakistan. 

As for Punjab and Sindh, they would have more of a shared ancestry with Indian Punjab and Gujerat. 

You will say that Indian Punjab is India, and therefore we (India) can claim all of Pakistan's history. 

In that case why don't the Spaniards leech everything French and Portuguese, since there were minor overlaps into Spanish territory by these countries throughout. 

Why is it only India that leeches off Pakistan in this way? Cursed, surely.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Omar1984

roadrunner said:


> Some Pakistanis will be vehement in stating that Pakistanis are Indian (and some are, like the Muhajirs), some Pakistanis will be vehement in stating they're Afghani (like the refugees who are), so it stands to reason some will be Arab.
> 
> However it's a scientific fact that most Pakistanis are not Arab
> 
> Neither are they Indian or Afghani, but instead have antescendants from the land mass known today as Pakistan.
> 
> As for Punjab and Sindh, they would have more of a shared ancestry with Indian Punjab and Gujerat.
> 
> You will say that Indian Punjab is India, and therefore we (India) can claim all of Pakistan's history.
> 
> In that case why don't the Spaniards leech everything French and Portuguese, since there were minor overlaps into Spanish territory by these countries throughout.
> 
> Why is it only India that leeches off Pakistan in this way? Cursed, surely.



I think some Pakistanis (Punjabis) may be similar to the Punjabis of India, but Punjabi Indians are mostly Sikhs or Hindus while Punjabi Pakistanis are mostly Muslims. The Sindhi Hindus, who migrated to India after partition, are similar to Sindhis in Pakistan. The Muhajars, Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India during partition, are similar to Indian Muslims. Other than that, Pakistanis and Indians are not the same people. Before British invaded South Asia the word Indians didnt even exist. British played around with the name of the Indus river to give the people of the land they invaded an ethnicity. haha no one played around with the word Nile River to give Egyptians an ethnicity. Indians kept the word the British made for them, Pakistanis didn't.
Why does the British have so much power on Indian people's identity?


----------



## Khajur

DarkStar said:


> its fromi wiki, so it must be true, right?
> 
> How can the Harappan Empire/civilisation be sanskritic, when sanskrit was not even their language, and the earliest evidence of sanskrit is a millenia after the abandonment of the Harappan settlements.
> 
> The article you have quoted actually discredits teh theories, if you read it till the end.
> 
> The second theory is itself cast into doubt with the last words "However, the proto-Dravidian origin theory is far from being confirmed due to an emphasis on linguistic connection while evidence of a broader cultural connection remains to be found."
> 
> No matter how hard Bharatiyas try, the shoe just won't fit. Flintoff and vinod, and others have tried, to become the Cinderella upon whose foot the glass shoe of the Harappan civilisation might fit.
> 
> You can have a go too.



I'm no historian but more of a history enthusiast.
And i would agree with the summation that current population of of pakistan & even north indian population have nothing to do with the IVC expect they inhabit those places now.

And also if one go by the most solid aryan invasion theory it also give credence to the assumption that its the dravidian ppl who truely built the ancient IVC.
Then later on, its the aryan the ancestors of most pakistani, north indian & Brahmins found all over india,who invaded dravidian ppl of IVC and pushed them in to the interior(south) india.

Now why i say this because there is no ancient historical site which indicates that vast dravidian civilization lived in south india during the IVC time.We also know that dravidian ppl are native indian tribes.Now if they were not living in south india at that point of time where those huge no of dravidian ppl inhabit expect IVC which was big & old enough to give crediance to the theory that its was actually dravidian IVC.

Sankrit & vedic/ traditions are contribution of aryan ppl who came from outside indian subcontinent. 

There are millions of Adibasis of india who live jungles found around and south of vindhya mountain range are part of ancient dravidian tribes who still practice animistic pagan way worshiping which harldy bears any resemblace with hindu dharma.

so forgive my audacity to say IVC which pakistan has, actually isnt anyway pakistani ,but surely vedic way of life what they gave up was their for thousands of yrs.


----------



## omairhr

History is always written by the winner. Biased. But we need to dig and LEARN from our mistakes more than take pride in the accomplishments of the past.


----------



## Flintlock

That is totally wrong Khajur. South Indians were not "pushed downwards" by the invading aryans.
South Indians have inhabited south India for as long as humans have lived in the indian subcontinent. 



Khajur said:


> I'm no historian but more of a history enthusiast.
> And i would agree with the summation that current population of of pakistan & even north indian population have nothing to do with the IVC expect they inhabit those places now.
> 
> And also if one go by the most solid aryan invasion theory it also give credence to the assumption that its the dravidian ppl who truely built the ancient IVC.
> Then later on, its the aryan the ancestors of most pakistani, north indian & Brahmins found all over india,who invaded dravidian ppl of IVC and pushed them in to the interior(south) india.
> 
> Now why i say this because there is no ancient historical site which indicates that vast dravidian civilization lived in south india during the IVC time.We also know that dravidian ppl are native indian tribes.Now if they were not living in south india at that point of time where those huge no of dravidian ppl inhabit expect IVC which was big & old enough to give crediance to the theory that its was actually dravidian IVC.
> 
> Sankrit & vedic/ traditions are contribution of aryan ppl who came from outside indian subcontinent.
> 
> There are millions of Adibasis of india who live jungles found around and south of vindhya mountain range are part of ancient dravidian tribes who still practice animistic pagan way worshiping which harldy bears any resemblace with hindu dharma.
> 
> so forgive my audacity to say IVC which pakistan has, actually isnt anyway pakistani ,but surely vedic way of life what they gave up was their for thousands of yrs.


----------



## rubyjackass

roadrunner said:


> Neither are they Indian or Afghani, but instead have antescendants from the land mass known today as Pakistan.






roadrunner said:


> You will say that Indian Punjab is India, and therefore we (India) can claim all of Pakistan's history.


The boundaries present today are artificially created, much later. You know that. There was no landmass of Pakistan at whose borders the cultural spread stopped abruptly.



roadrunner said:


> In that case why don't the Spaniards leech everything French and Portuguese, since there were minor overlaps into Spanish territory by these countries throughout.


Exactly!! think in terms of people. IVC people must be now in present India. Whether they are also in Pakistan is a matter of theory and acceptance. Nobody is stopping Iranians from regarding themselves as Aryans.




roadrunner said:


> Why is it only India that leeches off Pakistan in this way? Cursed, surely.


Because India certainly has a share of the heritage. Once again for the owning question look at my previous posts.


You seem to be more concerned about the fact that India attached itself to IVC than Pakistan distancing(the topic) itself from it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rubyjackass

Flintlock said:


> That is totally wrong Khajur. South Indians were not "pushed downwards" by the invading aryans.
> South Indians have inhabited south India for as long as humans have lived in the indian subcontinent.


That is a matter of theory.


----------



## rubyjackass

Omar1984 said:


> Why does the British have so much power on Indian people's identity?


 stupid question.
India would not have kept a name like Brit-i-stan, even if the British imposed it.

The reason is that the name 'India' is a sum up of all that is India and comes with a pride.


----------



## Vinod2070

roadrunner said:


> Some Pakistanis will be vehement in stating that Pakistanis are Indian (and some are, like the Muhajirs), some Pakistanis will be vehement in stating they're Afghani (like the refugees who are), so it stands to reason some will be Arab.



Tell me one thing. What is the historical difference between Pushtun tribals on both sides of the Durand line? They may belong to two different modern countries but are they historically different? Can one set of those tribals have heritage to IVC or any civilization for that matter just because of the way the borders of modern Pakistan happened to get formed!

Can you say they have different histories and civilizations!



> However it's a scientific fact that most Pakistanis are not Arab
> 
> Neither are they Indian or Afghani, but instead have antescendants from the land mass known today as Pakistan.
> 
> As for Punjab and Sindh, they would have more of a shared ancestry with Indian Punjab and Gujerat.
> 
> You will say that Indian Punjab is India, and therefore we (India) can claim all of Pakistan's history.
> 
> In that case why don't the Spaniards leech everything French and Portuguese, since there were minor overlaps into Spanish territory by these countries throughout.
> 
> Why is it only India that leeches off Pakistan in this way? Cursed, surely.



Too incoherent! Starts with a wrong premise and ends on another.

No one is "leeching" anything here. Let's come out of the denial that forces one to make absurd claims like Vedism being distinct from Hinduism when Vedas are still the fount of our religion. Its beyond pathetic and a clear sign of the same denial that we saw on the other thread.


----------



## asq

Thirty six pages ago some wrote that since Indus is in Pakistani therefore Indians cannot claim it there's, And a large discussion broke out specially from Hindu who insisted Blah blah blah.......... 

Never did any Indian said that in fairness if we claim Indians than you as Muslim Pakistanis can and should claim Taj Mahal and red fort and all grand trunk roads built by Sher shah suri, but not they just lectured Pakistani on their claim and it must be accepted and that is that. 

Again i see selfish designs of our adversaries and not a willingness to be concerned and fair. Just bully tactics to claim something that does not belong to them anymore.

So can we stop this now and talk about something that concerns Pakistan, and that India bringing a thid party like Israel in the picture, are guys so desperate that even though you call yourself shining Indian, largest Democracy and yet you have to bring in a country of 5000,000 to help you militarily. that tells what you guys think of you Army. And that your cannot face Brave Pak. Army alone. Need help from a small country like Israel. 

It is like an elephant asking a mouse to help him in carrying his load. funnnnnnny.


----------



## roadrunner

Vinod2070 said:


> Tell me one thing. What is the historical difference between Pushtun tribals on both sides of the Durand line? They may belong to two different modern countries but are they historically different? Can one set of those tribals have heritage to IVC or any civilization for that matter just because of the way the borders of modern Pakistan happened to get formed!
> 
> Can you say they have different histories and civilizations!



How difficult is this to understand? 

When someone says "Pakistani history", this *includes* the history of the Pakistani Pashtuns, not the Afghani Pashtuns. 

Pakistani Afghans and Afghan Pashtuns are the same people. When one talks about "Pashtun history", then that includes the Pakistani and Afghani Pashtuns' history. 

Got it? 



> Too incoherent! Starts with a wrong premise and ends on another.
> 
> No one is "leeching" anything here. Let's come out of the denial that forces one to make absurd claims like Vedism being distinct from Hinduism when Vedas are still the fount of our religion. Its beyond pathetic and a clear sign of the same denial that we saw on the other thread.



Vedism is a recognized religion and it's recognized as distinct from Hindusim. 

I've given examples already of some distinguishing features of it. It's only Hindus that lump the two religions together. I don't lump them because Hinduism is not a part of Pakistani history.


----------



## UnitedPak

To summarise:

Vinod is stuck on arguing how Pakistanis *claim* to be Arabs.
Even if some Pakistanis do claim such things, it wouldn't become any more true.
Even if it were to be true, the heritage doesn't transfer over to Indians.

Flintlock and Co are jumping in between migrations and shared history theories. In one sentence they will argue Pakistanis and Indians are all the same therefore have common history, and in the other they will argue that Pakistanis are too diverse to have a common history.

I am just realising that you have no intentions of acknowledging real facts, but only interested in inventing your own far fetched theories to include yourselves in Pakistani identity. Prove me wrong. 
You are not arguing against anything by criticising Pakistani politics or modern borders. Focus on the people that inhabit the region for a change.

The facts that nobody has been able to counter:

*- *The Indus region (ancient Pakistan) has continuously been inhabited for 9000+ years, a region which experienced common invasions like any other region on this planet. 
*- *No evidence of any major natural disasters causing mass migrations; Or a massive invading army driving out an entire population.
*- *Pakistanis are the natives of the Indus valley, and have been for as far back as records go.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

roadrunner said:


> How difficult is this to understand?
> 
> *When someone says "Pakistani history", this includes the history of the Pakistani Pashtuns, not the Afghani Pashtuns. *
> 
> Pakistani Afghans and Afghan Pashtuns are the same people. When one talks about "Pashtun history", then that includes the Pakistani and Afghani Pashtuns' history.
> 
> Got it?



And that history is different from the Afghan Pushtuns? Let's say for argument's sake that the Durand line is shifted to unite the Pushtuns again. What happens then? Overnight your identity and your civilization will change to merge with the Tajiks and Uzbeks of Afghanistan now?

All I am saying is that the ancient history substantially shared. No one is trying to take it away from you!

ANyway let's leave it at this. No point in going on in circles. Either come up with something new or just leave it.



roadrunner said:


> *Vedism is a recognized religion and it's recognized as distinct from Hindusim.
> *
> I've given examples already of some distinguishing features of it. It's only Hindus that lump the two religions together. I don't lump them because Hinduism is not a part of Pakistani history.



And who says so except Mr. Roadrunner!

What you have given is nothing but a figment of your thinking of convenience. Doesn't convince anyone.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

UnitedPak said:


> To summarise:
> 
> Vinod is stuck on arguing how Pakistanis *claim* to be Arabs.
> Even if some Pakistanis do claim such things, it wouldn't become any more true.
> Even if it were to be true, the heritage doesn't transfer over to Indians.



I have made my point. I am not stuck. Let's move on now.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Why is it only India that leeches off Pakistan in this way? Cursed, surely.



Gosh, then I wonder what you make of it when Pakistani missiles are named after Tipu Sultan (reflecting government thinking), when Tipu Sultan here wasn't remotely associated with what is today Pakistan. Even his ancestry can be traced back to South India, unlike a lot of other muslim rulers who were of Iranian/Turkish lineage.


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

Flintlock said:


> Gosh, then I wonder what you make of it when Pakistani missiles are named after Tipu Sultan (reflecting government thinking), when Tipu Sultan here wasn't remotely associated with what is today Pakistan. Even his ancestry can be traced back to South India, unlike a lot of other muslim rulers who were of Iranian/Turkish lineage.


there's more to Tipu Sultan, than Islam. long-ranged missile...kind of symbolic, isn't it?


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock said:


> Gosh, then I wonder what you make of it when Pakistani missiles are named after Tipu Sultan (reflecting government thinking), when Tipu Sultan here wasn't remotely associated with what is today Pakistan. Even his ancestry can be traced back to South India, unlike a lot of other muslim rulers who were of Iranian/Turkish lineage.



I dont remember ever claiming Tipu to be of Pakistani heritage. And I do understand the concept of him being of Indian heritage, and not related to Pakistani people.

But would you say that Pakistanis can claim him to be Pakistani because of the 1947 immigration of some Indian Muslims from that region to Pakistan?


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> I dont remember ever claiming Tipu to be of Pakistani heritage. And I do understand the concept of him being of Indian heritage, and not related to Pakistani people.



Well, the perhaps you should go and tell that to the Pakistani Government.



> But would you say that Pakistanis can claim him to be Pakistani because of the 1947 immigration of some Indian Muslims from that region to Pakistan?



Those Pakistanis who emigrated from India would definitely be entitiled to claim whatever their ancestors achieved back in India, but Pakistan as a country cannot do that.

But by equating the IVC with Tipu Sultan, you are drawing a false comparison. The IVC is present in both countries, and the Indian Harappan sites, though lesser in number, are as important as any Pakistani ones. A couple of Indian sites are as large as Mohenjodaro and Harappa.


----------



## roadrunner

Vinod2070 said:


> And that history is different from the Afghan Pushtuns? Let's say for argument's sake that the Durand line is shifted to unite the Pushtuns again. What happens then? Overnight your identity and your civilization will change to merge with the Tajiks and Uzbeks of Afghanistan now?



If the Durand line is removed and the Afghan Pashtuns become Pakistani, then "Pakistan history" becomes the territorial history of all the citizens of Pakistan, which would include those recent Afghan Pashtuns who became citizens of Pakistan. Simple? 



> All I am saying is that the ancient history substantially shared. No one is trying to take it away from you!
> 
> ANyway let's leave it at this. No point in going on in circles. Either come up with something new or just leave it.



Ancient history is not shared with people who have nothing to do with it. 

Modern day India has nothing to do with Gandhara, and has as much to do with the IVC as modern day Afghanistan and Iran has to do with the IVC. 

IVC is an Ancient Pakistani civilization. It's not shared. 



> And who says so except Mr. Roadrunner!
> 
> What you have given is nothing but a figment of your thinking of convenience. Doesn't convince anyone.



It doesn't convince you. But it's convinced quite a few people on here, it seems.


----------



## roadrunner

The vast majority of settlements are not found on the Ghakkar-Hakra River. That's just false and stupid. 

The Indus was the biggest water mass in the region. Why would anyone want to settle on the Ghakkar -Hakra as opposed to the Indus. Unless you want to invent a big huge river that disappeared off the face of the earth out of some figment of your imagination.


----------



## Flintlock

Do you even read the posts? I've clearly mentioned the number of sites on the Indus and the Ghaggar-Hakra, with credible sources. So check them before mouthing off please. 



roadrunner said:


> The vast majority of settlements are not found on the Ghakkar-Hakra River. That's just false and stupid.
> 
> The Indus was the biggest water mass in the region. Why would anyone want to settle on the Ghakkar -Hakra as opposed to the Indus. Unless you want to invent a big huge river that disappeared off the face of the earth out of some figment of your imagination.


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> Do you even read the posts? I've clearly mentioned the number of sites on the Indus and the Ghaggar-Hakra, with credible sources. So check them before mouthing off please.



I don't read half your posts because they're so full of crap. Perhaps I missed them, but what you're saying is bull.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> It doesn't convince you. But it's convinced quite a few people on here, it seems.



Yes, you and your cronies it would seem.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> I don't read half your posts because they're so full of crap. Perhaps I missed them, but what you're saying is bull.



Wonderful! No wonder you keep repeating old stuff without considering or countering any of the new information being provided on the thread.


----------



## roadrunner

This is a map from Minnesota State University. 

The borders are approximate, yet there's as much of a border inside Iran and Afghanistan, as there is in India. 

The three important sites are all located in Pakistan. 

The map centres on the Indus Valley. 



Indian manipulation of history can claim the IVC was centred on the Ghakkar-Hakra River, but noone else is falling for the fictitious lies of Indian archaeologists.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Indian manipulation of history can claim the IVC was centred on the Ghakkar-Hakra River, but noone else is falling for the fictitious lies of Indian archaeologists.



Firstly, you cannot claim manipulation without providing a written statement of the same, from an authority which has more credibility than the source under question. 

So, if you want to allege that the Indian archaeologist in question is manipulating facts, you will have to provide an equally (or more) credible source which backs up your claims.

Haveing said that, the sources in this case are both Indian and Pakistani.
_
In a survey conducted by M.R. Mughal between 1974 and 1977, over 400 sites were mapped along 300 miles of the Hakra river.[8] The majority of these sites were dated to the fourth or third millennium BCE.[9]

S. P. Gupta however counts over 600 sites of the Indus civilization on the Hakra-Ghaggar river and its tributaries.[10][11] In contrast to this, only 90 to 96 Indus Valley sites have been discovered on the Indus and its tributaries (about 36 sites on the Indus river itself.)[12][13][14] V.N. Misra[15] states that over 530 Harappan sites (of the more than 800 known sites, not including Late Harappan or OCP) are located on the Hakra-Ghaggar.[16] The other sites are mainly in Kutch-Saurashtra (nearly 200 sites), Yamuna Valley (nearly 70 Late Harappan sites) and in the Indus Valley, in Baluchistan, and in the NW Frontier Province (less than 100 sites)._
Mortimer Wheeler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some information about Mughal and Gupta:
_
*Muhammad Rafiq Mugal is a Pakistani archaeologist,* engaged in investigating of ethnoarchaeological research in Chitral, northern Pakistan. He has been responsible for the direction, technical support and supervision for restoration and conservation of more than thirty monuments and excavated remains of the Islamic, Buddhist and Proto-historic periods, in Punjab and Frontier Provinces and Northern Areas of Pakistan._
Mohammed Rafique Mughal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*SP Gupta:*
_
He was also the editor of several volumes of the Puratattva, the Bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society. He was a distinguished archaeologist and art historian who was awarded several gold medals and the *Sir Mortimer Wheeler Prize for excellence in archaeology.*_
S. P. Gupta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, both are prominent and respected archaeologists, and if you want to counter their claims, the correct way would be to produce research findings that come to different conclusions rather than claiming that they are biased or propogandists.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

^^These are bogus Indian sites generated by Indian archaeologists with vested interests, which all neutral archaeologists do not believe exist. 

Not one single neutral foreign researcher (non Indian, or non Hindu convert), agrees with you absurd theories of the IVC going along the Ghakkar-Hakra River or further East. 

This guy published his work in JAGNES, and he ridicules the idea that North India was any centre or connection to the IVC. He states clearly and with evidence that the IVC, if anywhere was centred on Pakistan, or on Badakshan, Afghanistan. 

*Relocating the Center Altogether

Identifying Harappan sites in the Indus Valley proper is relatively simple, as is the identification of distinctively Indus objects found far afield in the west. Far more difficult is the conclusive identification of Harappan sites in the regions to the east of the Indus Valley. This is true because the vast majority of the sites in India are considered Late Harappan, rather than Early or Mature Harappan. What makes this trouble-some is that there seems to be no consistency in the usage of the term 'Late Harappan.'

S.R. Rao notes that "to deserve the term 'Late Harappan' it is essential that the inhabitants of the de-urbanized phase must have retained the core of Harappan achievements such as writing, use of the Harappan standard of weights and Harappan religious beliefs including the method of the disposal of the dead" (Rao 1982:354). Unfortunately, almost no one seems to follow this guideline. Despite agreement on the diagnostic traits of the Harappan Civilization, many archaeologists seem bent on labeling sites as 'Harappan' (whether Early, Mature, Late, or otherwise) which often exhibit not one of these basic traits. The sites so named are more likely Non-Harappan or, at best, Late-Harappan.

Further contributing to the problem of identifying a site as being 'Harappan' is the fact that "only about 3&#37; of all the sites reported as being 'Harappan' have been excavated horizontally to the maximum of 20% of their area" (Jansen 1981:251). This problem in identifying Harappan sites becomes all the more difficult the further away the site is located from the Indus Valley proper.

Consider the work by Joshi, Bala, and Ram. By locating some 700 supposedly Harappan sites in India proper, they claim that the Indus Civilization encompassed 'an area of 1.3 million sq. km' (Joshi et al. 1984:511). Compared with Mark Kenoyer's figure of 425,000 sq. miles (688,000 sq. km.), this long-dead civilization seems to have grown by leaps and bounds! In fact, the three archaeologists use this new assessment of the geographical extent of the Indus Civilization to suggest "that instead of persisting with the older title, the Indus Civilization, we might as well call it the 'Saraswati Civilization' or 'Saraswati Culture'" (Joshi et al. 1984:513). So we now have a suggestion put forth not only for a dramatically larger cultural sphere, but for an entirely new center! With enough difficulty involved in defining the periphery of the civilization, this type of nationalistic relocation of the center of the Indus Valley civilization is not only asking for trouble, it is absurd.* 
Center and Periphery: Indus Valley Civilization 

Note the names. Joshi, Bala, and Ram, these are all Indians, the Americans have stated, several of them in fact have stated, that what the Indians are doing is fictitious and bogus. Even Professors, and that is damning. 

It's and excellent article. I'd urge you all to read it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

Erm, but Joshi, Bala and Ram are not mentioned in my sources at all! .

Also, your continual harping on the "Saraswati Civilization" is a red herring, because you are seeking to associate my posts with the nationalist interpretations of some Indian archaeologists with the Rigvedic Saraswati.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DarkStar

A lot has been made of the sheer number of sites that Bharatiyas are claiming to be of the Harappan civilisation.

After the partition of British India, it became apparent that the physcial remnants of the ancient subcontinental civilisation went to Pakistan, so Bharatiya archeologists worked overtime to try and find, excavate as many sites as possible. While on the Pakistani side, there has been an obvious lull, with even major sites like Mohenjo daro and Harappa not fully excavated, yet.

I am sure that if Pakistan puts more resources into this, it can easily come up with many more sites, especially those of the mature Harappan phase (the golden era of the Harappan Empire).

The non urban cultures that are seen in many of these alleged Harappan sites, have no obvious correlation to Harappan civilisation, except wishful thinking. When these sites start to provide us with those same excquisite ceramics, seals, standardised weights, figurines, then we will think about accepting them as genuine Harappan sites.

First find your own 'dancing girl' or its equivalent from a Bharatia site, and show it to us. 

Mounds of rubble do not a civilisation make.


----------



## Vinod2070

roadrunner said:


> How difficult is this to understand?
> 
> When someone says "Pakistani history", this *includes* the history of the Pakistani Pashtuns, not the Afghani Pashtuns.
> 
> Pakistani Afghans and Afghan Pashtuns are the same people. When one talks about "Pashtun history", then that includes the Pakistani and Afghani Pashtuns' history.
> 
> *Got it?*



NO! I just don't get (and agree with) this approach of trying to associate history with the accident of modern geography.

I have given the example of modern Turkish people occupying the area of Greco-Roman empire many times. They have nothing to do with that history. Similarly people may move away from their original land and keep their connection to their history.

Like the people of America do have a connection to the European civilization even when they are not citizens of those countries any longer.

Its the people and not the land that matters!



roadrunner said:


> Vedism is a recognized religion and it's recognized as distinct from Hindusim.
> 
> I've given examples already of some distinguishing features of it. It's only Hindus that lump the two religions together. I don't lump them because Hinduism is not a part of Pakistani history.



One word. BS.

Two words. Utter BS!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

roadrunner said:


> If the Durand line is removed and the Afghan Pashtuns become Pakistani, then "Pakistan history" becomes the territorial history of all the citizens of Pakistan, which would include those recent Afghan Pashtuns who became citizens of Pakistan. Simple?



I obviusly painted the hypothetical scenario of the Duran line shifting to the East! Does that overnight remove your link to the IVC while you are sitting in "Atafu"!



roadrunner said:


> Ancient history is not shared with people who have nothing to do with it.
> 
> Modern day India has nothing to do with Gandhara, and has as much to do with the IVC as modern day Afghanistan and Iran has to do with the IVC.
> 
> IVC is an Ancient Pakistani civilization. It's not shared.
> 
> It doesn't convince you. But it's convinced quite a few people on here, it seems.



Gandhara and all of modern Afghanistan had a major connection to the Indian civilization through all of pre-Islamic history. It was ruled form India many times and was definitely under the sphere of influence for the other part. It is mentioned in the tales of Mahabharata. *The villain Shakuni comes from Gandhara!*

You are going in circles. Try to come up with something new (and better).


----------



## Flintlock

Guys, frankly I think its best to give up this discussion - none of us are historians, and even among historians, there is a lot of controversy and a lot of different interpretations.

I had the pleasure of speaking to a history professor in my university today, and what he said really opened my eyes to how difficult it is to make any accurate judgment about an ancient civilization, and how 90&#37; of the research (even by very prominent historians) done on any civilization simply reconfirms old biases without actually coming up with any credible conclusions. 

For example, the popular myth that IVC had a written script is pretty much busted - it was most likely primitive pictograms of some sort, which are very difficult to understand, and haven't been so far.

Another popular myth about their apparent rigorous standardization is not true either - most of the Harappan bricks are of irregular sizes and shapes, and their roads are not aligned along the cardinal directions as often believed.

Regarding Harappan trade, it turns out that the Harappans were actually a mostly agrarian civilization that did trade with other civilizations on a limited basis, but it wasn't the sort of over-hyped ancient "globalized world" as we have been taught to believe. 

A lot of the stuff that comes up in popular newspapers and magazines (Time, NYT etc.) simply uses "sexed-up" interpretations of the most sensational claims in order to make the article attractive to the reader, and doesn't bother to paint a real picture of the civilizaton.

Finally, archeology is a boring, laborious job that takes years of work to make even the most basic claims, so frankly, I've come to the conclusion that if you want to discuss ancient history, go to a university conference. Don't chatter on the internet in 3 sentence paragraphs, out of which 1 is an ad-hominem and the other two are sarcastic remarks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

roadrunner said:


> This is a map from Minnesota State University.
> 
> The borders are approximate, yet there's as much of a border inside Iran and Afghanistan, as there is in India.
> 
> The three important sites are all located in Pakistan.
> 
> The map centres on the Indus Valley.



To see Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro, Mehgarh you must need a PAKISTANI visa and travel to PAKISTAN. If you think its Indian and get a visa to India and travel to India, I'm afraid then you wont get to see Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro or Mehgarh because you'll be in the wrong country and Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro, or Mehgarh is no where to be found in India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

*Indus Valley: 3300 B.C*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asq

UnitedPak said:


> *Indus Valley: 3300 B.C*



Great work United Pak.


----------



## Omar1984

Pakistan has very rich history indeed. Another great archeological discovery made in Pakistani soil is Taxila which was the center of Buddhist learning from 5th century BCE to 6th century BCE.

I posted a few pictures on Taxila and also IVC http://www.defence.pk/forums/genera...hitecture-pakistan-historical-overview-5.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## acer

So you people are providing proof that Indus civilization was in ancient pakistan..Then you people have to agree on many things which are uncomfortable to the very much Idea of pakistan


----------



## UnitedPak

acer said:


> So you people are providing proof that Indus civilization was in ancient pakistan..Then you people have to agree on many things which are uncomfortable to the very much Idea of pakistan



No 'proof' is needed. Its blitheringly obvious that Pakistani people are natives hence all the regions history belongs to them. Indus Valley is just another name for the Pakistan region (look up Indus river).

Although congratulations on missing the point entirely. It would seem these facts are making you much more uncomfortable.


----------



## acer

UnitedPak said:


> No 'proof' is needed. Its blitheringly obvious that Pakistani people are natives hence all the regions history belongs to them. Indus Valley is just another name for the Pakistan region (look up Indus river).
> 
> Although congratulations on missing the point entirely. It would seem these facts are making you much more uncomfortable.


Hystory books recorded that Indus valley civilization started along sides of Indus river and south asian people shared same ancestors because there were no other civilization in this part..Now what you are trying to say please clarify,,


----------



## UnitedPak

acer said:


> Hystory books recorded that Indus valley civilization started along sides of Indus river and south asian people shared same ancestors because there were no other civilization in this part..Now what you are trying to say please clarify,,



Only certain "historians" record such non sense.

Bear in mind that the Indus Valley declined only a few thousand years ago. Humans settled in India 30.000 years ago. No migrations happened as recently as 5.000 years ago and since Pakistan has been inhabited continuously, no self respecting historian would discredit Pakistanis from their own history in such a blatant manner as Indian historians.

Take a note that your historians are inventing theories of vanishing rivers, major natural disasters, mass migrations of entire populations and invading armies replacing/driving out entire populations. I forget how all these theories come together, but apparently they do.


----------



## Vinod2070

UnitedPak said:


> No 'proof' is needed. *Its blitheringly obvious that Pakistani people are natives hence all the regions history belongs to them. Indus Valley is just another name for the Pakistan region (look up Indus river).
> *
> Although congratulations on missing the point entirely. It would seem these facts are making you much more uncomfortable.



Although it is not "blitheringly obvious that Pakistani people are natives", it is still a fact that it is you people who chose to disparage everything pre-Islamic as Jahiliyah for a thousand years. A large number of you still do so.

It is facing up to the reality of the Raison d'être of Pakistan and it's circumstances that forces you to discard any links to the ancient history of the land and indeed to disparage it and bad mouth it, to hail your own invaders as liberators and even hail them bad mouthing your own forefathers and motherland!

The title of the thread suggests that Pakistanis should look inwards to see and reassess the reasons for this sorry state of affairs but it has become an occasion to blame India of "stealing" some mythical "ancient Pakistani" history instead of really taking a hard look at whether some of those myths which force these behaviors need to be re-evaluated. 

That may indeed pose some tough questions about the very convenient myths that most of you take for granted. That is the last thing you guys want. To face up to reality!


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> Erm, but Joshi, Bala and Ram are not mentioned in my sources at all! .
> 
> Also, your continual harping on the "Saraswati Civilization" is a red herring, because you are seeking to associate my posts with the nationalist interpretations of some Indian archaeologists with the Rigvedic Saraswati.




I wasn't referring to your list. 

And I agree with stuff by Mughal because he did his research in Pakistan and on Pakistani sites that were verified by Western and neutral researchers. 

SP Gupta has had nothing verified by Western researchers and he's part of a broader fascist Hindu network of archaeologists that *fabricate and fake data*. 


_Ironically, many of those expressing these anti-migrational views are emigrants themselves, engineers or technocrats like N.S. Rajaram, S. Kak, and S. Kalyanaraman, who ship their ideas to India from U.S. shores. They find allies in a broader assortment of home-grown nationalists including university professors, bank employees, and politicians (S. S. Misra, S. Talageri, K.D. Sethna, *S.P. Gupta*, Bh. Singh, M. Shendge, Bh. Gidwani, P. Chaudhuri, A. Shourie, S.R. Goel). They have even gained a small but vo cal following in the West among "New Age" writers or researchers outside mainstream scholarship, including D. Frawley _
HORSEPLAY IN HARAPPA 

It's a fact that SP Gupta backed up faked data by Rajaram on the IVC. His credibility is zero in my eyes, and clearly amongst the world community of archaeological professors. 

Another thing about the IVC sites is that they're not verified by anyone except fanatics from India. They do not follow any sort of guidelines to determinean IVC site. If something looks like rubble the automatic idea sits in their minds, this could be an IVC site. No proof is needed, just a bit of rubble. Foreign archaeologists would not classify half of SP Gupta's sites as IVC sites.


----------



## rubyjackass

Vinod2070 said:


> NO! I just don't get (and agree with) this approach of trying to associate history with the accident of modern geography.


Gr8 lines...

The worst part is the claim about 'owning' the civilization.


----------



## Destructlord

Battle of Thermo-poly or something like that is just a myth! The only battle that Greeks won was written in their fantasy book! (Unfortunately Persians had no interest in writing history book! but recently several ancient documents found (in Khuzestan). which completely deny the ridiculous theories of Greeks!). But please think twice! How Persian Empire could have send more than 2 million troops?! troops need logistic support! moreover... not even today U.S is able to mobilize two million troops!


----------



## UnitedPak

The Indus River is not "modern geography". Pakistani civilisations have always been based around the Indus river.

Vinod, you are constantly bringing up modern politics yourself. Certain Pakistani misconceptions about their origins do *NOT* change facts. You clearly seem to think they do, and that's the only thing you have been rambling on about for the past 20 pages.
I have answered you again and again, and quite frankly you sound like a stuck record now.


----------



## UnitedPak

Vinod2070 said:


> Although it is not "blitheringly obvious that Pakistani people are natives", it is still a fact that it is you people who chose to disparage everything pre-Islamic as Jahiliyah for a thousand years. A large number of you still do so.



Pakistanis are natives to the Indus region.

Please provide any kind of evidence for your absurd claims that Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns and Balochis are not natives to their respective provinces.


----------



## Vinod2070

UnitedPak said:


> The Indus River is not "modern geography". Pakistani civilisations have always been based around the Indus river.



The Indus River is not "modern geography". The country of Pakistan that was created for Indian Muslims in 1947 is!

Not sure why this simple and obvious fact is not sinking in!

And you chose to disregard the obvious fact that it is Muslims who disregarded their history for a thousand years (common to not only Indian Muslims but to others as well like Persian and Egyptians). 

Frankly it is surprising to see you (and some others) blaming India for continuing to embrace their history, to acknowledge it, to be consistent about it. It is some Pakistanis who are finally waking up to it after a long slumber and you are welcome to embrace it. I have seen no post about how the Pakistanis need to become aware of their glorious pre-Islamic history, how this gives a lie to all those claims about people waiting with baited breath for foreign invaders to liberate them from some cruel order and so on.

Frankly I see nothing but just trying to appropriate some history and then junk it. Embracing the history doesn't require you to get into the spin about India at all!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jarnee

I will share some more facts that i saw on History channel , last week. When i say facts they are not biased by my origin. A researcher in now Turkmenistan, took the team to a site where they found remains of Aryan's , they found a Havan Kund ( place to burn holy fire), they also found idols (made of clay) of Lord Indra with a Rath (Charriot) and some artifacts drawings of Indra and few words written in Sanskrit(script). 

They could date this to about old as 3000 years. They also said that at that time their use to be Indra as the main God of Aryans. (Maybe because he was god of rain and rain was important for agriculture ). Other god being Fire. Remember this was the time when concept of religion did not exist. 
This was part of huge site , which was found in digging, remains of old houses etc.

There is one other fact that i will like to highlight the - The Kushan Empire (c. 1st&#8211;3rd centuries) originally formed in Bactria and Gandhara.

Most of Pakistani's in Pheshawar can still see the remains of the sites and artifacts in Museums.
I saw it on TV . Pak govt has done a good job in preserving them.

Please see this link and from wiki - Kushan Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was when Bhudhism was at its height and Peshawar being the capital of the Kushan king. 

After this the era of invasions started , from the Kyber pass. Alexander used it in 328 BC, then later Mehmood Ghazi in 1000 AD.

Now lets talk about who are ancestors of Aryans, German's (Hitler) in WWII time claimed that they are pure blood the blood lines of Aryans. They even had the symbol on Nazi flag. of Swastik. Same Swastik is used in many Hindu rituals even today.

However there was another great civilization , that kept blooming in Southern India the Dravidian race.Which over the years merged with remaining region. 

I will say that people in Pakistan would have or rather should have Aryan origin and similarly people in Indian Northern regions. 

Remember Religion was made by Man not other way. 

Even today in the world people are changing religions because of their will or influence. But that does not change origin and Genes


----------



## Vinod2070

UnitedPak said:


> Pakistanis are natives to the Indus region.
> 
> Please provide any kind of evidence for your absurd claims that Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns and Balochis are not natives to their respective provinces.



As I said, these are claims by Pakistanis that I have read in Pakistani papers and possibly they are exaggerated. It is for you to prove that what Pakistanis are themselves claiming is false!

You are forgetting the major point that this region was never a separate region till 14th august 1947. The regions that you talk about share a lot with parts of India. DarkStar also mentioned the obvious fact that most Sindhis and Punjabis share common roots with North Indians. The 1947 separation does not take that away. The history after 14 Aug 1947 is Pakistani history. The one before that is common.

And let's avoid going in circles. If you don't have anything new, let's give this thread some well deserved rest!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> As I said, these are claims by Pakistanis that I have read in Pakistani papers and possibly they are exaggerated. It is for you to prove that what Pakistanis are themselves claiming is false!


On the contrary, it is up to you to show that no Pakistanis care for their history.

Merely quoting a handful of articles as representative of the sentiment of 170 million Pakistanis is completely disingenuous.

As I said before, even if a minority of Pakistanis care for their history, and the GoP accepts that history (both claims are beyond doubt) then this argument of 'some authors have said this or that' is nothing but a distraction.



> You are forgetting the major point that this region was never a separate region till 14th august 1947. The regions that you talk about share a lot with parts of India. DarkStar also mentioned the obvious fact that most Sindhis and Punjabis share common roots with North Indians. The 1947 separation does not take that away. The history after 14 Aug 1947 is Pakistani history. The one before that is common.
> 
> And let's avoid going in circles. If you don't have anything new, let's give this thread some well deserved rest!


The region was completely splintered before the British occupied it and turned it into a large colony.

Even from a civilizational point of view there were multiple civilizations, and the presence of multiple peoples and cultures is unarguable.

The history before 1947 is the history of the peoples that inhabited that land - that history was primarily of the peoples who inhabited what is now Pakistan. Yes there was some overlap with what is today India, but origins, nucleus and major parts of the IVC were all in Pakistan.

Pakistan does therefore have a far stronger claim to the IVC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

We have gone over all this multiple times. Nothing new here.

All of it has been rebutted earlier.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> We have gone over all this multiple times. Nothing new here.
> 
> All of it has been rebutted earlier.



On the contrary, absolutely nothing has been refuted.

There is nothing to show that there was a mass migration of the IVC people out of the lands comprising Pakistan, which means that the people of Pakistan are the descendants of the IVC, though possibly mingled with other migrants into the region. The origins of the IVC, its nucleus and the major part of the civilization was in the lands comprising Pakistan, there is no question about that either.

The civilization was therefore largely an ancient Pakistani one.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> On the contrary, absolutely nothing has been refuted.
> 
> There is nothing to show that there was a mass migration of the IVC people out of the lands comprising Pakistan, which means that the people of Pakistan are the descendants of the IVC, though possibly mingled with other migrants into the region. The origins of the IVC, its nucleus and the major part of the civilization was in the lands comprising Pakistan, there is no question about that either.
> 
> The civilization was therefore largely an ancient Pakistani one.



The definition of "refuted" is a bit subjective on this topic. Let's just say we have presented our arguments on all these multiple times.

I will try to summarize.


The usage of modern historical boundaries for ancient history and civilization is not a good idea. It leads to many absurd situations that we have discussed.We discussed the case of Turkey and the Greco-Roman empire. It may not be entirely applicable here but it gives the idea.
The history is substantially shared with no clear demarcations. The people on both sides of the Radcliffe line in many cases have the same origins and the same surnames!
IVC has a substantial presence in modern India as well.
Pakistanis are not consistent about when they want to use modern geography and when faith to claim history. Some examples would include you guys claiming heritage of Muslim rule in the modern state of India, you surely feel a part of the heritage of Taj mahal etc., even Tipu Sultan in deep South.
The focus of this thread (as teh title suggests) should have been more internally focused. It should be about the very poor awareness of the ancient glorious history of the land and how that challenges the prevalent myths in Pakistan. Instead it became an unabashed criticism of India for "stealing" or "leeching" some mythical Pakistani civilization!
Some of you guys belatedly felt the need for an identity beyond Islam. That is why this belated and sudden incoherent claim over just the IVC but still aversion to the whole history of the land. Did you notice the pathetic attempts by RR of trying to invent some mythical "Vedism distinct from Hinduism"?
Pakistanis (not one or some individuals but a large number of Pakistanis) need to do a better job of really start respecting and owning that history and not just trying to wrest it from India. Once you do that, you will no longer feel the need to exclusively appropriate it, I can assure you of that. That civilization talked of "Vasudhaiv kutumbakam" (The whole world is a family) and was not so narrow minded as some of it's newly minted "owners" are!
We saw some claims about owning Sanskrit and Panini as well. And I can term them only pathetic. What are you doing about preserving the heritage of Sanskrit? Is there even one school/university teaching it? Isn't the hypocrisy so obvious?

I can go on but this should give a gyst of what has already been discussed.

There is no need to trying to wrest control of the ancient history only to throw it in the bin. Start owning it, take it to the logical conclusions, get rid of the myths and we are all good.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> The definition of "refuted" is a bit subjective on this topic. Let's just say we have presented our arguments on all these multiple times.
> 
> I will try to summarize.
> 
> 
> The usage of modern historical boundaries for ancient history and civilization is not a good idea. It leads to many absurd situations that we have discussed.We discussed the case of Turkey and the Greco-Roman empire. It may not be entirely applicable here but it gives the idea.
> The history is substantially shared with no clear demarcations. The people on both sides of the Radcliffe line in many cases have the same origins and the same surnames!
> IVC has a substantial presence in modern India as well.
> Pakistanis are not consistent about when they want to use modern geography and when faith to claim history. Some examples would include you guys claiming heritage of Muslim rule in the modern state of India, you surely feel a part of the heritage of Taj mahal etc., even Tipu Sultan in deep South.
> The focus of this thread (as teh title suggests) should have been more internally focused. It should be about the very poor awareness of the ancient glorious history of the land and how that challenges the prevalent myths in Pakistan. Instead it became an unabashed criticism of India for "stealing" or "leeching" some mythical Pakistani civilization!
> Some of you guys belatedly felt the need for an identity beyond Islam. That is why this belated and sudden incoherent claim over just the IVC but still aversion to the whole history of the land. Did you notice the pathetic attempts by RR of trying to invent some mythical "Vedism distinct from Hinduism"?
> Pakistanis (not one or some individuals but a large number of Pakistanis) need to do a better job of really start respecting and owning that history and not just trying to wrest it from India. Once you do that, you will no longer feel the need to exclusively appropriate it, I can assure you of that. That civilization talked of "Vasudhaiv kutumbakam" (The whole world is a family) and was not so narrow minded as some of it's newly minted "owners" are!
> We saw some claims about owning Sanskrit and Panini as well. And I can term them only pathetic. What are you doing about preserving the heritage of Sanskrit? Is there even one school/university teaching it? Isn't the hypocrisy so obvious?
> 
> I can go on but this should give a gyst of what has already been discussed.
> 
> There is no need to trying to wrest control of the ancient history only to throw it in the bin. Start owning it, take it to the logical conclusions, get rid of the myths and we are all good.



That summary is also completely one sided, IMO, and distorts the arguments made by the Pakistanis on this thread. This thread, and various other forums such as allthingsPakistan.com,. the efforts by the GoP in preserving the ancient heritage of Pakistan etc. all amount to owning our history. 

The arguments in favor of the IVC clearly being a civilization that originated from, and primarily existed in, what is today Pakistan is irrefutable. Certain overlap with other nations is inevitable, as is the case with the Afghan empires and the Persian civilizations. We have those links, but the Persian civilization does not become a part of Ancient Pakistan becasue the Eastern edges of the civilization permeated into what is today Pakistan.

Similarly, slight overlap of the IVC does not mean that the modern Indian state has an equal claim to the civilization. The lands and people of the IVC were what is today Pakistan, and it is primarily their heritage.


----------



## Vinod2070

Well, we didn't really have a bipartisan approach on this thread and I think it is because the issue evokes very strong emotions in all concerned.

I can only say that I am happy that some Pakistanis are making an attempt to connect to their pre-Islamic civilization at long last. Though as of now it just seems limited to trying to claim the civilization and little or nothing beyond that.

Nevertheless a good beginning. This is level-2. We will surely go to the next levels as the time progresses.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

Pakistan was founded on the basis of "Two Nation Theory", which means that the muslims and hindus of India are separate nations.

Now, by claiming that Pakistan has always existed since ancient times, you giving up the two nation theory and creating a new theory for Pakistan's existence.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Pakistan was founded on the basis of "Two Nation Theory", which means that the muslims and hindus of India are separate nations.
> 
> Now, by claiming that Pakistan has always existed since ancient times, you giving up the two nation theory and creating a new theory for Pakistan's existence.



Not at all - the two nation theory was based on the reality of that particular time, it talked about uniting different cultures and peoples in the West of the subcontinent into a nation on the basis of faith and the desire to live according to their wishes.

I think we have extended that argument to naturally encompass the shared ancient history of the peoples of Pakistan. 

Islam is Pakistan's modern identity, much as Christianity is the faith of most Greeks now, but like the Greeks, our ancestors and our history were not of our current faith. But our history is still ours.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> I can only say that I am happy that some Pakistanis are making an attempt to connect to their pre-Islamic civilization at long last. Though as of now it just seems limited to trying to claim the civilization and little or nothing beyond that.



The you haven't been paying attention - we are claiming the history of ancient Pakistan- that includes its civilizations, cultures, achievements - everything. 

To respect that history we need to preserve it and recognize it, not learn Sanskrit or the IVC script or convert to Buddhism or Vedism. Had the government more resources, we woudl undoubtedly see even more efforts being made in promoting and preserving our heritage - hopefully that will change as we progress.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> To respect that history we need to preserve it and recognize it, not learn Sanskrit or the IVC script or convert to Buddhism or *Vedism*. Had the government more resources, we woudl undoubtedly see even more efforts being made in promoting and preserving our heritage - hopefully that will change as we progress.



What is vedism? Its Hinduism, or the Sanatan Dharam, which is the actual name.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> What is vedism? Its Hinduism, or the Sanatan Dharam, which is the actual name.



The Vedic religion, different from Hinduism as far as I can tell. 

It might be the predecessor of Hinduism, in that some of the elements were incorporated into Hinduism later, but this is all tangential to my argument.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The Vedic religion, different from Hinduism as far as I can tell.
> 
> It might be the predecessor of Hinduism, in that some of the elements were incorporated into Hinduism later, but this is all tangential to my argument.



The Vedic religion is nothing but an early form of Hinduism, which has changed and evolved continually throughout its history.

This whole business inventing a new term ("Vedism") just because Pakistanis don't want to admit that their ancestors were Hindus is complete bullshit.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Not at all - the two nation theory was based on the reality of that particular time, *it talked about uniting different cultures and peoples in the West of the subcontinent into a nation on the basis of faith and the desire to live according to their wishes.*



*That is turning the TNT on it's head! A few glaring facts:*

The majority of Pakistanis on 15 August 1947 were in the East, not West!

The Pakistan demand came mainly from the Muslims of provinces where they were in minority. Places like UP, Bihar etc. In fact Muslims majority states were lukewarm at best in the beginning.

The father of the nation was a Gujarati. I have never seen him talk of a reason for Pakistan other than faith! His insistence on including places like Hyderabad (the Deccan variety  ) in Pakistan suggests that geography was far from his mind and of other leaders of Pakistan.

The population exchange and riots on the basis of faith clearly give a lie to any geography bases ideology of partition.

*This is nothing but revisionism. But that characterizes the whole of Pakistani arguments on this thread.*



> I think we have extended that argument to naturally encompass the shared ancient history of the peoples of Pakistan.
> 
> Islam is Pakistan's modern identity, much as Christianity is the faith of most Greeks now, but like the Greeks, our ancestors and our history were not of our current faith. But our history is still ours.



The analogy doesn't really make any sense. In the Greek case, one never knows of a period when the country was divided on the basis of old and new faiths. If there had been a division, the part still following the ancient faith and civilization would clearly inherit the civilization.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *The Vedic religion, different from Hinduism as far as I can tell. *
> 
> It might be the predecessor of Hinduism, in that some of the elements were incorporated into Hinduism later, but this is all tangential to my argument.



Et tu, Brute?  

We say "Kharbuje ko dekh ke kharbuja rang badala". 

Vedism is as different to Hinduism as Sunnism and Shiaism is to Islam.


----------



## A.Rahman

Vinod2070 said:


> Et tu, Brute?
> 
> We say "Kharbuje ko dekh ke kharbuja rang badala".
> 
> Vedism is as different to Hinduism as Sunnism and Shiaism is to Islam.



Dont try to drag Islam in here. stay on topic


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The you haven't been paying attention - we are claiming the history of ancient Pakistan- that includes its civilizations, cultures, achievements - everything.
> 
> To respect that history we need to preserve it and recognize it, not learn Sanskrit or the IVC script or convert to Buddhism or Vedism. Had the government more resources, we woudl undoubtedly see even more efforts being made in promoting and preserving our heritage - *hopefully that will change as we progress.*



To level-3. Yes, I hope so.


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock said:


> Pakistan was founded on the basis of "Two Nation Theory", which means that the muslims and hindus of India are separate nations.
> 
> Now, by claiming that Pakistan has always existed since ancient times, you giving up the two nation theory and creating a new theory for Pakistan's existence.



Nobody claimed Pakistan as a nation existed before 1947, but the kingdoms/empires and provinces of the region are part of the Pakistani peoples history and identity. Two nation theory states that the "Muslim nation" existed from the invasion of Bin Qasim. Before this it was Pakistanis Pre-Islamic era.

The term "Ancient Pakistan" refers to the people of Pakistan and the Indus Valley. I have told you this *countless* of times Flintlock, Ancient history has nothing to do with politics. Pakistanis are natives to the indus valley, the history of the indus belongs to them, regardless of what they called themselves throughout time.
I have never denied some overlaps into neighbouring regions, but the idea of Pakistanis claiming a history before 1947 offends you too badly.

Do you know how many nations were "created" last century? India was one of them.
You seem to think India has existed constantly as a nation for 1000s of years. Kingdoms and empires are replaced all the time, but in the end the identity is carried on by the descendants. With time every culture and identity experiences changes.

If Indian members didnt have such outbursts when Pakistanis claimed Gandhara and Indus Valley were part of their past, there wouldn't be a problem talking about overlaps. But Indian members want to claim Indus as Indian and fullstop. Pakistanis shouldn't be mentioned at all due to whatever colonial definition they are using.

Your contempt is just shining through, which makes me question the point of explaining anything to you.


----------



## Vinod2070

A.Rahman said:


> Dont try to drag Islam in here. stay on topic



Please check the context. It is not about Islam.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> *That is turning the TNT on it's head! A few glaring facts:*
> 
> The majority of Pakistanis on 15 August 1947 were in the East, not West!
> 
> The Pakistan demand came mainly from the Muslims of provinces where they were in minority. Places like UP, Bihar etc. In fact Muslims majority states were lukewarm at best in the beginning.
> 
> The father of the nation was a Gujarati. I have never seen him talk of a reason for Pakistan other than faith! His insistence on including places like Hyderabad (the Deccan variety  ) in Pakistan suggests that geography was far from his mind and of other leaders of Pakistan.
> 
> The population exchange and riots on the basis of faith clearly give a lie to any geography bases ideology of partition.
> 
> *This is nothing but revisionism. But that characterizes the whole of Pakistani arguments on this thread.*



It doesn't matter where the majority of Pakistanis ended up being, East Pakistan was an addition in a way to the idea of Pakistan that should not have occurred, nor was it originally envisioned as part of Pakistan, rather a separate Independent nation.

I am posting Niaz Sahib's post from elsewhere in this regard:


> In his presidential address at the Lukhnow session of Muslim League in 1930 Allama Iqbal for the first time presented the idea of two nation theory. For the benefit of the members I post the relevant excerpt.
> 
> Quote
> Communalism in its higher aspect, then, is indispensable to the formation of a harmonious whole in a country like India. The units of Indian society are not territorial as in European countries. India is a continent of human groups belonging to different races, speaking different languages, and professing different religions. Their behaviour is not at all determined by a common race-consciousness. Even the Hindus do not form a homogeneous group. The principle of European democracy cannot be applied to India without recognising the fact of communal groups. The Muslim demand for the creation of a Muslim India within India is, therefore, perfectly justified. The resolution of the All-Parties Muslim Conference at Delhi is, to my mind, wholly inspired by this noble ideal of a harmonious whole which, instead of stifling the respective individualities of its component wholes, affords them chances of fully working out the possibilities that may be latent in them. And I have no doubt that this House will emphatically endorse the Muslim demands embodied in this resolution.
> 
> Personally, I would go farther than the demands embodied in it. *I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State.* Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India. The proposal was put forward before the Nehru Committee. They rejected it on the ground that, if carried into effect, it would give a very unwieldy State. This is true in so far as the area is concerned; in point of population, the State contemplated by the proposal would be much less than some of the present Indian provinces. The exclusion of Ambala Division, and perhaps of some districts where non-Muslims predominate, will make it less extensive and more Muslim in population  so that the exclusion suggested will enable this consolidated State to give a more effective protection to non-Muslim minorities within its area. The idea need not alarm the Hindus or the British. India is the greatest Muslim country in the world. The life of Islam as a cultural force in the country very largely depends on its centralisation in a specified territory. This centralisation of the most living portion of the Muslims of India, whose military and police service has, notwithstanding unfair treatment from the British, made the British rule possible in this country, will eventually solve the problem of India as well as of Asia. It will intensify their sense of responsibility and deepen their patriotic feeling.
> 
> Thus, possessing full opportunity of development within the body politic of India, the North-West Indian Muslims will prove the best defenders of India against a foreign invasion, be that invasion one of ideas or of bayonets. The Punjab with 56 percent Muslim population supplies 54 percent of the total combatant troops in the Indian Army, and if the 19,000 Gurkhas recruited from the independent State of Nepal are excluded, the Punjab contingent amounts to 62 percent of the whole Indian Army. This percentage does not take into account nearly 6,000 combatants supplied to the Indian Army by the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan. From this you can easily calculate the possibilities of North-West Indian Muslims in regard to the defence of India against foreign aggression. The Right Hon'ble Mr. Srinivasa Sastri thinks that the Muslim demand for the creation of autonomous Muslim states along the north-west border is actuated by a desire "to acquire means of exerting pressure in emergencies on the Government of India." I may frankly tell him that the Muslim demand is not actuated by the kind of motive he imputes to us; it is actuated by a genuine desire for free development which is practically impossible under the type of unitary government contemplated by the nationalist Hindu politicians with a view to secure permanent communal dominance in the whole of India.
> Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim states will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such states. I have already indicated to you the meaning of the word religion, as applied to Islam. The truth is that Islam is not a Church. It is a State conceived as a contractual organism long before Rousseau ever thought of such a thing, and animated by an ethical ideal which regards man not as an earth-rooted creature, defined by this or that portion of the earth, but as a spiritual being understood in terms of a social mechanism, and possessing rights and duties as a living factor in that mechanism. The character of a Muslim State can be judged from what the Times of India pointed out some time ago in a leader [=front-page article] on the Indian Banking Inquiry Committee. "In ancient India," the paper points out, "the State framed laws regulating the rates of interest; but in Muslim times, although Islam clearly forbids the realisation of interest on money loaned, Indian Muslim States imposed no restrictions on such rates." I therefore demand the formation of a consolidated Muslim State in the best interests of India and Islam. For India, it means security and peace resulting from an internal balance of power; for Islam, an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian Imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilise its law, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times.
> Unquote.
> 
> Three years later a Cambridge student Ch. Rahmet Ali proposed the name Pakistan for the new State. This was followed by the Lahore declaration in 1940 and in 1947 Pakistan was born.





> The analogy doesn't really make any sense. In the Greek case, one never knows of a period when the country was divided on the basis of old and new faiths. If there had been a division, the part still following the ancient faith and civilization would clearly inherit the civilization.


I am not sure why you cannot comprehend it - The Greeks are now primarily orthodox Christians, but their ancient history included a polytheistic faith far removed from Christianity. The Greeks nonetheless still own that ancient history on their land and of their people, even if their culture and faith has changed. The same case with Pakistan.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> Et tu, Brute?
> 
> We say "Kharbuje ko dekh ke kharbuja rang badala".
> 
> Vedism is as different to Hinduism as Sunnism and Shiaism is to Islam.



More like the differences in the Abrahamic faiths than a sectarian one. Vedism was a precursor to Hinduism etc.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> The Vedic religion is nothing but an early form of Hinduism, which has changed and evolved continually throughout its history.



Thats like saying Judaism is an early form of Islam ... (technically it is I suppose, since Moses was God's messenger and Prophet as well), but from a scientific non-theistic perspective, Islam woudl be an evolution of the other Abrahamic faiths, like Hinduism might be of Vedism.

But anyway, we go off topic. My original comment was in response to the 2 nation theory.


----------



## Flintlock

Not at all. You are missing my point completely. What "offends" me, or rather what I disagree with, whole idea of trying to isolate the history of Pakistan from the rest of India, which is simply incorrect.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Thats like saying Judaism is an early form of Islam ... (technically it is I suppose, since Moses was God's messenger and Prophet as well), but from a scientific non-theistic perspective, Islam woudl be an evolution of the other Abrahamic faiths, like Hinduism might be of Vedism.
> 
> But anyway, we go off topic. My original comment was in response to the 2 nation theory.



HInduism cannot and should not be compared with Abrahmic religions, because unlike Islam, nobody drew a line and declared the new faith to be "Hinduism." and the old one to be "Vedism" (except when Roadrunner came along and did it for us)

Hinduism carried forward the gods of the Rig Veda, and the Rig Veda is an essential part of Hinduism (Unlike Islam where the Quran supercedes the older books.).

Hinduism is essentially inclusive, and not exclusive like Abrahmic religions.

Also, this isn't off topic, since Hinduism is also part of Pakistan's history, and you guys must learn to appreciate that before you start claiming the achievements of Hindus.


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock said:


> Not at all. You are missing my point completely. What "offends" me, or rather what I disagree with, whole idea of trying to isolate the history of Pakistan from the rest of India, which is simply incorrect.



I already acknowledged history overlaps, which is the case with all neighbouring regions of the world.
I didn't miss your point as you have spent a considerable time trying to prove that Pakistanis are not the same people as Ancient Pakistanis. Refer back to all your mass migration theories.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Not at all. You are missing my point completely. What "offends" me, or rather what I disagree with, whole idea of trying to isolate the history of Pakistan from the rest of India, which is simply incorrect.



The history of no nation can be isolated from its surrounding nations, but at the same time when we credit a nation or people with that history (The Persians, Greeks etc.) we shoudl take into account where the nucleus, origins and majority of the history took place.

As I said before, just because the Persian civilization at one time incorporated parts of Pakistan does not mean the Persian civilization is Pakistani history. We share it to an extent no doubt, but the nucleus and majority of that civilization was in what is today Iran, and it is Iranian history, shared by Pakistan and the other nations the Persian civilization impacted.


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> I already acknowledged history overlaps, which is the case with all neighbouring regions of the world.
> I didn't miss your point as you have spent a considerable time trying to prove that Pakistanis are not the same people as Ancient Pakistanis. Refer back to all your mass migration theories.



Those theories are not mine, so that's a moot point.

What I showed was that there was a gradual shift of post-harapan settlements eastward into the hitherto uninhabited Gangetic plains. Which I still stand by, the sources, highly credible ones at that, are still there.

In any case, I'm not discussing the IVC anymore. I said so earlier.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> More like the differences in the Abrahamic faiths than a sectarian one. Vedism was a precursor to Hinduism etc.



Who are these Vedists? We can still see the Jews and the Christians.


----------



## DarkStar

The Vedic religion and rituals later incorporated local beliefs, deities, especially after the success of the early Bhakti movements which spread from the south to the North. This led to teh formation of modern day HInduism, which supplanted the previous, indigenous Budhist and Jain beliefs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

DarkStar said:


> The Vedic religion and rituals later incorporated local beliefs, deities, especially after the success of the early Bhakti movements which spread from the south to the North. This led to teh formation of modern day HInduism, which supplanted the previous, indigenous Budhist and Jain beliefs.



The Vedic religion is nothing but early Hinduism. To call it a different religion is wrong. 

The only way you can call it a different religion is if later Hindus rejected the RigVeda and the Rigvedic Gods.


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> It doesn't matter where the majority of Pakistanis ended up being, East Pakistan was an addition in a way to the idea of Pakistan that should not have occurred, *nor was it originally envisioned as part of Pakistan*, rather a separate Independent nation.
> 
> I am posting Niaz Sahib's post from elsewhere in this regard:



I am not sure what "original" means. That was one proposal and the Muslim league leaders in their wisdom created a single nation based on the faith of Islam. It was always about that and not geography. Why deny the undeniable!



> I am not sure why you cannot comprehend it - The Greeks are now primarily orthodox Christians, but their ancient history included a polytheistic faith far removed from Christianity. The Greeks nonetheless still own that ancient history on their land and of their people, even if their culture and faith has changed. The same case with Pakistan.



No one is denying you you history. It is you guys who abandoned it. Now some of you want to again claim it.

We are always saying it is a common history. Not that it doesn't belong to you!

That was a Pakistani position that now seems to be changing slowly. A most welcome change.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> I am not sure what "original" means. That was one proposal and the Muslim league leaders in their wisdom created a single nation based on the faith of Islam. It was always about that and not geography. Why deny the undeniable!



You talked of the Two Nation theory, and I believe I proved to you that in its original form the Two nation theory talked of uniting the Western Muslim territories.

The addition of East Bengal was the result of the politics of the time. 



> No one is denying you you history. It is you guys who abandoned it. Now some of you want to again claim it.
> 
> We are always saying it is a common history. Not that it doesn't belong to you!
> 
> That was a Pakistani position that now seems to be changing slowly. A most welcome change.



No one abandoned it - if we had abandoned it we would not have preserved what we have now of the IVC and Gandhara. You are just seeing more and more people take interest in it as the information revolution puts more information at our fingertips.


----------



## DarkStar

Flintlock said:


> The Vedic religion is nothing but early Hinduism. To call it a different religion is wrong.
> 
> The only way you can call it a different religion is if later Hindus rejected the RigVeda and the Rigvedic Gods.



I don't want to go off topic on this thread, and personally I would not normally find it appropriate debating with you the various mechanisms which led to Hinduism being the religion it is today. I would not wish to cause offense.

However, If you insist, I could oblige you by beginning this discussion in another thread.


----------



## Flintlock

DarkStar said:


> I don't want to go off topic on this thread, and personally I would not normally find it appropriate debating with you the various mechanisms which led to Hinduism being the religion it is today. I would not wish to cause offense.
> 
> However, If you insist, I could oblige you by beginning this discussion in another thread.



I am well aware of the history of Hinduism, thank you very much, and also of the history of Islam. Both of which I have read from an objective (and non-religious point of view.

The history of hinduism has various layers, and it has absorbed many influences over the centuries. 

However, these current attempts to create a new religion simply in order to prove that Pakistanis were never Hindus (inspite of the fact that they worshipped the same gods, considered the same texts to be sacred, and their society was identical to the Brahminical system this side of the border), is rather absurd and completely wrong.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> ous layers, and it has absorbed many influences over the centuries.
> 
> However, these current attempts to create a new religion simply in order to prove that Pakistanis were never Hindus (inspite of the fact that they worshipped the same gods, considered the same texts to be sacred, and their society was identical to the Brahminical system this side of the border), is rather absurd and completely wrong.



So you claim - I see no evidence in that respect as others and I have argued. But, as DS said, start another thread for that discussion.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> So you claim - I see no evidence in that respect as others and I have argued. But, as DS said, start another thread for that discussion.



Are you freaking kiddng me? On one hand you claim the achievements of Hindus like Brahmagupta (Brahmin), and on the other hand you claim that Pakistanis were not Hindus? 

This is highly absurd, but yes, I am going to start a thread on the topic, since people seem highly reluctant to accept the plain fact.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Are you freaking kiddng me? On one hand you claim the achievements of Hindus like Brahmagupta (Brahmin), and on the other hand you claim that Pakistanis were not Hindus?
> 
> This is highly absurd, but yes, I am going to start a thread on the topic, since people seem highly reluctant to accept the plain fact.



I said nothing of the sort - quit distorting my comments Flint - its becoming a favorite past time this of some of you.

I disagreed with the argument that Vedism was the same as Hinduism - I did not say Pakistanis were not Hindus at some point in history.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I disagreed with the argument that Vedism was the same as Hinduism - I did not say Pakistanis were not Hindus at some point in history.



Ok, fine maybe I minunderstood your post. But my original point stands.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

The Pakistani identity belongs to the people and not any specific religion.

*Even IF* Pakistanis followed the exact same version of Hinduism as modern Indians, Pakistani ancestors are still unrelated to the Indian people, as is proved by the numerous separate kingdoms and people (with their own languages and cultures) who inhabited the Indus region through the centuries.

As for 'Hinduism', the religion differs depending on which part of India you go. It seems very unlikely that Pakistanis would be following any one of the Indian versions 1400 years ago. And this has been proved to be the case by RR several times.
Add to this the fact that a lot of Hindu Indians consider Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism to be part of Hinduism, the definition of Hinduism becomes even vaguer.

The mounting evidence suggests that the Indus region has always had a separate identity right from the Indus Valley era. The region has continuously been inhabited to modern times by the same people and the region experienced countless of invasions due to being a crossroad of civilizations.

Certain members have a very limited understanding of the subcontinent which is portrayed by their dreams of colonial India being a natural country. As much as it pains us, the old kingdoms were neither tolerant or multicultural, hence the countless of wars. The idea of a democratic multicultural ancient India spanning from Afghanistan to Vietnam is absurd.

I found this interesting piece by dismayed Nepalese people:



> *Kathmandu: When Hindi comedy film 'Chandni Chowk to China' ruffled Nepali sentiments by wrongly asserting that the Buddha was born in India, it was not an isolated mistake, say many Nepalis. They feel that Bollywood has been stereotyping and belittling the Himalayan nation over the years.*


Learn to appreciate our nation, Nepal tells Bollywood

Flintlock needs to understand that colonial India did not exist before British arrival. Painful reality, I know...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

Ancient India has nothing to do with colonialism, and you know nothing whatsoever about the social and political structures in Ancient India. lets just leave it a that.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> Add to this the fact that a lot of Hindu Indians consider Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism to be part of Hinduism, the definition of Hinduism becomes even vaguer.



Now this is revisionism - its the faith/culture based ideological equivalent to the Akhand Bharat (geographic expansionism) expansionist ideology - or perhaps they both work together ...


----------



## Destructlord

Honestly i didnt know Afghans had any empire?!


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Now this is revisionism - its the faith/culture based ideological equivalent to the Akhand Bharat (geographic expansionism) expansionist ideology - or perhaps they both work together ...



Its not. 'Hindu' originally refered to any inhabitant of the Indian subcontinent, but only in recent times have some of the religious practices of India become associated with the word "Hindu".

The fact is that "Hindu" can still be used for any inhabitant of India - whether he believes in Dharma, Buddhism, Sikhism, or Jainism. Although some faiths want to dissociate themselves from what they consider to be Hinduism, so they don't like being called Hindus.

If the original definition of Hindu is used, then even the Muslims and Christians of the subcontinent are Hindus.


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock said:


> Ancient India has nothing to do with colonialism, and you know nothing whatsoever about the social and political structures in Ancient India. lets just leave it a that.



We will "leave it at that" when you address my points instead of avoiding my arguments with silly topic derailing accusations.


----------



## Flintlock

And the idea that the entity formed by drawing an arbitrary boundary based on Muslim population in 1947 happened to coincide exactly with an enitity which remained largely isolated from the rest of India for most of history, is highly absurd.

The fact is that Pakistani history and society is deeply intertwined with Indian history and society, and nothing can change that.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Destructlord said:


> Honestly i didnt know Afghans had any empire?!



Yes - the Durrani empire - encompassed most of modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some parts of Iran too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> The fact is that Pakistani history and society is deeply intertwined with Indian history and society, and nothing can change that.



As it is intertwined with the history of Iran and Afghanistan as well. 

The connections do exist, but the fact is that the nucleus of some aspects of that history, such as the IVC, existed in what is today Pakistan, and therefore are Pakistani more than Indian.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> As it is intertwined with the history of Iran and Afghanistan as well.



The western parts of Pakistan share more with Afghani history, but even parts of Afghani history are shared with India, so depends on the time period.

OTOH, Eastern provinces of Pakistan share a lot of history with the north-western Indian provinces. 

I think Niaz summed up the situation quite well a few pages ago.

Regarding IVC - no comment. 

I'm talking about the post IVC period - the Buddhist and Hindu age.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> The western parts of Pakistan share more with Afghani history, but even parts of Afghani history are shared with India, so depends on the time period.
> 
> OTOH, Eastern provinces of Pakistan share a lot of history with the north-western Indian provinces.
> 
> I think Niaz summed up the situation quite well a few pages ago.
> 
> Regarding IVC - no comment.
> 
> I'm talking about the post IVC period - the Buddhist and Hindu age.



I fail to see how that is counter to my argument that Pakistan shares history with Iran, Afghanistan and India. And the people of the North West and West can be found throughout Pakistan, indicating that the cultures from various parts of the country have diffused through Pakistan.


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I fail to see how that is counter to my argument that Pakistan shares history with Iran, Afghanistan and India. And the people of the North West and West can be found throughout Pakistan, indicating that the cultures from various parts of the country have diffused through Pakistan.



It doesn't, but then for that matter even India shares history with Iran (Taj Mahal!!)

The point is that Pakistani history and culture has much more in common with India than with any other country - that's a fact - and its especially true in its 2 eastern provinces, which BTW make up the vast majority of its population.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## swami

1.Present day muslims in the subcontinent are converts.(obvious)
2.People of punjab and afghanistan n the northern regions r different fro those in other regions of Indian subcontinenet.
3.Sindhis are more similar to gujaratis than punjabis(not discussing religion here)
4.The invasion by Sakas and Huns pushed the original inhabitants of the nothern regions(punjab n higher up) to the ganga plain.But military advances do not necessarily convert into long term advantages.
The soft power of the earlier civilisation(probably also the ruse of fertile punjb region) got these nomadic tribes to settle and gradually accept `hinduism`.So they ve a different geneology..With the advent of Islamic invaders these people were converted to Islam.So a punjabi sikh or a haryanvi hindu or a pakistani punjabi muslim has same geneology.


----------



## swami

Sindhis are similar to gjaratis.Baluchs n Kashmiris as Pushtoons r different nationality like the nagas or tamils.
Pushtuns here need special emphasis..There were wave of nomadic inaders..cal them huns, sakas/skythians,mongols, turks etc.So the western region of the subcontinent(pak/afghan) region contains various nationalities with the later invader pushing the former into the subconinent.theefore punjabis r diff than pushtuns.in the current day pak/afghan region, sindhis r he only people who were there in the time of IVC.


----------



## Destructlord

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Yes - the Durrani empire - encompassed most of modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some parts of Iran too.



When exactly that happend?! Are you talking about Ashraf-e Afghan? the one who the Nader Shah destroyed? :S


----------



## swami

nadir shah came lots later....
just to cheer pakistani friends..u aren aryans but nothing to be disappointed abt because Scythians r well documented to be terrific warriors..n had blood rituals n all(western documentation)..Huns not too bad either..
hese people defeated the aryans n established themselves in the regions mentioned..cheers
As for Ghaggar hakra debate...The whole theory is indeed true..but Indus river was never abondoned..in fact after the drying of Hakra Ghaggar/Saraswati people moved both east n west..east to Indus n west to ganges..


----------



## swami

The invasions took place between 100 n 500 AD..If u google a little u will find out..I ve other stuff too but this forum has its limitations..I will wait for the right audience...


----------



## UnitedPak

*Swami,* please read the whole thread. 

Your arguments have been trashed countless of times already, and we don't need to keep repeating ourselves.
Try to counter the arguments posted most recently. Besides, we use something called "sources" to back up our claims. You have no sources and half the stuff you are claiming barely makes any sense.
I see you only joined a few days ago, so take your time familiarising yourself will all the posts and more importantly the topic.

And I also just noticed that you are banned, and I didn't write all this for nothing so I am gonna go ahead and click on that post reply button anyway...


----------



## Destructlord

swami said:


> nadir shah came lots later....
> just to cheer pakistani friends..u aren aryans but nothing to be disappointed abt because Scythians r well documented to be terrific warriors..n had blood rituals n all(western documentation)..Huns not too bad either..
> hese people defeated the aryans n established themselves in the regions mentioned..cheers
> As for Ghaggar hakra debate...The whole theory is indeed true..but Indus river was never abondoned..in fact after the drying of Hakra Ghaggar/Saraswati people moved both east n west..east to Indus n west to ganges..



I know Scythians are very great warriors, However, I havent said im Aryan! how do you find out?! Scythians were great with sword, Aryans with bow, There are people in Iran, We call them "Lur" they're descendents of both Scythians and Aryans! Im a Lur actually!  

Sorry if it was off-topic i wanted you to know there were marriage between Aryans and Scythians!


----------



## imtiyaz

We are one peolpe, body mind and soul.Indians r liars..this swami guy doesnt know nuts..Gud they banned him..I say v should ban all indians..They ve nohing but trash to write..Saraswati...haha...I think Indus valley civilisation should be renamed Muhammad civilisation or something similar to desist indians from making silly claims.


----------



## Proud2Indian

1) How Ghauri was linked with Pakistan? I tried to find out regarding the same but all facts points that he only related to current day Pakistan as aggressor. Even than missile has been named after him. 

2) Main basis for forming the Pakistan is religion. Even today Pakistan talk all the time about Muslim Brotherhood. Why are they interested in non-Islamic history.
And before you ask why India is interested in non-Hindu history, well we never had bias towards any religion. 
(I think second point must have been covered here. If so pls point be that. I tried searching but nothing came up).


----------



## Musalman

imtiyaz said:


> We are one peolpe, body mind and soul.Indians r liars..this swami guy doesnt know nuts..Gud they banned him..I say v should ban all indians..They ve nohing but trash to write..Saraswati...haha...I think Indus valley civilisation should be renamed Muhammad civilisation or something similar to desist indians from making silly claims.



Swami is right you are wrong brother. Accept the fact that we are of Indic stock. NO matter what you can not become an Iranic, Arab, Turk etc.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Musalman said:


> Swami is right you are wrong brother. Accept the fact that we are of Indic stock. NO matter what you can not become an Iranic, Arab, Turk etc.



What is 'Indic Stock'?

The human migration theory suggests all humans are descendant from some African tribe (Adam and Eve were black! God's real 'chosen people').

Then there are also theories that South India was populated by people from Africa. 

I don't think there is such a thing as 'Indic stock', given the ethnic/racial diversity in India and Pakistan.


----------



## roadrunner

Musalman said:


> Swami is right you are wrong brother. Accept the fact that we are of Indic stock. NO matter what you can not become an Iranic, Arab, Turk etc.



Nonsense. 

Pakistan is *linguistically* half Indic and half Iranic. 

These are language classifications, nothing to do with genetic stock or evolution. 

Another thing to point out is that the "Indic" language classification bases itself on some small discrepancies in the evolution of Sanskrit which was generated out of the Avestan. 

"Indic" is really a nonsensical term - i feel it was invented to unify the subcontinent artificially.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Musalman

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> What is 'Indic Stock'?
> 
> The human migration theory suggests all humans are descendant from some African tribe (Adam and Eve were black! God's real 'chosen people').
> 
> Then there are also theories that South India was populated by people from Africa.
> 
> I don't think there is such a thing as 'Indic stock', given the ethnic/racial diversity in India and Pakistan.



Okay then what are we? Arab!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Musalman

roadrunner said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Pakistan is *linguistically* half Indic and half Iranic.
> 
> These are language classifications, nothing to do with genetic stock or evolution.
> 
> Another thing to point out is that the "Indic" language classification bases itself on some small discrepancies in the evolution of Sanskrit which was generated out of the Avestan.
> 
> "Indic" is really a nonsensical term - i feel it was invented to unify the subcontinent artificially.



Not just linguistically but ethnically. Majority of people in Pakistan are Punjabi who have indic or Indian background. So are the Sindhis and people of Karachi. So majority have Indian background.


----------



## roadrunner

Musalman said:


> Not just linguistically but ethnically.



What makes an ethnic group, Indian or Indic? Do you have any idea? 



> Majority of people in Pakistan are Punjabi who have indic or Indian background. So are the Sindhis and people of Karachi. So majority have Indian background.



Punjabis in Pakistan have a Pakistani background. 

The background or history of the Pakistani Punjab is all that happened within the confines of Pakistani Punjabi. This has nothing to do with India. 

The background or history of an individual Pakistani Punjabi is all that happened to his or her ancestors. This again has nothing to do with India, with the exception of the Muhajirs, though they will eventually assimilate into the wider Pakistani society. 

Currently, it is only the Muhajirs of Pakistan that can claim an Indian background. Noone else, not even the majority of Pakistani Punjabis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Musalman

> Punjabis in Pakistan have a Pakistani background.


I agree but before 1947 Pakistan did not exist. What were we before 1947. 

Anyway!!


----------



## roadrunner

Musalman said:


> I agree but before 1947 Pakistan did not exist. What were we before 1947.
> 
> Anyway!!



Pakistan, the name did not exist. 

The land now known as Pakistan *ALWAYS* existed. 

This land has history - Pakistani history. 

The ancestors of today's Pakistanis - the history of the people of Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Musalman

roadrunner said:


> Pakistan, the name did not exist.
> 
> The land now known as Pakistan *ALWAYS* existed.
> 
> This land has history - Pakistani history.



LOL Okay


----------



## roadrunner

Musalman said:


> LOL Okay



Bharat is a little to the East. You might be confused.


----------



## UnitedPak

Musalman said:


> I agree but before 1947 Pakistan did not exist. What were we before 1947.
> 
> Anyway!!



So you are saying that your ancestors didnt exist before 1947? Punjabis, Sindhis didnt exist before 1947?
Dont mistake the day of our independence as the day of our "creation".

Also tell me what Pakistani ethnic groups have in common with Assamese, Tamils and the rest of Indians.

Please define "Indic" people. We already have ethnic groups for such groupings, and its common knowledge that all *neighbouring* ethnic groups share similarities. Note the word *neighbouring*. Pakistani ethnic groups have similarities with all neighbours. Why don't you emphasize the Afghanic or Iranic ethnic groups as much as you emphasize Indic?

The ethnic groups around the Indus river also share similarities with each other. Why not emphasise this?
There is no such thing as "Indic ethnic groups". If there is, then there should also be the "Indus ethnic groups".


----------



## Musalman

UnitedPak said:


> So you are saying that your ancestors didnt exist before 1947? Punjabis, Sindhis didnt exist before 1947?
> Dont mistake the day of our independence as the day of our "creation".
> 
> Also tell me what Pakistani ethnic groups have in common with Assamese, Tamils and the rest of Indians.
> 
> Please define "Indic" people. We already have ethnic groups for such groupings, and its common knowledge that all *neighbouring* ethnic groups share similarities. Note the word *neighbouring*. Pakistani ethnic groups have similarities with all neighbours. Why don't you emphasize the Afghanic or Iranic ethnic groups as much as you emphasize Indic?
> 
> The ethnic groups around the Indus river also share similarities with each other. Why not emphasise this?
> There is no such thing as "Indic ethnic groups". If there is, then there should also be the "Indus ethnic groups".



Nothing in common but in border sense they are Indian. Anyways, I have my ways of thinking, you have ur ways.


----------



## Khajur

UnitedPak said:


> So you are saying that your ancestors didnt exist before 1947? Punjabis, Sindhis didnt exist before 1947?
> Dont mistake the day of our independence as the day of our "creation".
> 
> Also tell me what Pakistani ethnic groups have in common with Assamese, Tamils and the rest of Indians.
> 
> Please define "Indic" people. We already have ethnic groups for such groupings, and its common knowledge that all *neighbouring* ethnic groups share similarities. Note the word *neighbouring*. Pakistani ethnic groups have similarities with all neighbours. Why don't you emphasize the Afghanic or Iranic ethnic groups as much as you emphasize Indic?
> 
> The ethnic groups around the Indus river also share similarities with each other. Why not emphasise this?
> There is no such thing as "Indic ethnic groups". If there is, then there should also be the "Indus ethnic groups".



Look its true that Pakistani ethnic groups have little in common with Assamese Tamils and the rest of Indians.But so are upper cast north indians Vis-&#224;-vis mojority of south indians or Assamese for that matter.Surely they are ethinically more in common with majority of pakistani(punjabi & sindhis) populace.

hell even good no of south indian Brahmins are some of the fairest
skined ppl in the sub continent while rest of the south indians tend to be brown.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Khajur said:


> Look its true that Pakistani ethnic groups have little in common with Assamese Tamils and the rest of Indians.But so are upper cast north indians Vis-à-vis mojority of south indians or Assamese for that matter.Surely they are ethinically more in common with majority of pakistani(punjabi & sindhis) populace.
> 
> hell even good no of south indian Brahmins are some of the fairest
> skined ppl in the sub continent while rest of the south indians tend to be brown.



The point here is not that commonalities do not exist between some people in the border regions, it is the argument that somehow we need to invent a whole new 'stock' called 'Indic' to somehow describe everyone in South Asia, when it is quite obvious that there are multiple ethnicities and 'stocks' in South Asia.

Musalman's only response to this is to trivialize the argument and raise the canard of 'so we must be Arabs!'. 

I'll place him in a similar category of people as those who claim Arab ancestry without justification, someone who is insecure enough to cling to and invent some 'mythical' 'Indic stock' to belong to.

I don't understand why people have problems with being themselves, and have to associate with someone or the other....


----------



## Destructlord

We are proud to have common root with our Pakistani brothers.


----------



## UnitedPak

Musalman said:


> Nothing in common but in border sense they are Indian. Anyways, I have my ways of thinking, you have ur ways.





Khajur said:


> Look its true that Pakistani ethnic groups have little in common with Assamese Tamils and the rest of Indians.But so are upper cast north indians Vis-&#224;-vis mojority of south indians or Assamese for that matter.Surely they are ethinically more in common with majority of pakistani(punjabi & sindhis) populace.
> 
> hell even good no of south indian Brahmins are some of the fairest
> skined ppl in the sub continent while rest of the south indians tend to be brown.



The whole point of having an ethnic group like Punjabi is to define people who are similar, i.e people with the same culture, language and to some extent religion. 1200 years of Islam, and you are still trying to convince me that Punjabis and Sindhis couldn't possibly have any similarities with their neighbours to their west.

You cant make a group of ethnic groups. Its simply absurd. Now if you want to discuss similarities between Baluchis, Pathans and Punjabis on the other sides of the border, then go ahead. *But Pakistan represents the majority of all the major ethnic groups shared with neighbouring countries.* So you cant claim Pakistanis to be Indic, Iranic or Afghanic. It would be the other way around for those ethnic groups. This is not to say that I dont find grouping already existing ethnic groups ridiculous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

The South Indian Brahmins tend to be Tamil looking. The fair ones are recent immigrants from the Northwest of India. The overwhelming majority of Brahmins in both South AND North India are Tamil looking imo. 

A small percentage of Brahmins look "fair".


----------



## Omar1984

Musalman said:


> Nothing in common but in border sense they are Indian. Anyways, I have my ways of thinking, you have ur ways.



Pakistan consists of five major ethnic groups. Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Saraikis, and Baloch. Kashmir is a disputed area so I'm going to leave Kashmiris out of this discussion (BTW I consider Kashmiris to be Pakistanis too). There are other ethnic groups in Pakistan also, but they are a small minority.

Of the five major ethnic groups of Pakistan:
Punjabis are 46&#37; of Pakistan's population. In India, a country of over 1 billion, Punjabis are only 3% of India's population.

Pashtuns are 16% of Pakistan's population. In India, a country of over 1 billion, Pashtuns are less than 0.00000001% of India's population

Sindhis are more than 14% of Pakistan's population. In India, a country of over 1 billion, Sindhis are less than 0.0000005% of India's population.

Saraiki are 9% of Pakistan's population. In India, a country of over 1 billion, Saraikis are less than 0.00000001% of India's population

Baloch are more than 3.5% of Pakistan's population. In India, a country of over 1 billion, Baloch dont even exist.

Mohajars, who migrated from India during partition in 1947 and their descendants, are 7% of Pakistan's population...these people are same as Muslims living in India.

My conclusion: Pakistan and India are not the same people, Pakistanis are not Indians because majority of Pakistanis are not similar to the majority of Indians. Only the very very very small minority Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, Saraikis living in India are similar to Pakistanis but they are an extremely small minority in India.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## roadrunner

^^ That's a good mathematical proof. Thanks for that.


----------



## ironman

Omar1984 said:


> Pakistan consists of five major ethnic groups. Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Saraikis, and Baloch. Kashmir is a disputed area so I'm going to leave Kashmiris out of this discussion (BTW I consider Kashmiris to be Pakistanis too). There are other ethnic groups in Pakistan also, but they are a small minority.
> 
> Of the five major ethnic groups of Pakistan:
> Punjabis are 46% of Pakistan's population. In India, a country of over 1 billion, Punjabis are only 3% of India's population.
> 
> Pashtuns are 16% of Pakistan's population. In India, a country of over 1 billion, Pashtuns are less than 0.00000001% of India's population
> 
> Sindhis are more than 14% of Pakistan's population. In India, a country of over 1 billion, Sindhis are less than 0.0000005% of India's population.
> 
> Saraiki are 9% of Pakistan's population. In India, a country of over 1 billion, Saraikis are less than 0.00000001% of India's population
> 
> Baloch are more than 3.5% of Pakistan's population. In India, a country of over 1 billion, Baloch dont even exist.
> 
> Mohajars, who migrated from India during partition in 1947 and their descendants, are 7% of Pakistan's population...these people are same as Muslims living in India.
> 
> My conclusion: Pakistan and India are not the same people, Pakistanis are not Indians because majority of Pakistanis are not similar to the majority of Indians. Only the very very very small minority Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, Saraikis living in India are similar to Pakistanis but they are an extremely small minority in India.




Lets make it in numbers: 


--------------Pakistan----------------------India
Saraiki---- around 1,30,00,000-------- around 57,000
Baloch-----around 8,00,00,000-------- nil
Punjabi----around 9,00,00,000---------around 3,00,00,000
Sindhi-----around 4,30,00,000---------around 50,00,000
Pashtun---around 2,80,00,000--------around 12,000


and rest ethinic group of india...please dont ask to eloborate it. It will take hours.. so i'm giving a link.
Template:Ethnic Groups of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So comaparing with these much groups, the Punjabi,Sindhi,Saraiki etc are not too much small.


----------



## UnitedPak

ironman said:


> Lets make it in numbers:
> 
> 
> --------------Pakistan----------------------India
> Saraiki---- around 1,30,00,000-------- around 57,000
> Baloch-----around 8,00,00,000-------- nil
> Punjabi----around 9,00,00,000---------around 3,00,00,000
> Sindhi-----around 4,30,00,000---------around 50,00,000
> Pashtun---around 2,80,00,000--------around 12,000
> 
> 
> and rest ethinic group of india...please dont ask to eloborate it. It will take hours.. so i'm giving a link.
> Template:Ethnic Groups of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So comaparing with these much groups, the Punjabi,Sindhi,Saraiki etc are not too much small.



"Not too much small"...for what exactly??

Are you going to ignore the other 97&#37; of Indian people in order to claim that Indians belong to the Indus region?

We have already established that Punjabis on both sides of the border have similarities.
Note, Punjabis only. This is about as far as you can pull the "same ancestors" card.
I am not even taking into account that Sikh Punjabis and Muslim Punjabis haven't mixed for centuries, and that not every Indian Punjabi has Pakistani origin, but it is conclusive that Indian people do not belong to the Indus region.

Next.


----------



## roadrunner

The actual figures are irrelevant here, because India is considered one grouping, Pakistan another grouping. 

The Pakistani groupings which form nearly 100% of Pakistan's mixture only form 1% of India's people (those too are highly mixed with the surroundings).


----------



## Flintlock

You guys have made a rather elementary mistake. While comparing the populations, don't look for the identical ethnic group, but similar ethnic groups. 

For example, Pakistani Punjab's population (81mn) should be compared with Indian Punjab+Haryana+Himachal Pradesh (51mn)

Sindh's population (46mn) should be compared with Gujarat (50mn)


----------



## Omar1984

ironman said:


> Lets make it in numbers:
> 
> 
> --------------Pakistan----------------------India
> Saraiki---- around 1,30,00,000-------- around 57,000
> Baloch-----around 8,00,00,000-------- nil
> Punjabi----around 9,00,00,000---------around 3,00,00,000
> Sindhi-----around 4,30,00,000---------around 50,00,000
> Pashtun---around 2,80,00,000--------around 12,000
> 
> 
> and rest ethinic group of india...please dont ask to eloborate it. It will take hours.. so i'm giving a link.
> Template:Ethnic Groups of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So comaparing with these much groups, the Punjabi,Sindhi,Saraiki etc are not too much small.



Whats with the commas.

-----------Pakistan-----India
Saraikis 13,843,106------56,096 Saraiki people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Baloch 8,000,000-----------0 Baloch people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Punjabi 90,000,000----------30,000,00 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_people
Sindhi 43,842,000----------4,890,000 Sindhi people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pashtun 28,000,000---------11,086 Pashtun people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is 2005 estimate, Pashtun population in Pakistan has risen a lot since then in Pakistan and is much higher than the Sindhi population.

Pakistan's total population: 172,800,000 Demographics of Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
India's Total population: 1.15 billion Demographics of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*When you do the math, less than 3.1&#37; of India's total population share the same ethnicity of Pakistanis. More than 96.99% of Indians are not similar to Pakistanis, except the Indian Muslims who are similar to Mohajars (people and their descendents who migrated from India to Pakistan during partition).*


----------



## DarkStar

Let me just say, that more PUnjabis migrated in 1947, than other linguistic groups. They were also mohajir, although they do not wear the label as such, anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ironman

Omar1984 said:


> Whats with the commas.
> 
> -----------Pakistan-----India
> Saraikis 13,843,106------56,096 Saraiki people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Baloch 8,000,000-----------0 Baloch people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Punjabi 90,000,000----------30,000,00 Punjabi people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Sindhi 43,842,000----------4,890,000 Sindhi people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Pashtun 28,000,000---------11,086 Pashtun people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> This is 2005 estimate, Pashtun population in Pakistan has risen a lot since then in Pakistan and is much higher than the Sindhi population.
> 
> Pakistan's total population: 172,800,000 Demographics of Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> India's Total population: 1.15 billion Demographics of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> When you do the math, less than 3.1% of India's total population share the same ethnicity of Pakistanis. More than 96.9% of Indians are not similar to Pakistanis, except the Indian Muslims which are similar to Mohajars (people and their descendents who migrated from India to Pakistan during partition).



Friend, when we add history to these ethnic groups. They derived from either Aryans or Dravidian's.


----------



## Flintlock

ironman said:


> Friend, when we add history to these ethnic groups. They derived from either Aryans or Dravidian's.


----------



## DarkStar

ironman said:


> Friend, when we add history to these ethnic groups. They derived from either Aryans or Dravidian's.



Better still, we're all homo sapiens.

We share 90 percent dna with cats too. LEts claim the the legacy of the Thnder Cats.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DarkStar

Flintlock said:


> You guys have made a rather elementary mistake. While comparing the populations, don't look for the identical ethnic group, but similar ethnic groups.
> 
> For example, Pakistani Punjab's population (81mn) should be compared with Indian Punjab+Haryana+Himachal Pradesh (51mn)
> 
> Sindh's population (46mn) should be compared with Gujarat (50mn)



Punjab was divided into the three states you mentioned.

Although to compare gujrat with sindh wouldn't be correct. There are Sindhis in gujarat and bombay, but a very small minority. Often they're stinking rich too.


----------



## Omar1984

Flintlock said:


> You guys have made a rather elementary mistake. While comparing the populations, don't look for the identical ethnic group, but similar ethnic groups.
> 
> For example, Pakistani Punjab's population (81mn) should be compared with Indian Punjab+Haryana+Himachal Pradesh (51mn)
> 
> Sindh's population (46mn) should be compared with Gujarat (50mn)



Sindhis and Gujratis are nothing alike. The language and culture are totally different, and I'm Punjabi and I dont even know what Haryana Himachal Pradesh is. My grandfather said there were some Sikhs who lived in our village and then went to India after partition. Punjabis on both sides maybe similar people but those Punjabis in India are only 3&#37; of India's population whereas in Pakistan, Punjabis make half of Pakistan's population.


----------



## Flintlock

Omar1984 said:


> Sindhis and Gujratis are nothing alike. The language and culture are totally different, and I'm Punjabi and I dont even know what Haryana Himachal Pradesh is. My grandfather said there were some Sikhs who lived in our village and then went to India after partition. Punjabis on both sides maybe similar people but those Punjabis in India are only 3% of India's population whereas in Pakistan, Punjabis make half of Pakistan's population.



Sindhis and Gujaratis are pretty much alike, apart from language. 

Erm, grandfather and native-village references don't really cut it. And, if you haven't heard of Haryana then that's your fault. 

Also, I'm not buying the percentage argument either, but then, what exactly are we arguing about again?


----------



## DarkStar

How are they alike?

I haven't seen sindhis wear ghagra choli, eat bhel puri and pav bhaji, nor do they do the _daandia_ on _navraatri_.

where's the similarity? is it the good looks?


----------



## DarkStar

the memon business community in Sindhi cities and dawoodi bohras can be compared to gujaratis, that i accept. But there's not many of them.


----------



## Omar1984

DarkStar said:


> the memon business community in Sindhi cities and dawoodi bohras can be compared to gujaratis, that i accept. But there's not many of them.



Arent memons the people who also migrated from India to Pakistan during partition? They are not really Sindhis, we call them Urdu speakers.


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock said:


> You guys have made a rather elementary mistake. While comparing the populations, don't look for the identical ethnic group, but similar ethnic groups.
> 
> For example, Pakistani Punjab's population (81mn) should be compared with Indian Punjab+Haryana+Himachal Pradesh (51mn)
> 
> Sindh's population (46mn) should be compared with Gujarat (50mn)



That's where you logic is incredibly flawed. Every neighbouring ethnic group has similarities (Pakistans west too). And they are certainly not 'identical'. You cant group ethnic groups like that in the first place, or it makes the use of ethnic groups pointless.

Like I said, only the two Punjabs can claim to be 'similar people'. And there are still lot of factors not considered then, like religion and current mixing.

Indian Punjabs population is 24 million. The other Punjabis have been added from the neighbouring states to make it 30 million Punjabis in India. And they make up 2.6% of Indian population.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DarkStar

We? who is we?

They speak a dialect of gujarati (they do speak urdu as a second language as well). 

And I didn't say they are sindhis. But they live mostly in Sindhi cities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

Flintlock said:


> Sindhis and Gujaratis are pretty much alike, apart from language.
> 
> Erm, grandfather and native-village references don't really cut it. And, if you haven't heard of Haryana then that's your fault.
> 
> Also, I'm not buying the percentage argument either, but then, what exactly are we arguing about again?



Sindhis are most similar to Baloch people out of all the ethnic groups in South Asia. 

BTW I didnt make up the percentage, you can do you own research and do your own math and you'll see for yourself.


----------



## DarkStar

UnitedPak said:


> That's where you logic is incredibly flawed. Every neighbouring ethnic group has similarities (Pakistans west too). And they are certainly not 'identical'. You cant group ethnic groups like that in the first place, or it makes the use of ethnic groups pointless.
> 
> Like I said, only the two Punjabs can claim to be 'similar people'. And there are still lot of factors not considered then, like religion and current mixing.
> 
> Indian Punjabs population is 24 million. The other Punjabis have been added from the neighbouring states to make it 30 million Punjabis in India. And they make up 2.6% of Indian population.



That's true. The property laws in Bharatiya Punjab/Haryana encourage this, as it is not allowed for Punjabi to buy property outside his state, but people from other states are allowed to buy land and property in punjab.


----------



## Flintlock

DarkStar said:


> That's true. The property laws in Bharatiya Punjab/Haryana encourage this, as it is not allowed for Punjabi to buy property outside his state, but people from other states are allowed to buy land and property in punjab.



Where did you get this? I don't know about Punjab/Haryana , but in Himachal Pradesh, non-Himachalis are not allowed to buy property.


----------



## Flintlock

DarkStar said:


> How are they alike?
> 
> I haven't seen sindhis wear ghagra choli, eat bhel puri and pav bhaji, nor do they do the _daandia_ on _navraatri_.
> 
> where's the similarity? is it the good looks?



Well, since we are comparing ethnic groups, I'm assuming that we'll be comparing them on the terms of looks. Is there any other way to do that?

What does clothes and food have to do with it? (btw, by language I meant "culture" - my mistake)


----------



## ironman

DarkStar said:


> That's true. The property laws in Bharatiya Punjab/Haryana encourage this, as it is not allowed for Punjabi to buy property outside his state, but people from other states are allowed to buy land and property in punjab.



  Excuse me where did you get it???


----------



## DarkStar

Flintlock said:


> Well, since we are comparing ethnic groups, I'm assuming that we'll be comparing them on the terms of looks. Is there any other way to do that?
> 
> What does clothes and food have to do with it? (btw, by language I meant "culture" - my mistake)



Oh, I can just imagine it. You sitting behind a desk, squinting at reels and reels of phtos of sindhis and gujuratis, with a big magnifying glass in your hand. that is called Living Science.


----------



## Flintlock

DarkStar said:


> Oh, I can just imagine it. You sitting behind a desk, squinting at reels and reels of phtos of sindhis and gujuratis, with a big magnifying glass in your hand. that is called Living Science.



Comeon. If anything, you should be going after Roadrunner. 

This is unfair.


----------



## Musalman

Destructlord said:


> We are proud to have common root with our Pakistani brothers.



LOL no u r not  Iranian look down upon us, just check some Iranian forum you will understand. Please do not take it badly I must admit that not all are racist few are really nice  but a good majority is racist toward us


----------



## Khajur

roadrunner said:


> The South Indian Brahmins tend to be Tamil looking. The fair ones are recent immigrants from the Northwest of India. The overwhelming majority of Brahmins in both South AND North India are Tamil looking imo.
> 
> A small percentage of Brahmins look "fair".



Well,

First of all, let me tell u I'm a Brahmin my self though not Tamil.

yes, ancestors of most Brahmins came from Northwest of India(after crossing todays pakistan), not recently but thousands of yrs ago.And there is nothing like native Brahmin population of south india ...

At the cost of looking like a racist to some, i must say atleast 50% of Brahmins are fair looking(gora chitta) even by socalled pakistani(RR's) standards...hell whats the argument here, we all know brahmins are of Indo-Aryans origins the same to which major chunk of pakistani population belongs...


----------



## roadrunner

Khajur said:


> Well,
> 
> First of all, let me tell u I'm a Brahmin my self though not Tamil.
> 
> yes, ancestors of most Brahmins came from Northwest of India(after crossing todays pakistan), not recently but thousands of yrs ago.And there is nothing like native Brahmin population of south india ...
> 
> At the cost of looking like a racist to some, i must say atleast 50&#37; of Brahmins are fair looking(gora chitta) even by socalled pakistani(RR's) standards...hell whats the argument here, we all know brahmins are of Indo-Aryans origins the same to which major chunk of pakistani population belongs...



It's inaccurate to say Brahmins from South India are fair skinned or share any features with say a Brahmin from the extreme northwest of India, somewhere like Himachal or Harayana. 

Here is one example of the South Indian Brahmin. I would say he could easily pass for a Tamil but not for someone from the northwest of India.


----------



## MilesTogo

I normally read and do not post because sooner or later someone will come up with the exact same thoughts that I have. I think it is natural. But I could not resist this time. This thread is very interesting.

Nobody pointed out to the Muslim defenders that by trying to claim a share in the past history, they are falling in a big trap. I think they have not researched the South Asian Civilization enough. There is enough material on internet. I would recommend them to read it. Actually as some Indian defenders pointed out - it is a welcome change and I think from an indian prospective there is no need to defend/challenge it. I would rather encourage Pakistani friends to claim the share of the history. I would say lets us jump ahead and say that IVC 100% belongs to Pakistani people. It was an amazingly advanced civilization that was established by the forefathers of pakistani people. Let us tell this to the entire world. Let us even call it Pak-indus valley civilization. Let us say that pakistan always has been a geographically distinct region and had advanced ancient civilization thousands of years ago. 

Now where do we go from here? One of the IVC artifacts shows a man sitting in a yoga like posture. Now, in the absense of any "Arabic / Urdu" scriptures explaining that posture, we are stuck. We could either say that thats how people used to read Namaz in those days or we take help of Vedas to find out what that man was doing. Crux of the matter is once you claim the IVC, you can not just stop at few "dead" archeological sites. That would have been easy case. But the problem is that it has already been established that Vedas and IVC are connected. I think my Pakistani friends would have now understood the trap I was talking about. The moment you acknowledge a Vedic past, you are in a fix. World including Indians are increasingly appreciating the fact that Vedic Civilization was advanced in various ways and that some of the sciences and practices are useful even today. For e.g. Yoga. Now once you find that you take pride in that and try to revive some of the lost knowledge, which is exactly happening right now.

Now, I don't think as a Pakistani, anyone can take pride in their Vedic past. I don't think Pakistani's can readily accept back and boast about Yoga, Sanskrit, Meditation, Tradition of Dance and Music, and so many other things that are being rediscovered not just by Indians but Westerners and are increasingly being accepted and studied by people either partially or fully to suit modern day needs. The only other choice is to argue that although we Pakistanis have a Vedic past but we quite don't agree with their traditions and practices. We are better off following Arabic traditions and practices in the form of Islam and they are superior that what our ancestors had. I don't think so it will be an easy argument to make to today's archeologists and other scholars, but let's say people buy that argument then in that case, why make so much efforts in the first place to claim a share in that past when you will later debunk it as the times of "Jahilya / ignorant ancestors". Its is like finding a giant Buddhist Stupa near Peshawar and preserving it as heritage of glorious past and at the same time criticizing Buddha for his teachings of Non-violence and making Dawa on buddhist to convert to Islam. I know Islam is not that tolerant. Saudi Arabia doesn't even allow construction of Churches or Temples.

Most likely scenario will be that so called Pious Muslims will destroy all evidence of a non-islamic past in Pakistan like they did in Afghanistan. I would suggest that if you really want to preserve that past heritage (mostly non-islamic in Pakistan's case), don't dig at all until Islam becomes tolerant enough to accept it. I suspect all these Archeological sites will be destroyed in time to come by the the so called pious muslims. A thought might come that "good muslims" will not attack these harmeless sites, but then Imran Khan had similar views about cricket.

On a lighter note, I am very hopeful for Pakistan when I see debaters/thinkers/researcher like the ones on this forum who are making honest and genuine efforts to find more about their past and trying to reconcile it with their present.

PS: I know one of the counter arguments from Muslim defender will be that IVC was not Vedic Civilization. However, it does not impact my thoughts above. As long as IVC is non-islamic, it does not have any future in Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> As long as IVC is non-islamic, it does not have any future in Pakistan.



The IVC is dead - it can't have a 'future'.

It is to be studied and its achievements respected as an ancient civilization and people, possibly predecessors of modern Pakistanis.

Secondly, your argument has been addressed already - Europe and the Greeks were not always predominantly Christian nor did they have the language and culture they do today, yet they celebrate their 'non-Christian' history. 

The same for Pakistan - there is no contradiction here.


----------



## Strike

i Was just Wondering if this was so many years isn't it a possibility that they could have moved to India when and if they were attacked by the Aryans ?
if the decedents of IVC did assimilate with the people of Pakistan wouldn't there be better Idea of what happened to the Civilization ?

Since it was so long back , i think both countries because can call it a part of there cultural heritage since at that time Races did move from place to place no doubt that if the people of IVC did Survive and forced to leave there cities they would have assimilated with groups which can now be found in both India and Pakistan


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Strike said:


> i Was just Wondering if this was so many years isn't it a possibility that they could have moved to India when and if they were attacked by the Aryans ?
> if the decedents of IVC did assimilate with the people of Pakistan wouldn't there be better Idea of what happened to the Civilization ?
> 
> Since it was so long back , i think both countries because can call it a part of there cultural heritage since at that time Races did move from place to place no doubt that if the people of IVC did Survive and forced to leave there cities they would have assimilated with groups which can now be found in both India and Pakistan



We have explored ideas on what happened to the IVC people on this and the other thread. Please take the time to read them instead of repeating the same arguments again.


----------



## Strike

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> We have explored ideas on what happened to the IVC people on this and the other thread. Please take the time to read them instead of repeating the same arguments again.



I'm sorry , i did read most of it , i must have missed a few threads , i'l try to make sure it doesn't happen again


----------



## MilesTogo

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The IVC is dead - it can't have a 'future'.
> 
> It is to be studied and its achievements respected as an ancient civilization and people, possibly predecessors of modern Pakistanis.
> 
> Secondly, your argument has been addressed already - Europe and the Greeks were not always predominantly Christian nor did they have the language and culture they do today, yet they celebrate their 'non-Christian' history.
> 
> The same for Pakistan - there is no contradiction here.



When I say future I meant exactly what you said - "It is to be studied and its achievements respected..." 

I agree with your stand on Pakistan celebreating their non-islamic past. I don't think any one can stop you from that. I think the Indian defenders are over-reacting here. There is nothing to defend/challange here. All the indians should welcome it.


----------



## Moorkh

> He is wrong and right at the same time . Hinduism is not a religion .. it doesnt have any book or authority .. it can be best defined as spiritualism . it is based on Philosophy or quest .
> out of many philosophy which can be Theistic or Atheistic (without God) ADVITA , DVAITA, SHAMKHYA ,NVAYA, BUDDHISM , JAINISM are Few .



religion is difficult to define. but going by the standard definition taken by sociologists, religions have 2 things in common
1) A set of rituals and other similar practices (namaz, aarti ,etc)
2) A diety - (god , allh, bhagwan , etc)

so hinduism fits the definition of a religion rather well

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sadiqams

This is because pakistanis use 1947 as a start point but in reality we are an ancient civilisation and our roots go bnack more than 5000 years and more. We should teach our children history as it affected our region and not from an out siders point of view. eg western history.


----------



## vandemataram

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> On the contrary, it is up to you to show that no Pakistanis care for their history.
> 
> Merely quoting a handful of articles as representative of the sentiment of 170 million Pakistanis is completely disingenuous.
> 
> As I said before, even if a minority of Pakistanis care for their history, and the GoP accepts that history (both claims are beyond doubt) then this argument of 'some authors have said this or that' is nothing but a distraction.
> 
> 
> The region was completely splintered before the British occupied it and turned it into a large colony.
> 
> Even from a civilizational point of view there were multiple civilizations, and the presence of multiple peoples and cultures is unarguable.
> 
> The history before 1947 is the history of the peoples that inhabited that land - that history was primarily of the peoples who inhabited what is now Pakistan. Yes there was some overlap with what is today India, but origins, nucleus and major parts of the IVC were all in Pakistan.
> 
> Pakistan does therefore have a far stronger claim to the IVC.




AM going by your idea ...do you accept what Islamic empires in India have had as their history belong to India and India alone?

For example the Bengal Sultanate (starting with Bakhtiyar Khalji) and then Malwa sultanate, the Bijapur Sultanate etc...

Going by your quote 

"........but origins, nucleus and major parts of these were and are still in India"

What do you say ?


----------



## sadiqams

The history of the region belongs to the whole of the peoples of the region as one way or other they have been affected by it. It was an event that happened on the shores of sindh that eventually led to pakistan but if the British were not invloved there might have been no pakistan (and with out pakistan no Bangladesh) as we know it today but most likely muslim and non muslim majority areas living in harmony.


----------



## Milind

Well, I went through the thread pages & was amazed like anything.
I was wondering why pakistanis are so ignorant of established historical facts. But, when I found what history pakistanis are taught in their schools, I realized the problem.
I know that it is unusual for Islamists to use reason ( Don't take it otherwise), but please try if you are really seeking truth. I'm not an expert but can help a bit. I believe so...

I start with the following-
** Some people calling absurd things like India never existed before 1947 etc* . To them, true, India as it was just before 1947 partition, was not under a single central rule (except the latest british) as a whole. But unlike 'Pakistan', the term 'India' was not invented in the 20th century AD, it was always there. The ancient outside world always referred to the region ( or part of it) from Hindukush mountanis to the river brahmaputra & down south up to the tip of the peninsula as one nation, one civilisation - by the name India & likes. Proofs are just so many. Some of them in chronological order are-

*Proof: ** The 5th century BCE Naqsh -e-Rustam eddict of Parsi king Dariyhu ( Sanskrit: Drayhu, Greek: Darius I) refers to his victory over regions of modern balochistan-pakistani punjab as victory over India. (India as Farsi 'HIND')

*Ancient greeks refer to the region as INDIA. The professional historians who came with the armies of Alexander in 326 BCE , to them crossing Mountain Hindu kush (mentioned as 'Indicus caucasus') is crossing into INDIA, Gandhara- Arachosia as first INDIAN provinces won, Hemphis ( Sanskrit: Ambhi) of Taxila as INDIAN Traitor, Porus( Sanskrit: Puru) of modern Lahore-sialkot -Mirpur area as a brave INDIAN King, Kingdom of Gangetic planes(mentioned as Gangadirai) as the most powerful INDIAN kingdom, mallis of Malva ( modern Multan) as a deadly INDIAN tribe whose leader Singhran critically injured Alexander. To the invading Macedonians- from Kalinga in the far east to the lower Indus valley, all was INDIA. 
All subsequent Greek-Roman-Arab documents refer to any part of the subcontinent as INDIA.

Likewise, the chinese travellers, whether they entered into Assam in the east or Swat in the west, they wrote that they had entered into INDIA. Professional Arabian historian Al Baruni who came with the armies of Turk Sultan Mehmood Ghajani referred to punjanb sindh gujrat gangetic planes all as Hindu civilised HIND(= India). At the time all these regions were independant kingdoms & no one was called hind, so what was HIND that applied to all? He titled his book as 'Kitab UL HIND'. Also, at closure of 15th century AD, Europeans arrived at Malabar in the far south kerala, but declared that they had arrived INDIA. 

Continuously, throughout recorded history, to the outside world the subcontinent was one nation- INDIA. And to the residents, it was always Jambudweep(Divine ancient Land)or Bharata Varsh(Land of Bharatas) or Aryavarta (land of Aryans)or Hindustan(Land of Hindus).

Pakistan was never there before the radcliff line was drawn. There never was a cultural or even political separation between the areas today called pakistan & rest of india before 1947 along the radcliff line. So all things prior to that in modern Pakistani areas were Indian & must be properly referred to as India & Indian.

One last thought, I'm a so happy that despite all the Mullah Islamist propaganda , some pakistanis openly accepting the obvious that their forefathers were not Arabians or Turkish. Their blood is like a drop in ocean.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Milind

For IVC , I'll return later.


----------



## Milind

Really! Kashmir was not hindu at any point of time. Do you regularly get such revealations like your prophet? 
Before the attack of kabayalis & subsequent huge masssacres, every bit of kashmir was hindu from gilgit to srinagar.


----------



## Awesome

Milind said:


> Really! Kashmir was not hindu at any point of time. Do you regularly get such revealations like your prophet?
> Before the attack of kabayalis & subsequent huge masssacres, every bit of kashmir was hindu from gilgit to srinagar.


Stop laying flame baits. Have a conversation like a normal human being. There was no need to include that comment about the Prophet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Khajur

Milind said:


> Well, I went through the thread pages & was amazed like anything.
> I was wondering why pakistanis are so ignorant of established historical facts. But, when I found what history pakistanis are taught in their schools, I realized the problem.
> I know that it is unusual for Islamists to use reason ( Don't take it otherwise), but please try if you are really seeking truth. I'm not an expert but can help a bit. I believe so...
> 
> I start with the following-
> ** Some people calling absurd things like India never existed before 1947 etc* . To them, true, India as it was just before 1947 partition, was not under a single central rule (except the latest british) as a whole. But unlike 'Pakistan', the term 'India' was not invented in the 20th century AD, it was always there. The ancient outside world always referred to the region ( or part of it) from Hindukush mountanis to the river brahmaputra & down south up to the tip of the peninsula as one nation, one civilisation - by the name India & likes. Proofs are just so many. Some of them in chronological order are-
> 
> *Proof: ** The 5th century BCE Naqsh -e-Rustam eddict of Parsi king Dariyhu ( Sanskrit: Drayhu, Greek: Darius I) refers to his victory over regions of modern balochistan-pakistani punjab as victory over India. (India as Farsi 'HIND')
> 
> *Ancient greeks refer to the region as INDIA. The professional historians who came with the armies of Alexander in 326 BCE , to them crossing Mountain Hindu kush (mentioned as 'Indicus caucasus') is crossing into INDIA, Gandhara- Arachosia as first INDIAN provinces won, Hemphis ( Sanskrit: Ambhi) of Taxila as INDIAN Traitor, Porus( Sanskrit: Puru) of modern Lahore-sialkot -Mirpur area as a brave INDIAN King, Kingdom of Gangetic planes(mentioned as Gangadirai) as the most powerful INDIAN kingdom, mallis of Malva ( modern Multan) as a deadly INDIAN tribe whose leader Singhran critically injured Alexander. To the invading Macedonians- from Kalinga in the far east to the lower Indus valley, all was INDIA.
> All subsequent Greek-Roman-Arab documents refer to any part of the subcontinent as INDIA.
> 
> Likewise, the chinese travellers, whether they entered into Assam in the east or Swat in the west, they wrote that they had entered into INDIA. Professional Arabian historian Al Baruni who came with the armies of Turk Sultan Mehmood Ghajani referred to punjanb sindh gujrat gangetic planes all as Hindu civilised HIND(= India). At the time all these regions were independant kingdoms & no one was called hind, so what was HIND that applied to all? He titled his book as 'Kitab UL HIND'. *Also, at closure of 15th century AD, Europeans arrived at Malabar in the far south kerala, but declared that they had arrived INDIA. *
> 
> Continuously, throughout recorded history, to the outside world the subcontinent was one nation- INDIA. And to the residents, it was always Jambudweep(Divine ancient Land)or Bharata Varsh(Land of Bharatas) or Aryavarta (land of Aryans)or Hindustan(Land of Hindus).
> 
> Pakistan was never there before the radcliff line was drawn. There never was a cultural or even political separation between the areas today called pakistan & rest of india before 1947 along the radcliff line. So all things prior to that in modern Pakistani areas were Indian & must be properly referred to as India & Indian.
> 
> One last thought, I'm a so happy that despite all the Mullah Islamist propaganda , some pakistanis openly accepting the obvious that their forefathers were not Arabians or Turkish. Their blood is like a drop in ocean.



One can even add the name of navigator like *Christopher Columbus * to the list who, though failed to reach his desired destinaion *"the Indies"*(latin for india/hindustan) and *instead landed in the Bahamas*,still mistook the North-American island for the indian subcontinent, *he referred to its inhabitants as "Indios".*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## manishmaithani

India's caste system 'is thousands of years old', DNA shows - Telegraph


*Everyone should read this new development.*


----------



## advaita

It is common understanding that every person following non-Abhramic religions of the subcontinent is a Pagan (mushrik / kafir - your choice) obviously because they are still following the traditions of IVC and even pre-IVC periods almost in-toto.
However if Pakistanis want to acknowledge their non-muslim history, it should not be a big deal for non-muslims of the subcontinent esp since we have a huge muslim+christen populations who obviously cannot be denied there history to which they have as much ownership as a non-muslim.


----------



## advaita

manishmaithani said:


> India's caste system 'is thousands of years old', DNA shows - Telegraph
> 
> 
> *Everyone should read this new development.*



It also says something about Arya-Dravid divide actually not being a real one.

IMO, the hugely analogous ideas in Thirukural and Upanishadic teachings, inspite of nil relationship between Tamil and Sanskrit, would already have laid the Arya-Dravid question to rest. Or at least for the knowledgable people of India.

I personally have a hunch that upanishads were attached to the ritulistic vedas through gyan khand of vedas primarily because the ideas of upanishads existed even before Vedas. These older ideas could have been compositions like Thirukural. The apparent difference in time can easily be explained through the fact of the smriti traditions of the ancient Indians (something to which pagans would have been better disposed).

Thirukural English Translation and Commentary - by Rev Dr G U Pope, Rev W H Drew, Rev John Lazarus and Mr F W Ellis


----------



## eastwatch

manishmaithani said:


> India's caste system 'is thousands of years old', DNA shows - Telegraph
> *Everyone should read this new development.*


You have termed the articles message as a new development, but in reality it is not. Arya immigration and the subsequent caste system was not an invention by the British. In reality, the caste system was always there among the Hindus since historical times. 

During the first one thousand years after the Arya arrivals from the central asia, there were mixing of bloods among different groups of people. After this period, the Arya supremacists introduced the caste system to preserve their own lineage. This is the history of creation of Hindu caste system.

After this introduction, there were very little mixing of bloods, because every one married within his/her own caste. However, in this modern age this system should be discouraged and discontinued. A religion should be there to unite people and not to divide them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Milind

eastwatch said:


> You have termed the articles message as a new development, but in reality it is not. Arya immigration and the subsequent caste system was not an invention by the British. In reality, the caste system was always there among the Hindus since historical times.
> 
> During the first one thousand years after the Arya arrivals from the central asia, there were mixing of bloods among different groups of people. After this period, the Arya supremacists introduced the caste system to preserve their own lineage. This is the history of creation of Hindu caste system.
> 
> After this introduction, there were very little mixing of bloods, because every one married within his/her own caste. However, in this modern age this system should be discouraged and discontinued. A religion should be there to unite people and not to divide them.



What the hell? There is nothing racial about the caste system. What you told as facts are now proven frauds. Aryas never arrived in India. Everything from archaeology to anthropology confirms this. Update your antique mindset


----------



## RobbieS

Milind said:


> What the hell? There is nothing racial about the caste system. What you told as facts are now proven frauds. Aryas never arrived in India. Everything from archaeology to anthropology confirms this. Update your antique mindset



Dude, I'd disagree on that. Genetic evidence suggest a link of the Indian population (above the Satpuras) with that of the Central Asians. And AIT simply cant be ruled out even though it is debatable as to what led to the end of the Harappa culture.

But I'd say the word invasion is a misnomer. There was more of an amalgamation of the Aryans with the local population whose culture was already in decline.

I'd agree with you on the point that the caste system cant entirely be classified as racialy discriminatory. The shudras/dasa/dasyus comprised of both early Aryans as well as the native Harappans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Milind

RobbieS said:


> Dude, I'd disagree on that. Genetic evidence suggest a link of the Indian population (above the Satpuras) with that of the Central Asians. And AIT simply cant be ruled out even though it is debatable as to what led to the end of the Harappa culture.
> 
> But I'd say the word invasion is a misnomer. There was more of an amalgamation of the Aryans with the local population whose culture was already in decline.
> 
> I'd agree with you on the point that the caste system cant entirely be classified as racialy discriminatory. The shudras/dasa/dasyus comprised of both early Aryans as well as the native Harappans.



Mind You. The genetic evidence that relates North Indians to Europeans is based on mitochondrial DNA analysis & simply states that the separation of Indians & Europeans took place 40,000 years back. Obviously, nowhere near the archaelogical Harappan culture And indeed, the genetic evidence throws the AIT in the dustbin.


----------



## mosnsg

Also regarding caste system, one can read stephen knapp, easy to find and one article by swami vivekananda, which is not easy to find online.


----------



## s6demon

Khajur said:


> One can even add the name of navigator like *Christopher Columbus * to the list who, though failed to reach his desired destinaion *"the Indies"*(latin for india/hindustan) and *instead landed in the Bahamas*,still mistook the North-American island for the indian subcontinent, *he referred to its inhabitants as "Indios".*



oh really? does it also mean that the U.S. exited throughout centuries because the U.S. adopted the name "America?"

Truth and reality, an Indian's worse enemy.


----------



## gangwar

oh really? does it also mean that the U.S. exited throughout centuries because the U.S. adopted the name "America?"

Truth and reality, an Indian's worse enemy.


That was lame from ur side......do u even know why its called America.......what is the reason behind the name west indies.....

go find urself.......dont prove the statement.....

Pakistani truth is the truth....rest all is illusion.........

:india:


----------



## mbaqurashi

Dear All,
I've came across an information that there are Photos available of those solders which are kept by India in 1971's indo-pak war and yet India didn't release them or not found.

If any of you have any information that where i can find those photos, please let me know on my ID 'mbaqurashi@gmail.com' or at least post the info here. I'd be very obliged if anyone could provide me some web link.

Thanks and best regards.
Bilal Aziz
Lahore.


----------



## neo4moss

What is the meaning of a nation??? lots of people who were born in either sides went to become famous personalities.. even our PM is born in Pakistan and opposition leader too.. so obviously they have pakistani parents.. but nobody talks like that as there was no nation like that.. of course there were more than 100 of kingdoms both in india and pakistan.. and if u asked them which nation are u at that time will they be saying i am from pakistan or INDIA/// there was no country called india or pakistan until 1947 .. thats a reality


----------



## Faadi

well, nice article dude, I appreciate your writings as you have raised a very good point and also it looks that you have good writing skills. But I am of the opinion that since Pakistan has its ideology based on Islam therefore Islam is mentioned as a basis while mentioning the history of Pakistan. Indus Vally or Mohen jo Dero can be described as a history of this region but not as a history of this country. More information about Histrory of Pakistan is available at Pakistan History


----------



## Sparten80

Our history is so rich and splendid and is the untapped jewel of Pakistan.

Pakistani history is appreciated by many Pakistani's, myself included but I agree more needs to be done to encourage an interest in all of our history.

Pakistan has a rich history, from the worlds first urbanized and structured cities (interestingly, Pakistan today, has on of the highest rural to urban migration in the world!), to ancient trade links with Mesopotamia(Iraq) and Egypt (Rudyard Kipling mentions the similarities in facial features and eyes of people of Indus in Pakistan to those of people from Egypt and near Sumer, iraq.

Other facinating aspects of Pakistan's ancient history pertain to when we were part of the Persian empire and the great impact that had and continues to on our country, its languages, its people, genetically, culturally, customs and even our culinary traits. 

Furthermore, the period of Greek and Hellenic influence and the subsequent mini Greek kingdoms in Pakistan (Menander of Sialkot) and the flourishing of arts that occurred during this time is another facinating period

I can go on and on, (Kushan, Sycthian, Huns, Parthians, Central Asian etc..)

Perhaps we should make a thread dedicated to Pakistan's ancient history and take it from there.


----------



## MilesTogo

*Link:* *History*

*Sindhi Language History*

Culture 

Sindh is a repository of varied cultural values and has remained the seat of civilization and meeting point of diverse cultures from times immemorial. Sindh&#8217;s cultural life has been shaped, to a large extent, by its comparative isolation in the past from the rest of the subcontinent. A long stretch of desert to its east and a mountainous terrain to the west served as barriers, while the Arabian Sea in the south and the Indus in the north prevented easy access. 

As a result, the people of Sindh developed their own exclusive artistic tradition. Their arts and craft, music and literature, games and sports have retained their original flavor. Sindh is rich in exquisite pottery, variegated glazed tiles, lacquer-work, leather and straw products, needlework, quilts, embroidery, hand print making and textile design. According to renowned European historian H.T. Sorelay, Sindhis had not only contributed to literature but also to astronomy, medicine, philosophy, dialectics and similar subjects. 

Genuine love for fellow beings, large heartedness and hospitality constitute the very spirit of Sindhi culture and it is the association of the cultural elements that elevate it and keep aloft its banner among the contemporary cultures of South-Asia. Having lived for centuries under the changing sway of various dynasties i.e. the Arabs, Mughals, Arghuns, Turkhans and Soomras, Sammahs, Kalhoras and Talpurs, Sindhi culture is a fusion of multiple culture patterns. 

Origins 

Sindhi language has evolved over a period of two millennia; with many waves of invasions by Greeks, Arabs, Arghuns, Tarkhans, Seythians, Turks, Mughals and so on. Sindh, on the north west of undivided India, had always been the first to bear the onslaught of the never-ending invaders, and as such absorbed Hindi, Persian, Arabic, Turkish, English and even Portuguese. The language of the people of Sindh has a solid base of Prakrit and Sanskrit, showing great susceptibility towards borrowings from Arabic, Persian, and Dravidian (such as Brahui in Baluchistan). 

Sindh was the seat of the ancient Indus valley civilization during the third millennium BC as discovered from the Moen-jo-Daro excavation. The pictographic seals and clay tablets obtained from these excavations still await proper decipherment by epigraphists. For more about the Language of Mohenjodaro: click here. 

The Sindhi parlance has witnessed a transition over the years and there are varying theories related to the ancestry of the language. Historians working hard to fathom the origin of the language have varying conclusions to offer. 

Facts and discoveries of Sindhi parlances over the years have launched a debate about the Sindhi language being a derivative of the ancient Sanskrit dialect and there a few historians who believe that it's the other way round. Dr Ernest Trumpp was the pioneer of the theory that Sindhi is a derivative of Sanskrit language. Judging from its vocabulary and roots of verbs, Dr Trumpp came to the conclusion that "Sindhi is a pure Sanskritical language, more free from foreign elements than any of the North Indian vernaculars." 

The Rev. Mr.G. Shirt of Hyderabad, one of the first Sindhi scholars, considered that the language is probably, so far as its grammatical construction is concerned, the purest daughter of Sanskrit. It has small sprinkling of Dravidian words, and has in later times received large accessions to its vocabulary from Arabic and Persian. 

Hindu scholars Dr. H M Gurbaxani and Berumal Maharchand Advani agreed with the concept. But Miss Popati Hiranandani in her book 'Sindhis: The scattered treasure' (pg6) has an interesting deliberation to this theory. According to her some scholars confused the words prakrita (meaning=natural) with the word purakrita (meaning - formed first), which misled them. In the same way, she says, due to affinity towards Hinduism, litterateurs like Kishinchand Jetley translated a couplet from Sindhi poet Shah Abdul Latif's poetry into Sanskrit and concluded that the similarity shows the derivation of Sindhi from Sanskrit. She rightly argues that it could be the other way round too and cites two authorities to elucidate this point. One is Siraj-ul-Haq of Pakistan who states: 

"The history of Sindhi is older than that of Sanskrit and its related civilization or culture are derived from the civilization or culture of Sindh and from Sindhi language&#8230;Sanskrit is born of Sindhi - if not directly, at least indirectly." 

The other is an Indian linguist, S Kandappan who says: 

"Sindhi is one of the ancient languages. I say it is the most ancient languages, I know it has got its origin even before Sanskrit in the country&#8230;." 

Interestingly, after further studies Dr Trumpp himself seemed to be doubtful about his findings. Testimonies to this are the remarks in one of his work of arts: 

"Sindhi has remained steady in the first stage of decomposition after the old Prakrit, where all other cognate dialects have sunk some degrees deeper and we shall see in the course of our introductory remarks that rule, which the Prakrit grammarian, Kramdishvara has laid down in reference to the Apabramsha, are still recognizable in present day Sindhi, which by no means can be stated of the other dialects. The Sindhi has thus become an independent language, which, though sharing a common origin with its sister tongues, is very materially different from them." 

Dr Trumpp's initial theory was first challenged by Dr. Nabibux Baloch. He believes that Sindhi belongs to the Semitic group. Mr. Ali Nawaz Jatoi holds the same view. They point out that there are some words in Sindhi that cannot be found in Sanskrit. Besides, the suffixes added to the pronouns in Sindhi suggest its relation with Semitic languages. The word 'Sanskrit' itself denotes that it is a polished or refined form of a language that was already prevalent. The grammarians Patanjali and Panini formed rules and regulations, which came to be necessarily, and compulsorily followed by writers and poets of those days. Thus, Sanskrit was only the language of literature as is evident from works of classical writers. Dr Baloch states: 

"Sindhi is an ancient Indo-Aryan language, probably having its origin in a pre-Sanskrit Indo-Aryan Indus Valley language. The Lahnda and Kashmiri appear to be its cognate sisters with a common Dardic element in them all." 

Sir George Grierson too places Sindhi as a near relative of the Dardic languages. (Dardistan is a region near Kashmir). 

Literature 

Sindh is where Persian and Indian cultures blended, for the area was introduced to Islam in 712AD. Thus, very little of Sindhi literature of the earlier period has survived. The Summara and Summa periods are virtually blank except for the few poems of Hamad, Raju and Isack. The heroic ballads of this period set to music by Shah Abdul Karim (1538-1625) are the earliest records of the Sindhi language. 

Real flourish of Sindhi poetic talent came during the last stages of the 18th century. Although the time was not appropriate for cultural developments as invaders repeatedly plundered the country during this period. Several works like Shah Abdul Latif's Shah-Jo-Rasalo, the magnum opus of Sindhi literature, were produced. 

It describes the life of a common man, the sorrows and sufferings of the ill-starred heroes of ancient folklore. Sachal, another eminent, poet closely followed Shah Abdul Karim. He was a Sufi rebel poet who did not adhere to any religion and denounced religious radicals. The poet Saami was a complete contrast to Kari, more pious than poetical, yet possessing a charm of his own. There was an excess of songsters in Sindhi who recited similar ideas and themes in varied tones. The notables among them are Bedil, his son Bekas, and Dalpat. Gul Mohamad introduced Persian forms of poetry replacing the native baits and Kafees. Mirza Kaleech Beg who composed on the same lines contributed a lot to Sindhi literature. 

Dayaram Gidumal and Mirza Kaleech were two of the early prose writers. The former was a great scholar and he was famous mainly for his metaphysical writings. The noted lexicographer and essayist Parmanand Mewaram wrote essays that educated and instructed both the young and the old. This peer group also comprised of Bherumal Meherchand, Lalchand Amardinomal and Jethmal Parsram, and Acharya Gidwani, N. R. Malkani and Dr H. M. Gurbuxani. 

Source: The Virtual State, etc


----------



## S. M. Sullivan

I certainly believe that the Sindhi language is related to that which the Harappans spoke.

In a recent decipherment of the Harappan seals, I found the following names: Ravi, Mani, Rabindranath, Vatarupa, Madesh, Ravihendran,
Ravinarian, Rakshamahengan, and Tridasandran.

Would not Harappans of pre-Islamic times have had such names?


----------



## Old School

S. M. Sullivan said:


> I certainly believe that the Sindhi language is related to that which the Harappans spoke.
> 
> In a recent decipherment of the Harappan seals, I found the following names: Ravi, Mani, Rabindranath, Vatarupa, Madesh, Ravihendran,
> Ravinarian, Rakshamahengan, and Tridasandran.
> 
> Would not Harappans of pre-Islamic times have had such names?



My mother tongue is Sindhi. I can tell you that Sindhi is an Indo-European language  like Punjabi and Hindi. There is still a lot to know about the nature of the Harappan languages and culture. Sindhi is also an official language in India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RobbieS

S. M. Sullivan said:


> I certainly believe that the Sindhi language is related to that which the Harappans spoke.
> 
> *In a recent decipherment of the Harappan seals, I found the following names: Ravi, Mani, Rabindranath, Vatarupa, Madesh, Ravihendran,
> Ravinarian, Rakshamahengan, and Tridasandran.*
> 
> Would not Harappans of pre-Islamic times have had such names?



Can you provide references? AFAIK, the IVC script hasnt been deciphered yet.


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

UnitedPak said:


> Salaam people.
> 
> This is my first post on this forum, and I must say, I am really starting to like this place. I would like to ask Pakistanis a simple question. Why is our Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?
> 
> Pakistans history starts with the Indus Valley civilisation, which is more than 5000 years old and was on par with civilisations like Egypt and Mesopotamia, it was based almost entirely in modern Pakistan, and all the major cities are in Pakistan.
> 
> Our fellow Pakistanis have totally ignored this part of our history, and given the Indians full access to steal it, and label it Indian.
> I dont know what amuses me more, an Indian claiming IVC is Indian even though its not even in India, or a Pakistani ignoring this great chapter of our history because its not "Islamic".
> 
> It doesnt stop here however. There are lots of other civilisations which were based in Pakistan, and run by Pakistanis, i.e Ghandara, Kushun empire, and even Muslim empires like Mughal empires started in Pakistan, and spread into India.
> 
> So why why and why do we allow India to take credit of everything?
> They talk about "Pakistan being created", like Pakistan is a baby, and Pakistanis didnt exist before 1947. This is the whole reason why Indian nationalists believe they own Pakistan.
> They take it one step further and our leaders like Quid-e-Azam are officially known as "Indians", (look it up on wikipedia).
> 
> So please let me know your opinions regarding this. Pakistan has an unbelievably big history book, but we "proudly" go on about 60 years of Independence?
> 
> 
> p.s Pakistan wasnt created in 1947, it was our Independence. Please dont promote Indian views.
> 
> Thank you for reading, I am looking forward to read your views.
> 
> W/Salaam.



Pakistan cut every link that connect it to the hindostan and hindus. The entire reason for making pakistan was islam. So it is not surprising that they do not describe any non-muslim civilization and non-muslim people. All the foriegn invaders are heroes of pakistan. A looter mahmud ghaznavi is among top historical pakistani heroes. Even the cruel timurid zaheerudin babur is presented as a great muslim conquror....while he is the person who fought against relatively native muslim ibrahim lodi. 
Also as a pashtun i see strong contradictions of pashtun history with pakistani history. Mughals were worse enemies of pashtun while pakistan consider them in positive light. Aurangazeb is best muslim ruler in mutala pakistan but same aurangzeb fought war with afghans/pashtuns. Lodhis were pashtun rulers but they are neglected in favour of babur. Syed ahamd bareillvi, a wahabi, is black spot in pashtun history but he is a great muslim warrior in mutala pakistan.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Monkey D Luffy said:


> Pakistan cut every link that connect it to the hindostan and hindus. The entire reason for making pakistan was islam. So it is not surprising that they do not describe any non-muslim civilization and non-muslim people. All the foriegn invaders are heroes of pakistan. A looter mahmud ghaznavi is among top historical pakistani heroes. Even the cruel timurid zaheerudin babur is presented as a great muslim conquror....while he is the person who fought against relatively native muslim ibrahim lodi.
> Also as a pashtun i see strong contradictions of pashtun history with pakistani history. Mughals were worse enemies of pashtun while pakistan consider them in positive light. Aurangazeb is best muslim ruler in mutala pakistan but same aurangzeb fought war with afghans/pashtuns. Lodhis were pashtun rulers but they are neglected in favour of babur. Syed ahamd bareillvi, a wahabi, is black spot in pashtun history but he is a great muslim warrior in mutala pakistan.



These "Muslim" leaders are just as "Muslim" as the Crusaders hordes are Christian. Its all about politics. People like Timur, Babur, etc killed many Muslims like their Mongol ancestors.


----------



## jayron

UnitedPak said:


> Salaam people.
> 
> This is my first post on this forum, and I must say, I am really starting to like this place. I would like to ask Pakistanis a simple question. Why is our Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?
> 
> Pakistans history starts with the Indus Valley civilisation, which is more than 5000 years old and was on par with civilisations like Egypt and Mesopotamia, it was based almost entirely in modern Pakistan, and all the major cities are in Pakistan.
> 
> Our fellow Pakistanis have totally ignored this part of our history, and given the Indians full access to steal it, and label it Indian.
> I dont know what amuses me more, an Indian claiming IVC is Indian even though its not even in India, or a Pakistani ignoring this great chapter of our history because its not "Islamic".
> 
> It doesnt stop here however. There are lots of other civilisations which were based in Pakistan, and run by Pakistanis, i.e Ghandara, Kushun empire, and even Muslim empires like Mughal empires started in Pakistan, and spread into India.
> 
> So why why and why do we allow India to take credit of everything?
> They talk about "Pakistan being created", like Pakistan is a baby, and Pakistanis didnt exist before 1947. This is the whole reason why Indian nationalists believe they own Pakistan.
> They take it one step further and our leaders like Quid-e-Azam are officially known as "Indians", (look it up on wikipedia).
> 
> So please let me know your opinions regarding this. Pakistan has an unbelievably big history book, but we "proudly" go on about 60 years of Independence?
> 
> 
> p.s Pakistan wasnt created in 1947, it was our Independence. Please dont promote Indian views.
> 
> Thank you for reading, I am looking forward to read your views.
> 
> W/Salaam.



I agree with all your points. But rather than Bashing Indians , you should look into yourself to know the reason. First for all, Pakistanis do not respect the pre-islamic history of their country. Can you justify destroying the Hindu and Gandharan artefacts in your country?


----------



## flameboard

People do appreciate it but its not properly


----------



## sanasahil

Well history is not something to enjoy about, it should be read form lesson taking point of view, so it can be more beneficial...


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

those who appreciate it in Pakistan really really appreciate it..but some of the younger generation of brats perhaps dont really care or take much interest

sweeping generalization, i know....but our people just dont put enough emphasis on history and that is a very stupid mistake


----------



## kingkobra

hilarious how the poster claims the Indus valley civilization to be start of Pakistan though it is not even distinctly related to to Pakistan in anyway...perhaps the only place in Pakistan worth visiting which is not even related to Pakistan....


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

even funnier are indian who feel so high and mighty and only know how to troll rather than analyze facts in a cool headed manner

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kingkobra

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> even funnier are indian who feel so high and mighty and only know how to troll rather than analyze facts in a cool headed manner


 
haha...you call yourself Islamic republic of Pakistan and you claim Indus valley civilization as start of Pakistan?????
nothing to analyze in that worthless post  i mean for us Indians...you can analyze crap out of it and beat drums on it if it pleases you


----------



## Ahmad

kingkobra said:


> haha...you call yourself Islamic republic of Pakistan and you claim Indus valley civilization as start of Pakistan?????
> nothing to analyze in that worthless post  i mean for us Indians...you can analyze crap out of it and beat drums on it if it pleases you


 
sorry to jump in the middle, but all of these has nothing to do with history of the region, be it pakistan or inida. we have the same thing, our country not long ago was not afghanistan and had a differnt name, a thousands year back we were not muslims and practicised Zoroastrain and some parts budism, but it doesnt mean since we are msulims now and the name of country is something else then we deny the history of our land, same thing goes to pakistan.


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

kingkobra said:


> haha...you call yourself Islamic republic of Pakistan and you claim Indus valley civilization as start of Pakistan?????
> nothing to analyze in that worthless post  i mean for us Indians...you can analyze crap out of it and beat drums on it if it pleases you


 
don't make a fool of your self..it's part of our common history.


----------



## kingkobra

Agnostic_Indian said:


> don't make a fool of your self..it's part of our common history.


 
no..its not india's or pakistan's or any one country's history...it is history of hinduism..history of humankind...no one can make a claim on it..


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

kingkobra said:


> no..its not india's or pakistan's or any one country's history...it is history of hinduism..history of humankind...no one can make a claim on it..


 
it's a shared history..it's their ancestry..take a look..
www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/7961-motivations-behind-selecting-name-india-1947-a-36.html


----------



## kingkobra

Agnostic_Indian said:


> it's a shared history..it's their ancestry..take a look..
> www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/7961-motivations-behind-selecting-name-india-1947-a-36.html


 
for me anything coming from their brilliant minds in worthless because as per them pakistan was never created...it existed even before india  
they are just frustrated with their lives and hence they bring such stupid things up


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

kingkobra said:


> haha...you call yourself Islamic republic of Pakistan and you claim Indus valley civilization as start of Pakistan?????
> nothing to analyze in that worthless post  i mean for us Indians...you can analyze crap out of it and beat drums on it if it pleases you


 
The Indus Valley Civilization was one of the world's first great urban civilizations. It flourished in the vast river plains and adjacent regions in what are now Pakistan and western India. 

Ancient Indus Civ is extinct and was definitely not Vedic --as claimed by some of the more jingoistic hindu nationalist walas here who have no clue what on earth they are talking bout. The point being made is that its part of Pakistan heritage like everything else in the Indus lands and valleys, and I dont know why you bharty knuckle-heads find it appropriate to derail such threads with ownership claims rather than contributing positively. 

As brother T-Faz once argued, any person should be assured that educated Pakistani's have been since our birth recognised our pre Islamic history, it is designed on our currency notes, we learn about it in school and told of it throughout our lives to respect and educate our future generations on these civilisations. 

on the other hand, I have also observed hindustanys who openly condemn all architecture in their country because it was made by Muslims who they say were invaders, even intelligent bharty students who dont consider any of the impact on culture and life to be of importance.


so cut the crap and see things how they are. We are very proud of our heritage and the amount of diversity in our motherland, our gift, Pakistan.


----------



## kingkobra

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> The Indus Valley Civilization was one of the world's first great urban civilizations. It flourished in the vast river plains and adjacent regions in what are now Pakistan and western India.
> 
> Ancient Indus Civ is extinct and was definitely not Vedic --as claimed by some of the more jingoistic hindu nationalist walas here who have no clue what on earth they are talking bout. The point being made is that its part of Pakistan heritage like everything else in the Indus lands and valleys, and I dont know why you bharty knuckle-heads find it appropriate to derail such threads with ownership claims rather than contributing positively.
> 
> As brother T-Faz once argued, any person should be assured that educated Pakistani's have been since our birth recognised our pre Islamic history, it is designed on our currency notes, we learn about it in school and told of it throughout our lives to respect and educate our future generations on these civilisations.
> 
> on the other hand, I have also observed hindustanys who openly condemn all architecture in their country because it was made by Muslims who they say were invaders, even intelligent bharty students who dont consider any of the impact on culture and life to be of importance.
> 
> 
> so cut the crap and see things how they are. We are very proud of our heritage and the amount of diversity in our motherland, our gift, Pakistan.


 
swastikas found in IVS differ from whatever you claim..its good that you are proud that you have IVS in your country but dont start saying IVS as start of pakistan and pakistan existed before 1947...thats just funny and shameful for you guys only


----------



## Rafi

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> The Indus Valley Civilization was one of the world's first great urban civilizations. It flourished in the vast river plains and adjacent regions in what are now Pakistan and western India.
> 
> Ancient Indus Civ is extinct and was definitely not Vedic --as claimed by some of the more jingoistic hindu nationalist walas here who have no clue what on earth they are talking bout. The point being made is that its part of Pakistan heritage like everything else in the Indus lands and valleys, and I dont know why you bharty knuckle-heads find it appropriate to derail such threads with ownership claims rather than contributing positively.
> 
> As brother T-Faz once argued, any person should be assured that educated Pakistani's have been since our birth recognised our pre Islamic history, it is designed on our currency notes, we learn about it in school and told of it throughout our lives to respect and educate our future generations on these civilisations.
> 
> on the other hand, I have also observed hindustanys who openly condemn all architecture in their country because it was made by Muslims who they say were invaders, even intelligent bharty students who dont consider any of the impact on culture and life to be of importance.
> 
> 
> so cut the crap and see things how they are. We are very proud of our heritage and the amount of diversity in our motherland, our gift, Pakistan.


 
Could not agree more, this could be the start of a beautiful friendship - to paraphrase Casablanca LoL.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Pakistan as an idea existed and was referenced for quite some time. Officially, legally, it had no existence prior to 1947. But then again, neither did hindustan.


----------



## Rafi

kingkobra said:


> swastikas found in IVS differ from whatever you claim..its good that you are proud that you have IVS in your country but dont start saying IVS as start of pakistan and pakistan existed before 1947...thats just funny and shameful for you guys only


 
Ok it is part of French culture,  people have something to bring to this discussion, you should bring silence.


----------



## kingkobra

The Harappan Civilization by Tarini J. Carr

Seals are one of the most commonly found objects in Harappan cities. They are decorated with animal motifs such as elephants, water buffalo, tigers, and most commonly unicorns. Some of these seals are inscribed with figures that are prototypes to later Hindu religious figures, some of which are seen today. 

For example, seals have been recovered with the repeated motif of a man sitting in a yogic position surrounded by animals. This is very similar to the Hindu god of Shiva, who is known to have been the friend of the animals and sat in a yogic position. These seals are known as the Shiva seals. Other images of a male god have been found, thus indicating the beginnings of Shiva worship, which continues to be practiced today in India. (10)

Siva Linga - MS Wats 1940This is an interesting point because of the accepted notion of an Aryan invasion. If Aryan's had invaded the Indus Valley, conquered the people, and imposed their own culture and religion on them, as the theory goes, it would seem unlikely that there would a continuation of similar religious practices up to the present. There is evidence throughout Indian history to indicate that Shiva worship has continued for thousands of years without disruption. [cf. harappan cultural continuity]


----------



## Rafi

We are the people of the Indus - it belongs to Pakistani's - we are proud that one of the oldest world civilizations was given birth to, in our land.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kingkobra

actually i am happy to see that you guys are keeping it preserved rather than destroying it like talibanis did with budha statues in afganistan just for religion's sake...


----------



## srsrsr

Rafi said:


> We are the people of the Indus - it belongs to Pakistani's - we are proud that one of the oldest world civilizations was given birth to, in our land.



The very concept of "Pakistan" was created to protect Muslims from majority Hindu rule - not on civilizational/cultural distinctness. Now on the piece of land you've got, you are free to accept the ancient history of the land, but don't claim it as yours. Its equivalent to Whites occupying the American's land and claiming the red indian's history as theirs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## srsrsr

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> Pakistan as an idea existed and was referenced for quite some time. Officially, legally, it had no existence prior to 1947. But then again, neither did hindustan.


 
Can you explain me how long the idea of Pakistan existed? Per my knowledge the idea got introduced with the Muslim league and we are talking of 2-3 decades at most. And can you care to explain why "Hindustan" wasnt existing. Please, we are talking about the concept/idea/identity and not stupid terminiology

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

srsrsr said:


> The very concept of "Pakistan" was created to protect Muslims from majority Hindu rule - not on civilizational/cultural distinctness. Now on the piece of land you've got, you are free to accept the ancient history of the land, but don't claim it as yours. Its equivalent to Whites occupying the American's land and claiming the red indian's history as theirs.


 
Yeah but whites are not indigenous, we are, we have continuous occupancy of this land for thousand's of years, my ancestor fought with Porus against Alexander, you can't get more indigenous than that, can you.

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 PM ----------




srsrsr said:


> Can you explain me how long the idea of Pakistan existed? Per my knowledge the idea got introduced with the Muslim league and we are talking of 2-3 decades at most. And can you care to explain why "Hindustan" wasnt existing. Please, we are talking about the concept/idea/identity and not stupid terminiology


 
There is was no nation state - as india, it is, and was an artificial construct of the Britishers.


----------



## John Doe

I would love to read the intelligent responses to SRSRSR's above 2 posts!


----------



## John Doe

Rafi said:


> Yeah but whites are not indigenous, we are, we have continuous occupancy of this land for thousand's of years, my ancestor fought with Porus against Alexander, you can't get more indigenous than that, can you.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> There is was no nation state - as india, it is, and was an artificial construct of the Britishers.


 
Please Rafi, answer his questions AFTER you READ them and Understand them. Please.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kingkobra

Rafi said:


> Yeah but whites are not indigenous, we are, we have continuous occupancy of this land for thousand's of years, my ancestor fought with Porus against Alexander, you can't get more indigenous than that, can you.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> There is was no nation state - as india, it is, and was an artificial construct of the Britishers.


 
go to this site and read it full.

The Harappan Civilization by Tarini J. Carr

The skeletal remains found at Harappan sites that date from 4,000 years ago, show the same basic racial types as are found today in Gujarat and Punjab, India. This is interesting, because if a foreign light-skinned people entered and took over, it would seem likely that there would be genetic evidence for this. The long continuity of ethnic groups in this region would indicate that the people living there had not seen an influx of a different ethic group that would have mixed with their own. (15)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rafi

It is basically a waste of time to discuss independence it is a fact of life, and a reality, 

1) IVC is contained largely within the geographic reality of Pakistan. 

2) Most of the people living their are indigenous, and/or a meld of the indigenous and foreign.

3) People of Pakistan are proud and read about their ancient history from a young age.


----------



## metro

Whoa this is hilarious !! Pakistanis is so desperate for 'respect' and 'legitimacy' that now you guys even want to steal Indian history ? haha. Piece of land does not a civilization make. A civilization is a set of traditions, set of ethics, rituals, religions, way of life, etc. 

In India the religion, traditions of ancient 'Indian' civilizations are still practiced, hence the civilizations are Indian. Pakistan was but a small part of the larger 'India'.

Pakistan gave up its claim to this civilizational inheritance the day it chose to be an 'Islamic Republic'. Pakistan has as much claim to IVC as the modern Egyptians have to the ancient Egyptian civilization i.e. nil, nada, zilch. Pakistan is an offshoot of Arabic civilization now. The sooner you accept it, the less heartburn shall you suffer.

Otherwise you are welcome to wage your 'jihad' against world history. I don't think the prospects of success are too bright though.----blitz

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## srsrsr

Rafi said:


> Yeah but whites are not indigenous, we are, we have continuous occupancy of this land for thousand's of years, my ancestor fought with Porus against Alexander, you can't get more indigenous than that, can you
> 
> 
> There is was no nation state - as india, it is, and was an artificial construct of the Britishers.


 
"indigenous" - Man if you were so indigineous, why did you ask and create the so called "East Pakistan"....Is that your indigineous clan was present in Bengal ( and your clan missed the land link inbetween). Simple fact, that your nation formed in the West part of British India on religious basis and then you "adopt" the history of the land .

Say for argument, if South India had muslims majority, Pakistan would've have been created in S.India and you guys' would've been claiming Dravidian history. As I stated earlier, you can always adopt the history of land, but dont lay claims stating that its Pakistan's 

This should be timelines

History of Pakistan Country - 1930+, History of Islamic Civilization in "this part of world" ( I know you hate any term of indian subcontinent") - 700 AD+ , History of land where Pakistan resides - IVC+



"artificial construct of the Britishers" - as I stated I dont want stupid terminology discussions of who coined the terms. Look beyond that - something called an identity.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## UnitedPak

metro said:


> Whoa this is hilarious !! Pakistanis is so desperate for 'respect' and 'legitimacy' that now you guys even want to steal Indian history ? haha. Piece of land does not a civilization make. A civilization is a set of traditions, set of ethics, rituals, religions, way of life, etc.


Pakistanis are descendants of the people of Indus Valley. None of your other silly statement matter. Do you really think the IV people were Hindi speaking, democratic, western influenced, multicultural and multi racial people like modern Indians? Civilisations change all the time, including Pakistani civilisation through the ages. Your ignorance and lack of knowledge about Indian history is hilarious however.


> In India the religion, traditions of ancient 'Indian' civilizations are still practiced, hence the civilizations are Indian. Pakistan was but a small part of the larger 'India'.


We dont know anything about IV culture or language. How can you possibly conclude modern Indians practice the same traditions as those people? And how can "Pakistan be a small part of larger India" when Indus Valley is based almost entirely in Pakistan?


> Pakistan gave up its claim to this civilizational inheritance the day it chose to be an 'Islamic Republic'.


Makes no sense or logic. Civilisations evolve all the time. No civilisation has remained the same, fact.


> Pakistan has as much claim to IVC as the modern Egyptians have to the ancient Egyptian civilization.


Now your are just embarrassing yourself. Egyptians are the descendants of ancient Egyptians. They can rightfully claim Egyptian history the same way Pakistanis can claim all of Indus history.


> Pakistan is an offshoot of Arabic civilization now. The sooner you accept it, the less heartburn shall you suffer.


Do we speak Arabic? Do you consider Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Kashmiris, Balochis as Arabic? In which case Pakistanis are not Arabic. Give this some thought, seriously.


> Otherwise you are welcome to wage your 'jihad' against world history. I don't think the prospects of success are too bright though.----blitz


Your desperate attempt to define others who have nothing to do with you is rather sad.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

kingkobra said:


> actually i am happy to see that you guys are keeping it preserved rather than destroying it like talibanis did with budha statues in afganistan just for religion's sake...


 
if that were the case, we wouldnt have Taxila or other historic places with non-Muslim-made relics and sites....

contrary to what your media brainwashes you, Pakistani are normal people and not barbarians. 

k, thanks.


----------



## Rafi

United Pak - this is the widely known phenomena that is known as indian inferiority complex, next they will be telling Iranian's that Darius was not Persian, it is our civilization we are the descendant's of it, end of story.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kingkobra

> We dont know anything about IV culture or language. How can you possibly conclude modern Indians practice the same traditions as those people? And how can "Pakistan be a small part of larger India" when Indus Valley is based almost entirely in Pakistan?



discovery of fire altars at several Indus sites. Fire rituals and sacrifice were an important part of Vedic religious practices. But what was significant about these alters, is that they were aligned and constructed in the same manner as later discovered altars were. The fire altars were then Vedic in construction indicating that the Harappan's were a Vedic culture. 







The Harappan Civilization by Tarini J. Carr

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

kingkobra said:


> discovery of fire altars at several Indus sites. Fire rituals and sacrifice were an important part of Vedic religious practices. But what was significant about these alters, is that they were aligned and constructed in the same manner as later discovered altars were. The fire altars were then Vedic in construction indicating that the Harappan's were a Vedic culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Harappan Civilization by Tarini J. Carr


 
Or may be they were like Aussies and enjoyed a good barbeque


----------



## kingkobra

Rafi said:


> United Pak - this is the widely known phenomena that is known as indian inferiority complex, next they will be telling Iranian's that Darius was not Persian, it is our civilization we are the descendant's of it, end of story.


 
hehe if you claim to be IV descendants then what kind of inferiority complex made you choose Islam as your religion?? 
and what kind of inferiority complex still lets to keep those places preserved at which idols were worshiped? i hope you know islam demands destruction of all the places were idols were worshiped..
i have answer...it is because you have nothing apart from this to show to the world

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TheStrantrunCurve

UnitedPak said:


> Pakistanis are descendants of the people of Indus Valley. None of your other silly statement matter. Do you really think the IV people were Hindi speaking, democratic, western influenced, multicultural and multi racial people like modern Indians? Civilisations change all the time, including Pakistani civilisation through the ages. Your ignorance and lack of knowledge about Indian history is hilarious however.
> 
> We dont know anything about IV culture or language. How can you possibly conclude modern Indians practice the same traditions as those people? And how can "Pakistan be a small part of larger India" when Indus Valley is based almost entirely in Pakistan?
> 
> Makes no sense or logic. Civilisations evolve all the time. No civilisation has remained the same, fact.
> 
> Now your are just embarrassing yourself. Egyptians are the descendants of ancient Egyptians. They can rightfully claim Egyptian history the same way Pakistanis can claim all of Indus history.
> 
> Do we speak Arabic? Do you consider Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Kashmiris, Balochis as Arabic? In which case Pakistanis are not Arabic. Give this some thought, seriously.
> 
> Your desperate attempt to define others who have nothing to do with you is rather sad.


 
UnitedPak,

It is useless to have a debate with bharti people, The IVC only existed on the banks of the Indus. The Meherghar Civilization only existed in Pakistan. Therefore they are Pakistani Civilizations. neither the IVC nor the Meherharh people were Hindu. Bharat was jungle then&#8211;still in the &#8220;hunter-gatherer&#8221; stage of evolution.

1)	Pakistanis don&#8217;t need to claim ancestry/heritage from Persians or afghans because Pakistani Civilization is 5000 years old, Pakistan is the latest avatar of Indus valley civilization, While bhartis at that time were hunter gatherers the Indus valley Pakistanis were among the first to develop a system of uniform weights and measures, World's first sewage and water systems were created in Harappa Pakistan.
2)	Bharat has no civilization to proud of except stealing the heritage from its neighbors.


Bharat have no history that is why they try to rob Pakistan of its history

The Melhulans were the Indus people who lived on the River Indus. They were the early ancestors of the present day Pakistanis. The DNA results from the remains of the people in the graves show 98% congruence with the Baluch, Punjabis, Pakhtuns and Sindhis of the current era. The facts remain that the people of the Indus were completely different from the people of the Ganges.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## metro

one day Pakistanis say, they are direct descendants of the invaders and then name all their weaponry after the invaders.
next day some Pakistani again come up with a new idea and claim they are the native of IVC and hence all the historical heritage belongs to them.
then some other Pakistani comes and say that his family migrated to Pakistan from India, so he belongs to none of the above two categories of Pakistanis.

I mean what sort of madness is this ??
Its been decades since ure country came into existence and u guys still dont know who your ancestors were ?
this is so lame and funny.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## kingkobra

TheStrantrunCurve said:


> UnitedPak,
> 
> It is useless to have a debate with bharti people, The IVC only existed on the banks of the Indus. The Meherghar Civilization only existed in Pakistan. Therefore they are Pakistani Civilizations. neither the IVC nor the Meherharh people were Hindu. Bharat was jungle then&#8211;still in the &#8220;hunter-gatherer&#8221; stage of evolution.
> 
> 1)	Pakistanis don&#8217;t need to claim ancestry/heritage from Persians or afghans because Pakistani Civilization is 5000 years old, Pakistan is the latest avatar of Indus valley civilization, While bhartis at that time were hunter gatherers the Indus valley Pakistanis were among the first to develop a system of uniform weights and measures, World's first sewage and water systems were created in Harappa Pakistan.
> 2)	Bharat has no civilization to proud of except stealing the heritage from its neighbors.
> 
> 
> Bharat have no history that is why they try to rob Pakistan of its history
> 
> The Melhulans were the Indus people who lived on the River Indus. They were the early ancestors of the present day Pakistanis. The DNA results from the remains of the people in the graves show 98% congruence with the Baluch, Punjabis, Pakhtuns and Sindhis of the current era. The facts remain that the people of the Indus were completely different from the people of the Ganges.


 
lol you have so less knowledge about IVC and India and about everything...
you dont even care to read the link i had posted..so i will post it again
The Harappan Civilization by Tarini J. Carr


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

no.

what is stupid is that there are millions of threads on this subject and even then trolls come on here trying to dictate their version of things over the others. 

ancient history maybe not appreciated by any south asians as is evident. Go learn a thing or two, then talk. Btw, its only been decades since hindustan (india) came into being as well. Dont forget that.


----------



## TheStrantrunCurve

kingkobra said:


> lol you have so less knowledge about IVC and India and about everything...
> you dont even care to read the link i had posted..so i will post it again
> The Harappan Civilization by Tarini J. Carr


 
The IVC also extended into Afghanistan and iran then why should bharat have monopoly over IVC. And just to let you know vedic civilizatiion also has nothing to do with bhart it was based on north western part of subcontinent which makes pakistan and they were nature worshipers not idol worshipers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## metro

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> no.
> 
> what is stupid is that there are millions of threads on this subject and even then trolls come on here trying to dictate their version of things over the others.
> 
> ancient history maybe not appreciated by any south asians as is evident. Go learn a thing or two, then talk. Btw, its only been decades since hindustan (india) came into being as well. Dont forget that.


 
Abu i have no problem with u guys laying your claim over the IVC and sort.
But if u wanna do it atleast do it properly.

If your the natives of this land, than your the same people who were thrashed and annihilated first by the invaders. 
And then you glorify and worship those same invaders who happened to have killed and raped your own ancestors.
It makes no sense.
Any person having an iota of dignity would not glorify those monsters who had killed his own mothers and fathers.
But u people do that. 
isnt this insanity ?
isnt this psychopathology ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kingkobra

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> no.
> 
> what is stupid is that there are millions of threads on this subject and even then trolls come on here trying to dictate their version of things over the others.
> 
> ancient history maybe not appreciated by any south asians as is evident. Go learn a thing or two, then talk. Btw, its only been decades since hindustan (india) came into being as well. Dont forget that.


 
who cares about that??
we are in far better position than you...we do not need to think about our identity...we have plenty to show to world...
and no one dictates anything to you  it is stupid to say that history of Pakistan started with IVC...it may not seem stupid to your but yes it is...


----------



## PakistaniPacifist

Indians are extremely sad and pathetic trying their hardest to associate us, with themselves, trying their best to make illegitimate claims on very own heritage.


It's honestly sad to see them suffer from this massive inferiority complex they have with Pakistanis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

PakistaniPacifist said:


> Indians are extremely sad and pathetic trying their hardest to associate us, with themselves, trying their best to make illegitimate claims on very own heritage.
> 
> 
> It's honestly sad to see them suffer from this massive inferiority complex they have with Pakistanis.


 
It get's rather tedious after a while, for the last time we are proud of our Pre-Islamic Heritage, and we are also proud of our conversion to that great world religion, is that so hard to understand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MyPakistan1947

makes me really sad and angry,Pakistanis are having to argue with history-less,jealous people about our very own heritage and history. 

we have to argue with others about whether we have a right over the great achievements of our own great ancestors.

we should NOT have to argue/debate about this to anybody.

we dont owe an explanation to haters/indians.


----------



## Rafi

MyPakistan1947 said:


> makes me really sad and angry,Pakistanis are having to argue with history-less,jealous people about our very own heritage and history.
> 
> we have to argue with others about whether we have a right over the great achievements of our own great ancestors.
> 
> we should NOT have to argue/debate about this to anybody.
> 
> we dont owe an explanation to haters/indians.


 
And when you meet one in real life, they are meek as two day old lambs, go figure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

TheStrantrunCurve said:


> UnitedPak,
> 
> It is useless to have a debate with bharti people, The IVC only existed on the banks of the Indus. The Meherghar Civilization only existed in Pakistan. Therefore they are Pakistani Civilizations. neither the IVC nor the Meherharh people were Hindu. Bharat was jungle then&#8211;still in the &#8220;hunter-gatherer&#8221; stage of evolution.
> 
> 1)	Pakistanis don&#8217;t need to claim ancestry/heritage from Persians or afghans because Pakistani Civilization is 5000 years old, Pakistan is the latest avatar of Indus valley civilization, While bhartis at that time were hunter gatherers the Indus valley Pakistanis were among the first to develop a system of uniform weights and measures, World's first sewage and water systems were created in Harappa Pakistan.
> 2)	Bharat has no civilization to proud of except stealing the heritage from its neighbors.
> 
> 
> Bharat have no history that is why they try to rob Pakistan of its history
> 
> The Melhulans were the Indus people who lived on the River Indus. They were the early ancestors of the present day Pakistanis. The DNA results from the remains of the people in the graves show 98% congruence with the Baluch, Punjabis, Pakhtuns and Sindhis of the current era. The facts remain that the people of the Indus were completely different from the people of the Ganges.


 
It is regrettable that you start with the proposition that it is impossible to have a debate with "bharati" people (incidentally, the use of that term is considered as derogatory as the use of the term P***, so please desist from using it in future), without considering that in a debate, while two opposite opinions may be held initially, the premise of the debate must be that facts and their rational analysis will finally prevail, not a dogged insistence on having one's own opinion upheld. Unless you free yourselves to consider the facts, you will find yourselves continuing to discuss this issue till infinity.

First, Indus Valley Civilisation remains and settlements have been found as far north as Shortugai, on the banks of the Oxus. Try to remember that the term Indus Valley Civilisaton was given to the culture in question due to the major settlements initially discovered on the banks of the Indus, and due to no other reason. It is surprising to see a label being used to justify a cultural coherence with present-day inhabitants, when there is no linkage between that culture and any that occurred ever since. Something, perhaps, like present-day Turks claiming the credit for the founding and administration of Troy. 

Once again, at slower speed: at that time, there was no Pakistan, which is a modern concept. There could not have been a coherent culture shared by the present geographical extent of Pakistan, and the IVC was not such a culture; it extended well beyond the boundaries of present-day Pakistan, for starters, so the opening premise is false.

There is no question of this, or that, or the culture being Hindu. Hindu was a religious label, not a cultural one. The term Hindu covered a multitude of people, from nine river valleys:
the Gangetic Valley;
the Brahmaputra valley;
the Mahanadi valley;
the Krishna valley;
the Godavari valley;
the Kaveri valley;
the Tungabhadra basin;
the Narmada valley;
the Indus valley.
Each had its own distinct culture, each shared traits of the culture of the others. Religion, language and literature were unifying factors.

Your statement that Pakistanis are the latest avatars of the Indus Valley Civilisation is regrettably untrue; there was no inheritance of this unique culture that can be detected in subsequent years. If they were the latest avatars, Pakistanis would know the language that was spoken there, the script that was used there, and would have had a continuous record of living in those urbanisations from then till now. That is not the case. At best, some of the people of those cities remain in the population around the cities, but have completely forgotten everything to do with those cities. 

They even had to be discovered by aliens. If you are not aware, two railway engineers, the Brunton brothers, stripped the Mohenjodaro site of bricks for ballast; the ballasted tracks are still there for proud Pakistanis to see on the track running from Karachi to Lahore. So much for your being the avatar of the original inhabitants of those cities. Formal investigations started with Cunningham's publication of the details of a seal; this was followed by Marshall's explorations. Sir John Marshall, Rai Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni, and Madho Swarup Vats were the main investigators of Harappa; at Mohenjodaro, it was three more proud Pakistanis, Rakhal Das Banerjea, McCay and Marshall again.

It is surprising to see some wallowing in emotion about these sites when neither they nor their ancestors remember having built them, or live in memory of having them in the vicinity, or re-discovered the sites for present-day posterity. Does proximity mean possession? It does. Does proximity mean affiliation, or cultural descent? It does not. Your logic is faulty there; just because Pakistanis live there now, and these sites largely fall into the territory of Pakistan does not mean that the present-day people of present-day Pakistan have anything to do with them, besides having pointed them out to engineers who made railway ballast of them.

As far as Indian civilisation is concerned, I suggest you invest in a cheap,elementary history text, or as an alternative, buy Basham's the Wonder that was India, and read it through. Your ideas of Indian civilisation will be sharply corrected. There is no lack of history or culture that drives Indians to discuss this and other topics; while you have this one achievement located in your lands with no other connection to you, Indians have the results of the culture in 8 other river valleys to explore and to ponder over, including cultures which date back continuously to periods long before present-day Pakistan made any effort at developing either urban or rural culture. A preliminary study of the Kaveri delta settlements and the Sangam period in Tamil, or the Brahmaputra valley and its adjoining Gangetic portions will illuminate this statement for you.

You mention that the 'Melhulans' (sic - at least try to copy and paste, instead of typing these strange names in and making silly mistakes) were the Indus people who lived on the River Indus, and that they were the early ancestors of todays' Pakistanis, with 98% congruence with the DNA of present-day residents of Pakistan. This is indeed surprising to read: all studies on DNA have indicated that the Punjabi, Sindhi population have 98% congruence among themselves and with the rest of south Asians, including inhabitants of Bangladesh, but that Pakhtuns have little or no congruence at all. You might like to ponder over the legal maxim that there are two kinds of lies, suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. The people of the Indus, according to the findings of the team led by Cavalli-Sforza, are identical with the people of the Ganges.

This desperation can only be attributed to the failure in sequence of the Two Nation Theory, which was blown up by the secession of Bangladesh, and of the secular democracy for Muslims Theory, Jinnah's ideal, which was sabotaged and systematically dismantled by the Objectives Resolution, then by the declaration of the Islamic Republic and finally by the adoption of Sharia courts. It was only after these tragic occurrences that Aitzaz Ahsan and his followers have started this farcical business of the Pakistani heritage of 5,000 years, the exact Pakistani counterpart of the BJP and Sangh Parivar's insistence that all human growth started from within India. You are to be congratulated in finding good company to keep. 

As far as liberal Indians are concerned, have no fears; our attitude towards these melodramatic recreations of history is one of amused disdain. _Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner_

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

*it's strange that joe has to kill the dead snake again.. and again*


----------



## Ignited Mind

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> no.
> 
> what is stupid is that there are millions of threads on this subject and even then trolls come on here trying to dictate their version of things over the others.
> 
> ancient history maybe not appreciated by any south asians as is evident. Go learn a thing or two, then talk. Btw, its only been decades since hindustan (india) came into being as well. Dont forget that.


 
You said it here. Please don't say it in front of any non-Pakistani. 

People will laugh at you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ignited Mind

khanz4996 said:


> in 5000 years indian were under muslims for 1310 years till 1857 get ur facts right no hindu propganda


 
Oh so it's 1310 now...


----------



## Shinigami

If pakistnis claim IVC, they must also claim responsibility for the birth of hinduism. bcos hinduism was born in IVC

_Seals are one of the most commonly found objects in Harappan cities. They are decorated with animal motifs such as elephants, water buffalo, tigers, and most commonly unicorns. Some of these seals are inscribed with figures that are prototypes to later Hindu religious figures, some of which are seen today._
*seals have been recovered with the repeated motif of a man sitting in a yogic position surrounded by animals. This is very similar to the Hindu god of Shiva, who is known to have been the friend of the animals and sat in a yogic position. These seals are known as the Shiva seals. Other images of a male god have been found, thus indicating the beginnings of Shiva worship, which continues to be practiced today in India.*
The Harappan Civilization by Tarini J. Carr

_The word Hindu is derived from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, the historic local appellation for the Indus River in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent_
Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Ignited Mind

khanz4996 said:


> mate islam is only 1400 years old and had a really great empire and now countries u lot are here from 5000 years but on one state which is 60 years old shame boss


 
Yes because we didn't admire murder, rape, pillaging and forced conversions as virtues to be taken pride in. Quite unlike you. 

And we're proud of that.


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

khanz4996 said:


> in 5000 years indian were under muslims for 1310 years till 1857 get ur facts right no hindu propganda


 
here again..and pakistanis says indias have identity crisis..lol.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ignited Mind said:


> Yes because we didn't admire murder, rape, pillaging and forced conversions as virtues to be taken pride in. Quite unlike you.
> 
> And we're proud of that.


 
This post hurt.

I sincerely, very sincerely appreciate your support, but what happened years ago should not be brought into discussions today.

Murder, rape, pillaging and forced conversions are not the monopoly of one community. For a recent demonstration of these, please look up the Rape of Nanking. Or the activities of the Germans in South West Africa, particularly the attempted eradication of the Herero tribe in death camps. Neither of these horrors was due to Muslims. Nor was the tragedy of the Hutu genocide against the Tutsi.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ignited Mind said:


> Oh so it's 1310 now...


 
How is this figure of 1310 derived? Enquiring minds would like to know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ignited Mind

Joe Shearer said:


> How is this figure of 1310 derived? Enquiring minds would like to know.


 
Only Pakistanis would know that. It's a great secret, you know.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ignited Mind said:


> Only Pakistanis would know that. It's a great secret, you know.


 
@Ignited Mind

OK, let's work this out. 



> in 5000 years indian were under muslims for 1310 years till 1857



Right. So 1857 - 1310 = 547. 

Hmm. We've been under Muslim rule from 547 onwards. Must memorise this; no other way to remember it, considering there were no Muslims in 547.

Who was the infant genius who posted this, btw? Maybe we can sell him to Gaddafi as a weapons designer, and get rid of multiple problems all at one go.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## MadDog

*Language/linguistics: *

About 99% of languages spoken in Pakistan are Indo-Iranian (sub-branches: 75% Indo-Aryan and 24% Iranian), a branch of Indo-European family of languages. All languages of Pakistan are written in the Perso-Arabic script, with significant vocabulary derived from Arabic and Persian. Punjabi, Seraiki, Sindhi, Pashto, Urdu, Balochi, Kashmiri, etc. are the languages spoken in Pakistan. 

About 69% of languages spoken in India are Indo-Iranian (sub-branch: Indo-Aryan), 26% are Dravidian, and 5% are Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic, all unrelated/distinct family of languages. Most languages in India are written in Brahmi- derived scripts such as Devangari, Gurmukhi, Tamil, etc. Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Assamese, Punjabi, Naga, and many others are the mother-tongue languages spoken in each of India's states. 

As you can see both countries have distinct linguistic identities. Even in the case of Punjabi, while it is the mother-tongue of a majority in Pakistan, it represents the mother-tongue of only 2% Indians. Besides, Pakistani Punjabi (Western Punjabi) is distinct in its vocabulary/dialect and writing script when compared to Indian Punjabi (Eastern Punjabi). Another thing to keep in mind is that Indian Punjabi is mostly spoken by Sikhs who consider themselves distinct from the rest of Indians and had been fighting for independence. In the case of Urdu/Hindi, while Hindi is the mother- tongue of a majority in India, Urdu is the mother-tongue of only 8% Pakistanis. Besides, they both are distinct languages, Urdu has a writing script and strong vocabulary derived from Arabic and Persian, whereas Hindi has strong vocabulary derived from Sanskrit and is written in Devangari script. Most Pakistanis can understand English and watch American/Brit movies but that does not make them British/American, same is the case with Hindi. 


*Race/genetics*: 

About 70% of Pakistanis are Caucasoid by race, 20% Australoid- Negroid, and 10% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Pakistanis are tall with fair skin complexion, similar to Middle Eastern and Mediterranean peoples. While the racial features of each ethnic group are not uniform, Pashtuns are the most Caucasoid, followed by Kashmiris, Baluchis, north Punjabis, and then Sindhis, Seraikis, Urdu-speakers, etc. The Australoid-Negroid and Mongoloid racial elements are quite infused within the dominant Caucasoid genes among Pakistanis, however there are some that have retained their distinct racial characteristics. 

About 50% of Indians are Australoid-Negroid by race, 35% Caucasoid, and 15% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Indians are darker in their skin complexion, with wider noses, shorter heights, etc. The Australoid-Dravidoid racial element dominates among the lower caste Indians, South Indians, Eastern and Central Indians, etc. The Caucasoid racial element dominates in Northwest Indians and higher caste Indians. The Mongoloid racial element dominates in Northeast Indians and border regions with China. 

Obviously, both countries have distinct racial identities. A common international perception based on observance of physical features is that most Pakistanis are lighter skinned than most Indians. Most Pakistanis resemble the looks of peoples inhabiting on its western borders and beyond. Indeed, many Pakistanis also resemble many Northwest Indians or higher caste Indians, but those are a minority in India. Similarly, a few people of Pakistan resemble peoples of South India, lower caste Indians, Northeast India, etc. but they are a minority in Pakistan. And besides, let's say, if some Saudis look similar to the French that does not make them one people, same applies here between Indians and Pakistanis. 


*Culture/Traditions: *

Pakistanis have a distinct culture, traditions and customs. Shalwar kamiz is the dress commonly worn, both by men and women in Pakistan. Pakistani food is rich in meat (including beef), whereas wheat is the main staple. Pashto, Punjabi, Balochi, Sindhi, etc. music and dances are distinctly unique with their own melodies, instruments, patterns and styles. Pakistani arts in metal work, tiles, furniture, rugs, designs/paintings, literature, calligraphy, etc. are distinct and diverse. Pakistani architecture is unique with its Islamic styles. The manners and lifestyles are guided by a blend of Islam and local traditions. 

India's commonly worn dress is dhoti for men and sari for women. Indian food is mostly vegetarian, with wheat as the main staple in the north and west, and rice is the main staple in south and east. Hindi, Gujarati, Tamil, Bengali, etc. music and dances are distinctly unique. So are Indian arts in the many areas. Indian architecture is unique in its mostly Hindu styles. The manners and lifestyles of most Indians are guided by Hinduism. 

Pakistanis and Indians definitely have distinct cultures of their own. Some Indian women wear shalwar kamiz, but that was introduced by the ancestors of Pakistanis. Many Pakistani food dishes are absent in Indian cuisine and vice versa, and if some dishes are shared, they were also introduced by the ancestors of Pakistanis (like naan, tikka, kabob, biryani/pulao, etc.). There is barely any Hindu architectural influence in Pakistan (Gandhara is Graeco- Buddhist and Harappan is distinct), but significant influences by the ancestors of Pakistanis can be found in India. The lives of most Pakistanis are shaped by Islam, whereas the lives of most Indians are shaped by Hinduism. 


*History/background:* 

Pakistanis are a blend of their Harappan, Aryan, Persian, Greek, Saka, Parthian, Kushan, White Hun, Arab, Turkic, Afghan, and Mughal heritage. Waves of invaders and migrants settled down in Pakistan through out the centuries, influencing the locals and being absorbed among them. 

Most Indians are a blend of their heritage of Dravidoid-Australoid hunters and gatherers, and Aryans (in north). Northwest Indians have a heritage from Harappans, Aryans, Sakas, and White Huns. Northeast Indians have a heritage based from Mongoloid hunters and gatherers. Also, Turks, Afghans and Mughals ruled north India for centuries. 

Pakistan and India have a distinct history and background. The region of Pakistan was never part of India except for 500+ years under the Muslims, and 100 years each under the Mauryans and the British. If any thing, it were the ancestors of Pakistanis who colonized north/northwest India, among them were Harappans, Aryans, Sakas, Kushans, White Huns, Turks, Afghans, and Mughals. 


*Geography: *

Pakistan is geographically unique, with Indus river and its tributaries as its main water supply. It is bordered by the Hindu Kush and Sulaiman Mountain ranges in the west, Karakoram mountain range in the north, Sutlej river and Thar desert in east, and Arabian Sea in the south. The country in its present form was created by the Pakistanis themselves out of the British Raj, the Indus people themselves who are now mostly Muslims. 

India is geographically unique, with Ganges river and its tributaries as its water supply in the north, and other river systems in the rest of the country. Himalayas as its northern boundary, Sutlej river and Thar desert as its western border, the jungles of northeast as its eastern border, and Indian Ocean in the south. The mountains in the central-south India are the great divide between Dravidians of the south and Indo-Aryans of the north. The country itself was created by the British, a direct descendent of the remnants of British Raj. 

It is evident that India and Pakistan have their own unique geographical environments. Pakistan is located at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. On the other hand, India is located at the core of South Asia.




----- Article contributed by Hayat Khan


----------



## MadDog

The empires even before the arrival of muslims to this land were situated with centers either to their west or in central asia...
and if u check most of Pak's land was in them while in some instances little bit of present day's india's territory was also included...
come to canada..and check the diff...majority of both ppl look diff from each other...this is wht even indians say themselves...
even a blind person can tell.....throughout history...area to the west of indus was considered persian part and to the east was hind (ie 60-75% of Pak) wasn't even in india......u guys need to be the dumbest ppl on the planet if u wanna debate on this...cuz there can be no debates on facts.

Even if u check the official defination of central asia...two of pakistan's provinces lie in it...i.e Gilgit Baltistan and Pukhtunkhwa while baluchistan as mentioned was part of early persian empires and later the caliphates even area uptill Bolan was under the rashidun caliphates ruled by Hadhrat Ali (R) ...after the rashidun caliphates defeated persians....two provinces lie in south asia..namely punjab and sindh...thus Pakistan is at the cross roads of three major regions just like turkey is at the crossroads of europe and asia...while india is in the center of south asia..so plz read history before countering me.


----------



## Joe Shearer

MadDog said:


> The empires even before the arrival of muslims to this land were situated with centers either to their west or in central asia...
> and if u check most of Pak's land was in them while in some instances little bit of present day's india's territory was also included...
> come to canada..and check the diff...majority of both ppl look diff from each other...this is wht even indians say themselves...
> even a blind person can tell.....throughout history...area to the west of indus was considered persian part and to the east was hind (ie 60-75% of Pak) wasn't even in india......u guys need to be the dumbest ppl on the planet if u wanna debate on this...cuz there can be no debates on facts.


 
No, we don't want to debate on this. All that we want to say has been said - over and over and over and over again, until some new kid on the block, with less than 200 posts to his credit, comes trotting along, and says, "Now hear this. We are different from you, you know?" And the whole furshlugginer thing starts up again. What goes on here? Is there a cookie cutter that brings you guys out, one after the other? With a bucket of brains and a scoop with holes in it at the end of the line, and a spastic trying to score as you go past him with brain crania open?

We definitely don't want to debate with you geniuses. No way. Like you said, you just need to look at them to make out they're different (we don't mean it the way you do, but so what?). Argument over, facts presented, case proved. Now go home to Canada and stay there. Please. The shining bright light of your intelligence is hurting my tired old eyes.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## MadDog

@ Joe Shearer dude i used historical facts...and i have this right to use it to counter an your allegation that whole of my national identity 
should not exist....if u don't like it ( and surely u don't like it) then plz let ur fellows know not
to attack my ideology and my nation's ideology cuz this stubborn mindset which doesn't recognizes Pakistan's existence is the only reason for wars
and will continue to be so if both nations don't start respecting each other's identities and ideologies.
For the sake of peace b/w 2 countries i request u and ur fellows to accept the reality and not see hi-fi dreams.


----------



## twoplustwoisfour

MadDog said:


> @ Joe Shearer dude i used historical facts...and i have this right to use it to counter an your allegation that whole of my national identity
> should not exist....if u don't like it ( and surely u don't like it) then plz let ur fellows know not
> to attack my ideology and my nation's ideology cuz this stubborn mindset which doesn't recognizes Pakistan's existence is the only reason for wars
> and will continue to be so if both nations don't start respecting each other's identities and ideologies.
> For the sake of peace b/w 2 countries i request u and ur fellows to accept the reality and not see hi-fi dreams.


 
No one is attacking your nation's ideology. What we are rediculing is your incredulous claim over a part of history which you yourself had disowned. 

Regarding the facts that you have mentioned, the same have already been discussed over the previous 52 pages of this thread. I suggest you go through them.


----------



## MadDog

*@twoplustwoisfour * dude it has not been disowned...this means u didnt read what was written there.

"Pakistanis are a blend of their Harappan, Aryan, Persian, Greek, Saka, Parthian, Kushan, White Hun, Arab, Turkic, Afghan, and Mughal heritage. Waves of invaders and migrants settled down in Pakistan through out the centuries, influencing the locals and being absorbed among them."

"Most Indians are a blend of their heritage of Dravidoid-Australoid hunters and gatherers, and Aryans (in north). Northwest Indians have a heritage from Harappans, Aryans, Sakas, and White Huns. Northeast Indians have a heritage based from Mongoloid hunters and gatherers."

What i said is that majority of both nations is diff from each other, while there might be common shared characteristics..(which pak also shares with afghanistan and iran) but my emphasis was about majority.

Regards
MadDog


----------



## twoplustwoisfour

Majority of Indians might not be similar to Majority of Pakistanis, but Majority of Pakistanis have similar traits as NorthWestern Indians. But this thread is not about racial charecteristics, we were talking about the Harrappan civilization, which is shared by the two nations.


----------



## Joe Shearer

twoplustwoisfour said:


> Majority of Indians might not be similar to Majority of Pakistanis, but Majority of Pakistanis have similar traits as NorthWestern Indians. But this thread is not about racial charecteristics, we were talking about the Harrappan civilization, which is shared by the two nations.





> "Most Indians are a blend of their heritage of Dravidoid-Australoid hunters and gatherers, and Aryans (in north). Northwest Indians have a heritage from Harappans, Aryans, Sakas, and White Huns. Northeast Indians have a heritage based from Mongoloid hunters and gatherers."



Explain to him in simple language that unfortunately for his silly little theories, internationally reputed scientists (Cavalli-Sforza - he can look up the man and his work on the net) have already examined the genetics of the sub-continent and found uniformity of DNA across all segments, in all geographies (except the Pakhtun). So he can put his little magazine speculations where the monkey put the nuts.

But don't spend too much time.

Why are we bothering to waste time on this half-baked kid who is rehashing the stuff of a hundred discussions past, simply because he is too naive to know that he is coming in at the tail end? Let him have the grace to look at those past discussions before thinking that he is so smart that he is saying things nobody else has thought of and nobody can counter. Don't waste time on these self-appointed champions of what they imagine is their national cause.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

twoplustwoisfour said:


> Majority of Indians might not be similar to Majority of Pakistanis, but Majority of Pakistanis have similar traits as NorthWestern Indians.


 
Actually the only trait Indians like us & Pakistanis like them share is *gross stupidity*. We, because we waste our time insisting that we are all similar in spite of the fact that would be going for the lowest common denominator and be of no great credit, they because of a strong, unshakable belief that they are transported miraculously from Arabia (or Mars) to be inserted carefully within the borders of their present country & no further.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

To tell u the truth balouch,pashtun,gilgit-baltistan,tajik,hazara,hindko n syeds,qureshis,ghakars,mughals,turkics,aghas,kurds,persians etc dont have no similarity with Northern indians...... The small minority of jats,rajputs,khatri(shiekhs) are of the same blood as their counterparts on ur side........and are very much proud n use the same titles.... n then we have the low castes(only in punjab n sindh) like mochi,darzi etc.

But yes majority has no links with u guys.

N by syeds etc i mean the children of saints n sufis who settled here..... For eg Baba Bullay Shah,Fareed ganj Baksh,waris shah,Shah rukn-e-alam etc....... the children...... r of arab ancestory.


----------



## Developereo

Well, I haven't bothered reading 800 odd posts, but we studied Harappa, Mohenjodaro, Ashoka, Buddha, etc. when I went to school. It was very much considered a part of Pakistan's cultural heritage. Also, I would say that most Pakistanis I know consider us to be more similar to north Indians than Arabs or Turks, both culturally and physically.

There is a full spectrum of views on this subject within Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manas

* Some thing i read *:


The Turks who came down from Central Asia and put up tent in the Indian Subcontinent had only so much culture that they were crazy for watermelons. *The Pakistani Turkic "lobby" is quite active in peddling bulls*it about racial superiority over the Subcontinental gene pool*. Pakistanis buy into it by thinking about the beauty of the Turks in Turkey. That beauty has little to do with Turks and everything to do with Hittites and other Anatolian ethnicities. T*he Turks who came down into the Indian Subcontinent looked very much like the Uzbeks. And let's be frank about this, the Pakistanis do not look one bit like the Uzbeks. That is one aspect that is simply brushed over.* However still the thing about racial superiority viz-a-viz the Subcontinentals is peddled around as if it was some given fact, just so that one can push for a theory that Pakistanis are somehow genetically different than the rest of the Subcontinent.

Most vociferous on cultural matters is the* Pakistani Persian "lobby". The Turks having no real court culture of their own imported Persian court culture.* During the course of this royal patronage to the Persian culture, many Persians were able to find a place in the Indian Subcontinent in influential places. This lobby loves to peddle theories that the people of Pakistan are culturally totally different than the people in the rest of the Indian Subcontinent. The Two-Nation Theory too is the work of this lobby. Of course they additionally used the crutches of Pan-Islamism, of Ummah, of Muslim Brotherhood over bonds of blood and ethnicity, to strengthen their message, but it has always been the effort of this lobby to drive a schism between the Muslims of the Subcontinent and the Hindus of the Subcontinent. *No effort is spared to show that the Muslims of the Subcontinent somehow all owe their culture, customs and traditions to West Asia, to Islamic Persia only, and that they have no cultural roots in the Indian Subcontinent.* *In the end, this Pakistani Persian lobby does so only to strengthen their own position in the political landscape of Pakistan, because the more Pakistan moves culturally towards Islamic Persia, the bigger role this lobby can play as intermediaries of this culture*.

*Then there is the Arab "lobby" active in Pakistan. For them the important thing is ideological proselytization and ideological purification.* They similarly use tools of segregation of Muslims from other communities in order to avoid contamination of their sheep by external ideas. This lobby wants to send the children of the Muslims through seminaries where children learn by rote, and their identity as Muslims is fastened as tight as possible. *This lobby is a bit confused. In order to proselytize they need to go into alien pastures, but at the same time they want to avoid contamination by the ideologies of the Kufr.*

*Most Hindus feel at ease with this Arab lobby, though not all. *They feel that if this lobby does not use illegitimate tools for proselytization, than they should be allowed to compete - illegitimate tools being intimidation and violence; state patronage towards Muslims and discrimination towards others; death penalties to apostates; abduction of Hindu girls for marriage; coercing marriage partners to convert to Islam, in order to approve marriage; etc..

*What Indians do not approve is this hijacking of the Pakistani population by the "Turkic" Racial Supremacists, who want to fool Pakistanis into believing that they somehow are genetically different than the Hindus.* Should one really start calculating, one would see that the influx of Central Asian genetic material into the demographics of Pakistan does not make up more than 2% and that too if one is generous. The vast mass of Pakistanis in fact have no genetic influence, in matter of speaking, from Central Asians in Islamic times.* This tiny elite of a couple of hundred thousands want to hijack common Pakistanis away from their Subcontinental roots and for what? - To lord over them, to consider them their own personal jaagir. This lie must be countered head-on.*

*Indians are also not happy about the damage the Pakistani Persian lobby is again trying to achieve - the Partition of India being their first "achievement". They want the Pakistani people to completely discard their roots.* In fact they are intensively lobbying to put an end to Indian or one should say Subcontinental influence on the Pakistani masses - Bollywood films, music, language, etc, and since the Pakistani people are showing them the middle finger, they are intent on imposing this through government ordinance.

*So who are the fools in Pakistan - the fools are the Muslim Rajputs and Muslim Jats of Pakistan and of Punjab in particular. Regardless of whether there had been a Pakistan or not, they would have always been influential. The Persian lobby made them believe they had grounds to fear Hindu influence. In fact the Persian lobby has been able to impose Urdu as their first language in Punjab. Muslim Rajputs and Muslim Jats have lost not only their pre-Islamic cultural grandeur, but also their post-Islamic pre-Partition roots in the Punjabi language.* The Arab lobby would not have minded if the Punjabis had stuck to their Punjabi. But that would not have sat well with the Pakistani Persian lobby.

*After the loss of patronage by the Mughals, the Persian lobby looked for some influence by aligning themselves with the interests of the British. Hence Muslim League was born. **The Arab lobby was not really in favor of Partition. Neither Maulana Azad nor Maududi approved of Partition. Of course Maududi dreamt of converting Hindus to Islam, but he was not in favor of segregation.* In this regard the Arab lobby thought differently.

*The last Muslim Punjabi was really Fazli Husain of the Unionist Party of Punjab. The Persian lobby was able to win over Sikander Hyat Khan of Punjab and the rest is history. Punjab lost its Punjabiyat the day Sikander Hyat Khan walked over to the Muslim League. Pakistani Punjab has had Urdu forced down its throat.*

*Basically Muslim Rajputs and Muslim Jats of Punjab who should have protested have kept quiet. *They too have been told that it is in their interest to prolong the India-Pakistan conflict, and only if they do so would they be able to hold sway through the Army. They have been sold the rubbish that mixing of Turkish and Persian blood in their veins has somehow made them into superhumans and each Pakistani is now 10 times stronger than a Kafir Indian. *The Pakistani Punjabi Muslim Rajputs and Muslim Jats have bought all this rubbish and frittered away whatever little they had in identity, their old culture, language, etc. They have allowed their traditional identity as Punjabis to be superseded by an artificial word "Pakistan". They have allowed themselves to made into fools. If they want real roots, then they should rediscover their Punjabi roots and history.*

The real loss however is to the Pakistani Muslim masses, who have been given high doses from all three lobbies - the Pakistani Turkic lobby, the Pakistani Persian lobby, and the Pakistani Arab lobby.

Even though ideologically the Hindu Civilization has incurred severe damage under the Arab lobby, at least the Hindu Civilization has survived its most brutal attack of mass conversions at the point of a sword. However the Pakistani Persian lobby and the Pakistani Turkish lobby have proven more dangerous to the Indian Subcontinent, because they have achieved partition and now hope to achieve a full reorientation of Pakistan away from the Indian Subcontinent.

So as far as Indians are concerned, we don't mind if the Pakistani Arab lobby consumes the Pakistani Persian lobby, and the Pakistani Pushtun supremacist lobby consumes the Pakistani Turkish supremacist lobby. 

*So I don't know who in Pakistan is really inclined towards the Indian Subcontinent, but the Pakistani "Liberals", who worship Jinnah, the Muslim League, and belong to Pakistani Elite, are in fact already compromised by the Pakistani Persian lobby. There is also a heavy sprinkling of Pakistanis who tend towards the Pakistani Turkish "supremacist" lobby.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MadDog

Your so called majority Pakistanis (Punjabis) are described as follows on wiki 
*Pakistani Punjabis*
Punjabis make up *almost 45% *of the population of Pakistan. The Punjabis found in Pakistan belong to groups known as biradaris, which descend from a common male ancestor. In addition, Punjabi society is divided into two divisions, the zamindar groups or qoums, traditionally associated with farming and the moeens, who are traditionally artisans. *Zamindars are further divided into qoups that claim pre-Islamic ancestry *such as the Rajput,Aheers, Harals, Ghosi (tribe), Jat, Shaikhs or (Muslim Khatri), Kambohs, Gujjars, Dogars and Rahmani (Muslim Labana). *Zamindar groups claiming Central Asian or Middle Eastern ancestry include the Gakhars, Khattar, Awan, Mughal and Arain, comprising the main tribes in the north of the province, while Khagga, Bodla, Jhandir, Daudpota, Gardezi, Syed and Quraishi are found in the south, all of whom claim Arab ancestry.* Immigrants from neighbouring regions, such as the Kashmiri, Pashtun and Baluch ,also form important element in the Punjabi population. Pashtun tribes like the Niazis and the Khakwanis, are integrated into Punjabi village life. Especially the members of the Niazi tribe, who see themselves as Punjabis first. They have big communities in Mianwali, Bakkar, Lahore, Faisalabad, Sahiwal and Toba Tek Singh. Major Moeen groups include the Lohar, Khateek, Rawal, Chhimba Darzi, Teli, Julaha, Mallaah, Mirasi, who are associated with a particular crafts or occupation.[34]
Punjabis have traditionally and historically been farmers and soldiers, which has transferred into modern times with their dominance of agriculture and military fields in Pakistan. In addition, Punjabis in Pakistan have been quite prominent politically, having had many elected Members of Parliament. As the most ardent supporters of a Pakistani state, the Punjabis in Pakistan have shown a strong predilection towards the adoption of the Urdu language but nearly all speak Punjabi, and still identify themselves as ethnic Punjabis for the most part. Religious homogeneity remains elusive as a predominant Islamic Sunni-Shia population and a Christian minority have not completely wiped out diversity since the partition of British India. A variety of related sub-groups exist in Pakistan and are often considered by many Pakistani Punjabis to be simply regional Punjabis including the Seraikis (who overlap and are often considered transitional with the Sindhis) and Punjabi Pathans (which publications like Encyclopædia Britannica consider a transitional group between Punjabis and Pathans.


----------



## metro

this TheStrantrunCurve guy's posts are a lot similar with the posts of purearyan.
coincidentally, they both are from Australia.


----------



## MadDog

If some one calls himself punjabi in Pakistan and is even fluent in Punjabi...doesnt necessarily mean that he is ethinicaly punjabi..
there are kashmiris (exp can be of present CM of punjab), pathans (infact most of north punjab), baloch and people from central asian or middle eastern descent who all speak fluent punjabi 
as mentioned in the article from wiki above. Punjabi people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

to add more 
"In Punjab, there are numerous tribes who have Arab ancestry, such as the Salara, Awans, the Khagga, the Dhund Abbasi, the Dhanyal, the Hans, the Hashmi (Nekokara), the Kahut and the Bodla.[3]"

"There are then a numerous number of Sayyids (descendants of Muhammad) in Pakistan, who are yet another clear example of Pakistanis with Arabic heritage. Some of these sayyids first migrated to Bukhara and then to the South Asia. Others reportedly settled in Sindh to protect their lives against the atrocities of the Omayya and Abbasi caliphs of Arabia. The Sayyid people of Pakistan are figured as the most prominent and well-established people of the country, with a number of them having become popular and well-known religious icons, political leaders and professionals.[5]
A large of Pakistanis belong to the various Shaikh communities, some of whom claim Arab ancestry. The Quraishi, Chishti, Ansari, Osmani , Siddiqui and Farooqi all claim Arab ancestry."
Links
3-^ A Glossary of the tribes and castes of Punjab by H A Rose
6-Punjab castes by Denzil Ibbetson
Arabs in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All the above mentioned facts are from people who have done researches...so there is no point of debate with u guys...its like banging my head against the wall...have been doing it since a few months on this forum...but that
stubborn mindset of challenging pak ideology doesn't change !!! May God guide all of u...all i can say is this

as far as rajputs and jatts are concerned..yes they are of local descent and are muslims and we are proud of that
but they aren't in majority


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

I dnt think punjabi rajputs or jats have lost their identity... we have a few poster...(extremly proud of their punjabiat n ancestory) n i have met many such ppl myself... wat u posted is just propoganda.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TheStrantrunCurve

You write very well. This piece of propaganda is extremely well done.



Joe Shearer said:


> It is regrettable that you start with the proposition that it is impossible to have a debate with "bharati" people (incidentally, the use of that term is considered as derogatory as the use of the term P***, so please desist from using it in future), without considering that in a debate, while two opposite opinions may be held initially, the premise of the debate must be that facts and their rational analysis will finally prevail, not a dogged insistence on having one's own opinion upheld. Unless you free yourselves to consider the facts, you will find yourselves continuing to discuss this issue till infinity.



I had no desire to inflame Indians by calling them bhartis. Bharat is an official name of your country, In Urdu we refer to India as Bharat. I have serious reservation over Bharat naming itself India. The name India was shared between both Pakistan and Bharat. Originally it was applied only to Indus valley which Alexander invaded but later it was applied to whole south Asia. When Pakistan gained its independence from Britons it might have been logical for the new state in the Indus valley to take the name India or even Industan as the valley was called by English sailors but our founder rejected this name given by invaders. We have our history to be proud of and do not need to take the name/identity from invaders. Since you Indians had no history Nehru was right to steal the name India from Indus valley Pakistanis to claim as theirs. You people have nothing to be proud of, it is Pakistanis who should be that Indian ocean is named after their river Indus. You people are known throughout the world due to the achievements of Pakistani ancestors. Jinnah was furious when Bharat chose the name India and felt bharat had hijacked Pakistan&#8217;s millennia of civilization.

Pakistani press in its early years used to call India "Bharat" and referred to Indians as "Bharatis.", obviously Pakistani civilian leadership of that time were against this bharati fraud. Even president Eisenhower once referred to Nehru as the "Prime Minister of 'Bharat. It was only after military coup when the loser general Ayub Khan came to power that attitude of the Pakistani press changed bharat became India. Some self defeatist Pakistanis didn&#8217;t care about losing their identity to Bhartis but many did care. Pakistan is a child of Indus and I always try my best to not call Bharat as India, since this our heritage and you people have no history this is why you are trying to rob us of our history. I am not the only person who calls Indian bharti there are thousands out there. Why not call yourself bhartis what wrong with this name Bharata was a legendary Hindu hero. You people are obviously suffering from identity crises.



Joe Shearer said:


> First, Indus Valley Civilisation remains and settlements have been found as far north as Shortugai, on the banks of the Oxus. Try to remember that the term Indus Valley Civilisation was given to the culture in question due to the major settlements initially discovered on the banks of the Indus, and due to no other reason. It is surprising to see a label being used to justify a cultural coherence with present-day inhabitants, when there is no linkage between that culture and any that occurred ever since.




Yes I know Indus valley civilization extended into Iran and Afghanistan. The Indus Valley Civilization existed on the banks of the Indus same as Pakistan today, Egyptian Civilization existed on the banks of the Nile, Chinese civilization existed Huang He (Yellow River) valley and Mesopotamia grew on Tigris-Euphrates River Valley. The first great civilizations grew up along rivers. Bharat had many rivers but it didn&#8217;t grow any civilization, why? Because your ancestors were still in hunter gathering stage, Most of Bharat was a jungle at that time. 



Joe Shearer said:


> It is surprising to see some wallowing in emotion about these sites when neither they nor their ancestors remember having built them, or live in memory of having them in the vicinity, or re-discovered the sites for present-day posterity. Does proximity mean possession? It does. Does proximity mean affiliation, or cultural descent? It does not. Your logic is faulty there; just because Pakistanis live there now, and these sites largely fall into the territory of Pakistan does not mean that the present-day people of present-day Pakistan have anything to do with them, besides having pointed them out to engineers who made railway ballast of them.
> 
> Your statement that Pakistanis are the latest avatars of the Indus Valley Civilisation is regrettably untrue; there was no inheritance of this unique culture that can be detected in subsequent years. If they were the latest avatars, Pakistanis would know the language that was spoken there, the script that was used there, and would have had a continuous record of living in those urbanisations from then till now. That is not the case. At best, some of the people of those cities remain in the population around the cities, but have completely forgotten everything to do with those cities.



So according to you Pakistanis are not following the culture of Indus valley people so they should be stripped of their heritage. If that is the case the three oldest civilizations Mesopotamian, Egyptians and the Chinese can also not be claimed by their present day descendent since their civilizations haven't continued as such til present day. 

Let me enlighten you a bit more the earliest civilizations used picture-writing- representing both sounds and objects to the reader. And no country today is using pictographic script to communicate and according to you all modern day Chinese, Egyptians, Iraqis and Pakistanis are not the inheritors of their past civilization.



Joe Shearer said:


> Something, perhaps, like present-day Turks claiming the credit for the founding and administration of Troy.



Now why can&#8217;t the Turks claim the credit for the founding and administration of Troy? The people of troy that were the Trojans didn&#8217;t just evaporate in the air their descended must still be living over there and can rightly claim it as their own.



Joe Shearer said:


> Once again, at slower speed: at that time, there was no Pakistan, which is a modern concept. There could not have been a coherent culture shared by the present geographical extent of Pakistan, and the IVC was not such a culture; it extended well beyond the boundaries of present-day Pakistan, for starters, so the opening premise is false.



Bharat is a modern day concept, some say it was an accident, others say it was a gift given to their Brahmin bootlickers who served Sahib very well for 200 years, So the brits rewarded them with this artificial created country called Bharat, for starters, just remember bharat is not a nation state it is a subcontinent waiting to explode.

Pakistan is a reality for thousands of years, there is nothing that connects the 1.2 billion Indians except that they were the former slaves of Sahib (Brits). 
On the other hand, Pakistanis have much more commonality with each other. All Pakistanis (Pashtuns, Punjabis, Baluchis, Kashmiris, Seraikis, and Sindhis) are:

1. Geographically based around Indus River and its tributaries

2. Linguistically Indo-Iranian

3. Common Indus valley/Mehrgarh/Vedic heritage

4. Mostly racially Caucasoid mixed with others

5. Culturally a blend of Muslim and Indo-Iranian roots

6. Followers of the religion of Islam



Joe Shearer said:


> There is no question of this, or that, or the culture being Hindu. Hindu was a religious label, not a cultural one. The term Hindu covered a multitude of people, from nine river valleys:
> The Gangetic Valley;
> The Brahmaputra valley;
> The Mahanadi valley;
> The Krishna valley;
> The Godavari valley;
> the Kaveri valley;
> the Tungabhadra basin;
> the Narmada valley;
> the Indus valley.
> Each had its own distinct culture, each shared traits of the culture of the others. Religion, language and literature were unifying factors.



I was waiting for this, Now Indus valley has nothing to do with Hinduism, Hinduism is largely a fiction&#8221;, an 18th and 19th century creation of the colonial Europeans and their Sanskrit learned Brahmin intermediaries in India. &#8220;Together, the British scholars and the Brahmin interpreters came up with a canon of sorts, mostly Brahmanical literature and ideology, which they began to identify with a single Hindu religion&#8221;.

Hinduism is not the only religion which Britons created, they also created a religion called Ahmadiyya. Before I am called a bigot or whatever I want to make it clear I respect every religion of the world but I am just not going to sit back and let you distort history. Hinduism became a world religion in 19th century before it was a collection of thousands different cults which brits grouped them together. Again Hinduism is a term created in 1830&#8217;s and Santana dharma was a term created by Brahmins in a desperate attempt to replace the word Hindu given by Muslim invaders. No foreign text mentions anything about Santana dharma (at least I didn&#8217;t find one if you have some please provide the sources).
Bharati people shared nothing before Muslims came to subcontinent; There was no shared religion, culture or whatever you want to prove.



Joe Shearer said:


> They even had to be discovered by aliens. If you are not aware, two railway engineers, the Brunton brothers, stripped the Mohenjodaro site of bricks for ballast; the ballasted tracks are still there for proud Pakistanis to see on the track running from Karachi to Lahore. So much for your being the avatar of the original inhabitants of those cities. Formal investigations started with Cunningham's publication of the details of a seal; this was followed by Marshall's explorations. Sir John Marshall, Rai Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni, and Madho Swarup Vats were the main investigators of Harappa; at Mohenjodaro, it was three more proud Pakistanis, Rakhal Das Banerjea, McCay and Marshall again.


Pakistanis are still the avatar of the original inhabitants of those cities, so what if we don&#8217;t speak their language or follow their culture but we still follow many of their works. Indus valley people were farmers, many Pakistanis are farmers
They grew crops such as wheat, barley and dates Pakistanis still do that.
They were merchants many Pakistanis are merchants and traders
They used to trade cotton, grain, metal Pakistanis still do that
They domesticated cattles and buffaloes we still do that
Pakistan is a rebirth of Indus valley civilization 



Joe Shearer said:


> As far as Indian civilisation is concerned, I suggest you invest in a cheap,elementary history text, or as an alternative, buy Basham's the Wonder that was India, and read it through. Your ideas of Indian civilisation will be sharply corrected. There is no lack of history or culture that drives Indians to discuss this and other topics; while you have this one achievement located in your lands with no other connection to you, Indians have the results of the culture in 8 other river valleys to explore and to ponder over, including cultures which date back continuously to periods long before present-day Pakistan made any effort at developing either urban or rural culture. A preliminary study of the Kaveri delta settlements and the Sangam period in Tamil, or the Brahmaputra valley and its adjoining Gangetic portions will illuminate this statement for you.



No interest in history of bharat since they have nothing of their own to proud of all they can do can do is pilfer Pakistani and Muslim achievements like taj mahal, red fort, shalwar kamiz, palau, kebabs, Sherwani. Why don&#8217;t you take pride in claiming your own so-called Hindu civilization rather than stealing the history of your neighbouring countries?



Joe Shearer said:


> You mention that the 'Melhulans' (sic - at least try to copy and paste, instead of typing these strange names in and making silly mistakes) were


I don&#8217;t need to learn history of my country from internet historians, I have my sources which is way better than yours, Melluha was an ancient name of Pakistan given by Mesopotamians. 



Joe Shearer said:


> the Indus people who lived on the River Indus, and that they were the early ancestors of today&#8217;s' Pakistanis, with 98% congruence with the DNA of present-day residents of Pakistan. This is indeed surprising to read: all studies on DNA have indicated that the Punjabi, Sindhi population have 98% congruence among themselves and with the rest of south Asians, including inhabitants of Bangladesh, but that Pakhtuns have little or no congruence at all. You might like to ponder over the legal maxim that there are two kinds of lies, suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. The people of the Indus, according to the findings of the team led by Cavalli-Sforza, are identical with the people of the Ganges.



Oh yes, we Punjabis sindis all are Indian and Bengali looking and this is the reason the Punjabi army of Pakistan annihilated 3 million inferior dark Bengalis. I am really not sure what makes you Indian feel that Pakistan look at you Indians as somewhat superior to Bengalis, Pakistani army do not distinguish anything between bharti and Bengali people, you are all the same people and when the time comes history shall be repeated again but this times there will be more than 3 million people.
You (bhartis & Bengalis) all belong to the same stock, by lumping sindis and pak Punjabis and Indians togethers you are making fun of yourself. Half of pak Punjabi population claim ancestry from central Asia such as arrain, mughals, syeds, qureshis, gakkhars, awans and qutb shais and many more. Only jats and rajputs can be related to Indians but this again is disputed. Rajputs are said to be descendent of white huns from central asia, Bhartis rajputs look like African black and are most likely wannabe rajputs. Sindhis are mixed with balochis except the interior sindhis

I really don&#8217;t understand why you bharti people can&#8217;t accept that you are Dravidians what&#8217;s wrong with it, I am not saying pak Punjabis are not Dravidians they are but not all of them claim south Asian ancestry. And if you can share us the link which says Punjabis and sindis are closer to India that would be nice.

There are more than 2 lies and I can also debate on that but since you are trying to show off I would stop right there. If the Indus people and Ganga people are same then Nigerians and Algerians are also same
By Indus people I mean, pushtun, baloch, Punjabi, wakhi, Kashmiri, Sindhi 




Joe Shearer said:


> This desperation can only be attributed to the failure in sequence of the Two Nation Theory, which was blown up by the secession of Bangladesh, and of the secular democracy for Muslims Theory, Jinnah's ideal, which was sabotaged and systematically dismantled by the Objectives Resolution, then by the declaration of the Islamic Republic and finally by the adoption of Sharia courts. It was only after these tragic occurrences that Aitzaz Ahsan and his followers have started this farcical business of the Pakistani heritage of 5,000 years, the exact Pakistani counterpart of the BJP and Sangh Parivar's insistence that all human growth started from within India. You are to be congratulated in finding good company to keep.



Again wrong, Pakistan was not created, Pakistan just got its independence on nationalism, you can call it Muslim nationalism but we Pakistanis call it ethno-cultural nationalism. Muhammad Iqbal and Rehmat Ali proposed creation of Pakistan as only a federation of Punjab, NWFP, Sindh, Baluchistan, and Kashmir... based on their common history, geography, culture, language, race, defence, religion, and economics.
Pakistan was created to preserve its unique culture so not to be polluted by Hindus 
Bharat was created when the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act on July 18, 1947. The Act created one dominion, Indian Union and Pakistan returned back to its natural state.


Joe Shearer said:


> As far as liberal Indians are concerned, have no fears; our attitude towards these melodramatic recreations of history is one of amused disdain. Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner


Ok, No one has anything to fear from Indians since it is an artificial country with no history, no culture and no civilization. The propaganda and lies spread by bharati media and textbooks have deluded bharti and they cannot fathom the fact that their country is mere 60 years old and it is challenging a country which has a 5000 year old civilization, Pakistan will remain as it always has but looking at bharat history it will be a miracle if it survives another decade

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## PlanetWarrior

TheStrantrunCurve said:


> I would like to see if there is any bharti who can beat me with their esteemed knowledge.
> I am only expecting insults from this bharti baniya aka joe shearer such as kid, pipsqueak, genious. I hope the insults are new this time


 
Your rant (note that I typed "rant" and not "post") above in a desperate attempt to respond to the submissions of Joe Shearer has no foundation of truth and consists of pure Pakistani usual conspiracy based delusional distortion of history. In fact, it makes good laughing materail

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Bang Galore said:


> No need man! A couple more posts like these and we will all die laughing.


 
Whats surprising people like Pakistani Nationalist,UnitedPak thanking posts that contain such stuff,and they"ll be the first to sing about Pakistani-Bangladeshi brotherhood.



> Oh yes, we Punjabis sindis all are Indian and Bengali looking and this is the reason the Punjabi army of Pakistan annihilated 3 million inferior dark Bengalis.



Its horrifying that people find pleasure in such words even 40 years after loosing half-their population.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LaBong

> Oh yes, we Punjabis sindis all are Indian and Bengali looking and this is the reason the Punjabi army of Pakistan annihilated 3 million inferior dark Bengalis. I am really not sure what makes you Indian feel that Pakistan look at you Indians as somewhat superior to Bengalis, Pakistani army do not distinguish anything between bharti and Bengali people, you are all the same people and when the time comes history shall be repeated again but this times there will be more than 3 million people.
> You (bhartis & Bengalis) all belong to the same stock, by lumping sindis and pak Punjabis and Indians togethers you are making fun of yourself. Half of pak Punjabi population claim ancestry from central Asia such as arrain, mughals, syeds, qureshis, gakkhars, awans and qutb shais and many more. Only jats and rajputs can be related to Indians but this again is disputed. Rajputs are said to be descendent of white huns from central asia, Bhartis rajputs look like African black and are most likely wannabe rajputs. Sindhis are mixed with balochis except the interior sindhis



How relieving it must be to never having to think!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## twoplustwoisfour

I'm sorry but that was the biggest load of offensive cr*p I've ever read. How can the mods delete subsequent posts, yet they leave this kind of stuff for everyone to read?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

Modern Pakistanis have as much right to claim the IVC as the modern Egyptians, Iraqis, Cambodians, and English have to claim their ancient history, despite not having any religious or linguistic continuity.


----------



## TheStrantrunCurve

Syama Ayas said:


> Whats surprising people like Pakistani Nationalist,UnitedPak thanking posts that contain such stuff,and they"ll be the first to sing about Pakistani-Bangladeshi brotherhood.
> 
> 
> 
> Its horrifying that people find pleasure in such words even 40 years after loosing half-their population.


 
This is what indian media says not pakistani media, my point being was on one hand your historians say pakistanis are marshall races and they killed 3 million bengalis based on their colours and on the other hand they say south asians are same


----------



## LaBong

TheStrantrunCurve said:


> This is what indian media says not pakistani media, my point being was on one hand your historians say pakistanis are marshall races and they killed 3 million bengalis based on their colours and on the other hand they say south asians are same


 
Yes they are martial races because they sold themselves to British and killed their own people while Bengalis fought back. You killed Bangladeshis because you felt intellectually inferior to them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## twoplustwoisfour

Developereo said:


> Modern Pakistanis have as much right to claim the IVC as the modern Egyptians, Iraqis, Cambodians, and English have to claim their ancient history, despite not having any religious or linguistic continuity.


 
Unfortunately, modern day Egyptians, Iraqis, Cambodians and Englishmen don't face similar dilemma as modern day Pakistanis. IVC had a lot of characteristics which go directly against the ideology of formation of Pakistan, ie, Islam. For example, Idol Worshiping.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

TheStrantrunCurve said:


> This is what indian media says not pakistani media, my point being was on one hand your historians say pakistanis are *marshall races* and


 
What is a _marshall race_?



> they killed 3 million bengalis _based on their colours_ and on the other hand they say south asians are same



When did any Indian media source or historian even remotely hint at something so retarded.
If you have proof do share.


----------



## metro

TheStrantrunCurve said:


> This is what indian media says not pakistani media, my point being was on one hand your historians say pakistanis are *marshall races* and they killed 3 million bengalis based on their colours and on the other hand they say south asians are same


 
bullcrap.
i never read anywhere India media calling Pakistanis Marshall race.

Infact with ure actions and with ure humiliating defeats against India throughout the history only proves that ure nothing but a inferior tribal race.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TheStrantrunCurve

Abir said:


> Yes they are martial races because they sold themselves to British and killed their own people while Bengalis fought back. You killed Bangladeshis because you felt intellectually inferior to them.


 
The army responsible for invading punjab and sindh was made mostly from bengali recruits followed by central indians and bombay presidency. It were the slave soldiers from bengal that helped british occupy our land.

I ask why?
Whole of present day India and Bangladesh was already under brits for decades why did you people had to help those brits occupy our lands.

The indus valley people have always acted as a bullwark against invaders, We defeated 3 superpowers of their time, Alexander the great empire and Mongol Empire were defeated by the ancestors of present day pakistanis, Babur, Timur and Ghazni all were given tough times in indus valley and Ghauri was killed by punjabis. We saved you so many times from north west invaders but it was the first time that an empire from the east invaded pakistan and you helped them defeat us.

The punjabi an pushtun only joined the brits to take the revenge against bengalis who mutinied

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Developereo

twoplustwoisfour said:


> Unfortunately, modern day Egyptians, Iraqis, Cambodians and Englishmen don't face similar dilemma as modern day Pakistanis. IVC had a lot of characteristics which go directly against the ideology of formation of Pakistan, ie, Islam. For example, Idol Worshiping.


 
There is no dilemma.
Pakistan was formed as a safe haven for Muslims; it was never meant to be exclusively Islamic.

Muslims don't become less Muslim when they admire IVC culture, just as Anglicans don't become less Christian when they visit Stonehenge.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Developereo

Syama Ayas said:


> The problem comes when a balancing act has to be played ,with on one hand the "2 nation theory" and on the other the "the pre-Islamic history"


 
Again, the two nation theory was the belief that Muslims would be discriminated against by the majority Hindus.
It has no bearing on any pre-Islamic history of Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LaBong

TheStrantrunCurve said:


> The army responsible for invading punjab and sindh was made mostly from bengali recruits followed by central indians and bombay presidency. It were the slave soldiers from bengal that helped british occupy our land.
> 
> I ask why?
> Whole of present day India and Bangladesh was already under brits for decades why did you people had to help those brits occupy our lands.
> 
> The indus valley people have always acted as a bullwark against invaders, We defeated 3 superpowers of their time, Alexander the great empire and Mongol Empire were by the ancestors of present day pakistanis, Babur, Timur and Ghazni all were given tough times in indus valley and Ghazni was killed by punjabis. We saved you so many times from north west invaders but it was the first time that an empire from the east invaded pakistan and you helped them defeat us.
> 
> The punjabi an pushtun only joined the brits to take the revenge against bengalis who mutinied


 
But Bengalis don't take pride on defeating you, while Bengalis shed the Bahadur off the Roy, you shameless lots flaunt your Khan Bahadurs around and claim yourself martial race and what not! 

Where were pashtuns before 10th century. Except Sher Shah's brief period Pashtuns never conquered anyone but badly got hammered by Babur(It was said he made mold of pashtuns sculls!). The only Punjabi empire was that of Ranjit's Singhs, present day Pakistan has been the hinterland of subcontinent for most of the history.


----------



## Ignited Mind

Developereo said:


> There is no dilemma.
> Pakistan was formed as a safe haven for Muslims; it was never meant to be exclusively Islamic.
> 
> Muslims don't become less Muslim when they admire IVC culture, just as Anglicans don't become less Christian when they visit Stonehenge.


 
Fair enough. Pakistanis can very well claim the IVC heritage but what they cannot or rather should not do is claim the IVC people as a part of their ancestry. 

You can admire the IVC and you can claim the heritage of the IVC but you cannot expect to be called the heirs of IVC people. 

You just happen to dwell on a part of the land where IVC flourished and that's it.


----------



## twoplustwoisfour

Developereo said:


> There is no dilemma.
> Pakistan was formed as a safe haven for Muslims; it was never meant to be exclusively Islamic.
> 
> Muslims don't become less Muslim when they admire IVC culture, just as Anglicans don't become less Christian when they visit Stonehenge.


 
Of course Pakistan was never meant to be exclusively Islamic. But the concept of Islamic superiority and the Islamisation of everything persued by Zia directly contradicted acknowledgement of non-Islamic people as your ancestors.


----------



## Developereo

Ignited Mind said:


> You can admire the IVC and you can claim the heritage of the IVC but you cannot expect to be called the heirs of IVC people.


 
Where is the genetic proof of this claim?



twoplustwoisfour said:


> Of course Pakistan was never meant to be exclusively Islamic. But the concept of Islamic superiority and the Islamisation of everything persued by Zia directly contradicted acknowledgement of non-Islamic people as your ancestors.


 
That's Zia and his supporters. They don't speak for all Pakistanis.
I still repeat my claim that admiring IVC does not make one less Muslim.
Just because I admire the beauty of an idol or sculpture does not mean I will start worshipping it as a god.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## twoplustwoisfour

As far as I know, IVC was achnowledged in Pakistani textbooks before Zia came into power. After that, Pakistani history started in 1947. Soeone please correct me if I'm wrong.

@Webmaster: Please delete thestrantruncurve's offensive post.


----------



## Ignited Mind

Developereo said:


> Where is the genetic proof of this claim?


 
The IVC did not survive. Don't you know that?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Developereo said:


> Again, the two nation theory was the belief that Muslims would be discriminated against by the majority Hindus.
> It has no bearing on any pre-Islamic history of Pakistan.


 
Agreed!
I take back what i said based on the explanation given in the previous post .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Khajur said:


> Well,
> 
> First of all, let me tell u I'm a Brahmin my self though not Tamil.
> 
> yes, ancestors of most Brahmins came from Northwest of India(after crossing todays pakistan), not recently but thousands of yrs ago.And there is nothing like native Brahmin population of south india ...
> 
> At the cost of looking like a racist to some, i must say atleast 50% of Brahmins are fair looking(gora chitta) even by socalled pakistani(RR's) standards...hell whats the argument here, we all know brahmins are of Indo-Aryans origins the same to which major chunk of pakistani population belongs...


 
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but Indo-Aryan is not a race, it's a language system. Brahmins can't be descended from a language system. 

One of these days, I'll write a book on fake Brahmins and how they pass themselves off. Nagar Brahmins in Bengal being one; another famous sect of SIBs being another.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Developereo

twoplustwoisfour said:


> As far as I know, IVC was achnowledged in Pakistani textbooks before Zia came into power. After that, Pakistani history started in 1947. Soeone please correct me if I'm wrong.



I was abroad during the Zia years, but the IVC and Ashoka, Buddha, etc. were definitely in the textbooks before Zia.



Ignited Mind said:


> The IVC did not survive. Don't you know that?


 
Yes, but who says the people were exterminated?
*Indus Valley Civilization: The Demise of Utopia*


----------



## Bang Galore

Developereo said:


> Muslims don't become less Muslim when they admire IVC culture, just as Anglicans don't become less Christian when they visit Stonehenge.


 
True but no one can claim exclusive rights merely because they now happen to live in the geographical area & deny it to those whose culture derives from that. I also find it amusing that many Pakistanis see no irony in claiming inheritance from actions of Islamic rulers not related to present day Pakistan on cultural similarity grounds yet denying the same to Indians on IVC.

P.S. _I know that you agree that it is common inheritance but just making a general point and preferring to use your post than that of others to make my point._

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ignited Mind

Developereo said:


> Yes, but who says the people were exterminated?
> *Indus Valley Civilization: The Demise of Utopia*


 
Like Joe also mentioned in one of his posts, at most what can be presumed is that a minor fraction (a very small one) of today's Pakistani population are ancestors of the IVC people. 

A very very small fraction and even that is a far drawn conclusion. 

Anyways, even if I assume your assertion that a majority of current day Pakistanis are the heirs of IVC guys, can you explain the following discrepancy arising from the abject lack of continuity and similarity while moving from IVC to current day Pakistan vis a vis the lungual and cultural dissimilarities?


----------



## Developereo

Bang Galore said:


> True but no one can claim exclusive rights merely because they now happen to live in the geographical area & deny it to those whose culture derives from that. I also find it amusing that many Pakistanis see no irony in claiming inheritance from actions of Islamic rulers not related to present day Pakistan on cultural similarity grounds yet denying the same to Indians on IVC.
> 
> P.S. _I know that you agree that it is common inheritance but just making a general point and preferring to use your post than that of others to make my point._


 
OK. I think it is generally believed that IVC had an influence on the rest of the subcontinent, although I vaguely remember a post by some Indian highlighting the differences between IVC and contemporary Gangetic religions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

DarkStar said:


> That's true. The property laws in Bharatiya Punjab/Haryana encourage this, as it is not allowed for Punjabi to buy property outside his state, but people from other states are allowed to buy land and property in punjab.


 
This, probably needless to say, is totally incorrect. Very large parts of the Terai in Uttar Pradesh have been drained and developed and brought to full crop-bearing value by Punjabis who own vast tracts. Ironically, their success has boomeranged on them, as the local government is enquiring into everybody's holdings to ensure that the land-holding laws are not being broken (there is a limit on the amount of agricultural land you can own).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

Ignited Mind said:


> Anyways, even if I assume your assertion that a majority of current day Pakistanis are the heirs of IVC guys, can you explain the following discrepancy arising from the abject lack of continuity and similarity while moving from IVC to current day Pakistan vis a vis the lungual and cultural dissimilarities?


 
I don't know if it's the majority or minority. I really don't know much about the migration history so I will stay out of it, but it's hard to imagine that an entire population just up and disappeared.


----------



## Ignited Mind

Developereo said:


> People convert religions and adopt invading cultures, but the genes remain.


 
So all of them gave up the lingual or cultural traits of their civilisation? All of them? 

How many people in today's Pakistan can write the IVC script? How many can identify with the IVC practices be them ritual or religious?

Or you're telling me that all of them (read ALL OF THEM) got sooooooo influenced by external factors that ALL of their civilisational traits vanished; just like that?

I'll give you an example.

Even after thousands of years, we Indians (most of us) still possess most of the civilizational traits of our ancestors who used to practice Hinduism, spoke Sanskrit even the eating habits whereas you, on the other hand, have NO (NONE, ZERO, ZILCH) civilisational traits in common with IVC? NONE?

And yet you claim lineage to IVC? 

This is borderline nonsense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

Ignited Mind said:


> So all of them gave up the lingual or cultural traits of their civilisation? All of them?
> 
> How many people in today's Pakistan can write the IVC script? How many can identify with the IVC practices be them ritual or religious?
> 
> Or you're telling me that all of them (read ALL OF THEM) got sooooooo influenced by external factors that ALL of their civilisational traits vanished; just like that?
> 
> I'll give you an example.
> 
> Even after thousands of years, we Indians (most of us) still possess most of the civilizational traits of our ancestors who used to practice Hinduism, spoke Sanskrit even the eating habits whereas you, on the other hand, have NO (NONE, ZERO, ZILCH) civilisational traits in common with IVC? NONE?
> 
> And yet you claim lineage to IVC?
> 
> This is borderline nonsense.


 
How many Egyptians can read/write heiroglyphics? How many Iraqis read cuneiform tablets? How many Cambodians can read inscriptions on their ancient monuments? Can the average Englishman read druid scripts?


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

i think a good number IVC people must have survived..and with the cultural evolution by generations they just must have changed.


----------



## Ignited Mind

Developereo said:


> How many Egyptians can read/write heiroglyphics? How many Iraqis read cuneiform tablets? How many Cambodians can read inscriptions on their ancient monuments? Can the average Englishman read druid scripts?


 
Oh man! 

You're not even aware that the IVC script has not been decoded or interpreted yet by scientists anywhere in the world?

*The IVC script awaits deciphering. *

Why is that?

Q - When does a people/civilisation lose lits lingual script?

A - When the people/civilisation itself ceases to exist.


You know what you ARE telling me? 
*
That one fine day, all of IVC people converted to Islam, all of them adopted the culture which today's Pakistanis inherit, all of them suddenly gave up all of their civilisational (cultural/lingual) traits.*

*Emphasis on the word ALL.*


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bang Galore said:


> Actually the only trait Indians like us & Pakistanis like them share is *gross stupidity*. We, because we waste our time insisting that we are all similar in spite of the fact that would be going for the lowest common denominator and be of no great credit, they because of a strong, unshakable belief that they are transported miraculously from Arabia (or Mars) to be inserted carefully within the borders of their present country & no further.


 
I think this is the best post I've read since April 2009.


----------



## Developereo

Ignited Mind said:


> Oh man!
> 
> You're not even aware that the IVC script has not been decoded or interpreted yet by scientists anywhere in the world?
> 
> *The IVC script awaits deciphering. *
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Q - When does a people/civilisation lose lits lingual script?
> 
> A - When the people/civilisation itself ceases to exist.
> 
> 
> You know what you ARE telling me?
> *
> That one fine day, all of IVC people converted to Islam, all of them adopted the culture which today's Pakistanis inherit, all of them suddenly gave up all of their civilisational (cultural/lingual) traits.*
> 
> *Emphasis on the word ALL.*


 
I would never presume to invent a time machine to transport the entire IVC culture 2200 years to convert directly to Islam.

Languages and cultures die off gradually as the younger generation stops observing the old traditions. So we haven't found a Rosetta Stone and we haven't deciphered the languages. It is alleged that some IVCers migrated east/south so it may yet be possible to trace back their language.

Just because we haven't yet deciphered their language means *all* of them must have been exterminated?

That is some mighty fine piece of logical reasoning!


----------



## MyPakistan1947

why do indians have to link themselves to punjabis every time. 

why not just take pride in your own ethncity, be it bengali,gujarati,tamil,marathi, ect?

whats special about us punjabis that you ppl have to link yourselves to us? from what i know most indians make fun of punjabis, have racist stereotypes about us, call us uneducated,backwards,brainless, paindoos, ect. 

but you people never miss a chance to compare yourseleves to us punjabis,or to try and take credit for punjabi history and achievements.


----------



## Ignited Mind

Developereo said:


> I would never presume to invent a time machine to transport the entire IVC culture 2200 years to convert directly to Islam.
> 
> Languages and cultures die off gradually as the younger generation stops observing the old traditions. So we haven't found a Rosetta Stone and we haven't deciphered the languages. It is alleged that some IVCers migrated east/south so it may yet be possible to trace back their language.
> 
> Just because we haven't yet deciphered their language means *all* of them must have been exterminated?
> 
> That is some mighty fine piece of logical reasoning!


 
You don't get my point, do you?

You are saying that ALL of the civilisational traits of IVC vanished with time.

One trait might become extinct, may be even two or three but all of them? Seriously?

I even gave you an example of current day Indians in India. Most of us still retain many of our ancestral civilisational characteristics. 

Which civilisational traits of IVC do current day Pakistanis possess?


----------



## Vinod2070

MyPakistan1947 said:


> why do indians have to link themselves to punjabis every time.
> 
> why not just take pride in your own ethncity, be it bengali,gujarati,tamil,marathi, ect?
> 
> whats special about us punjabis that you ppl have to link yourselves to us? from what i know most indians make fun of punjabis, have racist stereotypes about us, call us uneducated,backwards,brainless, paindoos, ect.
> 
> but you people never miss a chance to compare yourseleves to us punjabis,or to try and take credit for punjabi history and achievements.


 
You have severe misconceptions. No Indian wants to link to no Pakistani.


----------



## Joe Shearer

@TheStrantrunCurve



> You write very well. This piece of propaganda is extremely well done.



Thank you, but what I wrote was not propaganda. Propaganda is defined below:



> information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.



Now that the best part of your post, the most intelligent and well-researched portion, even if it is a clinically inaccurate portion, is over, the rest is downhill.


----------



## Alla hoo

Their history starts with Muhammad-bin-khasim invading India. 

Before that pakistanis were living on the moon.


----------



## Ignited Mind

MyPakistan1947 said:


> why do indians have to link themselves to punjabis every time.
> 
> why not just take pride in your own ethncity, be it bengali,gujarati,tamil,marathi, ect?
> 
> whats special about us punjabis that you ppl have to link yourselves to us? from what i know most indians make fun of punjabis, have racist stereotypes about us, call us uneducated,backwards,brainless, paindoos, ect.
> 
> but you people never miss a chance to compare yourseleves to us punjabis,or to try and take credit for punjabi history and achievements.


 
US Punjabis??? 

Wakey wakey! There is a Punjab in India too...


----------



## sid426

UnitedPak said:


> Salaam people.
> 
> This is my first post on this forum, and I must say, I am really starting to like this place. I would like to ask Pakistanis a simple question. Why is our Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?
> 
> Pakistans history starts with the Indus Valley civilisation, which is more than 5000 years old and was on par with civilisations like Egypt and Mesopotamia, it was based almost entirely in modern Pakistan, and all the major cities are in Pakistan.
> 
> Our fellow Pakistanis have totally ignored this part of our history, and given the Indians full access to steal it, and label it Indian.
> I dont know what amuses me more, an Indian claiming IVC is Indian even though its not even in India, or a Pakistani ignoring this great chapter of our history because its not "Islamic".
> 
> It doesnt stop here however. There are lots of other civilisations which were based in Pakistan, and run by Pakistanis, i.e Ghandara, Kushun empire, and even Muslim empires like Mughal empires started in Pakistan, and spread into India.
> 
> So why why and why do we allow India to take credit of everything?
> They talk about "Pakistan being created", like Pakistan is a baby, and Pakistanis didnt exist before 1947. This is the whole reason why Indian nationalists believe they own Pakistan.
> They take it one step further and our leaders like Quid-e-Azam are officially known as "Indians", (look it up on wikipedia).
> 
> So please let me know your opinions regarding this. Pakistan has an unbelievably big history book, but we "proudly" go on about 60 years of Independence?
> 
> 
> p.s Pakistan wasnt created in 1947, it was our Independence. Please dont promote Indian views.
> 
> Thank you for reading, I am looking forward to read your views.
> 
> W/Salaam.



History of Pakistan started with the invasion of Mohd. Bin Qasim in sindh in 716 AD.

Period.


----------



## metro

MyPakistan1947 said:


> why do indians have to link themselves to punjabis every time.
> 
> why not just take pride in your own ethncity, be it bengali,gujarati,tamil,marathi, ect?
> 
> whats special about us punjabis that you ppl have to link yourselves to us? from what i know most indians make fun of punjabis, have racist stereotypes about us, call us uneducated,backwards,brainless, paindoos, ect.
> 
> but you people never miss a chance to compare yourseleves to us punjabis,or to try and take credit for punjabi history and achievements.


 
oh my god.
Punjab is known in the world as a part of India. If you would tell anyone that u belong to Punjab, one would automatically assume the ure from India.

hell without India noone would even give a $hit to this name.

When Khali enters the ring, the announcer announces Khali from Punjab, India.
People like you should be thanking to India and Indian punjabis for giving some name to ure country that is otherwise known as terror-heaven.


----------



## Ignited Mind

sid426 said:


> History of Pakistan started with the invasion of Mohd. Bin Qasim in sindh in 716 AD.
> 
> Period.


 
lol yeah! Remember 'Ancient Pakistan'...LMFAO


----------



## MyPakistan1947

..............................................


----------



## sid426

Ignited Mind said:


> lol yeah! Remember 'Ancient Pakistan'...LMFAO


 

Yeah Ancient Pakistan,Any proof of the word PAKISTAN in any ancient IVC/Vedic Texts??I mean, what kind of history has been taught to them? BTW, Zia would be rolling in his grave after hearing about ancient pakistan!!


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

sid426 said:


> History of Pakistan started with the invasion of Mohd. Bin Qasim in sindh in 716 AD.
> 
> Period.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

MyPakistan1947 said:


> wakey wakey yourself.many indian punjabis refuse to call themselves "indian" because it was a name given by invaders/british.
> *why do so many indians punjabis refuse to call themselves indian and feel embarrassed of the rest of india?*
> .


 
You can ask the Indian members here from Punjab about what they call themselves.


----------



## sid426

MyPakistan1947 said:


> wakey wakey yourself.many indian punjabis refuse to call themselves "indian" because it was a name given by invaders/british.
> why do so many indians punjabis refuse to call themselves indian and feel embarrassed of the rest of india?
> because they see you ppl as inferiors.
> 
> dont expect much from us pakistani punjabis either.



Yes and pakistani Punjabis are a martial race,one pakistani punjabi is equal to 10 hindu banias! Isn't it? they are a superior race, infact they are the best race in the world. They were the first ones who were sent to the earth by Allah.All races are inferior to them, sindhis, balochis,etc;etc;etc;

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Developereo

Ignited Mind said:


> You don't get my point, do you?
> 
> You are saying that ALL of the civilisational traits of IVC vanished with time.
> 
> One trait might become extinct, may be even two or three but all of them? Seriously?



When did I say that all their traits vanished instantly?

You are the one making the claim that they all went extinct.



Ignited Mind said:


> Which civilisational traits of IVC do current day Pakistanis possess?


 
We've been through this already. You are going in circles. Here, once again:



Developereo said:


> How many Egyptians can read/write heiroglyphics? How many Iraqis read cuneiform tablets? How many Cambodians can read inscriptions on their ancient monuments? Can the average Englishman read druid scripts?



See, you have decided that a modern civilization can only lay claim to ancient heritage if their is a cultural or linguistic continuity. By that logic, Egyptians, Iraqis, Cambodians, British, Peruvians, Mexicans, etc. have no claim to their archaelogical heritage.

It's a self-serving, silly claim.


----------



## metro

Syama Ayas said:


> You can ask the Indian members here from Punjab about what they call themselves.


 
Im from Haryana, which was a part of Punjab till few decades back.
so can i tell how I would feel to be called a Pakistani ?


----------



## Alla hoo

What ever it takes to prove that pakistanis are not indians in culture and civilization, is less an effort for a pakistani.

Somehow pakistan is mysteriosuly related to medivial arabia. And moder pakistanis are offsprings of nomads of medival arabia who used to graze camels befor coming in contact with PBUH.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

sid426 said:


> Yes and pakistani Punjabis are a martial race,one pakistani punjabi is equal to 10 hindu banias! Isn't it? they are a superior race, infact they are the best race in the world. They were the first ones who were sent to the earth by Allah.All races are inferior to them, sindhis, balochis,etc;etc;etc;


 
None of ur posts r worth a reply...


----------



## twoplustwoisfour

Syama Ayas said:


> You can ask the Indian members here from Punjab about what they call themselves.


 
I'm a Delhiite originally from Multan in current day Pakistan. What should I call myself?


----------



## Manas

Pakistan is the world.

They were the IVC when it got flushed.

They were the Buddist when king Ashok became a god fearing Buddhist.

They were jat(not Hindu) warriors of king Porus who fought Alexander.

They were the Arabs muslims of Mohamud Bin Kasim who conquered Sindh.

They were Gaznavi muslim who came from Afghanistan.
They were the moghuls who came from central Asia.

They were the martial race of the British army.

*But what they never are the Hindus or the Indians.
*

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Manas

twoplustwoisfour said:


> I'm a Delhiite originally from Multan in current day Pakistan. What should I call myself?


 
*Indian of martial Pakistani Punjabi IVC Origin.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sid426

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> None of ur posts r worth a reply...



Arrey!...Why not?? Sir, please..please ...please...I was singing praises in the name of Pakistani Punjabis and you are saying such things?

Don't you think that they are the best? Isn't this the reason why they are in majority in the Defence Forces? Isn't this the reason why the power is shared mostly by them, ofcourse, they have some inbuilt qualities in them, that is why they are excelling in each and every field.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

The troll brigade is here. Time to leave...


----------



## MyPakistan1947

Manas said:


> Pakistan is the world.
> 
> They were the IVC when it got flushed.
> 
> They were the Buddist when king Ashok became a god fearing Buddhist.
> 
> They were jat(not Hindu) warriors of king Porus who fought Alexander.


 
some indians are starting to understand


----------



## twoplustwoisfour

Manas said:


> *Indian of martial Pakistani Punjabi IVC Origin.*


 
How dare you darkie hindoo dravidian bharti try to classify me?


----------



## Vinod2070

Developereo said:


> *The troll brigade is here.* Time to leave...


 
Can the "*damage control brigade*" be far behind?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manas

twoplustwoisfour said:


> How dare you darkie hindoo dravidian bharti try to classify me?



You forgot to mention that you ruled us 1000 years .


----------



## MyPakistan1947

sid426 said:


> Arrey!...Why not?? Sir, please..please ...please...I was singing praises in the name of Pakistani Punjabis and you are saying such things?
> 
> Don't you think that they are the best? Isn't this the reason why they are in majority in the Defence Forces? Isn't this the reason why the power is shared mostly by them, ofcourse, they have some inbuilt qualities in them, that is why they are excelling in each and every field.


 
pakistani punjabis are not better than anybody.all humans are equal.

we pakistani punjabis hate being called "indians".we dont like it when u ppl try to associate yourself with us.

punjabis have our own distinct history,and identity.why should we accept "indian"(a name given by invaders)? punjabi identity,and history is older and richer than "indian" identity.

why u indians get butt-hurt when we refuse to accept you? accept the rejection with self respect and move on.


----------



## metro

MyPakistan1947 said:


> pakistani punjabis are not better than anybody.all humans are equal.
> 
> we pakistani punjabis hate being called "indians".we dont like it when u ppl try to associate yourself with us.
> 
> punjabis have our own distinct history,and indentity.why should we accept "indian"(a name given by invaders)? punjabi identity,and history is older and richer than "indian" identity.
> 
> why u Indians get butt-hurt when we refuse to accept you? accept the rejection with self respect and move on.


 
ha ha.
this is understandable. as u see Pakistani Punjab has no identity of its own.
when you tell an outsider that ure a Punjabi, it would be natural for him to believe ure a Indian. Becoz Punjab is known in the world to be part of India.

none even knows about the Punjab province of Pakistan. 
frankly speaking all people know about Pakistan is Taliban and Afghanistan, thts it.

Like i said earlier, Pakistani Punjabis should thank to Indian Punjabis for atleast giving them some recognition in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Alla hoo

Identity Crisis !!!


----------



## PakistaniPacifist

This is exactly what i mean about Indians, they have a massive inferiority complex and they try to bring their own complexes onto us. Just look at most of the recent comments being from the Indians as most Pakistani are assured of their history and heritage yet Indians cling onto anything that may link them to us, Pakistanis.

To be honest i would be ashamed to be known as an Ugly Indian so i can understand why they try their upmost to claim similarities to ourselves but it's about time you give the skin bleaching a rest and go see the reflection in the mirror and learn to accept that your Indians, have some pride in your country!


----------



## metro

^^^^

i enjoy to see the anguish and agony of these guys when they talk about India.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PakistaniPacifist

metro said:


> ^^^^
> 
> i enjoy to see the anguish and agony of these guys when they talk about India.



How can you see anguish and agony without physically being infront of me? lol deluded slumdog!

We aren't the ones craving acceptance on an Indian forum, you people are obsessed about Pakistanis so much so that it is detrimenal to your own health when we as Pakistanis honestly don't give two shits about your civilian population or country. I find it highly amusing at one side seeing all Indians cling onto hope that your related/similar to us and it's nice to worship us but then i pity you at the same time because it's something i see in my daily life with Indians coming upto Pakistanis and saying, "Pakistani brother, we were once one country" only for his bubble to be burst at that instant by a Pakistani.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ignited Mind

PakistaniPacifist said:


> How can you see anguish and agony without physically being infront of me? lol deluded slumdog!
> 
> We aren't the ones craving acceptance on an Indian forum, you people are obsessed about Pakistanis so much so that it is detrimenal to your own health when we as Pakistanis honestly don't give two shits about your civilian population or country. I find it highly amusing at one side seeing all Indians cling onto hope that your related/similar to us and it's nice to worship us but then i pity you at the same time because it's something i see in my daily life with Indians coming upto Pakistanis and saying, "Pakistani brother, we were once one country" only for his bubble to be burst at that instant by a Pakistani.


 
Did you just say 'worship us'???


----------



## sid426

PakistaniPacifist said:


> This is exactly what i mean about Indians, they have a massive inferiority complex and they try to bring their own complexes onto us. Just look at most of the recent comments being from the Indians as most Pakistani are assured of their history and heritage yet Indians cling onto anything that may link them to us, Pakistanis.
> 
> To be honest i would be ashamed to be known as an Ugly Indian so i can understand why they try their upmost to claim similarities to ourselves but it's about time you give the skin bleaching a rest and learn to accept that your Indians, have some pride in your country!



Your name contradicts your ideology.


----------



## metro

PakistaniPacifist said:


> How can you see anguish and agony without physically being infront of me? lol deluded slumdog!
> 
> We aren't the ones craving acceptance on an Indian forum, you people are obsessed about Pakistanis so much so that it is detrimenal to your own health when we as Pakistanis honestly don't give two shits about your civilian population or country. I find it highly amusing at one side seeing all Indians cling onto hope that your related/similar to us and it's nice to worship us but then i pity you at the same time because it's something i see in my daily life with Indians coming upto Pakistanis and saying, "Pakistani brother, we were once one country" only for his bubble to be burst at that instant by a Pakistani.


 
haha. ok Mr. native IVC. i glanced through your post. and found it very amusing.
let me tell u Mr. native(mixed breed actually), the more insults and damnings u throw to us out of your anguish, better we feel at it.

Liek i said earlier, Pakistan is known in this world only becoz of India. if Pakistan wasnt located next to India, nobody wouldnt have even heard your little country's name.
Plz do not compare India with Pakistan. i find it very insulting. maybe u should start comparing ureself with bangladeshis or sri lanka etc.


----------



## Ignited Mind

metro said:


> haha. ok Mr. native IVC. i glanced through your post. and found it very amusing.
> let me tell u Mr. native(mixed breed actually), the more insults and damnings u throw to us out of your anguish, better we feel at it.
> 
> Liek i said earlier, Pakistan is known in this world only becoz of India. if Pakistan wasnt located next to India, nobody wouldnt have even heard your little country's name.
> Plz do not compare India with Pakistan. i find it very insulting. maybe u should start comparing ureself with bangladeshis or sri lanka etc.


 
BD and SL are doing far better...FAR FAR BETTER!

You may pick one from the following though:


----------



## MyPakistan1947

MadDog said:


> Your so called majority Pakistanis (Punjabis) are described as follows on wiki
> *Pakistani Punjabis*
> Punjabis make up *almost 45% *of the population of Pakistan. The Punjabis found in Pakistan belong to groups known as biradaris, which descend from a common male ancestor. In addition, Punjabi society is divided into two divisions, the zamindar groups or qoums, traditionally associated with farming and the moeens, who are traditionally artisans. *Zamindars are further divided into qoups that claim pre-Islamic ancestry *such as the Rajput,Aheers, Harals, Ghosi (tribe), Jat, Shaikhs or (Muslim Khatri), Kambohs, Gujjars, Dogars and Rahmani (Muslim Labana). *Zamindar groups claiming Central Asian or Middle Eastern ancestry include the Gakhars, Khattar, Awan, Mughal and Arain, comprising the main tribes in the north of the province, while Khagga, Bodla, Jhandir, Daudpota, Gardezi, Syed and Quraishi are found in the south, all of whom claim Arab ancestry.* Immigrants from neighbouring regions, such as the Kashmiri, Pashtun and Baluch ,also form important element in the Punjabi population. Pashtun tribes like the Niazis and the Khakwanis, are integrated into Punjabi village life. Especially the members of the Niazi tribe, who see themselves as Punjabis first. They have big communities in Mianwali, Bakkar, Lahore, Faisalabad, Sahiwal and Toba Tek Singh. Major Moeen groups include the Lohar, Khateek, Rawal, Chhimba Darzi, Teli, Julaha, Mallaah, Mirasi, who are associated with a particular crafts or occupation.[34]
> Punjabis have traditionally and historically been farmers and soldiers, which has transferred into modern times with their dominance of agriculture and military fields in Pakistan. In addition, Punjabis in Pakistan have been quite prominent politically, having had many elected Members of Parliament. As the most ardent supporters of a Pakistani state, the Punjabis in Pakistan have shown a strong predilection towards the adoption of the Urdu language but nearly all speak Punjabi, and still identify themselves as ethnic Punjabis for the most part. Religious homogeneity remains elusive as a predominant Islamic Sunni-Shia population and a Christian minority have not completely wiped out diversity since the partition of British India. A variety of related sub-groups exist in Pakistan and are often considered by many Pakistani Punjabis to be simply regional Punjabis including the Seraikis (who overlap and are often considered transitional with the Sindhis) and Punjabi Pathans (which publications like Encyclopædia Britannica consider a transitional group between Punjabis and Pathans.


 
most pakistani punjabis are native to the indus region.minority of people are mixed with invaders.

pashtun,balochis,kashmiri,sindhis,muhajirs are minority in punjab.

dont you dare bring your propganda here AGAIN by saying majority of pakistani punjabis are not natives,but are invaders.

get over your inferiorty complex. majority of pakistanis punjabis are proud to be punjabi,they dont have to claim ancestory from outside.people like you are a shame.


----------



## Vinod2070

PakistaniPacifist said:


> How can you see anguish and agony without physically being infront of me? lol deluded slumdog!
> 
> We aren't the ones craving acceptance on an Indian forum, you people are obsessed about Pakistanis so much so that it is detrimenal to your own health when we as Pakistanis honestly don't give two shits about your civilian population or country. I find it highly amusing at one side seeing all Indians cling onto hope that your related/similar to us and it's nice to worship us but then i pity you at the same time because it's something i see in my daily life with Indians coming upto Pakistanis and saying, "Pakistani brother, we were once one country" only for his bubble to be burst at that instant by a Pakistani.


 
You are mistaken my friend.

Most people either ignore you or hold you in contempt.

Some want friendship or at least peace. Nothing more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MyPakistan1947

metro said:


> haha. ok Mr. native IVC. i glanced through your post. and found it very amusing.
> let me tell u Mr. native(mixed breed actually), the more insults and damnings u throw to us out of your anguish, better we feel at it.
> 
> Liek i said earlier, Pakistan is known in this world only becoz of India. if Pakistan wasnt located next to India, nobody wouldnt have even heard your little country's name.
> Plz do not compare India with Pakistan. i find it very insulting. maybe u should start comparing ureself with bangladeshis or sri lanka etc.


 

Pakistanis shouldnt compare ourselves to anybody.our bad luck bad,we have all these indians after us all the time.


----------



## metro

MyPakistan1947 said:


> Pakistanis shouldnt compare ourselves to anybody.our bad luck bad,we have all these indians after us all the time.


 
who "these" Indians ?
what do these "Indians" ask you to do ?


----------



## MyPakistan1947

Vinod2070 said:


> Some want friendship or at least peace. Nothing more.


 
you do want more.you want to take credit for our history and civilisation.you want to claim a right over pakistan.thats the reason you ppl lie shamelessly to try and claim pakistan as your property.

you are still angry because we didnt join india in 1947.you wanted to have a bigger country with a great ancient civilisation,but our grandparents rejected you and we still reject you today.


----------



## Ignited Mind

MyPakistan1947 said:


> you do want more.you want to take credit for our history and civilisation.you want to claim a right over pakistan.thats the reason you ppl lie shamelessly to try and claim pakistan as your property.
> 
> you are still angry because we didnt join india in 1947.you wanted to have a bigger country with a great ancient civilisation,but our grandparents rejected you and we still reject you today.


 
One day we shall claim all of Pakistan.
















AKHAND BHARAT!


----------



## Vinod2070

MyPakistan1947 said:


> you do want more.you want to take credit for our history and civilisation.you want to claim a right over pakistan.thats the reason you ppl lie shamelessly to try and claim pakistan as your property.
> 
> you are still angry because we didnt join india in 1947.you wanted to have a bigger country with a great ancient civilisation,but our grandparents rejected you and we still reject you today.


 
Frankly, none of us wants to have anything to do with Pakistan. We are glad you went away.

For ever.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakistaniPacifist

^^
Weak Indians can't even control their own cities let alone ours.



Vinod2070 said:


> You are mistaken my friend.
> 
> Most people either ignore you or hold you in contempt.
> 
> Some want friendship or at least peace. Nothing more.



I wish more of you ignored us or held us in contempt but unfortunately for us Pakistanis this is far from reality and even on this forum it's evident which path Indians choose as you have a severe inferiority complex only yourselves can sort out instead of seeking out us Pakistanis to give you an answer, your people have a burning desire to be associated with us.


----------



## Vinod2070

PakistaniPacifist said:


> ^^
> Weak Indians can't even control their own cities let alone ours.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish more of you ignored us or held us in contempt but unfortunately for us Pakistanis this is far from reality and even on this forum it's evident which path Indians choose as you have a severe inferiority complex only yourselves can sort out instead of seeking out us Pakistanis to give you an answer, your people have a burning desire to be associated with us.


 
Show me a single Indian that wants a reunion or anything to do with you.


----------



## harsh1488

MyPakistan1947 said:


> you do want more.you want to take credit for our history and civilisation.you want to claim a right over pakistan.thats the reason you ppl lie shamelessly to try and claim pakistan as your property.
> 
> you are still angry because we didnt join india in 1947.you wanted to have a bigger country with a great ancient civilisation,but our grandparents rejected you and we still reject you today.


 
just want to ask the superrior pakistanis why did the people of IVC leave the cities like harappa and mohenjo daro?


----------



## MyPakistan1947

Vinod2070 said:


> Show me a single Indian that wants a *reunion* or anything to do with you.


 
this is exactly what we mean. what "reunion"? are you talking about the british empire?


----------



## MyPakistan1947

harsh1488 said:


> just want to ask the superrior pakistanis why did the people of IVC leave the cities like harappa and mohenjo daro?


 
some of the descendants of IVC may have left Indus region.But majority of the descendants of IVC stayed in the indus region.you can see the decsendants today. your talking to the descendants righ here.


----------



## harsh1488

MyPakistan1947 said:


> some of the decsendants of IVC may have left Inuds region.But majority of the decsendants of IVC stayed in the indus region.you can see the decsendants today....Pakistanis.


 
didnt correctly answer my question
why did people leave well planned city and go other places near the cities


----------



## MyPakistan1947

harsh1488 said:


> didnt correctly answer my question
> why did people leave well planned city and go other places near the cities


 
how the hell am i supposed to answer that?


----------



## harsh1488

MyPakistan1947 said:


> some of the descendants of IVC may have left Indus region.But majority of the descendants of IVC stayed in the indus region.you can see the decsendants today. your talking to the descendants righ here.


 
and how do you know only some left and majority stayed
did some one came in your dream and told you?


----------



## metro

MyPakistan1947 said:


> some of the descendants of IVC may have left Indus region.But majority of the descendants of IVC stayed in the indus region.you can see the decsendants today. your talking to the descendants righ here.


 
on what basis are u making this assertion...??
can u quote any famous historian or someone to have made such a claim.?


----------



## PlanetWarrior

MyPakistan1947 said:


> pakistani punjabis are not better than anybody.all humans are equal.
> 
> we pakistani punjabis hate being called "indians".we dont like it when u ppl try to associate yourself with us.
> 
> punjabis have our own distinct history,and identity.*why should we accept "indian"(a name given by invaders*)? punjabi identity,and history is older and richer than "indian" identity.
> 
> why u indians get butt-hurt when we refuse to accept you? accept the rejection with self respect and move on.


 
You people are sooooo funny with the way you distort accepted and proven history. In 100 years time I am certain that Pakistanis will be claiming that they were sending drones into India and that it wasn't the USA who was drone bombing their people. And as proof of that they will claim that the excavated finding of downed drones dug deep in their NWFP is *proof that Pakistan invented the drone* 

Now you see how stupid the distortion of history becomes when you put forward stupid propaganda. PS. Porus was a Hindu and not a Jat

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## MadDog

dude am using hostorical facts with references and links given in my posts....u can counter me with facts..and yes i will dare to challenge u if ur views are based on only stereotypes and not facts...

The names of tribes and families claiming descent of various regional people ...is stated in my posts go and talk to them instead of telling me ....and tell them that they are of native descent.....u might be ending in hospital after that...however after that do come to this forum again and share with us ur experiences.


Before saying anything u should know that around 3-4 million people (natives of punjab in Pak) had migrated in 1947...so ur claim..that most stayed behind is ridiculous.


----------



## MyPakistan1947

MadDog said:


> dude am using hostorical facts with references and links given in my posts....u can counter me with facts..and yes i will dare to challenge u if ur views are based on only stereotypes and not facts...
> 
> The names of tribes and families claiming descent of various regional people ...is stated in my posts go and talk to them instead of telling me ....and tell them that they are of native descent.....u might be ending in hospital after that...however after that do come to this forum again and share with us ur experiences.
> 
> 
> Before saying anything u should know that around 3-4 million people (natives of punjab in Pak) had migrated in 1947...so ur claim..that most stayed behind is ridiculous.


 
i wont be ending up in hospital for saying that.most people in pakistan's punjab are native to the indus region.the ppl mixed with invaders are a minority.your saying almost 80 million people are mostly from invaders? are you feelin alright? being native to the indus region does not mean we have to link ourselves with ppl like gujaratis,bengalis,marathis,south indians, ect.because i dont want to be linked with them either.

from my experiance,its usually the punjabis with a very dark skin tone who try to claim descent from invaders.they have an inferiorty complex and they are not proud of themselves,because of their dark skin,they feel like rejects and feel inferior,so they try to link themsleves with invaders(the inavders with a lighter skin tone) because they see lighter skinned ppl as superior. your one of those people who have an inferiorty complex.

your a disgrace.

plz dont reply to me after this.


----------



## MyPakistan1947

PlanetWarrior said:


> You people are sooooo funny with the way you distort accepted and proven history. In 100 years time I am certain that Pakistanis will be claiming that they were sending drones into India and that it wasn't the USA who was drone bombing their people. And as proof of that they will claim that the excavated finding of downed drones dug deep in their NWFP is *proof that Pakistan invented the drone*



LOL we would not claim that. 



> Now you see how stupid the distortion of history becomes when you put forward stupid propaganda. PS. Porus was a Hindu and not a Jat




porus was most likely not a hindu.and even if he was hindu,that does not mean non-punjabi indians can claim him.why should gujaratis,marathis,bengalis,south indians, be allowed to claim punjabi history? 
i'll tell you why...because most of your fellow indians dont have a warrior-like history to be proud of,so they wanna live off punjabi's warrior history.


----------



## metro

MyPakistan1947 said:


> porus was most likely not a hindu.and even if he was hindu,that does not mean non-punjabi indians can claim him.why should gujaratis,marathis,bengalis,south indians, be allowed to claim punjabi history?
> i'll tell you why...because most of your fellow i*ndians dont have a warrior-like history* to be proud of,so they wanna live off punjabi's warrior history.


 

That was insane, wasn't that ?
Its India that has given the bravest of the bravest rulers throughout the history. From Porus to Ashoka to Guru Gobind Singh to Maharana Pratap to Tipu Sultan.
Its India and Indian culture that has produced these mighty rulers and not Paksitan.

But still u guys have to make such banal statements.
Why do some Pakistanis make such banal statements and keep singing Punjabi Punjabi and Marshall race thingies all the time..??

It is because Pakistanis are desperate. 
They suffer from low self esteem. 
They see the stupidity of their nation today and see how they have lagged behind India and everyone else, in science, technology, economy and civilization.
And to boost their sagging egos and lift up their hurt pride, they try to make such banal claims like we ruled india for 1000 years or we are marshall race n sort.

They fool no one but themselves but that is the whole idea.
Why don't they simply accept that were robbed of their dignity and selfhood by those same invaders whom they worship today ?
Becoz they have nothing left to fall back. They despise their ancestral culture. 

Now, you my poor friend, are wasting your precious life and instead of doing something positive that could actually do some good to the present condition of ure country ure teaching us the punjabi history ?
hell world dont even know if there is any Punjab in Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Vinod2070

The real name of Porus-> Purushottam!

Quite an Islamic name I must say.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Regrettably, while the rest of your post 785 doesn't live up to the bright promise of your first paragraph, there is nothing better in this thread, with the exception of Developereo's terse interventions keeping the liberal point of view uncompromised and out of the reach of muck. That is most appreciated, but it also leaves us with the problem that, apart from that, there is nothing particularly striking about the rest: just a mish-mash of muddled logic and an apparent inability to put together even a single logical argument based on facts - facts validated and tested by professional historians, not facts emerging from 'mother-in-law' research (I know because my mother-in-law told me so).

What choice do we have? This is as good as it gets.



Joe Shearer said:


> It is regrettable that you start with the proposition that it is impossible to have a debate with "bharati" people (incidentally, the use of that term is considered as derogatory as the use of the term P***, so please desist from using it in future), without considering that in a debate, while two opposite opinions may be held initially, the premise of the debate must be that facts and their rational analysis will finally prevail, not a dogged insistence on having one's own opinion upheld. Unless you free yourselves to consider the facts, you will find yourselves continuing to discuss this issue till infinity.





TheStrantrunCurve said:


> I had no desire to inflame Indians by calling them bhartis.



Good, good......



TheStrantrunCurve said:


> Bharat is an official name of your country, In Urdu we refer to India as Bharat. I have serious reservation over Bharat naming itself India. The name India was shared between both Pakistan and Bharat. Originally it was applied only to Indus valley which Alexander invaded but later it was applied to whole south Asia. When Pakistan gained its independence from Britons it might have been logical for the new state in the Indus valley to take the name India or even Industan as the valley was called by English sailors but our founder rejected this name given by invaders. We have our history to be proud of and do not need to take the name/identity from invaders. Since you Indians had no history Nehru was right to steal the name India from Indus valley Pakistanis to claim as theirs. You people have nothing to be proud of, it is Pakistanis who should be that Indian ocean is named after their river Indus. You people are known throughout the world due to the achievements of Pakistani ancestors. Jinnah was furious when Bharat chose the name India and felt bharat had hijacked Pakistans millennia of civilization.
> 
> Pakistani press in its early years used to call India "Bharat" and referred to Indians as "Bharatis.", obviously Pakistani civilian leadership of that time were against this bharati fraud. Even president Eisenhower once referred to Nehru as the "Prime Minister of 'Bharat. It was only after military coup when the loser general Ayub Khan came to power that attitude of the Pakistani press changed bharat became India. Some self defeatist Pakistanis didnt care about losing their identity to Bhartis but many did care. Pakistan is a child of Indus and I always try my best to not call Bharat as India, since this our heritage and you people have no history this is why you are trying to rob us of our history. I am not the only person who calls Indian bharti there are thousands out there. Why not call yourself bhartis what wrong with this name Bharata was a legendary Hindu hero. You people are obviously suffering from identity crises.



This response of yours is dishonest. There is no other description possible.

In case you are not aware of this yet, a cursory examination of my posts might - barely might - indicate to you that I already have a knowledge of my country's names for itself, as rendered in the Constitution itself, a document which I revere and which I have read more than once.

Yes, Bharat is what my country is called, and is to be called when a reference is made to the name of the country in an Indian language that is not English. 

No, neither I nor any other Bharatiya has any objection to being known by the name of our country.

You know this, we know this. In addition, you and we know that the name of your country is Pakistan. That being so, why do we abstain from calling you P_a_k_i_s? Because that is a derogatory, racist name, one used by British louts and drunken ruffians to insult people from Pakistan.

Do you, those of you resident in Great Britain most of all, but others as well, like being called P_a_k_i_s? Do you see no difference between that epithet, that pejorative and Pakistani? That is exactly how we feel when we are insulted by being called Bharti, and not Bharatiya. 

So spare us the silly lecture on how the two countries chose their names, and stick to the main subject: if you don't like facing parochial insult, a very good place to start stopping it would be to refrain from parochial insult yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

PakistaniPacifist said:


> ^^
> Weak Indians can't even control their own cities let alone ours.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish more of you ignored us or held us in contempt but unfortunately for us Pakistanis this is far from reality and even on this forum it's evident which path Indians choose as you have a severe inferiority complex only yourselves can sort out instead of seeking out us Pakistanis to give you an answer, your people have a burning desire to be associated with us.


 





Its ok my Pakistani friend we accept you the way you are , you dont have to change yourself and your identity for anyone . Be proud of who you are , hold you head up high and walk with your chest out . No need to be ashamed of your true identity .Chin up now , ok .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MadDog

Dude what u r saying is just because of ur own experience..an induvidual's experience which doesn't even matter, u have no facts to support ur claim...i am not saying they arnt punjabis...yes they are punjabis..be it pathans, baloch or people from different ethinic backgrounds....they speak fluent punjabi...but Pakistan's Punjabi poppulation as i mentioned the tribes by name is diff......take my exp..m fluent in punjabi, call myself one...but ethinically m kashmiri...
and m not saying there is no local ethinicities...yes there are gujjars, rajputs etc...and are considerable in number and are proud of tht..but they arnt in majority...cuz as i said around 5 million locals of punjab migrated to india in 1947 who would have been in many more millions if they would ve stayed behind. 
dude...trust me here in canada...even my indian friends from indian punjab agree tht our features and everything is diff....
so plz
dont judge a whole poppulation on ur induvidual experience....i have given u links and researches done by writers on people of punjab...in my posts...plz go and check that...Hope this helps !!!


----------



## MyPakistan1947

metro said:


> That was insane, wasn't that ?
> Its India that has given the bravest of the bravest rulers throughout the history. From Porus to Ashoka to Guru Gobind Singh to Maharana Pratap to Tipu Sultan.



guru gobind singh/or any other sikh warrior, and porus,which you shameless indians try to take credit for were punjabis. not gujaratis,south indians,bengalis,marathis.

why the hell are you trying to take credit for punjabi history? because you dont your own history to be proud of. 

and the rest of your post describes your fellow indians.


----------



## AMCA

MyPakistan1947 said:


> guru gobind singh/or any other sikh warrior, and porus,which you shameless indians try to take credit for were punjabis. not gujaratis,south indians,bengalis,marathis.
> 
> why the hell are you trying to take credit for punjabi history? because you dont your own history to be proud of.
> 
> and the rest of your post describes your fellow indians.


 
Punjab is not in India? or do you think you have the entire punjab to your custody? and More over you have warships named after tipu sultan , dont you have any heroes born in your soil which could be proudly termed yours??


----------



## MyPakistan1947

nick_indian said:


> Its ok my Pakistani friend we accept you the way you are , you dont have to change yourself and your identity for anyone . Be proud of who you are , hold you head up high and walk with your chest out . No need to be ashamed of your true identity .Chin up now , ok .


 
farzana shaikh is another pro-indian muhajir.many muhajirs in paksitan are like this,they criticise pakistan because of their love for india.she's most likely from bihar/UP like you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Oh my God LOLLLLLLZZZZZ X 100,000

they'll talk about tippu sultan using not such great words when it suits them best....and now when it suits them, theyll claim him with open arms



kamal hai....honestly


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

MyPakistan1947 said:


> farzana shaikh is another pro-indian muhajir.many muhajirs in paksitan are like this,they criticise pakistan because of their love for india.she's most likely from bihar/UP like you.


 
no yaara most dont...though some i question their loyalties

but same way, every group has its share of assholes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMCA

When people are out of words, they just say anything, when they cannot defend there point they just leave it with "Kamal Hai"


----------



## MyPakistan1947

AMCA said:


> Punjab is not in India? or do you think you have the entire punjab to your custody? and More over you have warships named after tipu sultan , dont you have any heroes born in your soil which could be proudly termed yours??



punjabi history is shared between punjabis. punjabi history should not be shared between gujaratis,bengalis,marathis,biharis,south indians. why the fu*k the rest of you indians try to take credit for Punjabi history?

in pakistan balochis,sindhis,and pashtuns,dont try to take credit for punjabi history,because they have their own history to be proud of.but in india its a totally different story.you all indians try to take claim over punjabi history. 

i really dont wanna take credit for tipu sultan,nor do i care about him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

AMCA said:


> When people are out of words, they just say anything, when they cannot defend there point they just leave it with "Kamal Hai"


 
i am out of words....im speechless

the double-standards smells stronger than the scent of curry


----------



## AMCA

MyPakistan1947 said:


> punjabi history is shared between punjabis.punjabi history should not be shared between gujaratis,bengalis,marathis,biharis,south indians.
> in pakistan balochis,sindhis,and pashtuns,dont try to take credit for punjabi history,because they have their own histories to be proud of.but in india its a totally different story.you all indians try to take claim over punjabi history.
> 
> i really dont wanna take credit for tipu sultan,nor do i care about him.


 
In India there is not Gujarati, Marathi, Jat, Punjabi, Tamil, Mallu , telugu, Assami, Manipuri , bhojpuri etc etc, we have a collectibve term called Indian, and we use it.... Any problems?? if have, live with it...

---------- Post added at 01:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 AM ----------




Abu Zolfiqar said:


> i am out of words....im speechless
> 
> the double-standards smells stronger than the scent of curry


 
Sniff, I smell no curry but desperation from the other end to prove a point but failed miserably

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MyPakistan1947

AMCA said:


> In India there is not Gujarati, Marathi, Jat, Punjabi, Tamil, Mallu , telugu, Assami, Manipuri , bhojpuri etc etc, we have a collectibve term called Indian, and we use it.... Any problems?? if have, live with it...




your country was created in 1947.

porus,guru gobind singh/any other sikh warriors were not indians. they were punjabis.

you dont have any history to be proud of.thats why you try to claim punjabi history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

how so?

by the way, which version indian are you brahmin dalit shodra vaishia jatt or dalprakaptreet


----------



## AMCA

MyPakistan1947 said:


> your country was created in 1947.
> 
> porus,guru gobind singh/any other sikh warriors were not indians. they were punjabis.
> 
> you dont have any history to be proud of.thats why you try to claim punjabi history.


 

There were no pakistan as well, so they were born in a no mans Land I guess , India was not a country then but sure was an Empire... And We have a Civilization to prove it, but what have you?? are you arabs or Persians ? no.. then what are you??


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

only real empires u ''had'' was britisher empire and Moghuls 


bharat was always hindustan....hindustan was bharat......then in 1947 it became india, a day after Pakistan the long-demanded and called for ''idea/revolution'' became (officially, legally) Pakistan.


----------



## AMCA

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> how so?
> 
> by the way, which version indian are you brahmin dalit shodra vaishia jatt or dalprakaptreet


 
every inch of those is there in My Body and sculptured on my soul....


----------



## Ammyy

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> only real empires u ''had'' was britisher empire and Moghuls
> 
> 
> bharat was always hindustan....hindustan was bharat......then in 1947 it became india, a day after Pakistan the long-demanded and called for ''idea/revolution'' became (officially, legally) Pakistan.



their is no Pakistan before 1947


----------



## AMCA

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> only real empires u ''had'' was britisher empire and Moghuls
> 
> 
> bharat was always hindustan....hindustan was bharat......then in 1947 it became india, a day after Pakistan the long-demanded and called for ''idea/revolution'' became (officially, legally) Pakistan.



lets not get into dirty politics, we all know how pakistan was created, who voted for it and why the voters chose not to leave India.... , and you had pakistani empires did you???


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

AMCA said:


> every inch of those is there in My Body and sculptured on my soul....


 
that's some cheesy, weird shyte.....but my sympathies to you.


----------



## AMCA

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> that's some cheesy, weird shyte.....but my sympathies to you.


 
Your sympathies are most welcome, convey mine for you and your fellow mates for being on that side of the border

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ammyy

another stupid threads from people who are suffering to find their true identity 

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/21342-number-zero-invented-ancient-pakistan.html


what a joke


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

AMCA said:


> Your sympathies are most welcome, convey mine for you and your fellow mates for being on that side of the border


 
no need!! your people come to our side......5,000 of ours will be on your side soon.

dont be too worried though....they wont be wearing doc martens

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kingkobra

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> how so?
> 
> by the way, which version indian are you brahmin dalit shodra vaishia jatt or dalprakaptreet


 
i am each and every one of them...thanks to inter caste marriages 
my best friend is not of my religion and his GF is not even of his religion  so guess how much hybrid our next generations will be 

i wont even care to know in which of these 73 sects you belong to because i dont care 
73 Divisions in Islam

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AMCA

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> no need!! your people come to our side......5,000 of ours will be on your side soon.
> 
> dont be too worried though....


 
Keep my sympathies your world seriously needs it, and we welcome those 5000 from your side, we have accomodation ready for them as always


----------



## Vinod2070

Let them first deal with the Shia, Sunni, Ahmedi and the hundreds of other sects that are at each other's throats as we speak now.

Calling each others kaffir and actually killing each other!

They even swear in their passport application that Ahmedis are not Muslims!

Can you believe that?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MyPakistan1947

@ Joe Shearer,

Your previously claimed/lied punjabis and sindhis(you probably meant kashmiris too) are genetically same as indians, only pashtun are different.

but kashmiris,punjabis,and sindhis are just as genetically distinct from indians as pashtuns: (There is a blue line in each individual race - which shows West Asian or other influence - if you look at other Indians it is very, very low, to none at all. Whereas in Punjabis, Sindhis and Kashmiri's and Balochis - it makes up for about a quarter of our genetics, and in some cases more than half, pretty much same amount as Pashtuns)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Rosenberg2007.png


I dont care about genetics,but this is had to be posted to refute indian lies and propganda. and all pakistanis are genetcially closely related.

genetics should not have anything to do with historical events anyways. because genetically pakistanis are also related to eastern europeans/slavic peoples.but that does not mean pakistanis can take credit for russian/slavic history,nor does it mean pakistanis are the same as eastern europeans.


----------



## Gin ka Pakistan

Vinod2070 said:


> Let them first deal with the Shia, Sunni, Ahmedi and the hundreds of other sects that are at each other's throats as we speak now.
> 
> Calling each others kaffir and actually killing each other!
> 
> They even swear in their passport application that Ahmedis are not Muslims!
> 
> Can you believe that?


 
90% of Pakistanis have no problems with each other.


----------



## Vinod2070

Gin ka Pakistan said:


> 90% of Pakistanis have no problems with each other.


 
The remaining 10% seem to be enough to do the *job*.


----------



## MadDog

to all the indian members...guys Pakistan is a mixture of ethnicities...u can't claim one race...it is at the cross roads of South Asia, Central Asia and Middle east...thus is naturally region wise different from india....part of west side of indus was never in india traditionally until the muslim empires and later
on the british came...the british also wanted to include afghanistan into indian subcontinent but were defeated there and failed...so plz worry more about ur poor 200 million dalits who would be digging the ground for rats to cook them for food...cuz they cannot get it.....if u want i can give u documentary on this.


----------



## Gin ka Pakistan

Vinod2070 said:


> The remaining 10% seem to be enough to do the *job*.


 
Well there are always external power making brothers to fight with each others.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

kingkobra said:


> i am each and every one of them...thanks to inter caste marriages
> my best friend is not of my religion and his GF is not even of his religion  so guess how much hybrid our next generations will be



perish the thought!!! relay their details to me, i'll pay them and provide some contraceptives and birth control 




> i wont even care to know in which of these 73 sects you belong to because i dont care



bahhhh you know my policies....i say f*ck all those sect names 

they mean nothing to me. Muslims a Muslim.

by the way, Islam forbids caste or ''social hierchy''


----------



## Vinod2070

kingkobra said:


> i am each and every one of them...thanks to inter caste marriages
> my best friend is not of my religion and his GF is not even of his religion  so guess how much hybrid our next generations will be
> 
> i wont even care to know in which of these 73 sects you belong to because i dont care
> 73 Divisions in Islam


 
73 is old number, now it is in 100s.

Even the numerous Afghan tribes in FATA and other tribal areas are at each other's throats. Civilization never managed to permeate that boundary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kingkobra

MadDog said:


> to all the indian members...guys Pakistan is a mixture of ethnicities...u can't claim one race...it is at the cross roads of South Asia, Central Asia and Middle east...thus is naturally region wise different from india....part of west side of indus was never in india traditionally until the muslim empires and later
> on the british came...the british also wanted to include afghanistan into indian subcontinent but were defeated there and failed...so plz worry more about ur poor 200 million dalits who would be digging the ground for rats to cook them for food...cuz they cannot get it.....if u want i can give u documentary on this.


 
have you heard about reservation system for education and jobs in India??
no????
then shut the f&^% up and search it and check how dalit brothers have now become a major power in india...
and you are not at all in a position to tell us to improve...you guys cant even be compared to our glorious states like Maharashtra


----------



## Vinod2070

Caste in Pakistan: The Elephant in the Room « Red Diary

by

Shahbano Aliani

A pregnant woman from a remote rural village in Tharparkar goes to a private hospital in Hyderabad. The medical staff refuse to attend to her, saying they do not want to pollute their instruments and dirty their hands. Feeling humiliated and angry, she returns to her village without having received the services she needed.

A 20 year old woman from Peshawar is brutally murdered by her brothers and father for attempting to marry outside the biradari and bringing shame to the family honour.

A young Kolhi girl is abducted while working in the cotton fields of a landlord outside Mirpurkhas. She is forced to convert to Islam and marry her abductor. The police refuse to register a case and her family is advised to remain silent for the sake of their own safety.

In a village in Southern Punjab, a young boy from a &#8220;lower-caste&#8221; is accused of dishonouring the &#8220;high caste&#8221; tribe by having an affair with one of their women. The village panchayat orders the gang **** of the boy&#8217;s sister by the &#8220;high caste&#8217; men so that they may restore the honour of their tribe.

These stories have a familiar ring. Variants occur with alarming regularity in Pakistan; some covered by the media, but most covered up by the silence, fear and helplessness of the victims; and the indifference of the rest of society.


What do these stories have in common? Gender, surely; all the victims are women. But there is another common thread as well. In the &#8220;Islamic Republic of Pakistan&#8221;, both Dalit Hindu and Muslim women are subject to humiliation, control and violence because of their gender as well as their caste.

Most activists, development workers and policy makers may not immediately recognize caste as an important social justice and social policy issue, especially for Muslims in the country. However, almost everyone in Pakistan will readily admit that caste or biradari, quom, zaat or jaat is an important part of social identity, especially in the rural areas. Most adults will have encountered questions about their caste or zaat when in a new village or town. Many have married in their own caste, never having considered the option of marrying outside their Biradari, Quom or Zaat. Almost everyone will have heard or used derogatory references to caste such as Bhangi (janitor). As Haris Gazdar argues, &#8220;In fact, the kinship group, known variously as zaat, biraderi and quom in different parts of the country, remains a key - perhaps the key - dimension of economic, social and political interaction.&#8221; A contesting formulation has been presented by Arif Hasan through his writings on social change (see, for example, &#8220;The Silent Revolution&#8221. His view is supported by Akbar Zaidi (though his take on feudalism is a bit radical) and Raza Ali (through his work on Urbanization). The main argument is that because of technological changes (e.g. tractors in fields and Suzuki pickups on farm-to-market roads), traditional social structures are becoming weaker; a new class of middlemen has emerged that controls the market; urbanization is gradually embracing modernity. As far as I understand, both Arif Hasan and Haris Gazdar are partly correct: things are changing (albeit slowly) but the coercive structures are still there.

When questioned, however, if caste is a problem, most Pakistanis will disagree. Many will argue, quite heatedly, that it&#8217;s a problem only for Hindus across the border. Using circular reasoning, they will insist that the caste-system is not Islamic and since the majority of us are Muslims, therefore, there is no caste problem in Pakistan. The caste system practiced by the Muslims of north India is based on three tiers: ashraaf, ajlaaf and arzal.

Public denial is so ingrained and widespread that there is no official legislation that acknowledges and addresses caste-based discrimination. Inadequate legislation, yes. Non-existent, no. After the partition of British India in 1947, Pakistan had inherited the list of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and the constitution of Pakistan (like the 1935 constitution) forbids discrimination on the basis of caste. Beyond lip service, there was a 6% quota in government jobs for scheduled castes from 1948 to 1998. This was sadly never fully utilized. However, we do not have progressive legislation (like they have in India; though they have issues of their own). And apart from a few articles and studies (many of the recent ones referred to in this paper), there is virtually no documentation and data on &#8220;lower caste&#8221; peoples, including Dalit Hindus in Pakistan.

In my own work, development workers and researchers have argued that caste is not relevant to either development (poverty alleviation) or to research on social and economic issues. My colleagues, who work in districts with about 40% &#8211; 50% Hindus (the majority of them Dalit) have insisted that we cannot include caste in survey questionnaires, arguing that (1) we will get so many castes that the data will be difficult to handle, or (2) we will be accused of working for a specific caste. This resistance has been expressed by both Hindus and Muslims, though more notably by Muslim colleagues. When I have included caste in questionnaires, despite heated arguments, the indicator has been removed in final research instruments by the managers in charge of overseeing the research. I think that some clarification is needed here. The question on caste was included in the PEWC baseline survey and during tabulation we found that we had a very long list of responses because many respondents had mentioned their subcastes instead of caste. For many of these subcastes, some of us didn&#8217;t know their castes. A list of castes and subcastes from responses was given to CRU staff for preparing a proper list. This was not done and at some point in time we decided to go ahead without it. It should also be noted that most of the non-Muslim respondents in Tharparkar belonged to the Meghar community as our social mobilisers knew them through their PDCs, etc. I should also stress that the baseline wasn&#8217;t looking at the coorelation between caste and child work &#8212; we could have done that but then our methodology would have been different: propotionate sample for various castes instead of settlements.

It appears that caste is the elephant in the room. Everyone knows its there, but no one wants to talk about it, let alone address. As Haris Gazdar puts it, &#8220;The public silencing on caste contrasts with an obsession with it in private dealings and transactions.&#8221;

The Pakistani caste system has developed along lines similar to those in India. Syeds (also known as Shahs in Sindh) claim to be the descendants of the prophet Muhammad (SAW) and are the highest caste in most places. In Punjab, the Ranas (Rajpoots), Chaudhurys and Maliks are considered higher caste, whereas the Kammis (workers), Chuhras (&#8220;untouchable&#8221; sweepers who are mostly Christian), Mussali (Muslim shaikh - menial workers) and Miraasi (musicians) are considered lower caste. In the NWFP, &#8220;lower castes&#8221; are referred to as Neech Zaat (low caste) and Badnasal (of bad lineage). In Balochistan the &#8220;lower castes&#8221; include Ghulams (slaves), Lohris (musicians), and Lachhis (Dalits). In Sindh, &#8220;high-caste&#8221; Muslims, in addition to Shahs and Syeds, include the Akhunds, Effendis, Soomros, Talpurs, and Pirs. Hajjams (barbers), Dhobis (washers), Kumbhars (potters), Maachis/ Mallahs (fisherfolk) and Bhajeer (Dalit converts to Islam) are considered &#8220;low caste&#8221;. In places like Swat, the Quom system is comparative to the Hindu caste system. Here, groups are divided rigidly according to occupation. Quoms do not intermarry or live together. The fact that caste is an important social identity for Pakistani Muslims is reinforced in matchmaking/ marriage services, where caste is one of the key attributes mentioned by prospective brides and grooms. Caste based marriage preferences and associations are documented amongst Pakistanis in the Diaspora, especially in the UK.

Like in India and Nepal, &#8220;lower caste&#8221; Hindus and Muslims are excluded and persecuted by &#8220;upper castes&#8221;, especially men. According to the Joint NGO report submitted to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in February 2009, Pakistan is one of the few countries of the world where slavery still exists in the form of bonded labour. Most bonded labourers in Pakistan are the adults and children of Dalit and lower caste Muslim and Christian families.

The denial of the &#8220;caste problem&#8221; starts with statistics. The most recent 1998 census estimates the number of Dalit Hindus at just above 300,000; a minority amongst the estimated 2 million Pakistani Hindus. Dalit leaders and activists, including 5 former legislators estimate the figure to be closer to 2 million. They believe that both the &#8220;upper caste&#8221; Hindus and the Pakistani government do not want to recognize the actual numbers so no special legislation or programmes have to be designed to address the issues of Dalits and discrimination against them.

For the most part, Dalits are socially excluded, most of them forced to live on the outskirts of towns and villages or confined to their own paras or villages. Government and even NGOs working in their areas will often bypass Bheel and Kohli paras in Tharparkar altogether. Due to poverty and lack of assets, they are forced to take up farm and cleaning work that no one else will do; and excluded from community events such as weddings. If they are invited, they have to eat out of separate utensils. They are denied essential social services and equal treatment in public spaces, humiliated in hospitals, public buses and schools. Much of the land they have lived on for centuries belongs to the state; they have no legal claim to it.

Undoubtedly, apart from their children perhaps, Dalit women are one of the poorest and most vulnerable and marginalized group of individuals in the country. They are politically and socially excluded from the mainstream and vulnerable to discrimination and violence due to their gender as well as their caste.

According to a Thari colleague, Kohli women are raped by men of higher castes (Hindus and Muslims) in Tharparkar, either while they work in the fields or when they are out in the desert herding livestock and hunting/ gathering. Kohli women are considered sub-human by the larger society, so any act of sexual or physical violence against them is not noteworthy. It is just a fact of life. The study of 750 Dalit households, Long Behind Schedule, reports that many Dalit women have been raped or gang raped by Muslim men. Most of these rapes are unreported for fear of reprisal from the police and communities of the perpetrators.

There are frequent reports in the print media of the abduction, forced conversion and marriages of Hindu girls and young women. A Daily Dawn June 2006 editorial claims that &#8220;Young Hindu women from both the upper caste and Dalit families have been abducted with increasing frequency in recent years.&#8221; According to the editorial, in many cases when the parents have gone to the police, they have been informed that the girl has &#8220;eloped with their Muslim friend&#8221;, converted to Islam and married him. Some of the girls have later declared in court that they had converted of their own free will, though it is quite likely that they were forced to make these declarations under duress. The editorial goes on to speculate that in at least one case the &#8220;marriage&#8221; has ended in divorce and the girl has been &#8220;passed on&#8221; to another man. The International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN)&#8217;s Fact Sheet Pakistan argues that when such marriages end in divorce, the young women are left to fend for themselves on the streets.

Haris Gazdar reports violence against Christian, Muslim and Hindu &#8220;low caste&#8221; women across the country:

We documented cases across the country &#8211; in Peshawar, Faisalabad, Quetta and Sanghar - of rapes perpetrated against &#8220;low-caste&#8221; women from chuhra, mussali, lachhi and scheduled caste Hindu communities respectively. The perpetrators were all well known and there was a feeling that they committed these crimes because they could get away with it, knowing full well that the victims were socially and politi cally weak. In fact, these rapes were only the most extreme instances of sexual violation suffered by the marginalised groups. In the language of the dominant groups the &#8220;low castes&#8221; had no honour, and certainly no honour that could be defended. The Khans in Peshawar, who regarded them selves as the racially pure descendents of 11th century Pashtun invader tribes from Afghanistan thought that the women of their &#8220;hamsayas&#8221; (literally neighbours, but used as a euphemism for dependent service castes) such as the Toorkhail (literally &#8220;black lineage&#8221 and &#8220;kisabgars&#8221; (menials) were of lax social morals. In any case the hamsaya men, unlike the &#8220;pure&#8221; Pashtuns, would not/could not protest openly if their women did contract illicit liaisons with other men.

Mukhtaran Mai has become famous for her courageous public campaign for justice. Mai suffered the brutal and male-community sanctioned gang **** because her young brother was accused of speaking to a &#8220;higher caste&#8221; woman in the village. What is often reported, but never analyzed is the fact that Mai and her brother are from a &#8220;lower caste&#8221; than the perpetrators of her ****.

Another case of caste-based patriarchal violence is the story of Ghazala Shaheen, a &#8220;low caste&#8221;, but highly educated, Muslim woman from Multan who was abducted along with her mother and gang raped. Ghazala Shaheen&#8217;s uncle had allegedly eloped with a &#8220;high caste&#8221; woman of the perpetrator&#8217;s family. Ghazala Shaheen was selected for the gang-**** by the &#8220;upper caste&#8221; tribesmen for her uncle&#8217;s crime and for the crime of daring to educate herself.

Embedded in the stories of these women being gang-raped, killed, paraded naked in the streets, abducted, and forcibly converted, is the old, ugly story of caste. Except for some intrepid researchers and a handful of Dalit activists, everyone else in Pakistan is silent on the issue.

At a time of increased militarization and polarization, can we afford to continue to ignore such a pervasive and divisive issue that makes women even more vulnerable to violence, oppression and discrimination? Caste is a women&#8217;s issue and perhaps its time for South Asian feminists in Pakistan to start speaking up about it.

The author works with the Thardeep Rural Development Programme and is based in Karachi, Pakistan.


----------



## MyPakistan1947

MadDog said:


> to all the indian members...guys Pakistan is a mixture of ethnicities...u can't claim one race...it is at the cross roads of South Asia, Central Asia and Middle east...thus is naturally region wise different from india....part of west side of indus was never in india traditionally until the muslim empires and later
> on the british came...the british also wanted to include afghanistan into indian subcontinent but were defeated there and failed...so plz worry more about ur poor 200 million dalits who would be digging the ground for rats to cook them for food...cuz they cannot get it.....if u want i can give u documentary on this.


 
nor was punjab or sindh apart of india.india was created in 1947 by the british.i think you mean western provinces of pakistan are traditionally not considerd apart of the subcontinent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kingkobra

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> perish the thought!!! relay their details to me, i'll pay them and provide some contraceptives and birth control
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bahhhh you know my policies....i say f*ck all those sect names
> 
> they mean nothing to me. Muslims a Muslim.
> 
> by the way, Islam forbids caste or ''social hierchy''


 
yes islam forbids and thats why there are riots and wars between these communties


----------



## MyPakistan1947

Vinod2070 said:


> Caste in Pakistan: The Elephant in the Room « Red Diary
> 
> by
> 
> Shahbano Aliani
> 
> A pregnant woman from a remote rural village in Tharparkar goes to a private hospital in Hyderabad. The medical staff refuse to attend to her, saying they do not want to pollute their instruments and dirty their hands. Feeling humiliated and angry, she returns to her village without having received the services she needed.
> 
> A 20 year old woman from Peshawar is brutally murdered by her brothers and father for attempting to marry outside the biradari and bringing shame to the family honour.
> 
> A young Kolhi girl is abducted while working in the cotton fields of a landlord outside Mirpurkhas. She is forced to convert to Islam and marry her abductor. The police refuse to register a case and her family is advised to remain silent for the sake of their own safety.
> 
> In a village in Southern Punjab, a young boy from a lower-caste is accused of dishonouring the high caste tribe by having an affair with one of their women. The village panchayat orders the gang **** of the boys sister by the high caste men so that they may restore the honour of their tribe.
> 
> These stories have a familiar ring. Variants occur with alarming regularity in Pakistan; some covered by the media, but most covered up by the silence, fear and helplessness of the victims; and the indifference of the rest of society.
> 
> 
> What do these stories have in common? Gender, surely; all the victims are women. But there is another common thread as well. In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, both Dalit Hindu and Muslim women are subject to humiliation, control and violence because of their gender as well as their caste.
> 
> Most activists, development workers and policy makers may not immediately recognize caste as an important social justice and social policy issue, especially for Muslims in the country. However, almost everyone in Pakistan will readily admit that caste or biradari, quom, zaat or jaat is an important part of social identity, especially in the rural areas. Most adults will have encountered questions about their caste or zaat when in a new village or town. Many have married in their own caste, never having considered the option of marrying outside their Biradari, Quom or Zaat. Almost everyone will have heard or used derogatory references to caste such as Bhangi (janitor). As Haris Gazdar argues, In fact, the kinship group, known variously as zaat, biraderi and quom in different parts of the country, remains a key - perhaps the key - dimension of economic, social and political interaction. A contesting formulation has been presented by Arif Hasan through his writings on social change (see, for example, The Silent Revolution). His view is supported by Akbar Zaidi (though his take on feudalism is a bit radical) and Raza Ali (through his work on Urbanization). The main argument is that because of technological changes (e.g. tractors in fields and Suzuki pickups on farm-to-market roads), traditional social structures are becoming weaker; a new class of middlemen has emerged that controls the market; urbanization is gradually embracing modernity. As far as I understand, both Arif Hasan and Haris Gazdar are partly correct: things are changing (albeit slowly) but the coercive structures are still there.
> 
> When questioned, however, if caste is a problem, most Pakistanis will disagree. Many will argue, quite heatedly, that its a problem only for Hindus across the border. Using circular reasoning, they will insist that the caste-system is not Islamic and since the majority of us are Muslims, therefore, there is no caste problem in Pakistan. The caste system practiced by the Muslims of north India is based on three tiers: ashraaf, ajlaaf and arzal.
> 
> Public denial is so ingrained and widespread that there is no official legislation that acknowledges and addresses caste-based discrimination. Inadequate legislation, yes. Non-existent, no. After the partition of British India in 1947, Pakistan had inherited the list of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and the constitution of Pakistan (like the 1935 constitution) forbids discrimination on the basis of caste. Beyond lip service, there was a 6% quota in government jobs for scheduled castes from 1948 to 1998. This was sadly never fully utilized. However, we do not have progressive legislation (like they have in India; though they have issues of their own). And apart from a few articles and studies (many of the recent ones referred to in this paper), there is virtually no documentation and data on lower caste peoples, including Dalit Hindus in Pakistan.
> 
> In my own work, development workers and researchers have argued that caste is not relevant to either development (poverty alleviation) or to research on social and economic issues. My colleagues, who work in districts with about 40%  50% Hindus (the majority of them Dalit) have insisted that we cannot include caste in survey questionnaires, arguing that (1) we will get so many castes that the data will be difficult to handle, or (2) we will be accused of working for a specific caste. This resistance has been expressed by both Hindus and Muslims, though more notably by Muslim colleagues. When I have included caste in questionnaires, despite heated arguments, the indicator has been removed in final research instruments by the managers in charge of overseeing the research. I think that some clarification is needed here. The question on caste was included in the PEWC baseline survey and during tabulation we found that we had a very long list of responses because many respondents had mentioned their subcastes instead of caste. For many of these subcastes, some of us didnt know their castes. A list of castes and subcastes from responses was given to CRU staff for preparing a proper list. This was not done and at some point in time we decided to go ahead without it. It should also be noted that most of the non-Muslim respondents in Tharparkar belonged to the Meghar community as our social mobilisers knew them through their PDCs, etc. I should also stress that the baseline wasnt looking at the coorelation between caste and child work  we could have done that but then our methodology would have been different: propotionate sample for various castes instead of settlements.
> 
> It appears that caste is the elephant in the room. Everyone knows its there, but no one wants to talk about it, let alone address. As Haris Gazdar puts it, The public silencing on caste contrasts with an obsession with it in private dealings and transactions.
> 
> The Pakistani caste system has developed along lines similar to those in India. Syeds (also known as Shahs in Sindh) claim to be the descendants of the prophet Muhammad (SAW) and are the highest caste in most places. In Punjab, the Ranas (Rajpoots), Chaudhurys and Maliks are considered higher caste, whereas the Kammis (workers), Chuhras (untouchable sweepers who are mostly Christian), Mussali (Muslim shaikh - menial workers) and Miraasi (musicians) are considered lower caste. In the NWFP, lower castes are referred to as Neech Zaat (low caste) and Badnasal (of bad lineage). In Balochistan the lower castes include Ghulams (slaves), Lohris (musicians), and Lachhis (Dalits). In Sindh, high-caste Muslims, in addition to Shahs and Syeds, include the Akhunds, Effendis, Soomros, Talpurs, and Pirs. Hajjams (barbers), Dhobis (washers), Kumbhars (potters), Maachis/ Mallahs (fisherfolk) and Bhajeer (Dalit converts to Islam) are considered low caste. In places like Swat, the Quom system is comparative to the Hindu caste system. Here, groups are divided rigidly according to occupation. Quoms do not intermarry or live together. The fact that caste is an important social identity for Pakistani Muslims is reinforced in matchmaking/ marriage services, where caste is one of the key attributes mentioned by prospective brides and grooms. Caste based marriage preferences and associations are documented amongst Pakistanis in the Diaspora, especially in the UK.
> 
> Like in India and Nepal, lower caste Hindus and Muslims are excluded and persecuted by upper castes, especially men. According to the Joint NGO report submitted to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in February 2009, Pakistan is one of the few countries of the world where slavery still exists in the form of bonded labour. Most bonded labourers in Pakistan are the adults and children of Dalit and lower caste Muslim and Christian families.
> 
> The denial of the caste problem starts with statistics. The most recent 1998 census estimates the number of Dalit Hindus at just above 300,000; a minority amongst the estimated 2 million Pakistani Hindus. Dalit leaders and activists, including 5 former legislators estimate the figure to be closer to 2 million. They believe that both the upper caste Hindus and the Pakistani government do not want to recognize the actual numbers so no special legislation or programmes have to be designed to address the issues of Dalits and discrimination against them.
> 
> For the most part, Dalits are socially excluded, most of them forced to live on the outskirts of towns and villages or confined to their own paras or villages. Government and even NGOs working in their areas will often bypass Bheel and Kohli paras in Tharparkar altogether. Due to poverty and lack of assets, they are forced to take up farm and cleaning work that no one else will do; and excluded from community events such as weddings. If they are invited, they have to eat out of separate utensils. They are denied essential social services and equal treatment in public spaces, humiliated in hospitals, public buses and schools. Much of the land they have lived on for centuries belongs to the state; they have no legal claim to it.
> 
> Undoubtedly, apart from their children perhaps, Dalit women are one of the poorest and most vulnerable and marginalized group of individuals in the country. They are politically and socially excluded from the mainstream and vulnerable to discrimination and violence due to their gender as well as their caste.
> 
> According to a Thari colleague, Kohli women are raped by men of higher castes (Hindus and Muslims) in Tharparkar, either while they work in the fields or when they are out in the desert herding livestock and hunting/ gathering. Kohli women are considered sub-human by the larger society, so any act of sexual or physical violence against them is not noteworthy. It is just a fact of life. The study of 750 Dalit households, Long Behind Schedule, reports that many Dalit women have been raped or gang raped by Muslim men. Most of these rapes are unreported for fear of reprisal from the police and communities of the perpetrators.
> 
> There are frequent reports in the print media of the abduction, forced conversion and marriages of Hindu girls and young women. A Daily Dawn June 2006 editorial claims that Young Hindu women from both the upper caste and Dalit families have been abducted with increasing frequency in recent years. According to the editorial, in many cases when the parents have gone to the police, they have been informed that the girl has eloped with their Muslim friend, converted to Islam and married him. Some of the girls have later declared in court that they had converted of their own free will, though it is quite likely that they were forced to make these declarations under duress. The editorial goes on to speculate that in at least one case the marriage has ended in divorce and the girl has been passed on to another man. The International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN)s Fact Sheet Pakistan argues that when such marriages end in divorce, the young women are left to fend for themselves on the streets.
> 
> Haris Gazdar reports violence against Christian, Muslim and Hindu low caste women across the country:
> 
> We documented cases across the country  in Peshawar, Faisalabad, Quetta and Sanghar - of rapes perpetrated against low-caste women from chuhra, mussali, lachhi and scheduled caste Hindu communities respectively. The perpetrators were all well known and there was a feeling that they committed these crimes because they could get away with it, knowing full well that the victims were socially and politi cally weak. In fact, these rapes were only the most extreme instances of sexual violation suffered by the marginalised groups. In the language of the dominant groups the low castes had no honour, and certainly no honour that could be defended. The Khans in Peshawar, who regarded them selves as the racially pure descendents of 11th century Pashtun invader tribes from Afghanistan thought that the women of their hamsayas (literally neighbours, but used as a euphemism for dependent service castes) such as the Toorkhail (literally black lineage) and kisabgars (menials) were of lax social morals. In any case the hamsaya men, unlike the pure Pashtuns, would not/could not protest openly if their women did contract illicit liaisons with other men.
> 
> Mukhtaran Mai has become famous for her courageous public campaign for justice. Mai suffered the brutal and male-community sanctioned gang **** because her young brother was accused of speaking to a higher caste woman in the village. What is often reported, but never analyzed is the fact that Mai and her brother are from a lower caste than the perpetrators of her ****.
> 
> Another case of caste-based patriarchal violence is the story of Ghazala Shaheen, a low caste, but highly educated, Muslim woman from Multan who was abducted along with her mother and gang raped. Ghazala Shaheens uncle had allegedly eloped with a high caste woman of the perpetrators family. Ghazala Shaheen was selected for the gang-**** by the upper caste tribesmen for her uncles crime and for the crime of daring to educate herself.
> 
> Embedded in the stories of these women being gang-raped, killed, paraded naked in the streets, abducted, and forcibly converted, is the old, ugly story of caste. Except for some intrepid researchers and a handful of Dalit activists, everyone else in Pakistan is silent on the issue.
> 
> At a time of increased militarization and polarization, can we afford to continue to ignore such a pervasive and divisive issue that makes women even more vulnerable to violence, oppression and discrimination? Caste is a womens issue and perhaps its time for South Asian feminists in Pakistan to start speaking up about it.
> 
> The author works with the Thardeep Rural Development Programme and is based in Karachi, Pakistan.



again this was written by somebody from karachi (you guys know what i'm going to say, because these anti-pakistan articles usually come from karachi - for a very obvious reason)

this is nothing like the caste system in india you stupid idiot.

this mostly has to do with the fact pakistanis(punjabis,sindhis,balochis,pashtuns) very rarely marry out of their clan/tribes/ethnic groups,and have strict codes against marrying out of their clans and ethnic groups.but usually there is not much of a problem with marrying muslims from other ethnicites or nationalities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

lol Maharashtra glorious??? when i google the place, it looks like a hole in the ground

isnt that where shiv sena HQ is?


----------



## Ignited Mind

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> lol Maharashtra glorious??? when i google the place, it looks like a hole in the ground
> 
> isnt that where shiv sena HQ is?


 
I wonder what Pakistan would look like as compared to Maharashtra.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

MyPakistan1947 said:


> this is nothing like the caste system in india you stupid idiot.
> 
> this mostly has to do with the fact pakistanis(punjabis,sindhis,balochispashtuns) very rarely marry out of their clan/tribes/ethnic groups,and have strict codes against marrying out of their clans and ethnic groups.


 
Read the article you $%^&.

And don't worry about India.

---------- Post added at 01:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 AM ----------




Ignited Mind said:


> I wonder what Pakistan would look like as compared to Maharashtra.


 
Maharashtra has more GDP than the whole of Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Ignited Mind said:


> I wonder what Pakistan would look like as compared to Maharashtra.



Maharashtra would still be the city where people piss and crap on the side of the street and where people spit and throw trash carefree without regards to their city.

silly to talk about GDP when you look at the size of both countries



not to get into the Islamics of it, but those people rioting are obviously being na-pak in the process 

but then again, better to have a some untoward incidents than have days in and days out of total mob brutality which you are no stranger of....one-sided genocides


anyways, you all are a bunch of miserable nincompoops. Developereo had led this conversation in interesting direction so lets get back on subject.


----------



## kingkobra

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> lol Maharashtra glorious??? when i google the place, it looks like a hole in the ground
> 
> isnt that where shiv sena HQ is?


 
yes shivsena who has muslims leaders in my city which are being chosen by both communities 
and Maharashtra has more GDP than pakistan even when mumbai is excluded  
even a mumbai has More GDP than pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ignited Mind

Vinod2070 said:


> Maharashtra has more GDP than the whole of Pakistan.


 
Also, Maharashtra is NOT A FAILED STATE.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kingkobra

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> not to get into the Islamics of it, but those people rioting are obviously being na-pak in the process
> 
> but then again, better to have a some untoward incidents than have days in and days out of total mob brutality which you are no stranger of....one-sided genocides
> 
> 
> anyways, you all are a bunch of miserable nincompoops. Developereo had led this conversation in interesting direction so lets get back on subject.


 
ohhh yess genocides

Gendercide Watch: Genocide in Bangladesh, 1971


----------



## PakistaniPacifist

nick_indian said:


> Its ok my Pakistani friend we accept you the way you are , you dont have to change yourself and your identity for anyone . Be proud of who you are , hold you head up high and walk with your chest out . No need to be ashamed of your true identity .Chin up now , ok .



Oh Indian your attempt at witty remarks truly do fail, emphatically. Had i wanted to i could post multiple yt videos/articles of Indians inferiority complex from Indians calling themselves ugly, desire to be white/fair skinned, import of foreign women to represent in Bollywood, obsession with Pakistanis etc. Honestly as an Indian your the last person in the world that can talk about inferiority complex as it plagues you as people of the nation of India hence why we see your people flood our forums in the bucketloads craving for acceptance.

Not once did i hear of an identity crisis in the video and should it be seen as one then it can be said non of our leaders have been Pakistani bar a few as right from the beginning we have been lead by Muhajirs from India who have imported a foreign language/policies upon us indigenous people of Pakistan. I don't want to dwelve into this deeper as i would take a lot longer neither do i have the time or the desire to converse about Pakistan with an Indian!

Appreciate the video as i'm keen to have a read of her book as she does make some valid points however she's wrong on two cases, the first being Islam which regardless of her statement is ingrained in every Pakistani regardless of how liberal they maybe and secondly she obviously has no grasps of the overwhelmingly majority views of the public in Pakistan regarding the situation in Kashmir, never will their be peace with India when ourKashmiri brothers are suffering! 


Dude no need to be ashamed of your Indian heritage, instead of hiding from it learn to accept it instead of coming on PDF to find out about your roots.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kingkobra

PakistaniPacifist said:


> Oh Indian your attempt at witty remarks truly do fail, emphatically. Had i wanted to i could post multiple yt videos/articles of Indians inferiority complex from Indians calling themselves ugly, desire to be white/fair skinned, import of foreign women to represent in Bollywood, obsession with Pakistanis etc. Honestly as an Indian your the last person in the world that can talk about inferiority complex as it plagues you as people of the nation of India hence why we see your people flood our forums in the bucketloads craving for acceptance.
> 
> Not once did i hear of an identity crisis in the video and should it be seen as one then it can be said non of our leaders have been Pakistani bar a few as right from the beginning we have been lead by Muhajirs from India who have imported a foreign language/policies upon us indigenous people of Pakistan. I don't want to dwelve into this deeper as i would take a lot longer neither do i have the time or the desire to converse about Pakistan with an Indian!
> 
> Appreciate the video as i'm keen to have a read of her book as she does make some valid points however she's wrong on two cases, the first being Islam which regardless of her statement is ingrained in every Pakistani regardless of how liberal they maybe and secondly she obviously has no grasps of the overwhelmingly majority views of the public in Pakistan regarding the situation in Kashmir, never will their be peace with India when ourKashmiri brothers are suffering!
> 
> 
> Dude no need to be ashamed of your Indian heritage, instead of hiding from it learn to accept it instead of coming on PDF to find out about your roots.


 
such a huge post but not even single valuable line in it...people just press those keyboard keys just because they have to....


----------



## Ignited Mind

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> Maharashtra would still be the city where people piss and crap on the side of the street and where people spit and throw trash carefree without regards to their city.
> 
> silly to talk about GDP when you look at the size of both countries


 
Ahaaa!

The resident of a failed state commenting about a state in world's second fastest growing economy.

Now we will seek words of wisdom from Pakistanis who could not even take care of their own country.

BTW, I'd prefer walking among piss and crap to being bombed by an American Drone or shot by a bearded mullah; I being cremated and the Mullah being showered with rose petals by the '(un?)civil society'.

Anytime...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kingkobra

Ignited Mind said:


> Ahaaa!
> 
> The resident of a failed state commenting about a state in world's second fastest growing economy.
> 
> Now we will seek words of wisdom from Pakistanis who could not even take care of their own country.
> 
> BTW, I'd prefer walking among piss and crap to being bombed by an American Drone or shot by a bearded mullah; I being cremated and the Mullah being showered with rose petals by the '(un?)civil society'.
> 
> Anytime...



and dunno in which world he lives but size of Maharashtra is smaller than pakistan 

as if there are no slums in pakistan 

http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-images-multimedia/23332-slum-pakistan.html


----------



## PakistaniPacifist

Ignited Mind said:


> Ahaaa!
> 
> The resident of a failed state commenting about a state in world's second fastest growing economy.
> 
> Now we will seek words of wisdom from Pakistanis who could not even take care of their own country.



It truly boggles me when Indians state this as they have more than twice the population of Pakistan living below the poverty line.

Nonetheless, i hate being a partypooper, India is truly a superpower!

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A, please click on the link below.

http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/-india-photos-chinese-netizen-reactions.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ignited Mind

PakistaniPacifist said:


> It truly boggles me when Indians state this as they have more than twice the population of Pakistan living below the poverty line.
> 
> Nonetheless, i hate being a partypooper, India is truly a superpower!
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A, please click on the link below.
> 
> http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/-india-photos-chinese-netizen-reactions.html


 
*Ahaa!

Well yes. I must concede that to you. But you know, we don't outsource the job of poverty elimination to American Drones. *

*How silly of us!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

not everything is as crystal clear as the 3-4-5 rule 

second fastest growing economy where caste discrimination, naxalism and 32 other insurectionist/rebel groups coupled by poverty and HIV are rampant. We both have a lot of introspection to do. Only difference is, we arent in denial. You are 

to reply to an earlier query, yes Pakistan didnt exist officially before 1947. Neither did ''bharat'' which was just a loose federation of dis-united states whose resources were being devoured by white occupiers


----------



## kingkobra

PakistaniPacifist said:


> It truly boggles me when Indians state this as they have more than twice the population of Pakistan living below the poverty line.
> 
> Nonetheless, i hate being a partypooper, India is truly a superpower!
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A, please click on the link below.
> 
> http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/-india-photos-chinese-netizen-reactions.html


 
Sorry...

What you were looking for cannot be found. It may have been moved or the URL address you've used is incorrect.

You can try a search on the right, start from our home page, or see if it was one of our popular posts below:
=================
just like sane pakistanis can not be found

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kingkobra

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> not everything is as crystal clear as the 3-4-5 rule
> 
> second fastest growing economy where caste discrimination, naxalism and 32 other insurectionist/rebel groups coupled by poverty and HIV are rampant. We both have a lot of introspection to do. Only difference is, we arent in denial. You are
> 
> to reply to an earlier query, yes Pakistan didnt exist officially before 1947. Neither did ''bharat'' which was just a loose federation of dis-united states whose resources were being devoured by white occupiers


 
we are the last people on earth to be in denial...we know exactly were we stand and what should we do 
i wonder how can you even remark on us when your own citizens are dying because of US drone attacks...this is pathetic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

PakistaniPacifist said:


> *Oh Indian your attempt at witty remarks truly do fail, emphatically*. Had i wanted to i could post multiple yt videos/articles of Indians inferiority complex from Indians calling themselves ugly, desire to be white/fair skinned, import of foreign women to represent in Bollywood, obsession with Pakistanis etc. Honestly as an Indian your the last person in the world that can talk about inferiority complex as it plagues you as people of the nation of India hence why we see your people flood our forums in the bucketloads craving for acceptance.
> 
> Not once did i hear of an identity crisis in the video and should it be seen as one then it can be said non of our leaders have been Pakistani bar a few as right from the beginning we have been lead by Muhajirs from India who have imported a foreign language/policies upon us indigenous people of Pakistan. I don't want to dwelve into this deeper as i would take a lot longer neither do i have the time or the desire to converse about Pakistan with an Indian!
> 
> Appreciate the video as i'm keen to have a read of her book as she does make some valid points however she's wrong on two cases, the first being Islam which regardless of her statement is ingrained in every Pakistani regardless of how liberal they maybe and secondly she obviously has no grasps of the overwhelmingly majority views of the public in Pakistan regarding the situation in Kashmir, never will their be peace with India when ourKashmiri brothers are suffering!
> 
> 
> Dude no need to be ashamed of your Indian heritage, instead of hiding from it learn to accept it instead of coming on PDF to find out about your roots.


 
The purpose of my post was achieved after i read the first line of your post . Did not bother to read any further .

As i said Chin up , things will be fine in some time , every nation goes through its period of turmoil. You should calm down.Take a deep breath .Pakisatn will be successful in finding its true self one day . Just give yourself some time , you are still a very young nation .Dont be so hard on yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

the relics of the great empire of Ashokadoka

Use google and search

India Photos, Chinese Netizen Reactions &#8211; chinaSMACK

You will find the link and pictures of this paradise on earth


----------



## kingkobra

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> the relics of the great empire of Ashokadoka
> 
> http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/-india-photos-chinese-netizen-reactions.html


 
Sorry...

What you were looking for cannot be found. It may have been moved or the URL address you've used is incorrect.

You can try a search on the right, start from our home page, or see if it was one of our popular posts below:

===============
priceless


----------



## Ignited Mind

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> the relics of the great empire of Ashokadoka
> 
> Use google and search
> 
> India Photos, Chinese Netizen Reactions &#8211; chinaSMACK
> 
> You will find the link and pictures


 
I did find this on the link you posted:

&#8216;China Does Not Have Any Men Suitable For Me&#8217; &#8211; chinaSMACK


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

kingkobra said:


> we are the last people on earth to be in denial...we know exactly were we stand and what should we do
> i wonder how can you even remark on us when your own citizens are dying because of US drone attacks...this is pathetic.


 
well if the dear leaders authorize them, then you should talk to them

actually, im from the tribal areas. I personally have nothing against the drone strikes when they actually kill militant targets. But thats off topic here so theres little need to discuss it here. If indians are to be believed, Pakistanis took a boat and shot up your financial city and held the damned place hostage. They didnt even use unmanned platforms, they just carried a few magazines. So i fail to see your point?


----------



## PakistaniPacifist

kingkobra said:


> Sorry...
> 
> What you were looking for cannot be found. It may have been moved or the URL address you've used is incorrect.
> 
> You can try a search on the right, start from our home page, or see if it was one of our popular posts below:
> =================
> just like sane pakistanis can not be found



Working perfectly fine for me, maybe its banned in India .

http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/-india-photos-chinese-netizen-reactions.html

Should that fail, then worry not, type the website into google along with India and click on the first link shown!

Your lucky as i don't link disappointing my Indian fan-base.

Thank me later


----------



## kingkobra

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> well if the dear leaders authorize them, then you should talk to them
> 
> actually, im from the tribal areas. I personally have nothing against the drone strikes when they actually kill militant targets. But thats off topic here so theres little need to discuss it here. If indians are to be believed, Pakistanis took a boat and shot up your financial city and held the damned place hostage. They didnt even use unmanned platforms, they just carried a few magazines. So i fail to see your point?


 
what i meant was that we are totally aware of problems in our country but you guys let foreign country attack on your own land and you compare yourself with us?????


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

of course were aware of our problems; a lot of them are discussed here even....the chief problem is that the governance is not their to confront the problems and to some extent some of the assholes who exacerbate the problems are not having a lid put on them

we are aware.....if you think otherwise, youre clearly blind.


but were also a very proud people and proud nation --even with what we have. We could be prouder, and we will be. We arent self-hating people. There's a difference between indian and Pakistanis. Perhaps you would forgive me for a possibly offensive, sweeping generalization. indian are self-hating and have inferiority complex. Pakistanis are arrogant and over-confident --at times to our peril.


----------



## kingkobra

PakistaniPacifist said:


> Working perfectly fine for me, maybe its banned in India .
> 
> http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/-india-photos-chinese-netizen-reactions.html
> 
> Should that fail, then worry not, type the website into google along with India and click on the first link shown!
> 
> Your lucky as i don't link disappointing my Indian fan-base.
> 
> Thank me later


 
some of chinese replies to it

&#30333;_&#39532;_&#38750;_&#39532; (on Tianya) & &#21531;&#23376;&#22374;&#34507;&#34507; (on LiuLiu):

I just want to say, there are a lot of places in China that are just the same. Don&#8217;t use the same air of superiority that Hong Kong and Taiwan people have when they look at mainlanders to look at India. I don&#8217;t like it.

&#33521;&#35821;&#32501;&#32501; (on Tianya) & &#19971;&#22812; (on LiuLiu):

All this is easy to fix, just use violence. China uses the hukou system to keep the poor population from settling in cities, and then uses chengguan to beat the rabble to death. The cities will then look very nice.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

kingkobra said:


> some of chinese replies to it
> 
> &#30333;_&#39532;_&#38750;_&#39532; (on Tianya) & &#21531;&#23376;&#22374;&#34507;&#34507; (on LiuLiu):
> 
> I just want to say, there are a lot of places in China that are just the same. Don&#8217;t use the same air of superiority that Hong Kong and Taiwan people have when they look at mainlanders to look at India. I don&#8217;t like it.
> 
> &#33521;&#35821;&#32501;&#32501; (on Tianya) & &#19971;&#22812; (on LiuLiu):
> 
> All this is easy to fix, just use violence. China uses the hukou system to keep the poor population from settling in cities, and then uses chengguan to beat the rabble to death. The cities will then look very nice.


 
No Chinese cities just look nice when compared to crappy cities in India. Even third tier ones are better than any first tier Indian cities.

Heres a list of all the cities in China better than the best cities in India

Shenzhen
Wuhan
Chengdu
Beijing
Hong Kong
Chongqing
Shanghai
Tianjin
Hangzhou
Nanjing
Harbin
Shenyang
Qingdao

etc etc etc etc etc.

Among 160 cities with over 1 million people. I can't bring myself to compare them with any Indian city in quality without falling off my chair laughing.

As for violence Chinese cities are among the most safe in the world. Not even police are issued with guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MyPakistan1947

kingkobra said:


> what i meant was that we are totally aware of problems in our country but you guys let foreign country attack on your own land and you compare yourself with us?????


 
typical indian coward,now you got a taste of your own medicine,you back off. you were trying to do point scoring on the dead innocent pakistanis.


----------



## kingkobra

tanlixiang28776 said:


> No Chinese cities just look nice when compared to crappy cities in India. Even third tier ones are better than any first tier Indian cities.
> 
> Heres a list of all the cities in China better than the best cities in India
> 
> Shenzhen
> Wuhan
> Chengdu
> Beijing
> Hong Kong
> Chongqing
> Shanghai
> Tianjin
> Hangzhou
> Nanjing
> Harbin
> Shenyang
> Qingdao
> 
> etc etc etc etc etc.
> 
> Among 160 cities with over 1 million people. I can't bring myself to compare them with any Indian city in quality.


 
yes i agree you guys have done a great job with your hukou system,haven't you??
our cities are also trying to improve,slowly but yes they are improving and we can feel the change everyday

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## tanlixiang28776

kingkobra said:


> yes i agree you guys have done a great job with your hukou system,haven't you??
> our cities are also trying to improve,slowly but yes they are improving and we can feel the change everyday


 
Do you really want video responses about Indian cities? Well if you must.






Hukou can be changed Mr. Ignoramus. My entire extended family were peasants and now they all live in cities. Nobody stopped them. You might get harassed if you sit on your a** and just loiter.

Corruption and is not something you want to compare when it comes to India. You guys take the gold for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Maarbey laandy, ghora-ay yaady
Orokai khola lobey khabaary


----------



## MyPakistan1947

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> If indians are to be believed, Pakistanis took a boat and shot up your financial city and held the damned place hostage. They didnt even use unmanned platforms, they just carried a few magazines. So i fail to see your point?


 
those teenage pakistanis had the whole of mumbai on lock-down.the city of tens of millions of ppl could not control some teenagers.

all 1 billion of indians fearing 

ahahahhaha so funny.this is going down in history for future pakistanis


----------



## kingkobra

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Do you really want video responses about Indian cities? Well if you must.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hukou can be changed Mr. Ignoramus. My entire extended family were peasants and now they all live in cities. Nobody stopped them. You might get harassed if you sit on your a** and just loiter.


 
lol when did i say that indian cities are super clean and fantabulous??
its just that you people hide more than you show to the world but we are like an open book

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## tanlixiang28776

kingkobra said:


> lol when did i say that indian cities are super clean and fantabulous??
> its just that you people hide more than you show to the world but we are like an open book


 
Calling Chinese cities clean simply because of Hukou is ridiculous. It doesn't stop you from going to cities. You just have to fill out forms to get it changed.

There are many poor people in Chinese cities. If they commit a crime like any other citizen they will be subject to arrests.

And focusing on poor as more likely to commit crimes is not a uniquely Chinese phenomenon. There are far more police in slums then suburbs here in America.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

well we shouldnt laugh about it since we also have terrorism issue....innocent ppl did die. Lets be the bigger man and acknowledge it. 

but the amount of double-standards and propaganda by indians here is simply so appaling that it actually makes it fun to read

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MyPakistan1947

@ Joe Shearer,

you previously claimed/lied punjabis and sindhis(you probably meant kashmiris too) are genetically same as indians, only pashtun are different.

but kashmiris,punjabis,and sindhis are just as genetically distinct from indians as pashtuns: (There is a blue line in each individual race - which shows West Asian or other influence - if you look at other Indians it is very, very low, to none at all. Whereas in Punjabis, Sindhis and Kashmiri's and Balochis - it makes up for about a quarter of our genetics, and in some cases more than half, pretty much same amount as Pashtuns)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Rosenberg2007.png


i dont care about genetics,but this is had to be posted to refute indian lies and propganda. and all pakistanis are genetcially closely related to one another.

genetics should not have anything to do with historical events anyways. because genetically pakistanis are also related to eastern europeans/slavic peoples.but that does not mean pakistanis can take credit for russian/slavic history,nor does it mean pakistanis are the same as eastern europeans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakistaniPacifist

kingkobra said:


> some of chinese replies to it
> All this is easy to fix, just use violence. China uses the hukou system to keep the poor population from settling in cities, and then uses chengguan to beat the rabble to death. The cities will then look very nice.



I honestly don't care about the Chinese replies as those pictures tell a story in itself and having seen all the major areas in Pakistan bar Karachi i am proud to state that although despite our current situation atleast my people regardless of how poor some maybe they atleast don't live like animals. 

What China does or how there cities looks has nothing to do with me, members of my family have visited China and spoke highly of the countries infrastructure and facilities, they were touched by the warmth of the Chinese citizens the only negative i ever heard about the country was regarding the smog which is to be expected of a country on the verge of becoming a superpower.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> well we shouldnt laugh about it since we also have terrorism issue....innocent ppl did die. Lets be the bigger man and acknowledge it.
> 
> but the amount of double-standards and propaganda by indians here is simply so appaling that it actually makes it fun to read


 
Nice Avatar.

And sorry for going off topic. When someone makes obviously false and simplistic cases I feel the urge to correct them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MyPakistan1947

back to the topic: IVC,Vedic civilisation,univerity in Taxila(said to be the oldest known university in the world), and many more historic sights and events which took place in modern-day pakistan do belong to the people of pakistan,and we pakistanis who are aware of the history do take pride in our history.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

due to media, mixed marriages, and time itself -- Pakistani Pakhtuns, Baloch, Punjabis, Kashmiris, Sindhis etc. have had time to develop bonds and ties. They can communicate with eachother no problem. They is a fraternal sense of belonging and living as one nation.


you will never hear a Pakhtun say ''why the hell should i learn Urdu'' or hear a Sindhi say ''we have nothing in common and want nothing to do with Baloch or Punjabi''

there is no north vs. south or east vs. west phenomenon or complex in Pakistan. There are ethnic jokes, but its all in good fun. Of course they (the indians) will bring up violence in Karachi....which is more political and not ethnic. ANP and MQM just happen to be at loggerheads for their own personal reasons, with PPP in between


----------



## guest11

MyPakistan1947 said:


> those teenage pakistanis had the whole of mumbai on lock-down.the city of tens of millions of ppl could not control some teenagers.
> 
> all 1 billion of indians fearing
> 
> ahahahhaha so funny.this is going down in history for future pakistanis


 
Now you wouldn't mind if I remind you that your 30,000 BRAVE and GALLANT soldiers waved their white Flags when facing just 3,000 not so brave Indian soldiers.

Well, here's a fun fact for you - You lost half of your country to the Indian Army.

Now, forgive me if you don't find this fact simply mind blowing.


----------



## MyPakistan1947

guest11 said:


> Now you wouldn't mind if I remind you that your 30,000 BRAVE and GALLANT soldiers waved their white Flags when facing just 3,000 not so brave Indian soldiers.
> 
> Well, here's a fun fact for you - You lost half of your country to the Indian Army.
> 
> Now, forgive me if you don't find this fact simply mind blowing.



lol what i find "mind blowing" is the fact you think because of india we lost east pakistan lol

the reason we lost east pakistan was because of the population in east pakistan at that time didnt support pakistan.not because of india.dont flatter yourself to much.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

and besides, what's done is done. A lot of even the most nationalistic Bengalis still consider india to be the enemy....strange realities


----------



## guest11

Yes you are right, your tanks were outgunned by BANGLADESHI tanks, your sabers were lost to the BANGLADESHI F-22s (going by your logic even this might be true). There is no doubt that Muktis did their job pretty well but undermining Indian efforts is not a good thing because as I stated in another thread, every single bullet that Muktis fired were provided by RAW and Indian Army and of course training.

Here's another fun fact - We took more than 90,000 POWs, and yes you surrendered to us Indians not Bangladeshis. They would have ripped your soldiers apart. That makes us what, let me find an appropriate word

*YOUR SAVIORS* 

Now, you can laugh as much as you want because I just had my share and my stomach won't take it anymore.


----------



## guest11

Yes, that's true, but the discussion should be about the reason. Same goes for some Bangladeshis who blindly support Pakistan and feel they should have remained under Pakistani rule.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> only real empires u ''had'' was britisher empire and Moghuls


 
Mauryan,Kharavela, Gupta, Palas, Chola,Marathas,Mughals, etc





























> the reason we lost east pakistan was because of the population in east pakistan at that time didnt support pakistan.not because of india.dont flatter yourself to much.



He has every right to flatter himself..

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## harsh1488

where did you pakistanis learn that most of the descendents of IVC stayed in the region now pakistan and not migrated,did the some how time travelled and told you or did they come in your dream
why would an advanced civilization with well planned cities leave their city and go live in the parts which were not as developed
and someone said that most of the invaders just went past the people of IVC and settled in current india,do you have any source to prove it or are you from zaid hamid fan club


----------



## Vinod2070

MyPakistan1947 said:


> those teenage pakistanis had the whole of mumbai on lock-down.the city of tens of millions of ppl could not control some teenagers.
> 
> all 1 billion of indians fearing
> 
> *ahahahhaha so funny.this is going down in history for future pakistanis *


 
Your support for terror is the reason Pakistan is in such mess today.

You have become a failed state and terror is devouring thousands of innocent lives.

There is a reason for all that. And the reason is you and some more sick people who show why they are being bombed with drones and why your mosques full of worshippers are being blown apart.

Some people are trying to airbrush the issues, they are living in ignorance typical of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

MyPakistan1947 said:


> those teenage pakistanis had the whole of mumbai on lock-down.the city of tens of millions of ppl could not control some teenagers.
> 
> all 1 billion of indians fearing
> 
> ahahahhaha so funny.this is going down in history for future pakistanis


 
I agree with you: this is going down in history for future Pakistanis. Not for the reasons you imagined in your diseased, underdeveloped mind, but as an example of beastly psychopathic behaviour. 

Have you no shame? These were the same incidents that were initially denied as being of Pakistani terrorist origin, then denied as unprovable, then denied as belonging to the fringe elements of Pakistani society, elements beyond the control of the decent and law-abiding Pakistani, then denied as elements of the deep state that had escaped supervision, thrown off controls and was working without the knowledge and consent of their erstwhile handlers, then finally, before you came out with this sick statement, denied as belonging to elements of the ISI acting on their own. 

And now your crowning statement.

Shame on you for taking pleasure in, and bragging about the deaths of innocent civilians, including women and children. Shame on those responsible for your socialisation, for having made such a dismal mess of it. Do you consider yourself fit for human society?

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Vinod2070

Joe Shearer said:


> I agree with you: this is going down in history for future Pakistanis. Not for the reasons you imagined in your diseased, underdeveloped mind, but as an example of beastly psychopathic behaviour.
> 
> Have you no shame? These were the same incidents that were initially denied as being of Pakistani terrorist origin, then denied as unprovable, then denied as belonging to the fringe elements of Pakistani society, elements beyond the control of the decent and law-abiding Pakistani, then denied as elements of the deep state that had escaped supervision, thrown off controls and was working without the knowledge and consent of their erstwhile handlers, then finally, before you came out with this sick statement, denied as belonging to elements of the ISI acting on their own.
> 
> And now your crowning statement.
> 
> Shame on you for taking pleasure in, and bragging about the deaths of innocent civilians, including women and children. Shame on those responsible for your socialisation, for having made such a dismal mess of it. Do you consider yourself fit for human society?


 
There are far too many like this, cowardly Talibunny supporters and terror supporters.

Then they lament about their "image"! That image is a reflection of their reality and its not going to change any time soon.

It comes from a warped version of an ideology and its deeply ingrained and nurtured for decades.

I still regret the death of every single innocent Pakistani and every innocent human being anywhere.

The terror supporters can go burn in hell.


----------



## Alla hoo

Martial race?? My Pichwada 

Your cultural identity is of a head less chicken running randomly here and there and mostly towards the Saudi arabia for recognition. Lekin yahan ke bhi nahi rahe aur wahan ke bhi nahi rahe. Dhobi ka kuttaa na ghar ka (India ka) na Ghat ka (Saudi arab ka).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PakistaniPacifist

Vinod2070 said:


> Your support for terror is the reason Pakistan is in such mess today.
> 
> You have become a failed state and terror is devouring thousands of innocent lives.
> 
> There is a reason for all that. And the reason is you and some more sick people who show why they are being bombed with drones and why your mosques full of worshippers are being blown apart.
> 
> Some people are trying to airbrush the issues, they are living in ignorance typical of them.




Seriously Indian drop this houlier than thou attitude Gujrat and Punjab didn't occur to long ago and lets not bring up the state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir least not forgetting the Naxalite-Maiost rebellion.

You should learn to take your own advice instead of airbrushing the overpopulation affecting your country as well as the rampant rise of Aids in India.

This has become a daily occurence here on PDF with insecure Indians obvously being rattled at the comments in the thread and then spitting the dummy out of the pram. If Indians had any pride or self-worth, they would have deleted their account and joined Indians equivalent of PDF. Pathetic nation of people!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Alla hoo

Insecure? Can you not see me laughing by showing all the 32 teeth. This is not insecurity. This is having fun at your desperation and frustration.

We have our cultural heritage and we have no problem with insecurity. Insecurity creeps into people who have nothing but want to show they have something.


----------



## PlanetWarrior

PakistaniPacifist said:


> Seriously Indian drop this houlier than thou attitude Gujrat and Punjab didn't occur to long ago and lets not bring up the state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir least not forgetting the Naxalite-Maiost rebellion.
> 
> You should learn to take your own advice instead of airbrushing the overpopulation affecting your country as well as the rampant rise of Aids in India.
> 
> This has become a daily occurence here on PDF with insecure Indians obvously being rattled at the comments in the thread and then spitting the dummy out of the pram. If Indians had any pride or self-worth, they would have deleted their account and joined Indians equivalent of PDF. Pathetic nation of people!



Most Indians are here to attempt to understand the mindset of their neighbours. Thankfully your terror praising , sick and warped Taliban type mentality is perceived to be in the minority. As Joe mentioned above, your praise of what most Pakistanis are ashamed of, namely *international terrorism* makes you sound naive and immature. It is your type of mentality which the world justifies as being the "typical Pakistani mentality" which results in the world condoning excesses against the followers of Islam such as Guatanamo torture centre and the alleged kidnapping and sentencing of Siddiqui. Sadly, yours is not the typical Pakistani mentality but sometimes it seems to be the most vocal mentality in Pakistan. 

Yeah as a Hindu and an Indian I am ashamed of my country and my nation for Gujarat massacre and for the demolotion of the Babri mosque. A sick minority in India however will boast of those atrocities like the way you boasted about Mumbai. I am just grateful that our sick minorities do not expose their anti-social, warped mentality on internet forums thus making it seem that it is the mentality of the average Indian.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PlanetWarrior

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> of course were aware of our problems; a lot of them are discussed here even....the chief problem is that the governance is not their to confront the problems and to some extent some of the assholes who exacerbate the problems are not having a lid put on them
> 
> we are aware.....if you think otherwise, youre clearly blind.
> 
> 
> *but were also a very proud people and proud nation --even with what we have. We could be prouder, and we will be. We arent self-hating people. There's a difference between indian and Pakistanis. Perhaps you would forgive me for a possibly offensive, sweeping generalization. indian are self-hating and have inferiority complex. Pakistanis are arrogant and over-confident --at times to our peril*.


 
Let me help you out here buddy. We aren't "self hating with any inferiority complex" . We are just cautious and diplomatic. We know how to tell you to get lost and to give you directions thereafter to getting lost. Unlike you people, we do not pull out a weapon everytime we get upset. Well I guess that would make us ummm what would you say? More evolved than you ? 

Now everytime you people show off your umm "confidence and arrogance" (I believe that is how you stated it) you get kicked in the rear  Allow me to give you some examples. Kashmir (your jugular vein is being squeezed by India. If only you asked nicely, we may have listened to you). Water disputes with India (live with it or bomb the dams..if you bomb the dams you get washed away. If you asked nicely, we may have given you what you wanted). Bangladesh and 1971. (Either we defeated your army or we saved it from the angry Bengalis....either way ..we either saved your a$$ or we whipped it....you decide ) Internationally .....ewwww you guys are real rotten fish in the international market..lets not even thread there. On the other hand..Incredible India shines....economically, socially and diplomatically. It is the darling of the world. It is doing it slowly but surely..minus the arrogance which you have but with the confidence which you think you have. On that note, and examining the current scenario...I truly wish that Indians and Pakistanis are genetically and historically different. In fact I could wish that you were of Middle East or even American descent. Who cares. Sadly though, my family was displaced from the Punjab and in effect my homeland is part of what is now Pakistan . So stop embarrasing my ancestors with that holier than thou attitude yaar

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Vinod2070

PlanetWarrior said:


> Let me help you out here buddy. We aren't "self hating with any inferiority complex" . We are just cautious and diplomatic. We know how to tell you to get lost and to give you directions thereafter to getting lost. Unlike you people, we do not pull out a weapon everytime we get upset. Well I guess that would make us ummm what would you say? More evolved that you ?
> 
> Now everytime you people show off your umm "confidence and arrogance" (I believe that is how you stated it) you get kicked in the rear  Allow me to give you some examples. Kashmir (your jugular vein is being squeezed by India. If only you asked nicely, we may have listened to you). Water disputes with India (live with it or bomb the dams..if you bomb the dams you get washed away. If you asked nicely, we may have given you what you wanted). Bangladesh and 1971. (Either we defeated your army or we saved it from the angry Bengalis....either way ..we either saved your a$$ or we whipped it....you decide ) Internationally .....ewwww you guys are real rotten fish in the international market..lets not even thread there. On the other hand..Incredible India shines....economically, socially and diplomatically. It is the darling of the world. It is doing it slowly but surely..minus the arrogance which you have but with the confidence which you think you have. On that note, and examining the current scenario...I truly wish that Indians and Pakistanis are genetically and historically different. In fact I could wish that you were of Middle East or even American descent. Who cares. Sadly though, my family was displaced from the Punjab and in effect my homeland is part of what is now Pakistan . So stop embarrasing my ancestors with that holier than thou attitude yaar


 
The pretensions of these guys are really funny, really deluded they are.

Even the primitive lawless tribals living in the stone age try to show off here.

Height of optimism. 

BTW, please stop faking to be Indians in the West. It is embarrassing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Truth Teller

Vinod2070 said:


> The pretensions of these guys are really funny, really deluded they are.
> 
> Even the primitive lawless tribals living in the stone age try to show off here.
> 
> Height of optimism.
> 
> BTW, please stop faking to be Indians in the West. It is embarrassing.



"Deluded" because we dislike indians. 

Still not over the rejection,eh?

Keep whining and beggining us for acceptance.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------




Vinod2070 said:


> The pretensions of these guys are really funny, really deluded they are.
> 
> Even the primitive lawless tribals living in the stone age try to show off here.
> 
> Height of optimism.
> 
> BTW, please stop faking to be Indians in the West. It is embarrassing.



"Deluded" because we dis-like indians. 

Still not over the rejection,eh?

Keep whining and beggining us for acceptance.


----------



## PlanetWarrior

Truth Teller said:


> "Deluded" because we dislike indians.
> 
> Still not over the rejection,eh?
> 
> Keep whining and beggining us for acceptance.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> "Deluded" because we dis-like indians.
> 
> Still not over the rejection,eh?
> 
> Keep *whining and beggining *us for acceptance.


 
Wow your superior intelligence and form has us in awe. 
May I continue "beggining" you for acceptance

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

PakistaniPacifist said:


> Seriously Indian drop this houlier than thou attitude Gujrat and Punjab didn't occur to long ago and lets not bring up the state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir least not forgetting the Naxalite-Maiost rebellion.
> 
> You should learn to take your own advice instead of airbrushing the overpopulation affecting your country as well as the rampant rise of Aids in India.
> 
> This has become a daily occurence here on PDF with insecure Indians obvously being rattled at the comments in the thread and then spitting the dummy out of the pram. If Indians had any pride or self-worth, they would have deleted their account and joined Indians equivalent of PDF. Pathetic nation of people!


 
This is insult on injury. There was no discussion going on about occurrences in each other's nations. There was one of your countrymen jubilant at the death and destruction caused by your own people in a murderous and cowardly terrorist attack on India. There is no comparison possible with anything but another terrorist attack, one by Indians on Pakistanis.

Your comments in your last paragraph are not deserving of any attention, only of the contempt that they inspire. Where you see insecure Indians is difficult to understand; in your nightmares, possibly.


----------



## KS

PlanetWarrior said:


> Let me help you out here buddy. We aren't "self hating with any inferiority complex" . We are just cautious and diplomatic. We know how to tell you to get lost and to give you directions thereafter to getting lost. Unlike you people, we do not pull out a weapon everytime we get upset. Well I guess that would make us ummm what would you say? More evolved than you ?
> 
> Now everytime you people show off your umm "confidence and arrogance" (I believe that is how you stated it) you get kicked in the rear  Allow me to give you some examples. Kashmir (your jugular vein is being squeezed by India. If only you asked nicely, we may have listened to you). Water disputes with India (live with it or bomb the dams..if you bomb the dams you get washed away. If you asked nicely, we may have given you what you wanted). Bangladesh and 1971. (Either we defeated your army or we saved it from the angry Bengalis....either way ..we either saved your a$$ or we whipped it....you decide ) Internationally .....ewwww you guys are real rotten fish in the international market..lets not even thread there. On the other hand..Incredible India shines....economically, socially and diplomatically. It is the darling of the world. It is doing it slowly but surely..minus the arrogance which you have but with the confidence which you think you have. On that note, and examining the current scenario...I truly wish that Indians and Pakistanis are genetically and historically different. In fact I could wish that you were of Middle East or even American descent. Who cares. Sadly though, my family was displaced from the Punjab and in effect my homeland is part of what is now Pakistan . So stop embarrasing my ancestors with that holier than thou attitude yaar


 
Ouch ! that one must have hurt real bad.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Truth Teller

Joe Shearer said:


> Your comments in your last paragraph are not deserving of any attention


 
Stop giving him attention then.Simple.


----------



## Wolfenstein

Rather a off topic post but I have been completely surprised at the hate some Pakistani members here have towards Indians. Surprised because i have met quite a good numbers of Pakistanis in real & they are too friendly, simple & down to earth kind. Not that Indians members are angels. But i find too much hate in here to digest. Makes me wonder if there is really a scope for a decent debate..Just my 2cents!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dalai Lama

Wolfenstein said:


> Rather a off topic post but I have been completely surprised at the hate some Pakistani members here have towards Indians. Surprised because i have met quite a good numbers of Pakistanis in real & they are too friendly, simple & down to earth kind. Not that Indians members are angels. But i find too much hate in here to digest. Makes me wonder if there is really a scope for a decent debate..Just my 2cents!!



It's the 'interwebz'...


----------



## Joe Shearer

Wolfenstein said:


> Rather a off topic post but I have been completely surprised at the hate some Pakistani members here have towards Indians. Surprised because i have met quite a good numbers of Pakistanis in real & they are too friendly, simple & down to earth kind. Not that Indians members are angels. But i find too much hate in here to digest. Makes me wonder if there is really a scope for a decent debate..Just my 2cents!!


 
It's not a correct impression (thank Heavens). 

The hard core of this forum stays clear of these disgraceful exhibitions. If you are lucky to get their attention and get them into a discussion, you will thank yourself for having come here. 

The most authoritative on any military matter is Fatman17; the wisest and most mature (in my book) is Niaz Sahib; one of the best read is Road Runner, and the sharpest tongue belongs beyond dispute to Developereo. But for sheer encyclopaedic knowledge, even beyond my own (Indian) favourite, Austerlitz, is Alternative. He is a style Nazi and a bully and tends to pull you up sharply for even minor mistakes, but shocks you with his sheer knowledge, especially of anything to do with India. 

These are people in whose presence it is a good idea to take off your hat. 

Among the moderators, there is a liberal stalwart, but it is unfair, I think, for a member to talk about the moderators, and bad for discipline to discuss them besides. Suffice it to say that they are the most broad-minded and generous of the forum, and all that you have seen on vulgar display here is completely cancelled out by their generosity and fairness (I say this after having tangled with more than one of them, and having gone down in flames, but with all guns firing).

You will make a terrible mistake to take the behaviour of the occasional fanboy and super-jingo as representative, and be discouraged by those. A useful tip is to avoid the newcomers, since they are bent on winning military victory within this forum. My own suggestion to new members from India is to be polite and deferential until you have a good idea of who represents what, and to go on being polite and deferential thereafter; you never know whom you are talking to, and it is best not to make a fool of yourself being rude to a superior person. In general, it is best not to make a fool of yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Developereo said:


> The troll brigade is here. Time to leave...


 
I am sorry I didn't realise that this was such good advice at the time.


----------



## Twain Shakespeare

UnitedPak said:


> Of all the people, an Indian goes on a rant about Jihad. No Pakistani in this thread so far has brought Islam into the discussion. You are the one in denial, and you just proved you barely understand the history of Pakistan.
> 
> 
> So by your argument, if you converted to Islam right now, your parents wont be related to you anymore???
> 
> I know the media is biased against Islam, but jeez, calm down on the dosage of Fox news, it really isnt good for you.



Thanking for the thread, not this post in particular.
On this side of the pond, until Ronald Reagan was elected, I was taught that I had a Greco-Roman heritage, since then all have heard about is being a Judeo-Christian.
The truth is, all of us are heirs of the human race. 

Pakistanis, you are part of at least three historical traditions, the Islamic, or Abrahamic, however far back you trace it, the tradition of the Indian continent, which goes back to the Indus valley 5000 years ago, and the modern global civilization, which is drawing all humanity into its rule.
As Pakistanis, you are able to identify with any of these traditions, or all of them, but whatever you choose, get used to the schizophrenia.

Bharatis and Muslims should both note that Indian traditions and civilization have been interacting fruitfully with Islam for over a thousand years, both ways. India, in addition to having its indigenous tradition, has been a more integral part of Islamic civilization than Europe has, until recently, when Islam's relation to the Global culture resembles India's relation to Islamic culture.

It is not amusing that the worst hatreds of humans are between kinfolks. Peace, love and wisdom be upon you

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bigest

Nothing is more important than to receive history education.


----------



## jamal18

twofriends said:


> I cant understand why history is so controversial?


 History is _extremely_ controversial. 

It goes to the bone of what a people believe about themselves.


----------



## ThunderCat

metro said:


> Whoa this is hilarious !! Pakistanis is so desperate for 'respect' and 'legitimacy' that now you guys even want to steal Indian history ? haha. Piece of land does not a civilization make. A civilization is a set of traditions, set of ethics, rituals, religions, way of life, etc.
> 
> In India the religion, traditions of ancient 'Indian' civilizations are still practiced, hence the civilizations are Indian. Pakistan was but a small part of the larger 'India'.
> 
> Pakistan gave up its claim to this civilizational inheritance the day it chose to be an 'Islamic Republic'. Pakistan has as much claim to IVC as the modern Egyptians have to the ancient Egyptian civilization i.e. nil, nada, zilch. Pakistan is an offshoot of Arabic civilization now. The sooner you accept it, the less heartburn shall you suffer.
> 
> Otherwise you are welcome to wage your 'jihad' against world history. I don't think the prospects of success are too bright though.----blitz


 
What a contradiction. First we are a part of India then we are part of Arabs? Make up your mind. As for practicing Indus Valley religion or even vedic religion not a single shroud of evidence to prove it. The Vedic culture arrived from Eastern Europe around 3000 BC and the Kalash are the only people on Earth to practice it.


----------



## MadDog

Most Indians have a inferiority complex when it comes to Pakistan. 

Pakistan of today, has been part of Persian empire (west of Indus) for a long time, Umayyad caliphate and Abbasid caliphate, later the Afghan kingdoms but no one tries to claim Pakistan the way the indians do.

The reason is simple, they don't want to affiliate themselves with Bangladesh although that too was part of British India, they always try to associate themselves with Pakistan.

*I don't know exactly why, probably it has something to do with the fact that Indians on average are a bunch of people who are unattractive in terms of looks so they want to associate themselves with a different country to their west....which can be proved from that fact that recently when an average looking Pakistan Foreign Minister went to India, the news headlines appeared there "Pakistan's bomb lands in india" *

Or it may be that they think that the Muslims of this region ruled for 800 to 1000 years and there is some kind of complex that the Muslim culture has a lot of attraction in it.

But whatever it is....the Indians no matter where u debate on this forum ...they will try their best to convince that they are some how same as Pakistanis..lol


----------



## alphamale

ThunderCat said:


> What a contradiction. First we are a part of India then we are part of Arabs? Make up your mind. As for practicing Indus Valley religion or even vedic religion not a single shroud of evidence to prove it. The *Vedic culture arrived from Eastern Europe around 3000 BC* and the Kalash are the only people on Earth to practice it.


 
indo-aryan invasion is a myth, it was never proved.


----------



## alphamale

MadDog said:


> Most Indians have a inferiority complex when it comes to Pakistan.
> 
> Pakistan of today, has been part of Persian empire (west of Indus) for a long time, Umayyad caliphate and Abbasid caliphate, later the Afghan kingdoms but no one tries to claim Pakistan the way the indians do.
> 
> The reason is simple, they don't want to affiliate themselves with Bangladesh although that too was part of British India, they always try to associate themselves with Pakistan.
> 
> *I don't know exactly why, probably it has something to do with the fact that Indians on average are a bunch of people who are unattractive in terms of looks so they want to associate themselves with a different country to their west....which can be proved from that fact that recently when an average looking Pakistan Foreign Minister went to India, the news headlines appeared there "Pakistan's bomb lands in india" *
> 
> Or it may be that they think that the Muslims of this region ruled for 800 to 1000 years and there is some kind of complex that the Muslim culture has a lot of attraction in it.
> 
> But whatever it is....the Indians no matter where u debate on this forum ...they will try their best to convince that they are some how same as Pakistanis..lol


 
ur whole post is full of frustration,hate & racism. first of all indians affiliate themselves with all neighbors not only pakistan. plus we indians do not give importance to muslim culture only, we respect all cultures. we indians do not desperately try to show that we are from diff planet. the point is that u like many pakistanis always try their level best to show that pakistani do not share a single thing with india & if someone show u a mirror u ppl get pissed.


----------



## Subramanian

MadDog said:


> Most Indians have a inferiority complex when it comes to Pakistan.
> 
> Pakistan of today, has been part of Persian empire (west of Indus) for a long time, Umayyad caliphate and Abbasid caliphate, later the Afghan kingdoms but no one tries to claim Pakistan the way the indians do.
> 
> The reason is simple, they don't want to affiliate themselves with Bangladesh although that too was part of British India, they always try to associate themselves with Pakistan.
> 
> *I don't know exactly why, probably it has something to do with the fact that Indians on average are a bunch of people who are unattractive in terms of looks so they want to associate themselves with a different country to their west....which can be proved from that fact that recently when an average looking Pakistan Foreign Minister went to India, the news headlines appeared there "Pakistan's bomb lands in india" *
> 
> Or it may be that they think that the Muslims of this region ruled for 800 to 1000 years and there is some kind of complex that the Muslim culture has a lot of attraction in it.
> 
> But whatever it is....the Indians no matter where u debate on this forum ...they will try their best to convince that they are some how same as Pakistanis..lol


 
I dont know about others,but a lot of us south indians have mongloid blood in us and love the province of Bengal for whatever it has given us.

I love Bengali culture,its literary traditions,the super attractive feminine personality of its women,the great rice fields,the great rivers and the warm content psyche of its people and the mythical city of Calcutta which is anyday better than that desert town of Dilli.

I think you hear and see what you want to and it is alright if you have a superiority complex,dont expect us to take it too seriously.

And at last,Pakistani punjabis all existed in around indian punjab and haryana and Pakistani punjab was full of Hindus/Sikhs.Dont try to act cool and claim ownership over a piece of land that was not even yours.

Dilli is where ur ummah was and the fertile land of Punjab was always hindu/sikh.

That way only the Pashtuns and Kashmiris live in their original land.


----------



## Subramanian

I have a lot of friends from everywhere around the world and the pakistanis and indians get slotted in the same box for them as much as they would like to squeeze themselves out.

The problem is they try to exist as a single homogenous entity getting away from the pluralist ethos of our country.

Everyone is trying to be like Indians now,whether it is the Latin American Conciousness fulled by Che Guevara or the European Monetary UNion/GCC countries of the arabs or the Pan-Turk ethos led by Turkey,ASEAN,Oceania with Australia and NZ.

Well India has been existing like this for centuries and will continue to do for eternity and myopic people with short term interests will try to talk and act otherwise denying the tirth of common-sense.


----------



## Subramanian

well,everyone except the pakistanis who take Jinnah/Liuaqat Ali Khan too seriously.


----------



## Subramanian

ThunderCat said:


> What a contradiction. First we are a part of India then we are part of Arabs? Make up your mind. As for practicing Indus Valley religion or even vedic religion not a single shroud of evidence to prove it. The Vedic culture arrived from Eastern Europe around 3000 BC and the Kalash are the only people on Earth to practice it.


 
My grandfather living in Kanyakumari practiced it much better than the Taliban squatting in the SWAT and KPK.


----------



## MadDog

@ Subramanian ...guys i never said Pakistan has nothing to do with india...Gujjars, rajputs and jatts a significant numbers of people are all natives of this land...but Pakistani people share culture with all the countries around it eg; native punjabis (as mentioned above) and indian punjabis, Pak baloch and iranian baloch, Pak hazaras and Afghan hazaras and Pak and Afghan Pushtuns.

Land to the west of indus was traditionally not india, and as far as ur claim that dehli was where our ummah (meaning muslim people) was...its shows ur knowledge of history. Muslim people lived from spain to indonesia, how can u claim that all the muslim people were in dehli, it was only the capital of Mughals.


----------



## Subramanian

Who cares about the west of the indus man?

All the big agricultural centres of pakistan Lahore,Lyallpur,Mianwali,Multan,Shiekapura,Gujranwala were all controlled by Hindus/Sikhs.

Only KPK/Northern areas,Balochistan are hardcore muslim.Anyway the point being the sufis had made hardcore religion irrelevant and had brought about a punjabi nationality.

I am sure muslims were there from Spain(Now thats a little too much,The catholic church packed off the arabs from spain and cleansed it fully) to Indonesia(Which is muslim only by name).

Culturally Dilli is the most significant place for Muslims and Islam in India was based from important centres like Dilli,Bhopal,Ahmedabad,Lucknow and Hyderabad.Patna too(else Bilal Haider ll be offended)

That way the hardcore muslims existed within Indian territory(The Mohajjirs of today) and not outside it.The cultural identity was always more important to people like Pashtuns and Baloch.

Thats why you see the people of Northwestern India and Pakistan to be similar regardless of faith.I am a south indian,i can objectively view these things but a punjabi friend of mine would be full anger and contempt for you guys due to obvious reasons.

Anyway,my opinion is the people of north west india and pakistan are pretty much the same and i know hindus/sikhs from as far as Peshwar and Quetta and they dont look much different than the muslims of that area.I ll exclude the Pakhtuns and Northern area people from this list as they r mountain people and are less mixed than the others.

PS: I agree with you that being on the periphery of the subcontinent pakistan is likely to look west also,as in north west towards iran/arabia.

But that line would come at baloch/KPK.The punjabis culturally look east not east enough towards lucknow but just east towards Indian Punjab,Rajasthan,Haryana and Himachal.


----------



## ThunderCat

alphamale said:


> indo-aryan invasion is a myth, it was never proved.


 
A myth only in the eyes of Indians, not the rest of the world. See this More Out of India Madness | Robert Lindsay

And this Map of the Out of India Theory | Robert Lindsay


----------



## aakash_2410

UnitedPak said:


> Nice to see people that know of Pakistans history.
> 
> Indians promote a very simple version of history to feel more secure about themselves. Their story shows that only 3 countries existed in "ancient times", and that was Persia, India and China. This is a very bs view since China and India were never United like today. The region of Pakistan has been independent from India for 95&#37; of the time. And India itself was never one country, apart from Ashokas rule which lasted an "amazing" 30 years.


 
Mate you've learnt wrong history. 

Ashoka neither was the first or the last ruler to to unite India. Nor it was only for 30 years. Maurya empire lasted for 250-350 years and after that the empire broke down in small kingdoms.

Emporer 'Bharat' was the first king ever to unite whole of India. The same king from whose name the name 'Bharat' comes from.

Bharat's empire:






And you forgot the empire which you guys think was yours. The Mughal empire? 
Mughal empire:





And the biggest empire before Brits took over was Maratha Empire which covered most of present day India.





And no we're not taught that India, China and Persia were the only countries at that time. We are taught about Egypt, Miser, Greece, Rome but at the point of time you are reffering to yes there were only 3 major countries. Because no one even had heard of Pakistan at that time. The first time word Pakistan was pronounced was only in 1930s by Iqbal. 

Porus was Indian king btw. If you'd do your research you'll only find title such as 'Indian king Porus' or 'Punjabi ruler Porus' but since Punjabis are so dominant in Pakistan you will class him as Pakistani I know.  And btw if Porus was ruling at the time of Afghans-Mongol invasions he would have NEVER surrendered or converted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tareekhepakistan

Please support & join this great cause on Pakistani history/heritage: Ancient Pakistan | Facebook


----------



## Alstonbernard

Government should take steps to improve the monuments...


----------



## alexx12lucyy

It doesnt stop here however. There are lots of other civilisations which were based in Pakistan, and run by Pakistanis, i.e Ghandara, Kushun empire, and even Muslim empires like Mughal empires started in Pakistan, and spread into India.


----------



## Matrixx

I fully agree....Pakistan history older than earth...


----------



## Lavosh1

.......


Pakistanis started Trolling ........  Confused Nation...


----------



## Joe Shearer

alexx12lucyy said:


> It doesnt stop here however. There are lots of other civilisations which were based in Pakistan, and run by Pakistanis, i.e Ghandara, Kushun empire, and even Muslim empires like Mughal empires started in Pakistan, and spread into India.



Another professor of history. 

What Ghandara are you talking about? There were Bactrian Greek kingdoms who started the sculpture now known as the Gandhara school: Greek, not Pakistani, nobody had dreamt of the name then. 

Kushuns? If you want to filch others' history, at least get your details correct. The 'Kushun', as you call them, were Tocharians of European kinship, speaking a language closer to European languages than to Indo-Iranian languages, and red-headed, trouser-wearing horsemen who were driven out of their desert oases and cities by the Hiung Nu. These were from the Tarim Basin, nothing to do with Pakistan.

The Mughals had nothing to do with the present territory of Pakistan to begin with. They were princes of Samarkand, who were dispossessed by Shaibani Khan and his Uzbeg, and made a home for themselves in Kabul. It was from Kabul that they attacked Delhi, defeated Ibrahim Lodi, and became rulers of north India, ranging down to the east up to present day Faizabad. Not to the west, but equally to east and west.

It is painful to read these half-digested bits of history from these half-digested scholars.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## farhan_9909

History or no history is Ok for unless and until we are not associated or told of being having origin in india.

which is something really offend us if someone call us you were once indian.


----------



## Matrixx

If I buy a house where several generation of a family lived.....Now I live there but I can not own that family's history.....my history starts from the day I started living there.....you know what I mean


----------



## Rafi

Our land and our history, can the indian please f off, thank you.


----------



## farhan_9909

@Joe Shearer 


Well he meant the ancient Pakistan civilization or also known as gandhara civilization

Gandhara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gandhara Civilization | History Pak


----------



## Lavosh1

Pakistani Has no ancient History....."Pakistan" Is product of foreign invasion and Barbaric activities did by them....


----------



## Lavosh1

farhan_9909 said:


> @Joe Shearer
> 
> 
> Well he meant the ancient Pakistan civilization or also known as gandhara civilization
> 
> Gandhara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Gandhara Civilization | History Pak




heheh idiot ...it was name of Afghanistan area Gandhar(Kandahar) in ancient Hindu Kingdom During Mahabharata and Ancient India . but with foreign invasion Original people got pushed in main land of India and your half male ancestors destroyed Civilization from face of that part....


----------



## T90TankGuy

Why have you restarted a 6 yr old thread?


----------



## farhan_9909

> Pakistani Has no ancient History....."Pakistan" Is product of foreign invasion and Barbaric activities did by them..



lol

So far i know indians are more ruled by foriegn than pakistan.could be that you guys are the real product of foreign invasions?

NOTE:by indian i typically here mean only Hindus excluding even the buddhist people

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 474474

Lavosh1 said:


> i think Forum have "Hits..." problem Presence of Members is Reduced , Mod's are trying to attract Indians and Pakistanis with the one of the most popular funny subject "Ancient" Pakistan
> 
> look at forum how dull is going ...members are very low Active....



cool story

so your website isnt making anymoney you come ranting here?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farhan_9909

Lavosh1 said:


> heheh idiot ...it was name of Afghanistan area Gandhar(Kandahar) in ancient Hindu Kingdom During Mahabharata and Ancient India . but with foreign invasion Original people got pushed in main land of India and your half male ancestors destroyed Civilization from face of that part....



Oh genius.

Than why the main cities of Pakistan civilization or in india known as gandhara civilization were peshawar and taxila?why it was majority in Present Day Pakistan

During partition people that migrated to pakistan are known as mahajir and they are not more than 5millions of total pakistna population today

So Pakistan even before partition.i mean majority of pakistani lived in the same region

which proves that pakistanis are not only the indigenous people of Gandhara civilization(pashtoons and baloch) while the indus civilization as well(Pakistani punjabi and Sindhi)

Both of these civilizations has no far far relation with india..

And this also prove that indians and pakistan were never same peopple.we from start were different race.we share nothing in common..

the language and few similarities clothers and cuisine are because after foriegn invaders we were merge together and living together for some odd 2000 years.

but again this doesnt mean pakistanis has origin in indians or related to indians

both are differnet races from the history point of view

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Lavosh1

farhan_9909 said:


> lol
> 
> So far i know indians are more ruled by foriegn than pakistan.could be that you guys are the real product of foreign invasions?
> 
> NOTE:by indian i typically here mean only Hindus excluding even the buddhist people




hehehe......Pakistan area of today have seen most invasion not Main Land India  which pushed to migrate original people in main land India , what remained is only Barbaric Activities did by invaders.......


----------



## Joe Shearer

farhan_9909 said:


> @Joe Shearer
> 
> 
> Well he meant the ancient Pakistan civilization or also known as gandhara civilization
> 
> Gandhara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Gandhara Civilization | History Pak



Hmm. Since you have taken the trouble to look it up, at least in Wikipedia, you deserve a fuller note of explanation.

This so-called ancient Pakistan civilisation was unfortunately no such thing. It was part of a set of kingdoms mentioned in Puranic, that is, post-Vedic times, in Sanskrit scripture. Now please get this on board: *This is legend and myth, and NOT history.* There is NO _historical_ record of any place called Gandhara, except in Hindu scripture. 

Of the two populist quasi-historical sites, neither is worth its weight in toilet paper as an historical record. The Wikipedia article talks briefly about Gandhara being a Mahajanapada, a conglomeration of kingdoms and oligarchies in immediately pre-Buddhist northern India, of which the really prominent members were the most eastern ones. It then makes a preposterous claim about the kingdom of Gandhara lasting from the 1st millennium BC (that is, 1000 BC) to the 11th century AD. _This is totally false. There was no continuous kingdom of Gandhara during this period._ After the Janapada, again a proto-historical entity, _not_ an historical one, the next record we have is of the mention of Takshashila and Purushapura (tentatively but not definitely associated with modern-day Peshawar. This was as part of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. As part of his mopping up operations, after executing Bessus for the murder of Artaxerxes in Sogdiana, Alexander crossed the Hindu Kush and campaigned briefly in 326 BC in the Punjab and Multan, exiting after his plan to strike out across the Ganges-Yamuna doab was frustrated by the war-weariness of his Macedonians. 

Alexander used the services of the compliant King Ambhi to support his logistics train, when he attacked the defiant kingdom of Porus, and Porus and Ambhi together were charged with the rearguard as the king himself went down the Indus towards the sea, crushing all opposition in his path as he marched. 

The Bactrian Greeks followed. This general region was definitely within their sphere of control, and the term Gandhara sculpture started with their very Hellenistic statues of the Buddha. Note that there was no continuity in any administration between Bactrian Greek times and earlier Macedonian, Persian and the intermediate native principalities, such as Ambhi's Taxila and Puru's little kingdom.

The Kushanas were NOT the next. The next rulers were the Scythians and they were followed by the Parthians, and then by the Tocharians, converted during their years on the steppe into first the Chinese-named Yueh-chi, the Moon Clan, then into the exact Tocharian equivalent, the Kushana. This, as already pointed out, was a tribe of red-headed European language speaking horsemen from the Tarim Basin. There was no connection between them and what was earlier known as Gandhara. 

I could go on and on. In sum, there was no continuous political entity called Gandhara.



Lavosh1 said:


> heheh idiot ...it was name of Afghanistan area Gandhar(Kandahar) in ancient Hindu Kingdom During Mahabharata and Ancient India . but with foreign invasion Original people got pushed in main land of India and your half male ancestors destroyed Civilization from face of that part....



Less of the bad language, please. He took the trouble of looking up the sources and producing them. Let us respect the genuine effort made.



farhan_9909 said:


> lol
> 
> So far i know indians are more ruled by foriegn than pakistan.could be that you guys are the real product of foreign invasions?
> 
> NOTE:by indian i typically here mean only Hindus excluding even the buddhist people



Please do not even get me started on dissecting this oddity.



farhan_9909 said:


> Oh genius.
> 
> Than why the main cities of Pakistan civilization or in india known as gandhara civilization were peshawar and taxila?why it was majority in Present Day Pakistan
> 
> During partition people that migrated to pakistan are known as mahajir and they are not more than 5millions of total pakistna population today
> 
> So Pakistan even before partition.i mean majority of pakistani lived in the same region
> 
> which proves that pakistanis are not only the indigenous people of Gandhara civilization(pashtoons and baloch) while the indus civilization as well(Pakistani punjabi and Sindhi)
> 
> Both of these civilizations has no far far relation with india..
> 
> And this also prove that indians and pakistan were never same peopple.we from start were different race.we share nothing in common..
> 
> the language and few similarities clothers and cuisine are because after foriegn invaders we were merge together and living together for some odd 2000 years.
> 
> but again this doesnt mean pakistanis has origin in indians or related to indians
> 
> both are differnet races from the history point of view



<groan>

Were you trying to establish a record of the number of lunatic assertions made in one single post on PDF? you most probably have succeeded.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Lavosh1

farhan_9909 said:


> Oh genius.
> 
> Than why the main cities of Pakistan civilization or in india known as gandhara civilization were peshawar and taxila?why it was majority in Present Day Pakistan
> 
> During partition people that migrated to pakistan are known as mahajir and they are not more than 5millions of total pakistna population today
> 
> So Pakistan even before partition.i mean majority of pakistani lived in the same region
> 
> which proves that pakistanis are not only the indigenous people of Gandhara civilization(pashtoons and baloch) while the indus civilization as well(Pakistani punjabi and Sindhi)
> 
> Both of these civilizations has no far far relation with india..
> 
> And this also prove that indians and pakistan were never same peopple.we from start were different race.we share nothing in common..
> 
> the language and few similarities clothers and cuisine are because after foriegn invaders we were merge together and living together for some odd 2000 years.
> 
> but again this doesnt mean pakistanis has origin in indians or related to indians
> 
> both are differnet races from the history point of view



Word "Gandhar" itself from Hindu scriptures. 

hehehe....Gandhara was Kingdom In Afghanistan which had Borders up to "Takshashila" Kingdom not Taxila(which is it today) which was Famous "HINDU" University of ancient times where Hindus and Buddhist used to study . 

But Barbarian Muslims / knowledge Enemies destroyed these ancient cities destroyed civilization due invasion huge amount of people migrated in main land India...Many converted/ killed / raped / universities burnt .

King of Hastniapur (delhi) in Mahabharata had Wife which was princess of Gandhar ..... Todays ,Afghan and pak is product of that barbaric invasion which destroyed our culture form that land.

This how base of Pakistan came into existence .......


----------



## Lavosh1

farhan_9909 said:


> but again this doesnt mean pakistanis has origin in indians or related to indians
> 
> both are differnet races from the history point of view



self delete.........


----------



## MadDog

Joe Shearer said:


> Another professor of history.
> 
> What Ghandara are you talking about? There were Bactrian Greek kingdoms who started the sculpture now known as the Gandhara school: Greek, not Pakistani, nobody had dreamt of the name then.
> 
> Kushuns? If you want to filch others' history, at least get your details correct. The 'Kushun', as you call them, were Tocharians of European kinship, speaking a language closer to European languages than to Indo-Iranian languages, and red-headed, trouser-wearing horsemen who were driven out of their desert oases and cities by the Hiung Nu. These were from the Tarim Basin, nothing to do with Pakistan.
> 
> The Mughals had nothing to do with the present territory of Pakistan to begin with. They were princes of Samarkand, who were dispossessed by Shaibani Khan and his Uzbeg, and made a home for themselves in Kabul. It was from Kabul that they attacked Delhi, defeated Ibrahim Lodi, and became rulers of north India, ranging down to the east up to present day Faizabad. Not to the west, but equally to east and west.
> 
> It is painful to read these half-digested bits of history from these half-digested scholars.



Dude what you are saying is absolutely wrong....Gandhara civilization was absolutely a 5000 year old native civilization of Norther Punjab, Khyber Pukhtunkhwa and Eastern Afghanistan....it was a Buddhist Civilization..how on earth was it Greek...and the Kushans, Parthians...even Aryans might be invaders at that time but they settled and are the ancestors of present day people of Indus. 

As far as the Mughals are concerned I agree they were foreigners..but had a significant cultural impact on this region.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

MadDog said:


> Dude what you are saying is absolutely wrong....Gandhara civilization was absolutely a 5000 year old native civilization of Norther Punjab, Khyber Pukhtunkhwa and Eastern Afghanistan....it was a Buddhist Civilization..how on earth was it Greek...and the Kushans, Parthians...even Aryans might be invaders at that time but they settled and are the ancestors of present day people of Indus.
> 
> As far as the Mughals are concerned I agree they were foreigners..but had a significant cultural impact on this region.



Don"t call me Dude.

There was no separate civilisation in Gandhara 5,000 years old; only Neolithic settlements. The civilisation that flourished between 3500 BC and 1300 BC, that's between 5,500 and 3,500 years ago, was the Indus Valley Civilisation, not the Gandhara. It disappeared without a trace sometime around 1300 BC, and was re-discovered accidentally in the 20th century.

The Buddha was preaching some time around 600 BC; there was no Buddhist civilisation before that, or later; there was Indian civilisation which followed the Buddhist religion, parallel to the Puranic Hinduism of the times. 

Since you are evidently not familiar with the period, read The Greeks in Bactria and India, by W. W. Tarn. It was the Greeks who first influenced the depiction of the Buddha as a human figure. That is why early Gandhara sculpture, in fact, Gandhara School sculpture so closely resembles Greek (Hellenistic) statuary.

The point about the Kushanas, the Parthians before them, the Scythians and Aryans before them, was that there was NO continuous Gandhara entity. The name itself dates back to sometime around 900 BC, long after the Indus Valley Civilisation, which was finished by around 1500 or latest by 1300 BC, and long before the Scythians' incursion. The name is from one of the sixteen mahajanapadas which constituted north India, and ended with Vanga and Anga in the east. 

This is what your closest source, Auntie Wiki, says about Gandhara:

[edit]Gandhara

Main article: Gandhara
The wool of the Gandharis is referred to in the Rigveda. Panjab. The Gandharas and their king figure prominently as strong allies of the Kurus against the Pandavas in the Mahabharata war. The Gandharas were a furious people, well-trained in the art of war. According to Puranic traditions, this Janapada was founded by Gandhara, son of Aruddha, a descendant of Yayati. The princes of this country are said to have come from the line of Druhyu who was a famous king of the Rigvedic period. The river Indus watered the lands of Gandhara. Taksashila and Pushkalavati, the two cities of this Mahajanapada, are said to have been named after Taksa and Pushkara, the two sons of Bharata, a prince of Ayodhya. According to Vayu Purana (II.36.107), the Gandharas were destroyed by Pramiti (aka Kalika) at the end of Kaliyuga. P&#257;&#7751;ini mentioned both the Vedic form Gandhari as well as the later form Gandhara in his Ashtadhyayi. The Gandhara kingdom sometimes also included Kashmira.[16] Hecataeus of Miletus (549-468) refers to Kaspapyros (Kasyapura i.e. Kashmira) as Gandharic city. According to Gandhara Jataka, at one time, Gandhara formed a part of the kingdom of Kashmir. The Jataka also gives another name Chandahara for Gandhara. Gandhara Mahajanapada of Buddhist traditions included territories of east Afghanistan, and north-west of the Panjab (modern districts of Peshawar (Purushapura) and Rawalpindi). Its capital was Takshasila (Prakrit Taxila). The Taxila University was a renowned center of learning in ancient times, where scholars from all over the world came to seek higher education. P&#257;&#7751;ini, the Indian genius of grammar and Kautiliya are the world renowned products of Taxila University. King Pukkusati or Pushkarasarin of Gandhara in the middle of the sixth century BC was the contemporary of king Bimbisara of Magadha. Gandhara was located on the grand northern high road (Uttarapatha) and was a centre of international commercial activities. It was an important channel of communication with ancient Iran and Central Asia. According to one school of scholars, the Gandharas and Kambojas were cognate people.[17][18][19] It is also contended that the Kurus, Kambojas, Gandharas and Bahlikas were cognate people and all had Iranian affinities.[20] According to Dr T. L. Shah, the Gandhara and Kamboja were nothing but two provinces of one empire and were located coterminously, hence influencing each other's language.[21] Naturally, they may have once been a cognate people.[22][23][24][25] Gandhara was often linked politically with the neighboring regions of Kashmir and Kamboja.[26]

More lessons after the 28th. I have a day job. And Webbie doesn't pay for these notes.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Joe Shearer

@MadDog, just a quick word: nothing personal or minatory about saying, "Don't call me Dude". I'm from a generation that doesn't handle these instant familiarities very well. Slightly rigid and stiff-necked, if you get what I mean.

On the other hand, there's a handle to my jug: use it.


----------



## Joe Shearer

A note to all the Pakistanis reading this: the good, the bad and those who look like me.

Pakistan exists from 1947. No need to justify it historically. So long as people are willing and happy to live in that nation, fly the flag, sing the anthem, work for it and its growth, and for the upliftment of fellow-citizens, there is nothing left to justify. No justification is needed. So it's a comparatively new nation. So what? 

As far as the people living in there are concerned, there are all sorts: Baloch, Sindhi, Multani, Punjabi, Pashto, Mohajir, Mirpuris - the lot. Each of these have their own history, as a people speaking the same language. Some of them have states which flourished in the same areas, same geographical locations. All that heritage remains intact.

The people of Pakistan are also curators and guardians of an ancient civilisation, whose descendants are not clearly known. That is irrelevant; as long as Pakistan is willing to preserve and maintain these treasures which belong to Mankind, it's theirs. They don't have to show lineal descent, they don't have to show a civilisational connect, they don't have to do a thing. If somebody else claims it, let him (or her). To see the ruins, they have to buy a ticket. From Pakistan.

These "we are the descendants of" threads are so utterly boring. 

P.S. Almost as boring as the "you are not the descendants of" threads. Equally false and unfounded. Waste of good drinking time.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ANPP

MadDog said:


> Dude what you are saying is absolutely wrong....Gandhara civilization was absolutely a 5000 year old native civilization of Norther Punjab, Khyber Pukhtunkhwa and Eastern Afghanistan....it was a Buddhist Civilization..how on earth was it Greek...and the Kushans, Parthians...even Aryans might be invaders at that time but they settled and are the ancestors of present day people of Indus.
> 
> As far as the Mughals are concerned I agree they were foreigners..but had a significant cultural impact on this region.



Really dude, upto my knowledge Boddhism is only 2500 year old AND there is only one religion which is 5000 years old that is Arya(Hindu) dhrame.


----------



## MadDog

Joe Shearer said:


> @MadDog, just a quick word: nothing personal or minatory about saying, "Don't call me Dude". I'm from a generation that doesn't handle these instant familiarities very well. Slightly rigid and stiff-necked, if you get what I mean.
> 
> On the other hand, there's a handle to my jug: use it.


Ok no worries...my bad..apologies..if you didn't like it.


----------

