# Ancient India in the time of the Mahabharata



## Halaku Khan

This image shows the locations of Kingdoms mentioned in the Indian epics. Focus is on Mahabharata. The names mentioned in Ramayana also is included. The locations of the kingdoms are based on the current knowledge about their locations. 







At times India was politically united by Empires such as the Mauryas, and at other times there were many separate kingdoms. But there has always been a civilizational unity. Adi Shankara of Kerala and Panini of Gandhara belonged to the same civilization.

This civilization must be considered distinct from the culture of the Islamic invaders, which is the legacy claimed by many present-day Pakistanis. It is probably true that Pakistanis of today are mostly of Indic stock converted to Islam by the sword or otherwise. For example, people with surnames like Cheema, Janjua, Rathod, Thakur, Bhat and Warraich can be Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. But historical legacy is transmitted not through genes but through culture, philosophy, knowledge and outlook. 

Those Pakistanis who believe that the "matlab" of Pakistan is "La Ilaha Illalah" obviously cannot claim credit for Panini or Brahmaguta. That would be as ludicrous as Nazis trying to claim credit for Einstein's theory of relativity. Panini and Brahmaguta are as Pakistani as LK Advani (from Karachi) or Manmohan Singh (from Chakwal). But IMHO Pakistanis have the option of reclaiming that legacy by going back to their "Jaheel" and "Kaffir" pre-Islamic civilizational roots.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Zaheerkhan

Great find,, only Karnataka and Kerala have retained their names intact over all these ages. I think Andhrika now has become Andhra Pradesh,Kasmira is now Kashmir, Gomanta is now Goa, Tushara is Turkmenistan, the names of rivers has been unchanged all these ages..


----------



## roadrunner

Halaku Khan said:


>



Yup, that seems like a hugely united country  

What a stupid thing to post. Can we say, getting desperate now? 

Even in the Mahabharat (which I personally do not believe in, and wash my grubby vidharmic paws of), it mentions a lot of separate kingdoms, but no unified country. 

Much like the Qu'ran mentions Khorasa'aan, but that doesn't mean Khorasa'aan was a part of Arabia, or belonged to it in any way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

You missed the point. Political boundaries of kingdoms change, empires rise and fall. But there is a civilizational bond between Adi Shankara of Kerala and Panini of Gandhara. 

That bond obviously is not shared by people who say "Pakistan ka matlab kya - la Ilaha Illalah". The people shouting that slogan might have names like Cheema, Bhat, Janjua and so on. But they have cut themselves off civilizationally from Hindus and Sikhs with the same surnames. 

It is only because of religion that West Punjab and East Bengal were joined in one political entity, which partly broke up in 1971. It is only because of religion that the Muhajirs from UP and and Jinnah from Gujarat supported the creation of that entity. The basis on which Pakistan was founded has nothing to do with the Jaheel, Kaffir pre-Islamic civilization. 





roadrunner said:


> Yup, that seems like a hugely united country
> 
> What a stupid thing to post. Can we say, getting desperate now?
> 
> Even in the Mahabharat (which I personally do not believe in, and wash my grubby Indus Valley evolved paws of), it mentions a lot of separate kingdoms, but no unified country.
> 
> Much like the Qu'ran mentions Khorasa'aan, but that doesn't mean Khorasa'aan was a part of Arabia, or belonged to it in any way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

Firstly, that's an incredibly daft map.

Someone took a modern satellite image of the region and went ahead to add Saraswati river and any other improvements they needed to explain the next ridiculous idea of a united India.

Secondly, the Kingdoms on the map (the ones which are not imaginary) were not united. I hope this is not certain peoples mental image of India when me and RR go to great lengths to find real sources and references.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## tabby

We can have a serious debate on this one..Troy was an epic till Schliemann found tat out..Lets be open to ideas n not close our minds but most importantly we r going to need serious history boys to be discussing it..
First to discuss if Mahabharat is history before even coming to this map..If it has been discusses in any other thread then i apologise n please point it out..Thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Firstly, that's an incredibly daft map.
> 
> Someone took a modern satellite image of the region and went ahead to add Saraswati river and any other improvements they needed to explain the next ridiculous idea of a united India.
> 
> Secondly, the Kingdoms on the map (the ones which are not imaginary) were not united. I hope this is not certain peoples mental image of India when me and RR go to great lengths to find real sources and references.



I'm not sure how they got such a detailed map of the Saraswati river, and some of the place names are definitely suspect.

However, as far as the boundaries of "historical India" are concerned, the map is accurate. When historians talk about the history of India, they usually refer to the landmass depicted here. 

Basically, the author of the map has collected place-names from the Mahabharata and Ramayana, and located them on a map of Ancient India.


----------



## roadrunner

I've said it before, I'll say it again. 

"India", "Ancient India", if you like was only known to the outside world as the region of modern day Pakistan, right up till 300 BC. For 1000 years of the Ancient history, during the height of Vedic times, modern day India had nothing to do with "India". 

Following 300 BC, it was only the outside world that grouped bits of modern day India, Bharat, under the term "Indian". In fact during this time, there was no India, just a lot of separate kingdoms. This continued right up till 1947. 

So you see the only times in the WHOLE of history when India existed was 3,000 years ago as the "Saptha Sindhu" (the real India), and then in 1947 as today's India or Bharat. 

You can see that Bharat, for whatever reason, has stolen the name "India" from a previous country. 

This would be like the Congo changing its name to The United States of America in 3,000 years time, then claiming it was themselves who sent the first man to the moon!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

roadrunner said:


> Yup, that seems like a hugely united country
> 
> What a stupid thing to post. Can we say, getting desperate now?
> 
> Even in the Mahabharat (*which I personally do not believe in, and wash my grubby vidharmic paws of*), it mentions a lot of separate kingdoms, but no unified country.
> 
> Much like the Qu'ran mentions Khorasa'aan, but that doesn't mean Khorasa'aan was a part of Arabia, or belonged to it in any way.



You don't have to believe anything same as we don't believe in any of your nonsense.

Failed to give credit for the usage of "vidharmi".


----------



## Vinod2070

Halaku Khan said:


> This image shows the locations of Kingdoms mentioned in the Indian epics. Focus is on Mahabharata. The names mentioned in Ramayana also is included. The locations of the kingdoms are based on the current knowledge about their locations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At times India was politically united by Empires such as the Mauryas, and at other times there were many separate kingdoms. But there has always been a civilizational unity. Adi Shankara of Kerala and Panini of Gandhara belonged to the same civilization.
> 
> This civilization must be considered distinct from the culture of the Islamic invaders, which is the legacy claimed by many present-day Pakistanis. It is probably true that Pakistanis of today are mostly of Indic stock converted to Islam by the sword or otherwise. For example, people with surnames like Cheema, Janjua, Rathod, Thakur, Bhat and Warraich can be Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. But historical legacy is transmitted not through genes but through culture, philosophy, knowledge and outlook.
> 
> Those Pakistanis who believe that the "matlab" of Pakistan is "La Ilaha Illalah" obviously cannot claim credit for Panini or Brahmaguta. That would be as ludicrous as Nazis trying to claim credit for Einstein's theory of relativity. Panini and Brahmaguta are as Pakistani as LK Advani (from Karachi) or Manmohan Singh (from Chakwal). But IMHO Pakistanis have the option of reclaiming that legacy by going back to their "Jaheel" and "Kaffir" pre-Islamic civilizational roots.



Man you are echoing my thoughts in my words! It is all 100% true.

Some people here are plain confused about their true identity. There is little than can be done to help them.


----------



## Halaku Khan

UnitedPak said:


> Firstly, that's an incredibly daft map.
> 
> Someone took a modern satellite image of the region and went ahead to add Saraswati river and any other improvements they needed to explain the next ridiculous idea of a united India.
> 
> Secondly, the Kingdoms on the map (the ones which are not imaginary) were not united. I hope this is not certain peoples mental image of India when me and RR go to great lengths to find real sources and references.



I fail to see the cause of your agitation. These are geographical names from the ancient epics. Nobody is claiming all these were in one united kingdom at the time of the Mahabharata. Boundaries change, empires rise and fall. Many of them are easily recognizable to a layman even today - Dwaraka, Saurashtra, Magadha, Gandhara, Vidarbha, Ganga, Yamuna, Narmada etc.


----------



## Halaku Khan

Its true that "India" and "Hindu" are foreign corruptions of the name Sindhu. Frankly I prefer "Bharat" and "Sanatana Dharma" instead of India and Hinduism. Sanskrit names have a wonderful deeper meaning. "Bharat" means "he who is devoted to the search for knowledge". "Sanatana Dharma" means "eternal righteousness".



roadrunner said:


> I've said it before, I'll say it again.
> 
> "India", "Ancient India", if you like was only known to the outside world as the region of modern day Pakistan, right up till 300 BC. For 1000 years of the Ancient history, during the height of Vedic times, modern day India had nothing to do with "India".
> 
> Following 300 BC, it was only the outside world that grouped bits of modern day India, Bharat, under the term "Indian". In fact during this time, there was no India, just a lot of separate kingdoms. This continued right up till 1947.
> 
> So you see the only times in the WHOLE of history when India existed was 3,000 years ago as the "Saptha Sindhu" (the real India), and then in 1947 as today's India or Bharat.
> 
> You can see that Bharat, for whatever reason, has stolen the name "India" from a previous country.
> 
> This would be like the Congo changing its name to The United States of America in 3,000 years time, then claiming it was themselves who sent the first man to the moon!!


----------



## Vinod2070

Let's not get sidetracked by a useless debate on name. India and Bharat are synonymous. India is the name by which the Western world knew Bharat.

Our constitution contains both names for the country.

"India that is Bharat.....".


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> Those Pakistanis who believe that the "matlab" of Pakistan is "La Ilaha Illalah" obviously cannot claim credit for Panini or Brahmaguta. That would be as ludicrous as Nazis trying to claim credit for Einstein's theory of relativity. Panini and Brahmaguta are as Pakistani as LK Advani (from Karachi) or Manmohan Singh (from Chakwal). But IMHO Pakistanis have the option of reclaiming that legacy by going back to their "Jaheel" and "Kaffir" pre-Islamic civilizational roots.



The argument has been raised in another thread, and IMO thoroughly refuted. Even if you do not agree with my latter assessment, discourse on that particular argument is already taking place on a separate thread. 

Read through the arguments already made, instead of raising this canard on multiple threads.

That said, what exactly is the point of this thread, other than a hypothetical map that may or may not be representative of reality?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Title edited to better reflect the distinction between Ancient India as a region and India as the nation state created in 1947.


----------



## UnitedPak

Proud2Indian said:


> hmmmm..cheesy..so we stole the name ...from whome...U....so u wanted to be named India in 1947......
> I never get it......for every thing else U use religion.....for ur brothers are....what is ur basis of formetion etc.....but when it come to history U become secular.....U r claiming achivement of those ppl who r deep rooted religious and so ru going to adopt the vedas too...and though U make claim to that history U have never recognized so officialy...while we have named our satellites and city on these historic personalities and places



You, Vinod and the rest of the band dont seem to understand what heritage is.

The simple fact is: Pakistans Pre-Islamic history and identity *do not* belong to Indians, regardless of what religion Pakistanis follow today.

Pakistanis did not originate from Arabia.
Indians did not originate from the Indus.

That simple.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Proud2Indian

UnitedPak said:


> You, Vinod and the rest of the band dont seem to understand what heritage is.
> 
> The simple fact is: Pakistans Pre-Islamic history and identity *do not* belong to Indians, regardless of what religion Pakistanis follow today.
> 
> Pakistanis did not originate from Arabia.
> Indians did not originate from the Indus.
> 
> That simple.


so what have U done for ur "pre-Islamic" history.....thats what I asked...also bro..as per the pre-Islamic history..Ghauri was to attacker on pakistan.....and you have glorified his name......now thats what i call simple...Its u who have chosen what represent ur history


----------



## UnitedPak

Proud2Indian said:


> so what have U done for ur "pre-Islamic" history.....thats what I asked...also bro..as per the pre-Islamic history..Ghauri was to attacker on pakistan.....and you have glorified his name......now thats what i call simple...Its u who have chosen what represent ur history



We don't need to do anything. The Pakistani identity and history wont change because of the naming of a few missiles.

How on earth do you want to change the fact that Pakistanis are natives and the regions history belongs to them? Nothing can change this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

UnitedPak said:


> You, Vinod and the rest of the band dont seem to understand what heritage is.
> 
> The simple fact is: Pakistans Pre-Islamic history and identity *do not* belong to Indians, regardless of what religion Pakistanis follow today.
> 
> Pakistanis did not originate from Arabia.
> Indians did not originate from the Indus.
> 
> That simple.



You are again blaming India for something that is a Pakistani affliction!

It is you (not you personally but Muslims in general and most Pakistanis in particular) who called it Jahiliyah. It is some of you who have now turned around and started to acknowledge that probably you were lied to. That it was not all Jahiliyah after all with people waiting with baited breath for foreign invaders to come and teach them how to live!

Indians have always acknowledge and are proud of their history and civilization.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

Vinod2070 said:


> You are again blaming India for something that is a Pakistani affliction!
> 
> It is you (not you personally but Muslims in general and most Pakistanis in particular) who called it Jahiliyah. It is some of you who have now turned around and started to acknowledge that probably you were lied to. That it was not all Jahiliyah after all with people waiting with baited breath for foreign invaders to come and teach them how to live!
> 
> Indians have always acknowledge and are proud of their history and civilization.



Here we go again with you.

Read my above post. Nothing will ever change the fact that Pakistanis are natives of the region and the regions history belongs to them.
You cant speak for Muslims in general, but if certain people did call it "Jahiliyah", it wont change facts.

History and identity is not something that can be grabbed like you insist on doing.


----------



## Awesome

gerard said:


> you are free to say it 100000 tmes more ,but fact is you would'nt have been saying that crap if your ancient pakistan wasnt born 61 yrs ago, forget about India's history, its beyond your brain can think,
> btw the name pakistan was given by an Indian ( yet another Indian failed invention/project)


man the quality of posters coming from your country really speaks volumes about where the failures are... bye bernard!


----------



## roadrunner

Vinod2070 said:


> Indians have always acknowledge and are proud of their history and civilization.



You can be proud of any civilization. I can be proud of the moon's civilization, but it wouldn't be my civilization still.


----------



## Vinod2070

roadrunner said:


> You can be proud of any civilization. I can be proud of the moon's civilization, but it wouldn't be my civilization still.



True. That is why it is so funny to see you so fascinated with IVC, Sanskrit, Vedas et al.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

UnitedPak said:


> Here we go again with you.
> 
> Read my above post. Nothing will ever change the fact that Pakistanis are natives of the region and the regions history belongs to them.
> You cant speak for Muslims in general, but if certain people did call it "Jahiliyah", it wont change facts.
> 
> History and identity is not something that can be grabbed like you insist on doing.



No one denied that except you guys. I am actually happy to see you finally acknowledging the ancient history.

Probably one day you guys will grow up to even appreciate it!

If "Muslims in general" refers to the vast majority of Muslims, I think my statement is backed by facts on the ground. Check out Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, I can go on.

Even better, read V. S. Naipaul's book "Among the believers - An Islamic journey". An excellent read.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Proud2Indian

UnitedPak said:


> We don't need to do anything. The Pakistani identity and history wont change because of the naming of a few missiles.
> 
> How on earth do you want to change the fact that Pakistanis are natives and the regions history belongs to them? Nothing can change this.


How u treat ur past define what is ur history....just don't brush-aside the fact that U are proud of Ghauri....If u would have thought ur self native than U would not have glorified the muderer of the natives of that region....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jeypore

Halaku Khan said:


> This image shows the locations of Kingdoms mentioned in the Indian epics. Focus is on Mahabharata. The names mentioned in Ramayana also is included. The locations of the kingdoms are based on the current knowledge about their locations.



One of the key city in Mahabharat is Hustanapur, which still exists today. Which I do not see in this map, or am i not looking hard enough.


----------



## jeypore

ilyasi said:


> Pakistani land existed before pakistan was created..History is not abt people but abt land..*The Us history focuses on the land n not on their migration from England..*Please read up a little history*..[mod edit]*




Very interesting, how so can you elaborate even further. When you do so, do not forget the war with the english, the spanish war, the civil war, the alamo, the louisian purchase, oh man i can go on, but I forget what's more important is the migration from England. How about mass migration from Ireland, Germany and Italy are those part of American History also. *..[mod edit]* it looks like you are the one that needs to hit the history books.


----------



## DarkStar

*Lets keep the language civil. We are all grown ups, and don't need to resort to insults.*


----------



## jeypore

ilyasi said:


> It doesnt exist anymore..was washed out in floods..please do more research..
> 
> Used to be near Meerut.




First of all in the history books it was partly flooded, so after clearling that part, the town still exist. History lesson is done for today!!


----------



## Halaku Khan

The map mostly shows kingdoms, not cities. Hastinapur would be in the Kuru kingdom, of the Kauravas.



jeypore said:


> One of the key city in Mahabharat is Hustanapur, which still exists today. Which I do not see in this map, or am i not looking hard enough.



Here is a map of cities:


----------



## Halaku Khan

India, that is Bharat, is more properly understood as a civilization rather than as a region or a nation-state. 

This is the civilization that includes the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita, sciences like Ayurveda, Astronomy and Mathematics, Raja Yoga and Hatha Yoga, the Sanskrit language, people like Panini of Gandhara, Adi Shankara of Kerala, Gautama Buddha of Bihar/Nepal, and sages like Patanjali, Agastya and Valmiki. 

Civilizational legacy is transmitted neither through geography nor through genes - but through culture, knowledge, philosophy and outlook.





AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Title edited to better reflect the distinction between Ancient India as a region and India as the nation state created in 1947.


----------



## Awesome

Halaku Khan said:


> You missed the point. Political boundaries of kingdoms change, empires rise and fall. But there is a civilizational bond between Adi Shankara of Kerala and Panini of Gandhara.
> 
> That bond obviously is not shared by people who say "Pakistan ka matlab kya - la Ilaha Illalah". The people shouting that slogan might have names like Cheema, Bhat, Janjua and so on. But they have cut themselves off civilizationally from Hindus and Sikhs with the same surnames.
> 
> It is only because of religion that West Punjab and East Bengal were joined in one political entity, which partly broke up in 1971. It is only because of religion that the Muhajirs from UP and and Jinnah from Gujarat supported the creation of that entity. The basis on which Pakistan was founded has nothing to do with the Jaheel, Kaffir pre-Islamic civilization.


Cultures change and evolve... You can say the Hindu ones didn't keep up with the more evolved culture. Furthermore, you've claimed that RR missed the point, I believe you didn't even make one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Awesome

Halaku Khan said:


> India, that is Bharat, is more properly understood as a civilization rather than as a region or a nation-state.
> 
> This is the civilization that includes the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita, sciences like Ayurveda, Astronomy and Mathematics, Raja Yoga and Hatha Yoga, the Sanskrit language, people like Panini of Gandhara, Adi Shankara of Kerala, Gautama Buddha of Bihar/Nepal, and sages like Patanjali, Agastya and Valmiki.
> 
> Civilizational legacy is transmitted neither through geography nor through genes - but through culture, knowledge, philosophy and outlook.


India never really had ONE civilization. The mere testament is the world of a difference between the South Indians and the North Indians. The southerners don't even give the same allegiance to India as the Northerners do.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Awesome

Proud2Indian said:


> so what have U done for ur "pre-Islamic" history.....thats what I asked...also bro..as per the pre-Islamic history..Ghauri was to attacker on pakistan.....and you have glorified his name......now thats what i call simple...Its u who have chosen what represent ur history


Ghauri defeated Prithvi raj Chuhan. The significance of the name is that our Ghauri missile will defeat your prithvi missile.

Geez, don't tell me Indians didn't get it, till today?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

Asim Aquil said:


> India never really had ONE civilization. The mere testament is the world of a difference between the South Indians and the North Indians. The southerners don't even give the same allegiance to India as the Northerners do.



What differences do you see?


----------



## Flintlock

Asim Aquil said:


> Ghauri defeated Prithvi raj Chuhan. The significance of the name is that our Ghauri missile will defeat your prithvi missile.
> 
> Geez, don't tell me Indians didn't get it, till today?



Ghauri defeated Pakistan before that. You are naming your missiles after people who conquered and defeated you.

And Prithvi is Sanskrit for "earth". Nothing to do with Prithviraj Chauhan. How hard is it to understand?


----------



## Halaku Khan

Asim Aquil said:


> India never really had ONE civilization. The mere testament is the world of a difference between the South Indians and the North Indians. The southerners don't even give the same allegiance to India as the Northerners do.



You can leave it to Indians to decide about their civilizational commonalities. Pakistanis don't understand India because they have divorced themselves from this civilization.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

Asim Aquil said:


> Ghauri defeated Prithvi raj Chuhan. The significance of the name is that our Ghauri missile will defeat your prithvi missile.
> 
> Geez, don't tell me Indians didn't get it, till today?



Don't tell me that the Pakistanis don't know even today that they screwed badly when they thought Prithvi referred to Prithviraj, it referred to "Earth" in Sanskrit.

Indian missiles are named after elements of nature like Prithvi (Earth), Agni (Fire), Aakash (Sky). Someone did screw up badly!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UnitedPak

Halaku Khan said:


> You can leave it to Indians to decide about their civilizational commonalities. Pakistanis don't understand India because they have divorced themselves from this civilization.



Pakistanis did not "divorce" themselves from their own history and identity. They divorced themselves from colonial India. 
Modern India has no claim over the Indus valley.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Vinod2070

Halaku Khan said:


> You can leave it to Indians to decide about their civilizational commonalities. Pakistanis don't understand India because they have divorced themselves from this civilization.



That is the strange part.

Pakistanis know little about India and are in fact in no position to talk of Indian civilization as they have been divorced so completely from it.

For some reason they still feel they know the Indian civilization and the nuances of India. They simply don't and are incapable of that given the inherent contradictions in their identity.


----------



## asaad-ul-islam

Halaku Khan said:


> You can leave it to Indians to decide about their civilizational commonalities. Pakistanis don't understand India because they have divorced themselves from this civilization.


sounds like someone's jealous. indians think Pakistanis don't deserve to be the rightful heirs of the indus valley-*which they are*-because they don't appreciate their history. thus, indians strongly believe they have the right to claim that history, although they have no direct roots to the indus valley. 

it's like me saying that I deserve to be rich because I value money and I don't waste it like my friend. another better example being that I deserve to be an israelite-*although I'm of caucasian stock*-because I practice judaism, while the descendants of the original israelites living in Syria and Palestine don't deserve to be called israelites because they are muslims and not jews.


----------



## Halaku Khan

UnitedPak said:


> Pakistanis did not "divorce" themselves from their own history and identity. They divorced themselves from colonial India.
> Modern India has no claim over the Indus valley.



Some Pakistanis get into mental contortions by trying to claim only those aspects of Indian civilization that are geographically connected to present-day Pakistan. So Panini is claimed because he was from Gandhara, but not Adi Shankara because he was from Kerala. It's unnatural and unsustainable. Indian civilization has to be understood in an organic, holistic way. 

But I suppose its a positive thing that some Pakistanis are trying to claim at least a part of the Indian civilization. Previous generations of Pakistanis used to proudly say that Pakistan began with Muhammad bin Qasim. 

If you want to claim Panini, do go ahead and study Sanskrit. Learn Panini's grammar and logic. Study the Sanskrit religious, philosophical and scientific literature from all over India. It may help you to understand yourself better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

Halaku Khan said:


> If you want to claim Panini, do go ahead and study Sanskrit. Learn Panini's grammar and logic. Study the Sanskrit religious, philosophical and scientific literature from all over India. It may help you to understand yourself better.



For those who might truly want to claim the legacy of Panini by studying Sanskrit and Panini's contributions: We usually begin the sacred work of acquiring knowledge by invoking the blessings of Saraswati, the Godess of Learning. So this ancient Mantra is for you. Even if you don't follow the words, concentrate on the sound - you may feel something of its spirit. Best wishes for your efforts


----------



## Halaku Khan

Halaku Khan said:


> We usually begin the sacred work of acquiring knowledge by invoking the blessings of Saraswati, the Godess of Learning.



This is going off topic, but let me give an explanation for those who may be interested. Chants such as the one above are usually highly symbolic - for example this one mentions Brahma, Achyuta (Vishnu), and Shankar (Shiva) - these represent Creation, Preservation, and Destruction respectively, which are aspects of Prakriti or Mother Nature. The imagery associated with such "deities" is also symbolic.

Sanatana Dharma at its core is monistic. This is called "Advaita" in the Indian tradition, and the foremost exponent thereof was Adi Shankara. This concept is not the same as the monotheism of semitic faiths. 

Advaita does not preclude the liberal use of symbols and imagery, which unfortunately is often misunderstood by outsiders. However insiders feel no conflict between the symbols and imagery on one hand, and the abstract Advaita philosophy on the other.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Halaku Khan said:


> If you want to claim Panini, do go ahead and study Sanskrit. Learn Panini's grammar and logic. Study the Sanskrit religious, philosophical and scientific literature from all over India. It may help you to understand yourself better.


Are the British, Greeks, Italians - Europeans in general, required to learn and profess the languages, dialects of ancient Britan, Greece and Rome, before they can claim their history? Are they required to follow the cultures and faiths of Gaul, Greek and Roman mythology before they can claim their history?

Absolutely inane arguments continue to be repeated by the Indians here.

The only people performing menal controtions here are Indians, to somehow divorce an entire people and nation from the history of their forefathers.

The history of Pakistan and Pakistanis is the history of Mehgarh, of Harrapa of the Indus Valley Civilization, of Gandhara, of Mohammad Bin Qasim, of Durrani and Ghauri, and everything in between and before. It is the history of the people, cultures and civilizations that ebbed and flowed in the lands of Pakistan and evolved into the cultures and people inhabiting Pakistan today.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

> The only people performing menal controtions here are Indians, to somehow divorce an entire people and nation from the history of their forefathers.



This is a false accusation as has repeatedly been shown and still repeated ad-nauseum!

India has never denied you your history. You yourselves did it. Show me one genuine proof where India denied you your history!

The flip-flops are all yours and you still prefer to blame India for some reason that is all too well known.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> This is a false accusation as has repeatedly been shown and still repeated ad-nauseum!
> 
> India has never denied you your history. You yourselves did it. Show me one genuine proof where India denied you your history!
> 
> The flip-flops are all yours and you still prefer to blame India for some reason that is all too well known.



Don't insult my intelligence Vinod - including the first post on this thread, you and others have thanked the posts of Indian posters making similarly absurd arguments about 'Pakistan not having any rights to history that is not Islamic because Pakistanis do not have the same beliefs as their ancestors'.

Quite frankly this is disappointing - not only do you resort to such cheap and demonstrably flawed arguments, but then you also choose to blatantly deny making them and supporting them. Who is distorting here is obvious.

If you are going to make that argument then stick by it - don't make/support the argument and then pretend that you are innocent and being falsely accused.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Don't insult my intelligence Vinod



Never my intention! I apologize if you felt that way.



> including the first post on this thread, you and others have thanked the posts of Indian posters making similarly absurd arguments about 'Pakistan not having any rights to history that is not Islamic because Pakistanis do not have the same beliefs as their ancestors'.



You know very well that I don't think that way. That may well be how some others may feel. But mostly Indians think of it as a shared heritage.

Thanking a post doesn't mean that you agree with it 100%. You should know that of all people.



> Quite frankly this is disappointing - not only do you resort to such cheap and demonstrably flawed arguments, but then you also choose to blatantly deny making them and supporting them. Who is distorting here is obvious.



You may show me one post of mine where I made any argument along the lines.



> If you are going to make that argument then stick by it - don't make/support the argument and then pretend that you are innocent and being falsely accused.



I stick by my argument that it is Pakistanis who are doing flip-flop on what their history and identity is. I will defend if accused of that, not of something I didn't say.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

If you do not support that particular point made by Halaku, then I apologize for suggesting you did. The rest of my posts, the last two, stand as applying to those Indians, and Pakistanis, who have made such arguments.

On the 'flip flop' issue - it doesn't matter. Pakistan has tried to preserve its heritage and history. Whether some Pakistanis accept only part of it or not has no bearing on whether that history is Pakistani. So long as even a minority claim it, they claim it for all Pakistanis and all of Pakistan. 

On the sharing point, most history is shared with ancient history overlapping modern political boundaries - but we still reference it with respect to where the nucleus of the history lay and where its origins were.

History associated with Alexander stretched all the way to the lands making up Pakistan - we share it in that sense, but Alexander is not a Pakistani or Indian legend - he is Greek/Macedonian. 

I believe the Pakistani arguments are similar - the IVC and other cultures in Pakistan may have diffused into what is today India, but their origins and nucleus were in the lands making up Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

I have made the point already and that is something well known among historians that when we talk of ancient history, we have had three major civilizations in the region.

Indian, Persian and Chinese. That Arabic civilization came later but we are talking of pre-Islamic civilizations.

Just because they had significant local variations doesn't mean they were not large civilizations encompassing our region.

At different times probably the areas of Pakistan were more influenced or under the control of Persian civilization (or even Greek civilization) but for the largest time it was the Indian civilization and the overwhelming majority of the people obviously share roots with the people across the Eastern border. The small number of tribals obviously share the roots with the people across the Western border.

*One difference I see in our approach is that you want to focus on the differences (I will call them local variations) while we want to focus on the commonalities.*

Which is the right point of view? Well, I am not sure there is any right answer. I will say let's defer to the renowned historians who know what they are talking of and can look at the big picture.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bull

Asim Aquil said:


> Ghauri defeated Prithvi raj Chuhan. The significance of the name is that our Ghauri missile will defeat your prithvi missile.
> 
> Geez, don't tell me Indians didn't get it, till today?



Lol, this is your best post. 
Shows your screwed up mentality. lol.

Ghauri...GauriKhan wife of Shahrukh Khan, somebody in PA seems to be a big fan of King Khan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

Civilization is a living thing. When you can understand the achievements of your predecessors, build upon them, live those traditions - then you can claim that you are a part of that civilization.

Can Pakistanis claim they are a part of the civilization of Panini? Even when they don't know anything about Sanskrit and therefore cannot understand Panini's work? I doubt it - but what you *can* claim is that the civilization that Panini belonged to once flourished on the land that you now inhabit. This civilization was, at that time, spread all over South Asia. Now that living tradition exists only in India, Nepal and to some extent in Sri Lanka. IMHO civilization is transmitted not through geography or genes but through the Guru-disciple relationship. 

It is very similar to the case of Anatolia. There are doubtless many people there who have descended from the original Greek inhabitants. But their ancestors might have converted to Islam and now they may speak only Turkish, and know nothing of the Greek language and traditions. 

There are millions of Madrassa graduates in Pakistan who are living the traditions of the seventh century followers of the Prophet Mohammed in Arabia. It could be that amongst these Madrassa graduates are descendants of Panini. But to what extent such Madrassa graduates can claim Panini, I don't know. I have no desire to divorce Pakistanis from anything. In fact I welcome Pakistani interest in their pre-Islamic culture. I merely pointed out the contradiction between saying on one hand that the "matlab" of Pakistan is "La Ilaha Illalah" and then claiming that Panini was a Pakistani on the other.




AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Are the British, Greeks, Italians - Europeans in general, required to learn and profess the languages, dialects of ancient Britan, Greece and Rome, before they can claim their history? Are they required to follow the cultures and faiths of Gaul, Greek and Roman mythology before they can claim their history?
> 
> Absolutely inane arguments continue to be repeated by the Indians here.
> 
> The only people performing menal controtions here are Indians, to somehow divorce an entire people and nation from the history of their forefathers.
> 
> The history of Pakistan and Pakistanis is the history of Mehgarh, of Harrapa of the Indus Valley Civilization, of Gandhara, of Mohammad Bin Qasim, of Durrani and Ghauri, and everything in between and before. It is the history of the people, cultures and civilizations that ebbed and flowed in the lands of Pakistan and evolved into the cultures and people inhabiting Pakistan today.


----------



## Bull

Topic says 'Ancient India' when did this thread degenerate to a dick measuring one?


----------



## deltacamelately

..Groan....
And I'm still groaning. I participated in a similar thread here once and am groanign since then. Lost World!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

deltacamelately said:


> ..Groan....
> And I'm still groaning. I participated in a similar thread here once and am groanign since then. Lost World!



If you make absurd generalizations and claims then expect to be called out on them!


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> Civilization is a living thing.



The IVC died out thousands of years ago. Only Hindutva revisionists are the ones claiming that somehow there is some sort of 'continuity of a singular civilization in South Asia'. 

Pakistanis are not claiming to be part of an IVC - what we are stating is that the fact that its origins, nucleus were in the lands comprising Pakistan, and that it existed primarily in the lands comprising Pakistan, means that the civilization shoudl be referenced as a Pakistani civilization, given the above and that Pakistanis are likely descendants of the IVC people.

I don't have to learn Sanskrit, or Panini's grammar to claim my history any more than Orthodox Greek, Italina or British Christians have to convert to the polytheistic faiths of their ancestors and learn learn those ancient dialects and languages to claim their history. 

Your argument is demonstrably absurd and reflects the degree to which you will clutch at straws to somehow steal and deny Pakistan's history.


----------



## Halaku Khan

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The IVC died out thousands of years ago. Only Hindutva revisionists are the ones claiming that somehow there is some sort of 'continuity of a singular civilization in South Asia'.



No comment here about the IVC, but the civilization of the Vedas is still alive.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Pakistanis are not claiming to be part of an IVC - what we are stating is that the fact that its origins, nucleus were in the lands comprising Pakistan, and that it existed primarily in the lands comprising Pakistan,


So far so good



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> means that the civilization shoudl be referenced as a Pakistani civilization, given the above and that Pakistanis are likely descendants of the IVC people.


That would be like saying that the city of Troy belongs to the Turkish civilization.



AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> I don't have to learn Sanskrit, or Panini's grammar to claim my history any more than Orthodox Greek, Italina or British Christians have to convert to the polytheistic faiths of their ancestors and learn learn those ancient dialects and languages to claim their history.
> 
> Your argument is demonstrably absurd and reflects the degree to which you will clutch at straws to somehow steal and deny Pakistan's history.


Depends on what you mean by "claim". As you said, Pakistanis are not claiming to be part of the IVC. Similarly most Pakistanis are not a part of the civilization that Panini belonged to. Yet many Indians (and perhaps a very few Pakistanis) will regard themselves as being a part of that civilization.

Also, you may not be aware of the huge, profound influence that the Greek and Roman civilizations have had on the Western civilization of today. This includes law, philosophy, language, mathematics, and so on. In that sense, the civilization of Greece and Rome continues.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Khajur

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> The IVC died out thousands of years ago. Only Hindutva revisionists are the ones claiming that somehow there is some sort of 'continuity of a singular civilization in South Asia'.
> 
> Pakistanis are not claiming to be part of an IVC - what we are stating is that the fact that its origins, nucleus were in the lands comprising Pakistan, and that it existed primarily in the lands comprising Pakistan, means that the civilization shoudl be referenced as a Pakistani civilization, given the above and that Pakistanis are likely descendants of the IVC people.
> 
> I don't have to learn Sanskrit, or Panini's grammar to claim my history any more than Orthodox Greek, Italina or British Christians have to convert to the polytheistic faiths of their ancestors and learn learn those ancient dialects and languages to claim their history.
> 
> Your argument is demonstrably absurd and reflects the degree to which you will clutch at straws to somehow steal and deny Pakistan's history.



agno,

*If it augurs well ,lets go for who can legally inherit ancient indian civilization??U may refer to laws in pakistan on the question rightful inheritance.*

I think there are long pondered reasons on why pakistan choose to fairly ignore history of time before the arrival of islam.


----------



## cefarix

I think it is India - mostly Hindus - who seem to reject the Islamic history of India and marginalize it in comparison to the pre-Islamic period. After all, India under Muslim rule was just as Indian as it was under Hindu rule or Buddhist rule etc. Sure, India has the Taj Mahal as a national monument but is that really all the Mughals did for India?

On the other hand, as a Muslim and a Pakistani, I have to see things differently. Indian history remained Indian history even after the Muslim conquests of India. Contrary to what Indians might think, Pakistani history does not begin with Muhammad Bin Qasim, either for me or for Pakistan in general. After all, Pakistan does value and study sites like Harappa and Moenjodaro and others.

Furthermore, we don't view Islamic and pre-Islamic Pakistan and India as insurmountable divide. As Muslims, we believe that Islam has existed since the time of the first human beings, Adam and Eve. God has sent prophets to every people on Earth at various times to teach them versions of Islam relevant to their time and place and situation. Even India had its prophets. They all had the same basic message of worshipping one god alone. And we believe that Muhammad PBUH was the final messenger with the final version of Islam from God that was meant not for a particular time or place or people, but for all times and places and all human beings everywhere. So as a Pakistani, when I look back and I see those ancestors of mine who were Indian Hindus who became Muslims, it was a return back to the original message that an Indian prophet had brought them. We believe that Hinduism, Buddhism, etc are all corrupted and deviated messages that originated from true beliefs from prophets sent by God. So as a Muslim and a Pakistani, I have to say that I can properly own both periods of the history of the land, the pre-Islamic and the Islamic periods. But Indian Hindus I suppose cannot as they view the Islamic period as foreign and alien and not "Indian".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Halaku Khan

Cefarix, you seem to be a rational sort. We may not view things in the same way as you, but perhaps we can do business with you.



cefarix said:


> I think it is India - mostly Hindus - who seem to reject the Islamic history of India and marginalize it in comparison to the pre-Islamic period. After all, India under Muslim rule was just as Indian as it was under Hindu rule or Buddhist rule etc. Sure, India has the Taj Mahal as a national monument but is that really all the Mughals did for India?
> 
> On the other hand, as a Muslim and a Pakistani, I have to see things differently. Indian history remained Indian history even after the Muslim conquests of India. Contrary to what Indians might think, Pakistani history does not begin with Muhammad Bin Qasim, either for me or for Pakistan in general. After all, Pakistan does value and study sites like Harappa and Moenjodaro and others.
> 
> Furthermore, we don't view Islamic and pre-Islamic Pakistan and India as insurmountable divide. As Muslims, we believe that Islam has existed since the time of the first human beings, Adam and Eve. God has sent prophets to every people on Earth at various times to teach them versions of Islam relevant to their time and place and situation. Even India had its prophets. They all had the same basic message of worshipping one god alone. And we believe that Muhammad PBUH was the final messenger with the final version of Islam from God that was meant not for a particular time or place or people, but for all times and places and all human beings everywhere. So as a Pakistani, when I look back and I see those ancestors of mine who were Indian Hindus who became Muslims, it was a return back to the original message that an Indian prophet had brought them. We believe that Hinduism, Buddhism, etc are all corrupted and deviated messages that originated from true beliefs from prophets sent by God. So as a Muslim and a Pakistani, I have to say that I can properly own both periods of the history of the land, the pre-Islamic and the Islamic periods. But Indian Hindus I suppose cannot as they view the Islamic period as foreign and alien and not "Indian".


----------



## karnivore

Identity can&#8217;t precede the object, being identified with. &#8220;Pakistani&#8221; is the identity - a national identity at that, which came into being, with the coming into being of the state of Pakistan. One can&#8217;t apply this identity retrospectively, from the beginning of time, to everything or anything that at some point of time existed, physically or otherwise within the landmass that the union of Pakistan now occupies . Claiming medieval characters, like Panini, to be Pakistani, because they were born and/or worked in a region, which is now in Pakistan, is outrageously bad history. The history of Pakistan, the nation, starts from 1947 and will continue till the nation ceases to exist politically, if at all she does so, in her current name. Anything that happened before 1947, belongs to whatever this piece of land was called by or referred to or identified with. Anything that happens after she ceases to politically exist, will then belong to her successor, if any.

That, brings us to the term &#8220;India&#8221; and its connotations.

When historians use the term &#8220;India&#8221;, they don&#8217;t mean the current political union of India, but a geographical region, that includes the landmass that is occupied by current unions of Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The political identity or term of &#8220;India&#8221;, whether under the British or Mughals or Delhi Sultanate or Ashoka or even before that, was derived from this geographical identity and it is not the other way round, which is being implied here. The fact that this huge landmass was indeed called &#8220;India&#8221;, is evidenced and attested, by many foreign sources, Megasthenes being one of those. &#8220;Pakistan&#8221; on the other hand, has no connotation other than that of a state. The term, at no time in history, ever referred to any geographical region whatsoever, and still does not. It is purely a political identity and that too, of recent origin.

This brings us to a even larger question of who, then, can claim(?) the history pre-1947. On a grand scheme of things, Pakistan can&#8217;t claim it, exclusively. But then again, neither can the union of India. It is infact, a history, jointly and in equal proportion, shared by these two nations, along with Bangladesh. This also creates a peculiar problem. How can something that happened in an area, which is modern day Chennai, be shared in equal proportions with someone living in a region, which is modern day Multan, and of course, vice-versa.

So how do we apportion our share of history. But then, what history shall we share in the first place. Shall it be events that had significant impact, on regions that are currently separated by political boundaries (e.g. Pre-islamic history, Islamic history, Colonial history etc.)? Shall we then, not share the local history, which perhaps never had any measurably significant impact on the other side (e.g. Pushtun history or Assamese history)? Or shall we share all history, however unconnected or insignificant they are to the different regions, because we are all descendent of a common stock (Genetic marker M124 is common to both Pakistanis and Indians &#8211; refer Sengupta et. al 2006 and Manoukian 2006)?

Frankly, I do not have the answers. But I suppose, that the events that significantly effected both the sides of the divide, are indeed shared ones. Individual ethnic history, may not always be shared ones, while some, may well be. (Interestingly, the Brahui people, who live mostly in Kalat district of Pakistan, and in some parts of Afganistan and Iran, speak a language, that has about 15&#37; Dravidian words and are grammatically and morphologically similar to Dravidian as well, although the regions are far apart from each other by over a thousand of miles.)

So lets just call, IVC, what it is, and not as &#8220;Pakistani civilization&#8221; or &#8220;Indian civilization&#8221;, unless one intends to imply the entire sub-continent, and lets not drag Panini and his ilk into this identity politics.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## deltacamelately

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> If you make absurd generalizations and claims then expect to be called out on them!


AM,
That was rude.
When I say groan...it is my rebuke for such a pissing contest.
Period.


----------



## rubyjackass

Deleted...


----------



## rubyjackass

Whoever gave you ppl the impression that all Indian Hindus disown the glory of Muslim empire in India?
Thats not true...


----------



## deltacamelately

AM,
That was NOT off topic.
Rather it was exactly about what we had been debating about present day Pakistanis and there lineage with the ancient people of IVC and what propaganda and myth your Govt and Military have been feeding to your masses, by none other than a Pakistani intellectual.

You should better accept that neither you nor your forum have the stomach for such bold assertions, otherwise your wouldn't have taken the pains to delete the post. You don't want your people to read such stuff. Period.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

deltacamelately said:


> AM,
> That was NOT off topic.
> Rather it was exactly about what we had been debating about present day Pakistanis and there lineage with the ancient people of IVC and what propaganda and myth your Govt and Military have been feeding to your masses, by none other than a Pakistani intellectual.
> 
> You should better accept that neither you nor your forum have the stomach for such bold assertions, otherwise your wouldn't have taken the pains to delete the post. You don't want your people to read such stuff. Period.



Please discuss issues related to moderator decision through PM.

And before making uninformed allegations of what this forum can and cannot discuss, read through the various threads that have been posted on similar issues such as those that Irfan discusses, often with far more critical views.

The problem is not that Pakistanis cannot discuss these issues, the issue is that Indians have been brainwashed through propaganda to think that we cannot discuss or do not discuss such issues. The fact that Irfan Hussein (and many others) talks about these issues and they get published in the mainstream Pakistani press is a clear indication of why your assertion is hogwash. 

And I would not have asked you to re-post the article in the relevant forum had I no intention of 'debating' it- but then I wouldn't really expect anything else from you after your 'views of an average Pakistani' tripe.

Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wtf

Halaku Khan said:


> This image shows the locations of Kingdoms mentioned in the Indian epics. Focus is on Mahabharata. The names mentioned in Ramayana also is included. The locations of the kingdoms are based on the current knowledge about their locations.



Nice map. But who put Gandhara over present day Pakistan? The Kingdom is commonly taken to be Kandahar.

And Lakshadweep is not on the map. I know it is an atoll that was made by corals, but I think it has to be older than Mahabharata. And i didn't know that Gujarat coast was underwater either.
Do you know the source ?


----------



## wtf

Halaku Khan said:


> At times India was politically united by Empires such as the Mauryas, and at other times there were many separate kingdoms. But there has always been a civilizational unity. Adi Shankara of Kerala and Panini of Gandhara belonged to the same civilization.
> 
> This civilization must be considered distinct from the culture of the Islamic invaders, which is the legacy claimed by many present-day Pakistanis. It is probably true that Pakistanis of today are mostly of Indic stock converted to Islam by the sword or otherwise. For example, people with surnames like Cheema, Janjua, Rathod, Thakur, Bhat and Warraich can be Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. But historical legacy is transmitted not through genes but through culture, philosophy, knowledge and outlook.
> 
> Those Pakistanis who believe that the "matlab" of Pakistan is "La Ilaha Illalah" obviously cannot claim credit for Panini or Brahmaguta. That would be as ludicrous as Nazis trying to claim credit for Einstein's theory of relativity. Panini and Brahmaguta are as Pakistani as LK Advani (from Karachi) or Manmohan Singh (from Chakwal). But IMHO Pakistanis have the option of reclaiming that legacy by going back to their "Jaheel" and "Kaffir" pre-Islamic civilizational roots.




The map was nice, but the comments are unnecessary. Let Pakistan claim whatever history they want - how does that hurt anyone ? Indians still can learn from the history of two cultures and multiple languages. If Pakistan rejects anything except Islamic history, so be it. If they want to learn up old languages and dig up old mathematics, more power to them. 

The civilizational unity was more of language and customs. Languages have changed (no body speaks Sanskrit anymore) and customs vary a lot even in India. The map also puts Kyrghistan and Tajikistan as part of ancient India (and of course Afghanistan) and even China is included as "highly speculative" party to Mahabharata war. They certainly are not "Indian" culture or language. Pakistan is somewhere along that cultural spectrum - very close to Indian Punjab and Kashmir, but far away from Sikkim or Tamil cultures. 

----------
Offtopic wrt map story
Only thing I am confused about Pakistani claims is this one - Pakistan named a ship after Tipu Sultan who was from Mysore. I have no clue who got the idea that a King who is loved in Karnataka and fought the Nawabs of Hyderabad is a symbol of Pakistan.


----------



## deltacamelately

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Please discuss issues related to moderator decision through PM.


That is one point I would take in.


> And before making uninformed allegations of what this forum can and cannot discuss, read through the various threads that have been posted on similar issues such as those that Irfan discusses, often with far more critical views.


If that be so, I find no "intellectual" reasons to delete the post. It was not harming anybody's pov, was it?



> The problem is not that Pakistanis cannot discuss these issues, the issue is that Indians have been brainwashed through propaganda to think that we cannot discuss or do not discuss such issues. The fact that Irfan Hussein (and many others) talks about these issues and they get published in the mainstream Pakistani press is a clear indication of why your assertion is hogwash.


Hogwash and a Half. 



> And I would not have asked you to re-post the article in the relevant forum had I no intention of 'debating' it- but then I wouldn't really expect anything else from you after your 'views of an average Pakistani' tripe.


That's a personal comment. I would "refrain" from indulging in THAT with you.


----------



## notsuperstitious

wtf said:


> ----------
> Offtopic wrt map story
> Only thing I am confused about Pakistani claims is this one - Pakistan named a ship after Tipu Sultan who was from Mysore. I have no clue who got the idea that a King who is loved in Karnataka and fought the Nawabs of Hyderabad is a symbol of Pakistan.



Excellent observation.


----------



## Haanzo

fateh71 said:


> Excellent observation.



yea i too had observed this ...he fought against the english and died a glorious death in the battle of Mysore ....here kids are thought about tipu sultans bravery ...and his famous quote ....its better to live as a tiger for 3 days rather to live as a r.at for a 100 days ...these are thought in fourth grade


----------



## gubbi

fateh71 said:


> Excellent observation.



call it identity crises, if you may!

Btw I dont understand this, Pakistan as an entity didnt exist before 1947. Even as an idea, it didnt exist before 1930's. So what is all this fuss about prehistory Pakistan?
Of-course India didnt exist politically as it is today, not untill atleast 1961 (with Goa liberation). But in history, there was a clear distinct identity of the people residing in the subcontinent, their cultures, their traditions etc. Collectively they were called Indians/Hindus (name derived from Indus river)..and that is where we get our identity from, even the people of present day Pakistan! (off topic: like it or not, but many of your present day traditions are derivatives of prehistoric Hindu traditions!)
Beyond those borders, were the Persians -a completely distinct civilization and culture! (Afghans were part of the Persian empire - albeit a distinct people themselves, but a portion of them later became part of western India under the British empire) On the eastern side were another distinct people, the Chinese.
So pray, do tell me, where does this identity of Pakistan come from while referring to pre-British colonization times! Please explain.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## gubbi

wtf said:


> Nice map. But who put Gandhara over present day Pakistan? The Kingdom is commonly taken to be Kandahar.
> 
> And Lakshadweep is not on the map. I know it is an atoll that was made by corals, but I think it has to be older than Mahabharata. And i didn't know that Gujarat coast was underwater either.
> Do you know the source ?



You are mistaken about Gandhara/kandahar. Its not be be mistaken by its so called present day namesake. Gandhara as a kingdom existed in the present day valley of Peshwar and Taxila! 
I too did wonder about portion of Gujrat being underwater. Wasnt Dwarka a kingdom 'onland' during the Mahabharata before it was subsequently submerged by the rising seas?
And to think, this map is on wikipedia!


----------



## dabong1

Haanzo said:


> yea i too had observed this ...he fought against the english and died a glorious death in the battle of Mysore ....here kids are thought about tipu sultans bravery ...and his famous quote ....its better to live as a tiger for 3 days rather to live as a r.at for a 100 days ...these are thought in fourth grade



Tipu.......he was brave but he lost.
I find it weird that pakistan would name a ship after a defeated general.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Haanzo

dabong1 said:


> Tipu.......he was brave but he lost.
> I find it weird that pakistan would name a ship after a defeated general.



you missed the whole point of living as a tiger for a few days compared to living as a *** for eternity ....plz read his famous quote from my previous post ...victory or defeat bravery shines everywhere ...


----------



## dabong1

Haanzo said:


> you missed the whole point of living as a tiger for a few days compared to living as a *** for eternity ....plz read his famous quote from my previous post ...victory or defeat bravery shines everywhere ...



Nice quote..... but he was still defeated.
Would you name a ship after the indian general that lost the war against china or name it after the general that defeated the pak army during bdesh war?

Sallaudin is another .......he never won a total victory.


----------



## wtf

dabong1 said:


> Nice quote..... but he was still defeated.
> Would you name a ship after the indian general that lost the war against china or name it after the general that defeated the pak army during bdesh war?
> 
> Sallaudin is another .......he never won a total victory.



India does not name ships after kings/queens. So the question is moot. 

On the other hand Vijay Mallya bought Tipu's sword at an auction and it was seen as a proud moment for Karnataka. So it is not like people cannot be proud of a guy who lost. Rani of Jhansi lost too, and Bhagat singh was hanged -- are we any less proud of them? In fact, Subhash Chandra Bose's women's regiment was named after Rani of Jhansi.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Haanzo

dabong1 said:


> Nice quote..... but he was still defeated.
> Would you name a ship after the indian general that lost the war against china or name it after the general that defeated the pak army during bdesh war?
> 
> Sallaudin is another .......he never won a total victory.



i was not the one who chose the name ...please ask the people who had done it


----------



## dabong1

wtf said:


> India does not name ships after kings/queens. So the question is moot.



So what does it name them after?


----------



## dabong1

Haanzo said:


> i was not the one who chose the name



I never said you did.


----------



## Joe Shearer

dabong1 said:


> Nice quote..... but he was still defeated.
> Would you name a ship after the indian general that lost the war against china or name it after the general that defeated the pak army during bdesh war?
> 
> Sallaudin is another .......he never won a total victory.



Dear Sir,

I was puzzled by this statement: Sallaudin (sic) is another...he never won a total victory. Do you mean this literally? It seems to be severely at variance with what recorded facts I have read.

Sincerely,

JS


----------



## notsuperstitious

dabong1 said:


> So what does it name them after?



Various themes, the latest destroyers after cities, latest frigates after mountain ranges etc. Don't think ever after people. mostly sanskrit words.

Only exception in indian forces i know is Rustom UAV (Not named after Rustom the persian general )


----------



## Kriti

jeypore said:


> First of all in the history books it was partly flooded, so after clearling that part, the town still exist. History lesson is done for today!!



Hastinapur is near Meerut.It is now famous for Jain temples.I am planning to visit it in near future. I am fascinated by ancient history/mythology.


----------



## Kriti

Asim Aquil said:


> Ghauri defeated Prithvi raj Chuhan. The significance of the name is that our Ghauri missile will defeat your prithvi missile.
> 
> Geez, don't tell me Indians didn't get it, till today?



Indian missile was named "prithvi" as it means "earth" one of the five elements in the same way as one of the other missiles is called "agni" which means "fire".It has nothing to do with prithvi raj chauhan! 

Geez, don't tell me Pakistanis didn't get it, till today?
Talk about paranoia!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Srinivas

roadrunner said:


> Yup, that seems like a hugely united country
> 
> What a stupid thing to post. Can we say, getting desperate now?
> 
> Even in the Mahabharat (which I personally do not believe in, and wash my grubby vidharmic paws of), it mentions a lot of separate kingdoms, but no unified country.
> 
> Much like the Qu'ran mentions Khorasa'aan, but that doesn't mean Khorasa'aan was a part of Arabia, or belonged to it in any way.


 buddy your's best friend china is also made up of small kingdoms in the past. now call it one china


----------



## Srinivas

roadrunner said:


> I've said it before, I'll say it again.
> 
> "India", "Ancient India", if you like was only known to the outside world as the region of modern day Pakistan, right up till 300 BC. For 1000 years of the Ancient history, during the height of Vedic times, modern day India had nothing to do with "India".
> 
> Following 300 BC, it was only the outside world that grouped bits of modern day India, Bharat, under the term "Indian". In fact during this time, there was no India, just a lot of separate kingdoms. This continued right up till 1947.
> 
> So you see the only times in the WHOLE of history when India existed was 3,000 years ago as the "Saptha Sindhu" (the real India), and then in 1947 as today's India or Bharat.
> 
> You can see that Bharat, for whatever reason, has stolen the name "India" from a previous country.
> 
> This would be like the Congo changing its name to The United States of America in 3,000 years time, then claiming it was themselves who sent the first man to the moon!!


 what is wrong in changing name?
its just a name 
you have mentioned that india is made up of small kingdoms, you should have also know the fact that during the Mauryan rule India was united.


----------



## eastwatch

Kriti said:


> Indian missile was named "prithvi" as it means "earth" one of the five elements in the same way as one of the other missiles is called "agni" which means "fire".It has nothing to do with prithvi raj chauhan!
> 
> Geez, don't tell me Pakistanis didn't get it, till today?
> Talk about paranoia!


A war has one victor and one vanquished. However, a defeated worrior is not less brave than his rival. Prthvi Raj Chauhan was a great hero because he fought against his stronger rival. This maharaja did not run away from his mission, but was defeated and killed in a great war where he was betrayed by some other maharajas.

India should certainly name a missile or a rocket or something else in his honour. There must also be many monuments in his name.


----------



## navtrek

roadrunner said:


> Yup, that seems like a hugely united country
> 
> What a stupid thing to post. Can we say, getting desperate now?
> 
> Even in the Mahabharat (which I personally do not believe in, and wash my grubby vidharmic paws of), it mentions a lot of separate kingdoms, but no unified country.
> 
> Much like the Qu'ran mentions Khorasa'aan, but that doesn't mean Khorasa'aan was a part of Arabia, or belonged to it in any way.



Dude have u ever read the Mahabharata ? pls go do some reading


----------



## navtrek

Halaku Khan said:


> Its true that "India" and "Hindu" are foreign corruptions of the name Sindhu. Frankly I prefer "Bharat" and "Sanatana Dharma" instead of India and Hinduism. Sanskrit names have a wonderful deeper meaning. "Bharat" means "he who is devoted to the search for knowledge". "Sanatana Dharma" means "eternal righteousness".



hi great explanation, love the meaning  i love my country & our diversity.


----------



## navtrek

Asim Aquil said:


> India never really had ONE civilization. The mere testament is the world of a difference between the South Indians and the North Indians. The southerners don't even give the same allegiance to India as the Northerners do.



dude i stay in Bangalore,karnataka to be precise .i.e. South indian

what are u talking abt ? allegiance to India dude, when it comes to INDIA no matter north India or south India , rich or poor, tall or short,fair or dark, Hindu or Muslim or christian. we stand united 

so dont even question our allegiance 

south and north is just geography & i guess u know abt our "unity in diversity"  when something goes wrong the whole nation becomes one

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Its all speculations, we all know the real civilization of india were the indus river civilization , by the rivers, an other local ppl were just attacked by outsiders, and their belongings were taken up by wars.

I think the real owners of indian are the dalit people who have dark skin and they were then made into untouchables class etc.

Also there is substantial documentation that some of these native indians were forced to leave to europe where they live now as ROMA people , across europe.
They do not have schooling , high death rates, and other bad things.

Most of the other group they migrated didn't they ?? 

Also most of india never was one state it was always small kings and princes , and small states fighting with each other.

Mahabaharat etc what else can I sat it was , a folklore of its time 
told in village parties and gatherings and it became , legend


----------



## vandemataram

wtf said:


> The map was nice, but the comments are unnecessary. Let Pakistan claim whatever history they want - how does that hurt anyone ? Indians still can learn from the history of two cultures and multiple languages. If Pakistan rejects anything except Islamic history, so be it. If they want to learn up old languages and dig up old mathematics, more power to them.
> 
> The civilizational unity was more of language and customs. Languages have changed (no body speaks Sanskrit anymore) and customs vary a lot even in India. The map also puts Kyrghistan and Tajikistan as part of ancient India (and of course Afghanistan) and even China is included as "highly speculative" party to Mahabharata war. They certainly are not "Indian" culture or language. Pakistan is somewhere along that cultural spectrum - very close to Indian Punjab and Kashmir, but far away from Sikkim or Tamil cultures.
> 
> ----------
> Offtopic wrt map story
> Only thing I am confused about Pakistani claims is this one - Pakistan named a ship after Tipu Sultan who was from Mysore. I have no clue who got the idea that a King who is loved in Karnataka and fought the Nawabs of Hyderabad is a symbol of Pakistan.



You missed it. Pakistanis think that anything that belongs to thier Non existent "Ummah" belongs to present days Islamic Republic of Pakistan


----------



## vectorhawk

Glad to note, there are souls with rationale on the other side...


----------



## vectorhawk

Glad to note, there are souls with rationale on the other side... 

Quote: Cerafix

I think it is India - mostly Hindus - who seem to reject the Islamic history of India and marginalize it in comparison to the pre-Islamic period. After all, India under Muslim rule was just as Indian as it was under Hindu rule or Buddhist rule etc. Sure, India has the Taj Mahal as a national monument but is that really all the Mughals did for India?

On the other hand, as a Muslim and a Pakistani, I have to see things differently. Indian history remained Indian history even after the Muslim conquests of India. Contrary to what Indians might think, Pakistani history does not begin with Muhammad Bin Qasim, either for me or for Pakistan in general. After all, Pakistan does value and study sites like Harappa and Moenjodaro and others.

Furthermore, we don't view Islamic and pre-Islamic Pakistan and India as insurmountable divide. As Muslims, we believe that Islam has existed since the time of the first human beings, Adam and Eve. God has sent prophets to every people on Earth at various times to teach them versions of Islam relevant to their time and place and situation. Even India had its prophets. They all had the same basic message of worshipping one god alone. And we believe that Muhammad PBUH was the final messenger with the final version of Islam from God that was meant not for a particular time or place or people, but for all times and places and all human beings everywhere. So as a Pakistani, when I look back and I see those ancestors of mine who were Indian Hindus who became Muslims, it was a return back to the original message that an Indian prophet had brought them. We believe that Hinduism, Buddhism, etc are all corrupted and deviated messages that originated from true beliefs from prophets sent by God. So as a Muslim and a Pakistani, I have to say that I can properly own both periods of the history of the land, the pre-Islamic and the Islamic periods. But Indian Hindus I suppose cannot as they view the Islamic period as foreign and alien and not "Indian".


----------



## vectorhawk

Very well said, Karnivore. You seem to have said it all that is required to, for this thread...



karnivore said:


> Identity can&#8217;t precede the object, being identified with. &#8220;Pakistani&#8221; is the identity - a national identity at that, which came into being, with the coming into being of the state of Pakistan. One can&#8217;t apply this identity retrospectively, from the beginning of time, to everything or anything that at some point of time existed, physically or otherwise within the landmass that the union of Pakistan now occupies . Claiming medieval characters, like Panini, to be Pakistani, because they were born and/or worked in a region, which is now in Pakistan, is outrageously bad history. The history of Pakistan, the nation, starts from 1947 and will continue till the nation ceases to exist politically, if at all she does so, in her current name. Anything that happened before 1947, belongs to whatever this piece of land was called by or referred to or identified with. Anything that happens after she ceases to politically exist, will then belong to her successor, if any.
> 
> That, brings us to the term &#8220;India&#8221; and its connotations.
> 
> When historians use the term &#8220;India&#8221;, they don&#8217;t mean the current political union of India, but a geographical region, that includes the landmass that is occupied by current unions of Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The political identity or term of &#8220;India&#8221;, whether under the British or Mughals or Delhi Sultanate or Ashoka or even before that, was derived from this geographical identity and it is not the other way round, which is being implied here. The fact that this huge landmass was indeed called &#8220;India&#8221;, is evidenced and attested, by many foreign sources, Megasthenes being one of those. &#8220;Pakistan&#8221; on the other hand, has no connotation other than that of a state. The term, at no time in history, ever referred to any geographical region whatsoever, and still does not. It is purely a political identity and that too, of recent origin.
> 
> This brings us to a even larger question of who, then, can claim(?) the history pre-1947. On a grand scheme of things, Pakistan can&#8217;t claim it, exclusively. But then again, neither can the union of India. It is infact, a history, jointly and in equal proportion, shared by these two nations, along with Bangladesh. This also creates a peculiar problem. How can something that happened in an area, which is modern day Chennai, be shared in equal proportions with someone living in a region, which is modern day Multan, and of course, vice-versa.
> 
> So how do we apportion our share of history. But then, what history shall we share in the first place. Shall it be events that had significant impact, on regions that are currently separated by political boundaries (e.g. Pre-islamic history, Islamic history, Colonial history etc.)? Shall we then, not share the local history, which perhaps never had any measurably significant impact on the other side (e.g. Pushtun history or Assamese history)? Or shall we share all history, however unconnected or insignificant they are to the different regions, because we are all descendent of a common stock (Genetic marker M124 is common to both Pakistanis and Indians &#8211; refer Sengupta et. al 2006 and Manoukian 2006)?
> 
> Frankly, I do not have the answers. But I suppose, that the events that significantly effected both the sides of the divide, are indeed shared ones. Individual ethnic history, may not always be shared ones, while some, may well be. (Interestingly, the Brahui people, who live mostly in Kalat district of Pakistan, and in some parts of Afganistan and Iran, speak a language, that has about 15% Dravidian words and are grammatically and morphologically similar to Dravidian as well, although the regions are far apart from each other by over a thousand of miles.)
> 
> So lets just call, IVC, what it is, and not as &#8220;Pakistani civilization&#8221; or &#8220;Indian civilization&#8221;, unless one intends to imply the entire sub-continent, and lets not drag Panini and his ilk into this identity politics.


----------

