# "Ancient India" was in Pakistan region, not present-day India.



## Whirling_dervesh

A must read for all interested in pak history:


Maps printed after 1947 sometimes show the republic of India not as `India' but as `Bharat'. The word derives from Bharata- varsha, `the land of the Bharatas', these Bharatas being the most prominent and distinguished of the early Vedic clans. By adopting this term the new republic in Delhi could, it was argued, lay claim to a revered arya heritage which was geographically vague enough not to provoke regional jealousies, and doctrinally vague enough not to jeopardize the republic's avowed secularism. 

In the first flush of independence `Bharat' would seem preferable, because the word `India' was too redolent of colonial disparagement. It also lacked a respectable indigenous pedigree. For although British claims to have incubated an `India consciousness' were bitterly contested, there was no gainsaying the fact that in the whole colossal corpus of Sanskrit literature nowhere called `India' is ever mentioned; nor does the term occur in Buddhist or Jain texts; nor was it current in any South Asia's numerous other languages. Worse still, if etymologically `India' belonged anywhere, it was not 
to the republic proclaimed in Delhi by Jawaharlal Nehru but to its rival headed by Mohammed Ali Jinnah in Pakistan. 

Partition would have a way of dividing the subcontinent's spoils with scant reference to history. No tussle over the word `India' is reported because Jinnah preferred the newly coined and very Islamic-sounding acronym that is `Pakistan'. Additionally, he was under the impression that neither state would want to adopt the British title of `India'. He only discovered his mistake after Lord Mountbatten, the last British viceroy, had already acceded to Nehru's demand that his state remain `India'. Jinnah, according to Mountbatten, `was absolutely furious when he found out that they (Nehru and the Congress Party) were going to call themselves India'. The use of the word implied a subcontinental primacy which Pakistan would never accept. It also flew in the face of history, since `India' originally referred exclusively to territory in the vicinity of the Indus river (with which the word is cognate). Hence it was largely outside the republic of India but largely within Pakistan. 

The reservations about the word `India', which had convinced Jinnah that neither side would use it, stemmed from its historical currency amongst outsiders, especially outsiders who had designs on the place. Something similar could, of course, be said about terms like `Britian', `Germany' or `America'; when first these words were recorded, all were objects of conquest. But in the case of `India' this demeaning connotation had lasted until modern times. `Hindustan', `India' or `the Indies' (its more generalized derivative) had come, as if by definition, to denote an acquisition rather than a territory. Geographically imprecise, indeed moveable if one took account of all the `Indians' in the Americas, `India' was yet conceptually concrete: it was somewhere to be coveted – as an intellectual curiosity, a military pushover and an economic bonanza. To Alexander the Great as to Mahmud of Ghazni, to Timur the Lame as to his Mughal descendents, and to Nadir Shah of Persia as to Robert Clive of Plassey, `India' was a place worth the taking. 

The first occurrence of the word sets the trend. It makes its debut in an inscription found at Persepolis in Iran, which was the capital of the Persian or Achaemenid empire of Darius I, he whose far-flung battles included defeat at Marathon by the Athenians in 490 BC. Before this, Darius had evidently enjoyed greater success on his eastern frontier, for the Persepolis inscription, dated to 518 BC, lists amongst his numerous domains that of `Hi(n)du'. 

The word for a `river' in Sanskrit is sindhu. Hence sapta-sindhu meant `(the land of) the seven rivers', which was what the Vedic arya called the Panjab. The Indus, to which most of these seven rivers were tributary, was the sindhu par excellence; and in the language of ancient Persian, a near relative of Sanskrit, the initial `s' of a Sanskrit word was invariably rendered as an apirate – `h'. Soma, the mysterious hallucinogen distilled, deified and drunk to excess by the Vedic arya, is thus homa or haoma in old Persian; and sindhu is thus Hind(h)u. When, from Persian, the word found its way into Greek, the initial aspirate was dropped, and it started to appear as the route `Ind' (as in `India', `Indus', etc.). In this form it reached Latin and most other European languages. However, in Arabic and related languages it retained the initial `h', giving `Hindustan' as the name by which Turks and Mughals would know India. That word also passed on to Europe to give `Hindu' as the name of the country's indigenous people and of what, by Muslims and Christians alike, was regarded as their infidel religion. 

On the strength of a slightly earlier Iranian inscription which makes no mention of Hindu, it is assumed that the region was added to Daruis' Achaemenid empire in or soon after 520 BC. This earlier inscription does, however, refer to `Gadara', which looks like Gandhara, a maha-janapada or `state' mentioned in both Sanskrit and Buddhist sources and located in an arc reaching the western Panjab through the north-west frontier to Kabul and perhaps into southern Afghanistan (where `Kandahar' is the same word). According to Xenophon and Herodotus, Gandhara had been conquered by Cyrus, on of 
Darius' predecessors. The first Achaemenid or Persian invasion may therefore have taken place as early as the mid-sixth century BC. That it was an invasion, rather than a migration or even perhaps a last belated influx of charioteering arya, seems likely from a reference to Cyrus dying a wound inflicted by the enemy. The enemy were the `Derbikes'; they enjoyed the support of the Hindu people and were supplied by them with war-elephants. In Persian and Greek minds alike, the association of Hindu with elephants was thereafter almost as significant as its connection with the mighty Indus. To Alexander of Macedon, following in the Achaemanids' footsteps two centuries later, the river would be a geographical curiosity, but the elephants were a military obsession. 

If Gandhara was already under Achaemenid rule, Darius' Hindu must have lain beyond it, and so to the south or east. Later Iranian records refer to Sindhu, presumably an adoption of the Sanskrit spelling, whence derives the word `Sind', now Pakistan's southernmost province. It seems unlikely though, that Sindhu was Sind in the late sixth century BC, since Darius subsequently found it necessary to send a naval expedition to explore the Indus. Flowing through the middle of Sind, the river would surely have been familiar to any suzerain of the region. More probably, then, Hindu lay east of Gandhara, perhaps as a wedge of territory between it, the jana-padas of eastern Panjab, and deserts of Rajasthan. It thus occupied much of what is now the Panjab province of Pakistan. 

Under Xerxes, Darius' successor, troops from what had become the Achaemenids' combined `satrapy' of Gandhara and Hindu reportedly served in the Achaemenid forces. These Indians were mostly archers, although cavalry and chariots are also mentioned; they fought as far as eastern Europe; and some were present at the Persians' victory over Leonidas and his Spartans at Thermopylae, and then at the decisive defeat by the Greeks at Plataea. Through these and other less fraught 
contacts between Greeks ad Persians, Greek writers like Herodotus gleaned some idea of `India'. Compared to the intervening lands of Anatolia and Iran, it appeared a veritable paradise of exotic plenty. Herodotus told of an immense population and the richest soil imaginable from which kindly ants, smaller than dogs but bigger than foxes, threw up hillocks of pure gold-dust. The ants may have intrigued entomologists, but the gold was registered in political circles. With rivers to rival the Nile and behemoths from which to give battle, it was clearly a land of fantasy as well as wealth. 

Herodotus, of course, knew only of the Indus region, and that by hearsay. Hence he did not report that the land of Hindu was of sensational extent, nor did he deny the popular belief that beyond its furthest desert, where in reality the Gangetic plain interminably spreads, lay the great ocean which supposedly encircled the world; Hindu or `India' (but in fact Pakistan) was therefore believed to be the end of terra firma,a worthy culmination to any emperor's ambitions as well as a fabulous addition to his portfolio of conquests. In abbreviated form, Herodotus' History circulated widely. A hundred years after his death it was still avidly read by northern Greeks in Macedonia, where a teenage Alexander `knew it well enough to quote and follow its stories'


John Keays
India: a history

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Partition would have a way of dividing the subcontinent's spoils with scant reference to history. No tussle over the word `India' is reported because Jinnah preferred the newly coined and very Islamic-sounding acronym that is `Pakistan'. Additionally, he was under the impression that neither state would want to adopt the British title of `India'. He only discovered his mistake after Lord Mountbatten, the last British viceroy, had already acceded to Nehru's demand that his state remain `India'. Jinnah, according to Mountbatten, `was absolutely furious when he found out that they (Nehru and the Congress Party) were going to call themselves India'. The use of the word implied a subcontinental primacy which Pakistan would never accept. It also flew in the face of history, since `India' originally referred exclusively to territory in the vicinity of the Indus river (with which the word is cognate). Hence it was largely outside the republic of India but largely within Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Manindra

Pakistan is no India/Bharat.
If it would be then it would Islamic Republic of India/Bharat.


----------



## Srinivas

What a rubbish, The Entire region East of Indus is called India.

When Vasco de Gama set sail to find India he did not land in Karachi, he landed in Souther part of India.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Srinivas said:


> What a rubbish, The Entire region East of Indus is called India.
> 
> When Vasco de Gama set sail to find India he did not land in Karachi, he landed in Goa.




Just as the Romans, Phoenicians traded spices with South India. None of them even went to Karachi, they were not looking for sand; they were looking for spices!

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Sam.

Reality of Pakistan was not India now they want to be India. Seems pretty desperate.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## PlanetWarrior

What a crap article. Desperation for an identity at its peak

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T90TankGuy

Srinivas said:


> What a rubbish, The Entire region East of Indus is called India.
> 
> When Vasco de Gama set sail to find India he did not land in Karachi, he landed in Goa.


If i am not mistaken he landed near Calicut

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## thesolar65

There was no Earth, but some what smaller size planet than today's. Then came a mars sized planet named "Theia" which crashed onto what we call Earth today!! And their offspring as result of mating called moon was created!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## WAR-rior

Srinivas said:


> What a rubbish, The Entire region East of Indus is called India.
> 
> When Vasco de Gama set sail to find India he did not land in Karachi, he landed in Goa.


Actually he landed in Calicut. Ie. Kozhikode in Kerala. 

But even then that's no where close to Karachi.

I am loving these Pakistanis day by day. :*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bornubus

The entire region of Pakistan was the part of India before 1947


----------



## WAR-rior

jbgt90 said:


> If i am not mistaken he landed near Calicut


yup. It's called kapad beach. One of the finest beaches I ever saw.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zip

Todays pakistan has a lot of historical importance ...there is no doubt about it . lot of activity has happened prior to invasion of arabs ..But either you chose or forced to choose alien way of life which is unfamiliar to native Indians ..Todays pakistan has stopped its spiritual journey by force or choice in Islam and people of this part of indus river are continuing their journey ..So you may be an offspring of Indias rich culture but you are not the successor ..you are now an expansion of arab ideology ..so just be an arab as they are your spirituak masters ..hats off to arabs for their success in this culturally rich part of earth

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ocelot

Does it really matter?

I sometimes wonder what could've happened if this region wasn't fertile. Good land, petty people.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## deepak.chauhan2312

how can something be in something which did not exist.


----------



## tsinga

Pakistan was but a small part of Ancient India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Levina

The name India refers to the region of Greater India or the Indian subcontinent, if somebody assumed that a part of it(in Pakistan) is what represents India then they 're off the mark by a huge margin.India and hindustan 've the same root, Hindu. And hindus live in India.

Just FYI : "Ancient India" had many names like........
*Aryavarta *: This name was based on the tract between the Himalaya and the Vindhya ranges, from the Eastern (Bay of Bengal) to the Arabian Sea.
*Jambudvipa* : Dvipa means island, I am not sure what Jambu means, but this was one of the names of India.
*Nabhivarsha* : Nabhi was a king, father of Rishabh, it was after Rishabh's son Bharata that India was known as Bharatavarsha.
*Tianzu*: Chinese/Japanese names for Hindus.
Hodu: A hebrew name for India.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Indus Pakistan

@Whirling_dervesh. Read the comments by Indian's here. From experiance they follow the typical trend. Broadly there are two responses informed by either the poster being 'dumb' or intentional duplicity.

(i) That Pakistan broke off India in 1947.

(ii) Any historical mention of 'India' was in referance to today's India.

(iii) Geographic India and political India are merged by Indian's to create this false notion of India having been there since time began when the actuall reality is India is one day younger then Pakistan. Bharat and Pakistan republics came in existance in August 1947.

The fact that prior to 1947 was a colony called 'British India' from which to have evolved Bharat, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar [ Burma ] is lost on dumb posters and others use that as a wordlplay to create illusion of 'Bharat' having a existance prior to 1947. Bharat and Pakistan had equal existance as they both were in the embryonic stage within the womb of British colony in thegeograhic sub continient.

At a intellectuel level I think we have a solid cogent argument but we face the real problem of centuries of inertia most of it coming from western writing, the British Indian history and finally our singualr failure post 1947 to develop a solid historical base for Pakistan. It is as if we are afraid of saying 'Pakistan' with referance to any history pre 1947. The reality is not many countries existed in nthe past but that does not stop for example the Afghans referring to a even in 500ad and using the name Afganistan.

I have struggled with this problem in differant fora and whilst I can articulate a fifinally prepared response but that entails a long drawn out discussion with the Indian's normally setting of smokescreen to make the task harder.The shortest sharpest response that I have come down is as follows.

The name Alex has been around for millenia. If you run into a Alexander today that does not mean that person is Alexander the Great or Alexander Fleming. Over the millenia Alexander has been used but we all know it cannot have been the same Alexander.

In the same way if you look at the name 'India' it has been used over the millenia but it's meaning has differant. Over time it settled for what we now call India. This is like the way Asia has been around but what it conveyed has gradually changed. This often happens witth words and is called linquistic drift.

Drift (linguistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of continent name etymologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word _Asia_ originated from the Ancient Greek word "Ἀσία",[7] first attributed to Herodotus (about 440 BCE) in reference to Anatolia or to the Persian Empire, in contrast to Greece and Egypt. It originally was* just a name for the east bank *of the Aegean Sea, an area known to the Hittites as Assuwa. In early Classical times, the Greeks started using the term "Asia" to refer to the whole region known today as Anatolia (the peninsula which forms the Asian portion of present-day Turkey). Eventually, however, the name had been stretched progressively further east, until it came to encompass the much larger land area with which we associate it today, while the Anatolian Peninsula started being called "Asia Minor" or "The Lesser Asia" instead.

And to the Indian's we are not wanting to use the name India today. We just want the indus basin to have a clear historical link with us withot any obfuscation whatsoever. WE want to bring clarity and concisness not create confusion which is what we have at the moment because in this confusion many of your people use to pillage our history and legacy. All because of a name.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Sneaker

Whirling_dervesh said:


> A must read for all interested in pak history:
> 
> 
> Maps printed after 1947 sometimes show the republic of India not as `India' but as `Bharat'. The word derives from *Bharata- varsha, `the land of the Bharatas', these Bharatas being the most prominent and distinguished of the early Vedic clans.* By adopting this term the new republic in Delhi could, it was argued, lay claim to a revered arya heritage which was geographically vague enough not to provoke regional jealousies, and doctrinally vague enough not to jeopardize the republic's avowed secularism.
> 
> In the first flush of independence `Bharat' would seem preferable, because the word `India' was too redolent of colonial disparagement. It also lacked a respectable indigenous pedigree. For although British claims to have incubated an `India consciousness' were bitterly contested, there was no gainsaying the fact that in the whole colossal corpus of Sanskrit literature nowhere called `India' is ever mentioned; nor does the term occur in Buddhist or Jain texts; nor was it current in any South Asia's numerous other languages. Worse still, if etymologically `India' belonged anywhere, it was not
> to the republic proclaimed in Delhi by Jawaharlal Nehru but to its rival headed by Mohammed Ali Jinnah in Pakistan.
> 
> Partition would have a way of dividing the subcontinent's spoils with scant reference to history. No tussle over the word `India' is reported because Jinnah preferred the newly coined and very Islamic-sounding acronym that is `Pakistan'. Additionally, he was under the impression that neither state would want to adopt the British title of `India'. He only discovered his mistake after Lord Mountbatten, the last British viceroy, had already acceded to Nehru's demand that his state remain `India'. Jinnah, according to Mountbatten, `was absolutely furious when he found out that they (Nehru and the Congress Party) were going to call themselves India'. The use of the word implied a subcontinental primacy which Pakistan would never accept. It also flew in the face of history, since `India' originally referred exclusively to territory in the vicinity of the Indus river (with which the word is cognate). Hence it was largely outside the republic of India but largely within Pakistan.
> 
> The reservations about the word `India', which had convinced Jinnah that neither side would use it, stemmed from its historical currency amongst outsiders, especially outsiders who had designs on the place. Something similar could, of course, be said about terms like `Britian', `Germany' or `America'; when first these words were recorded, all were objects of conquest. But in the case of `India' this demeaning connotation had lasted until modern times. `Hindustan', `India' or `the Indies' (its more generalized derivative) had come, as if by definition, to denote an acquisition rather than a territory. Geographically imprecise, indeed moveable if one took account of all the `Indians' in the Americas, `India' was yet conceptually concrete: it was somewhere to be coveted – as an intellectual curiosity, a military pushover and an economic bonanza. To Alexander the Great as to Mahmud of Ghazni, to Timur the Lame as to his Mughal descendents, and to Nadir Shah of Persia as to Robert Clive of Plassey, `India' was a place worth the taking.
> 
> The first occurrence of the word sets the trend. It makes its debut in an inscription found at Persepolis in Iran, which was the capital of the Persian or Achaemenid empire of Darius I, he whose far-flung battles included defeat at Marathon by the Athenians in 490 BC. Before this, Darius had evidently enjoyed greater success on his eastern frontier, for the Persepolis inscription, dated to 518 BC, lists amongst his numerous domains that of `Hi(n)du'.
> 
> The word for a `river' in Sanskrit is sindhu. Hence sapta-sindhu meant `(the land of) the seven rivers', which was what the Vedic arya called the Panjab. The Indus, to which most of these seven rivers were tributary, was the sindhu par excellence; and in the language of ancient Persian, a near relative of Sanskrit, the initial `s' of a Sanskrit word was invariably rendered as an apirate – `h'. Soma, the mysterious hallucinogen distilled, deified and drunk to excess by the Vedic arya, is thus homa or haoma in old Persian; and sindhu is thus Hind(h)u. When, from Persian, the word found its way into Greek, the initial aspirate was dropped, and it started to appear as the route `Ind' (as in `India', `Indus', etc.). In this form it reached Latin and most other European languages. However, in Arabic and related languages it retained the initial `h', giving `Hindustan' as the name by which Turks and Mughals would know India. That word also passed on to Europe to give `Hindu' as the name of the country's indigenous people and of what, by Muslims and Christians alike, was regarded as their infidel religion.
> 
> On the strength of a slightly earlier Iranian inscription which makes no mention of Hindu, it is assumed that the region was added to Daruis' Achaemenid empire in or soon after 520 BC. This earlier inscription does, however, refer to `Gadara', which looks like Gandhara, a maha-janapada or `state' mentioned in both Sanskrit and Buddhist sources and located in an arc reaching the western Panjab through the north-west frontier to Kabul and perhaps into southern Afghanistan (where `Kandahar' is the same word). According to Xenophon and Herodotus, Gandhara had been conquered by Cyrus, on of
> Darius' predecessors. The first Achaemenid or Persian invasion may therefore have taken place as early as the mid-sixth century BC. That it was an invasion, rather than a migration or even perhaps a last belated influx of charioteering arya, seems likely from a reference to Cyrus dying a wound inflicted by the enemy. The enemy were the `Derbikes'; they enjoyed the support of the Hindu people and were supplied by them with war-elephants. In Persian and Greek minds alike, the association of Hindu with elephants was thereafter almost as significant as its connection with the mighty Indus. To Alexander of Macedon, following in the Achaemanids' footsteps two centuries later, the river would be a geographical curiosity, but the elephants were a military obsession.
> 
> If Gandhara was already under Achaemenid rule, Darius' Hindu must have lain beyond it, and so to the south or east. Later Iranian records refer to Sindhu, presumably an adoption of the Sanskrit spelling, whence derives the word `Sind', now Pakistan's southernmost province. It seems unlikely though, that Sindhu was Sind in the late sixth century BC, since Darius subsequently found it necessary to send a naval expedition to explore the Indus. Flowing through the middle of Sind, the river would surely have been familiar to any suzerain of the region. More probably, then, Hindu lay east of Gandhara, perhaps as a wedge of territory between it, the jana-padas of eastern Panjab, and deserts of Rajasthan. It thus occupied much of what is now the Panjab province of Pakistan.
> 
> Under Xerxes, Darius' successor, troops from what had become the Achaemenids' combined `satrapy' of Gandhara and Hindu reportedly served in the Achaemenid forces. These Indians were mostly archers, although cavalry and chariots are also mentioned; they fought as far as eastern Europe; and some were present at the Persians' victory over Leonidas and his Spartans at Thermopylae, and then at the decisive defeat by the Greeks at Plataea. Through these and other less fraught
> contacts between Greeks ad Persians, Greek writers like Herodotus gleaned some idea of `India'. Compared to the intervening lands of Anatolia and Iran, it appeared a veritable paradise of exotic plenty. Herodotus told of an immense population and the richest soil imaginable from which kindly ants, smaller than dogs but bigger than foxes, threw up hillocks of pure gold-dust. The ants may have intrigued entomologists, but the gold was registered in political circles. With rivers to rival the Nile and behemoths from which to give battle, it was clearly a land of fantasy as well as wealth.
> 
> Herodotus, of course, knew only of the Indus region, and that by hearsay. Hence he did not report that the land of Hindu was of sensational extent, nor did he deny the popular belief that beyond its furthest desert, where in reality the Gangetic plain interminably spreads, lay the great ocean which supposedly encircled the world; Hindu or `India' (but in fact Pakistan) was therefore believed to be the end of terra firma,a worthy culmination to any emperor's ambitions as well as a fabulous addition to his portfolio of conquests. In abbreviated form, Herodotus' History circulated widely. A hundred years after his death it was still avidly read by northern Greeks in Macedonia, where a teenage Alexander `knew it well enough to quote and follow its stories'
> 
> 
> John Keays
> India: a history


ROFLMAO.... Bharata clan? Bharatas? Give that man a noble prize in history...



Atanz said:


> @Whirling_dervesh. Read the comments by Indian's here. From experiance they follow the typical trend. Broadly there are two responses informed by either the poster being 'dumb' or intentional duplicity.
> 
> (i) That Pakistan broke off India in 1947.
> 
> (ii) Any historical mention of 'India' was in referance to today's India.
> 
> (iii) Geographic India and political India are merged by Indian's to create this false notion of India having been there since time began when the actuall reality is India is one day younger then Pakistan. Bharat and Pakistan republics came in existance in August 1947.
> 
> The fact that prior to 1947 was a colony called 'British India' from which to have evolved Bharat, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar [ Burma ] is lost on dumb posters and others use that as a wordlplay to create illusion of 'Bharat' having a existance prior to 1947. Bharat and Pakistan had equal existance as they both were in the embryonic stage within the womb of British colony in thegeograhic sub continient.
> 
> At a intellectuel level I think we have a solid cogent argument but we face the real problem of centuries of inertia most of it coming from western writing, the British Indian history and finally our singualr failure post 1947 to develop a solid historical base for Pakistan. It is as if we are afraid of saying 'Pakistan' with referance to any history pre 1947. The reality is not many countries existed in nthe past but that does not stop for example the Afghans referring to a even in 500ad and using the name Afganistan.
> 
> I have struggled with this problem in differant fora and whilst I can articulate a fifinally prepared response but that entails a long drawn out discussion with the Indian's normally setting of smokescreen to make the task harder.The shortest sharpest response that I have come down is as follows.
> 
> The name Alex has been around for millenia. If you run into a Alexander today that does not mean that person is Alexander the Great or Alexander Fleming. Over the millenia Alexander has been used but we all know it cannot have been the same Alexander.
> 
> In the same way if you look at the name 'India' it has been used over the millenia but it's meaning has differant. Over time it settled for what we now call India. This is like the way Asia has been around but what it conveyed has gradually changed. This often happens witth words and is called linquistic drift.
> 
> Drift (linguistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> List of continent name etymologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The word _Asia_ originated from the Ancient Greek word "Ἀσία",[7] first attributed to Herodotus (about 440 BCE) in reference to Anatolia or to the Persian Empire, in contrast to Greece and Egypt. It originally was* just a name for the east bank *of the Aegean Sea, an area known to the Hittites as Assuwa. In early Classical times, the Greeks started using the term "Asia" to refer to the whole region known today as Anatolia (the peninsula which forms the Asian portion of present-day Turkey). Eventually, however, the name had been stretched progressively further east, until it came to encompass the much larger land area with which we associate it today, while the Anatolian Peninsula started being called "Asia Minor" or "The Lesser Asia" instead.
> 
> And to the Indian's we are not wanting to use the name India today. We just want the indus basin to have a clear historical link with us withot any obfuscation whatsoever. WE want to bring clarity and concisness not create confusion which is what we have at the moment because in this confusion many of your people use to pillage our history and legacy. All because of a name.


(i) Pakistan indeed broke up from India. The act giving independence to both India and pakistan was called "INDIAN" Indiependece act see for yourself - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf
(ii) Wrong. Historical reference to India was for "combined" landmass of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Only pakistanis claim historic reference to India was "only" for present day pakistan.
(iii) Wrong again. Independence to Pakistan was given at the same time as India, both on 15th Aug 1947 (see i). It is inferiority complex of Pakistan that lead it to celebrate it's independence day on 14th Aug (from 1948/49). Facts can't be changed just because you do not like it. India was a single "political" entity by (latest )during Maurya and Gupta rule.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## WAR-rior

Sneaker said:


> ROFLMAO.... Bharata clan? Bharatas? Give that man a noble prize in history...
> 
> 
> (i) Pakistan indeed broke up from India. The act giving independence to both India and pakistan was called "INDIAN" Indiependece act see for yourself - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf
> (ii) Wrong. Historical reference to India was for "combined" landmass of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Only pakistanis claim historic reference to India was "only" for present day pakistan.
> (iii) Wrong again. Independence to Pakistan was given at the same time as India, both on 15th Aug 1947 (see i). It is inferiority complex of Pakistan that lead it to celebrate it's independence day on 14th Aug (from 1948/49). Facts can't be changed just because you do not like it. India was a single "political" entity by (latest )during Maurya and Gupta rule.


 . And that ends the thread. No more propaganda and fake facts anymore. Ha ha ha.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Let us look at Herodotus's India in 5th century BC. This is what he understood to be India in 5th century BC.

"As far as India, Asia is an inhabited land; but thereafter, all to the* east is desolation,* nor can anyone say what kind of land is there." (trans. A. D. Godley 1920)

1. Acording to this India is on the end of known world and that east of this was desolation. Desolation suggests emptiness. *What is east of India*? Can the Indian's here clarify this please instead of making snide comments. The truth is this 'India' in fact is just the Indus basin that is today's Pakistan.

"The tribes of Indians are numerous, and they do not all speak the same language—some are wandering tribes, others not. They who dwell in the marshes along the river live on raw fish, which they take in boats made of reeds, each formed out of a single joint. These Indians wear a dress of sedge, which they cut in the river and bruise; afterwards they weave it into mats, and wear it as we wear a breast-plate. Eastward of these Indians are another tribe, called Padaeans, who are wanderers, and live on raw flesh. [...] There is another set of Indians whose customs are very different. They refuse to put any live animal to death, they sow no corn, and have no dwelling-houses. Vegetables are their only food. [...] All the tribes which I have mentioned live together like the brute beasts: they have also all the same tint of skin, which approaches that of the Ethiopians. [...] 

2. We can safely assume his is talking about the indus River basin, probably Sindh, Pakistan? Unless the Indian's want to claim this is in referance to Ganges plain?

Besides these, there are Indians of another tribe, who border on the city of Caspatyrus, and the country of Pactyica; these people dwell *northward* of all the rest of the Indians, and follow nearly the same mode of life as the Bactrians. They are more *warlike *than any of the other tribes, and from them the men are sent forth who go to procure the gold. For it is in this part of India that the sandy desert lies. Here, in this desert, there live amid the sand great ants, in size somewhat less than dogs, but bigger than foxes. [...]" (trans. Rawlinson)

3.This probably refers to more north of the Indus Basin. Lower parts of Khyber Pak and Punjab as this part of Pakistan even today is suject to influence from Afghanistan through the Khyber Pass with people known for being warlike. Bactria was northern area of Afghanistan in antiquity.

Even Wikipedia which so often is subjected to heavy pro India editing thanks to the army of Hindutwa internet warriors says ..

"In ancient Greek geography, the basin of the Indus River (essentially corresponding to the territory of modern Pakistan) was on the extreme eastern fringe of the known world. The first Greek geographer to describe India was Herodotus (5th century BC), who calls it ἡ Ἰνδική χώρη _hē Indikē chōrē_, after _Hinduš_, the Old Persian name of the river and the associated satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire. Darius the Great had conquered this territory in 516 BC,

Greek knowledge of India was entirely received by contact to the Persian empire (according to Herodotus 4.44, via Scylax of Caryanda, a Greek explorer who sailed down the length of the Indus in the service of Darius

The Greeks (or Persians) were not aware of the geography of India (or Asia in general) east of the Indus basin. Herodotus in 4.40 is explicit about India being on the eastern fringe of the inhabitable world,

4. What is there east of Indus? I think you need to look at the maps below and you will see the Thar Desert and as Herodotus says 'desolation'.

Below is map of Indus Basin in Sindh, Pakistan. The Indus River is marked in blue. The Sky Blue line is on a west east axis heading toward present day Indian border. Within 10 miles east of Indus Thar Desert begins and goes over the border for another 200 miles into Rajathan, India. This is just sand dunes.








This map below is the close up of point marked east near the Indian border. As can be seen it is sand and desolute. It indeed is empty. This is what the quote refers to? "As far as India, Asia is an inhabited land; but thereafter, all to the* east is desolation,* nor can anyone say what kind of land is there." (trans. A. D. Godley 1920) As can be seen below east of Indus this is what Greek writers would have seen. Miles and miles of sandy desert dunes. The present Indian border is marked in yellow.






Indus Basin is what Greeks called 'India' in 5th Century BC. Only later after Alexander's conquest of this Indus Basin [ todays Pakistan] did they become acquainted with the Ganges plain and what we call today India. So yes, in 5th century BC Ancient Pakistan gave currency to the name 'India'.

Much as the word Asia drifted over time to even include Japan, over time India came to mean Ganges plain, peninsular India and in British times even Burma or Myanmarr was British India. The name drifted way east from the original river that gave birth to the name - Indus River.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## xyxmt

Srinivas said:


> What a rubbish, The Entire region East of Indus is called India.
> 
> When Vasco de Gama set sail to find India he did not land in Karachi, he landed in Souther part of India.



stupid history remembers it as Indus civilization, the riches of India was meant to be the riches of Punjab.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

> (i) Pakistan indeed broke up from India. The act giving independence to both India and pakistan was called "INDIAN" Indiependece act see for yourself - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf



Wiseguy, why not refer to section (2) which defines what 'India' is. It my son does not mean your humpty dumty republic but refers to a British Colony. If I share my name with Alexander does not MAKE me Alexander the Great. Present day Indian Republic, Pakistan, Bangladesh and burma are the succession states of British India. The only way you are any more especial is you share the name with the British product. Think alexander again. Do please read section 2 carefully.

India during the British Raj was made up of two types of territory: _British India_ and the _Native States_ (or _Princely States_).[20] In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted the following definitions:

(1.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.

(2.) *The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.*[1]


(ii) Wrong. Historical reference to India was for "combined" landmass of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Only pakistanis claim historic reference to India was "only" for present day pakistan.

*Yes, and No. It depends which time in history your talking about. Read my post # 22 which shows you what 'India' meant in 5th century BC. Over time the meaning drifted to include almost all of South Asia and at one stage even included Burma. Also you must always bear in mind 'India' is used as a geographic term so don't confuse it with you Indian Republic. India in history was synonymous with terms like Europe, Scandanavia etc*

(iii) Wrong again. Independence to Pakistan was given at the same time as India, both on 15th Aug 1947 (see i). It is inferiority complex of Pakistan that lead it to celebrate it's independence day on 14th Aug (from 1948/49). Facts can't be changed just because you do not like it. India was a single "political" entity by (latest )during Maurya and Gupta rule.[/QUOTE]

Agreed both republics came into existance on the *SAME* *day. Great for Mauryan Empire although what time frame does that encapsulate in the last 5,000 years of history? Furthermore it was based in present day India although it spread west to present day Pakistan. By your logic the moghul Empire was first based in Lahore and from there it spread east? Shall we milch it as a proto Pakistan if you can milch Maurya as proto India?

Before you utter 'there was no Pakistan' I can safely also say there was no 'India' during that time unless you can give me proof from Mauryan times the usage of the term India.

*SAME** Although both republics came into existance on the same day India happens to have name that has been around for millenia. However that does not give it any more historical heritage then Pakistan in the same way me having a name Alexander does not give me historical continuity just on account of name having been around for centuries.

The product is new although the name is old and had a geograhic meaning the definition of which itself evolved over the millenia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RanvirSena

xyxmt said:


> stupid history remembers it as Indus civilization, the riches of India was meant to be the riches of Punjab.


Haha, Pakistan has never even produced an empire lmao. You country has been conquered by Indian empires like Maurya and Gupta. You are a failed people.


----------



## xyxmt

RanvirSena said:


> Haha, Pakistan has never even produced an empire lmao. You country has been conquered by Indian empires like Maurya and Gupta. You are a failed people.



last I know Mughals kept your enslaved from Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RanvirSena

Atanz said:


> Wiseguy, why not refer to section (2) which defines what 'India' is. It my son does not mean your humpty dumty republic but refers to a British Colony. If I share my name with Alexander does not MAKE me Alexander the Great. Present day Indian Republic, Pakistan, Bangladesh and burma are the succession states of British India. The only way you are any more especial is you share the name with the British product. Think alexander again. Do please read section 2 carefully.
> 
> India during the British Raj was made up of two types of territory: _British India_ and the _Native States_ (or _Princely States_).[20] In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted the following definitions:
> 
> (1.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.
> 
> (2.) *The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India.*[1]
> 
> 
> (ii) Wrong. Historical reference to India was for "combined" landmass of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Only pakistanis claim historic reference to India was "only" for present day pakistan.
> 
> *Yes, and No. It depends which time in history your talking about. Read my post # 22 which shows you what 'India' meant in 5th century BC. Over time the meaning drifted to include almost all of South Asia and at one stage even included Burma. Also you must always bear in mind 'India' is used as a geographic term so don't confuse it with you Indian Republic. India in history was synonymous with terms like Europe, Scandanavia etc*
> 
> (iii) Wrong again. Independence to Pakistan was given at the same time as India, both on 15th Aug 1947 (see i). It is inferiority complex of Pakistan that lead it to celebrate it's independence day on 14th Aug (from 1948/49). Facts can't be changed just because you do not like it. India was a single "political" entity by (latest )during Maurya and Gupta rule.



Agreed both republics came into existance on the *SAME* *day. Great for Mauryan Empire although what time frame does that encapsulate in the last 5,000 years of history? Furthermore it was based in present day India although it spread west to present day Pakistan. By your logic the moghul Empire was first based in Lahore and from there it spread east? Shall we milch it as a proto Pakistan if you can milch Maurya as proto India?

Before you utter 'there was no Pakistan' I can safely also say there was no 'India' during that time unless you can give me proof from Mauryan times the usage of the term India.

*SAME** Although both republics came into existance on the same day India happens to have name that has been around for millenia. However that does not give it any more historical heritage then Pakistan in the same way me having a name Alexander does not give me historical continuity just on account of name having been around for centuries.

The product is new although the name is old and had a geograhic meaning the definition of which itself evolved over the millenia. 

[/QUOTE]
Where is all this big talk coming from, your country has never even produced an empire. Your history consists of being conquered by foreign kings including Mauryas and Guptas who came from India. Why such butthurt towards India? We are a continuation of the region of India since we make up the majority of that region. Bangladesh chose to align itself with a Bengali identity and Pakistan has with an Arab identity. We are a continuation of the Eastern Indian Empires of Maurya and the region of India in Republic form.



xyxmt said:


> last I know Mughals kept your enslaved from Pakistan.


Mughals ruled from Delhi while forcibly converting your ancestors. And my ancestors rebelled against the Mughals and formed Benares state, nice try though.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Hey you Hindutwa fanatics - are you not able to properly advance your argument? Anybody reading this can say I have presented my argument in logical coherant way. All I am getting from you guy's is stupid comments. At least come up with some valid argument, if you can that is.

@RanvirSena if your incapable of elucidating a answer either pull your tail in and leave or I will report you to the mods.

Read your history or get out. The Moghuls came from west not east. Lahore was first capital of Moghul Empire. So you got raped from the west so as to say.

Mughal period in Lahore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ranvir, decide are you a dog that is going to bark here or are you going to address the specific points I made?


----------



## RanvirSena

Atanz said:


> Hey you Hindutwa fanatics - are you not able to properly advance your argument? Anybody reading this can say I have presented my argument in logical coherant way. All I am getting from you guy's is stupid comments. At least come up with some valid argument, if you can that is.


Why are you getting angry? Remember that we are your ancient rulers
Maurya Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gupta Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pls name me one empire to come from Pakistan, we have actually defeated the Greeks during the Seleucid Maurya war. Your Porus failed. You can't even produce an empire, such shame.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

read below about maurya and gupta

It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, and even then it was more because of diplomacy rather than conquest under none of the other dynasties did the Hindu governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej.

*"At the close of Samudragupta’s triumphal career (4th century AD) his empire --- the greatest in India since the days of Asoka --- extended on the north to the base of the mountains, but did not include Kashmir…. Samudragupta did not attempt to carry his arms across the Sutlej or to dispute the authority of the Kushan Kings who continued to rule in and beyond the Indus basin." (Oxford History of India, By VA Smith). 
*

*"Harsha’s subjugation of upper India, excluding the punjab, but including Bihar and at least the greater part of Bengal, was completed in 612 AD." (Ibid) *




*"Politically during the time when Hellenism in the south Asian sub-continent was decaying and the centuries afterward, the north-west remained separate from northern and central India. The Gupta empire, which at its height in the middle of the 4th century AD, and the empire of Harsha in the middle of the 7th century AD barely reached into the Punjab and included none of Sind." (Pakistan and Western Asia, by Norman Brown) *



* "Throughout most of the recorded history the north-west (i.e. Pakistan) has normally been either independent or incorporated in an empire whose centre lay further in the west. The occasions when it has been governed from a centre further east (India) have been the exception rather than the rule; and the creation of Pakistan which has been described as a geographer’s nightmare is historically a reversion to normal as Pakistan is concerned." (A Study of History, by AJ Toynbee) 

*
_now put that in your pipe and smoke it_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

British Indian empire Map.







Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Burma.

British Indian Empire flag.











British Raj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RanvirSena

Whirling_dervesh said:


> read below about maurya and gupta
> 
> It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, and even then it was more because of diplomacy rather than conquest under none of the other dynasties did the Hindu governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej.
> 
> *"At the close of Samudragupta’s triumphal career (4th century AD) his empire --- the greatest in India since the days of Asoka --- extended on the north to the base of the mountains, but did not include Kashmir…. Samudragupta did not attempt to carry his arms across the Sutlej or to dispute the authority of the Kushan Kings who continued to rule in and beyond the Indus basin." (Oxford History of India, By VA Smith).
> *
> 
> *"Harsha’s subjugation of upper India, excluding the punjab, but including Bihar and at least the greater part of Bengal, was completed in 612 AD." (Ibid) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Politically during the time when Hellenism in the south Asian sub-continent was decaying and the centuries afterward, the north-west remained separate from northern and central India. The Gupta empire, which at its height in the middle of the 4th century AD, and the empire of Harsha in the middle of the 7th century AD barely reached into the Punjab and included none of Sind." (Pakistan and Western Asia, by Norman Brown) *
> 
> 
> 
> * "Throughout most of the recorded history the north-west (i.e. Pakistan) has normally been either independent or incorporated in an empire whose centre lay further in the west. The occasions when it has been governed from a centre further east (India) have been the exception rather than the rule; and the creation of Pakistan which has been described as a geographer’s nightmare is historically a reversion to normal as Pakistan is concerned." (A Study of History, by AJ Toynbee)
> 
> *
> _now put that in your pipe and smoke it_


And yet these Indian empires still maintained nominal control while your Pakistan couldn't create anything.  and Maurya did have a lot of control. Seleucid Maurya war lead to control of your region. Gupta empire defeated Huns who invaded Pakistan. We are your rulers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Manindra said:


> Pakistan is no India/Bharat.
> If it would be then it would Islamic Republic of India/Bharat.



come back when you can write refute the author, no ones interested in your smartarse comments


----------



## RanvirSena

Atanz said:


> British Indian empire Map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Burma.
> 
> British Indian Empire flag.
> 
> View attachment 216579
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British Raj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your Ancient rulers:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Srinivas said:


> What a rubbish, The Entire region East of Indus is called India.
> 
> When Vasco de Gama set sail to find India he did not land in Karachi, he landed in Souther part of India.




sorry to burst your bubble and your low level of intellect, but 'melluhans' as they were reffered to then from harrappa and mohenjadaro were trading as far as mesopotamia 2-3000 years before vasco de gama was a twinkle in the eye of his daddy...


----------



## RanvirSena

Whirling_dervesh said:


> sorry to burst your bubble and your low level of intellect, but 'melluhans' as they were reffered to then from harrappa and mohenjadaro were trading as far as mesopotamia 2-3000 years before vasco de gama was a twinkle in the eye of his daddy...


Sorry but real Indian civilisation was found in Nalanda Univerisity, taxila was a crap university in comparison. Chola Empire from Tamil Nadu was raiding as far as Indonesia. India has real history of empires while Pakistan has a couple ruins.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maira La

I agree with the title, but the IVC people have mostly moved east, taking their culture and religion with them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Capt.Popeye said:


> Just as the Romans, Phoenicians traded spices with South India. None of them even went to Karachi, they were not looking for sand; they were looking for spices!



dont want to make you feel stupid, but your not making it very difficult, IVC traders went to mesopotamia nd phoenecia

*"About 2000 B.C. it would have been possible to travel from Sutkagen-dot near the shores of the Arabian Sea over 300 miles west of Karachi (in Baluchistan) to the village of Rupar near the foot of the Simla hills - a distance of 1000 miles and to see on all sides men living in various degrees the same mode of life, making the same kind of pots and tools and ornaments and possibly administered by the same government.

"It will be observed that this great stretch of country coincides very nearly with the present Pakistan, and for a significant reason: Pakistan, like the Indus Civilization, belongs essentially to the vast fertile valley of the Indus and its tributaries, sheltered by hills, sea and desert from its less favoured neighbours save where in the Punjab, the northern plains continuously fringe the foot-hills of the Himalayas. The Indus Civilization can thus be claimed in a real sense as a pre-historic prototype of Pakistan.

"Within this immense territory, archaeologists have found no fewer than thirty-seven town or village sites (tells) representing this civilization, and many more un-doubtedly await discovery." (Pakistan before the Aryans, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler).*
*
...

Ancient Mesopotamian texts speak of trading with at least two seafaring civilizations - Makkan and Meluha - in the neighborhood of India in the third millennium B.C. This trade was conducted with real financial sophistication in amounts that could involve tons of copper. The Mesopotamians speak of Meluha as an aquatic culture, where water and bathing played a central role. One of its most well-known structures is the Great Bath of Mohenjo-daro. A number of Indus Valley objects have been found buried with Mesopotamians.

*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sneaker

Whirling_dervesh said:


> sorry to burst your bubble and your low level of intellect, but '*melluhans*' as they were reffered to then from harrappa and mohenjadaro were trading as far as mesopotamia 2-3000 years before vasco de gama was a twinkle in the eye of his daddy...


Sorry to burst your bubble. Nobody knows which is exact place refereed as "melluhans". If it were to Sarasvati valley civilizations, then the only port that could have traded is in India. Lothal. So, people of harappa and mohanjodaro couldn't trade with anybody outside...


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

RanvirSena said:


> Sorry but real Indian civilisation was found in Nalanda Univerisity, taxila was a crap university in comparison. Chola Empire from Tamil Nadu was raiding as far as Indonesia. India has real history of empires while Pakistan has a couple ruins.



if it wasnt for pannini and his epic works in sanskrit in taxila , nalanda would be speaking hunter gatherer mumbo jumbo...


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Whirling_dervesh said:


> if it wasnt for pannini and his epic works in sanskrit in taxila , nalanda would be speaking hunter gatherer mumbo jumbo...



Bent laughing Ha Ha Ha ..... mumo jumbo Ha Ha Ha


----------



## Sneaker

Whirling_dervesh said:


> if it wasnt for pannini and his epic works in sanskrit in taxila , nalanda would be speaking hunter gatherer mumbo jumbo...


WTH? People were already speaking sanskrit.. panini codified the grammar, he did not invent the language itself..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Sneaker said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble. Nobody knows which is exact place refereed as "melluhans". If it were to Sarasvati valley civilizations, then the only port that could have traded is in India. Lothal. So, people of harappa and mohanjodaro couldn't trade with anybody outside...



lol sarasvati valley civilisations, is sarasvati a valley? good luck with still finding this non existent river. melluhans were referred to harrapans by the mesopotamians, they even had trading settlements on the tigris/euphrates. goods, seals, artefacts from harrapa were discovered there. the term melluhans correlates with melecchas



Sam. said:


> Reality of Pakistan was not India now they want to be India. Seems pretty desperate.


read the article and refute it *if you can*, india is a misnomer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sneaker

Whirling_dervesh said:


> lol sarasvati valley civilisations, is* sarasvati a valley*? good luck with still finding this non existent river. melluhans were referred to harrapans by the mesopotamians, they even had trading settlements on the tigris/euphrates. goods, seals, artefacts from harrapa were discovered there. the term melluhans correlates with melecchas


LOL, so Indus is a valley in your books?? 
"melluhans were referred to harrapans by the mesopotamians" - EPIC!!! did harrappans get any referral benefits for referring melluhans to mesopotamians??
Artefacts from "harappa" were never discovered. From Lothal, may be. Not "from harappa". There was no route connecting the two..


----------



## Sam.

Whirling_dervesh said:


> lol sarasvati valley civilisations, is sarasvati a valley? good luck with still finding this non existent river. melluhans were referred to harrapans by the mesopotamians, they even had trading settlements on the tigris/euphrates. goods, seals, artefacts from harrapa were discovered there. the term melluhans correlates with melecchas
> 
> 
> read the article and refute it *if you can*, india is a misnomer.


I might but that doesn't matter as denial is part of your country.


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

PlanetWarrior said:


> What a crap article. Desperation for an identity at its peak


another bum with one liners, refute the crap article then. i think its indians with an identity crisis considering you have to borrow your countrys name from your colonial masters



Sneaker said:


> LOL, so Indus is a valley in your books??
> "melluhans were referred to harrapans by the mesopotamians" - EPIC!!! did harrappans get any referral benefits for referring melluhans to mesopotamians??
> Artefacts from "harappa" were never discovered. From Lothal, may be. Not "from harappa". There was no route connecting the two..



put this in your pipe and smoke it.....
*
Judging from the dispersal of Indus civilization artifacts, the trade networks, economically, integrated a huge area, including portions of Afghanistan, the coastal regions of Persia, northern and western India, and Mesopotamia. There is some evidence that trade contacts extended to Crete and possibly to Egypt.

There was an extensive maritime trade network operating between the Harappan and Mesopotamian civilizations as early as the middle Harappan Phase, with much commerce being handled by "middlemen merchants from Dilmun" (modern Bahrain and Failaka located in the Persian Gulf). Such long-distance sea trade became feasible with the innovative development of plank-built watercraft, equipped with a single central mast supporting a sail of woven rushes or cloth.

Indus Valley Civilization, Mohenjo Daro, Harappan Culture - Crystalinks*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Whirling_dervesh said:


> dont want to make you feel stupid, but your not making it very difficult, IVC traders went to mesopotamia nd phoenecia
> 
> *"About 2000 B.C. it would have been possible to travel from Sutkagen-dot near the shores of the Arabian Sea over 300 miles west of Karachi (in Baluchistan) to the village of Rupar near the foot of the Simla hills - a distance of 1000 miles and to see on all sides men living in various degrees the same mode of life, making the same kind of pots and tools and ornaments and possibly administered by the same government.
> 
> "It will be observed that this great stretch of country coincides very nearly with the present Pakistan, and for a significant reason: Pakistan, like the Indus Civilization, belongs essentially to the vast fertile valley of the Indus and its tributaries, sheltered by hills, sea and desert from its less favoured neighbours save where in the Punjab, the northern plains continuously fringe the foot-hills of the Himalayas. The Indus Civilization can thus be claimed in a real sense as a pre-historic prototype of Pakistan.
> 
> "Within this immense territory, archaeologists have found no fewer than thirty-seven town or village sites (tells) representing this civilization, and many more un-doubtedly await discovery." (Pakistan before the Aryans, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler).
> 
> ...
> 
> Ancient Mesopotamian texts speak of trading with at least two seafaring civilizations - Makkan and Meluha - in the neighborhood of India in the third millennium B.C. This trade was conducted with real financial sophistication in amounts that could involve tons of copper. The Mesopotamians speak of Meluha as an aquatic culture, where water and bathing played a central role. One of its most well-known structures is the Great Bath of Mohenjo-daro. A number of Indus Valley objects have been found buried with Mesopotamians.
> *



Nice one. Do you have a link or referance?


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Sam. said:


> I might but that doesn't matter as denial is part of your country.


come back when you can refute it, till then ill keep denying harrapa and mohenjadaro are in PAKISTAN...lol


----------



## Sam.

Whirling_dervesh said:


> come back when you can refute it, till then ill keep denying harrapa and mohenjadaro are in PAKISTAN...lol


there was no pakistan before 1947 ,no mention in anywhere around the world in any history book or anywhere. I can refute you but i don't believe in fantasies. 

If you believe you are indians then good ,suppose you atlast you guys came to your senses and disregarding two nation stupid theory.


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Sam. said:


> All you can do is bad mouth when nothing left ,it's ok to accept defeat and move on.


just stating the obvious, come back when you have read the 'crap' article and bring your refutations. dont shoot the messenger, im just quoting an emminent scholar with decades of research in indology and about 30 books on the subject....


----------



## K.P.K

Well let's see if any Indian can come forward and challenge this with hard facts rather then insecure one liners.

I have noticed the most petty and irrelevant to the topic arguments by the bhartis.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

K.P.K said:


> Well let's see if any Indian can come forward and challenge this with hard facts rather then insecure one liners.
> 
> I have noticed the most petty and irrelevant to the topic arguments by the bhartis.



its a typical bharati trait, they will bombard and confuse the real issues to avoid the topic

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## K.P.K

Sam. said:


> there was no pakistan before 1947 ,no mention in anywhere around the world in any history book or anywhere. I can refute you but i don't believe in fantasies.
> 
> If you believe you are indians then good ,suppose you atlast you guys came to your senses and disregarding two nation stupid theory.



Is this your best counter argument?,


----------



## Sneaker

Whirling_dervesh said:


> another bum with one liners, refute the crap article then. i think its indians with an identity crisis considering you have to borrow your countrys name from your colonial masters
> 
> 
> 
> put this in your pipe and smoke it.....
> *
> Judging from the dispersal of Indus civilization artifacts, the trade networks, economically, integrated a huge area, including portions of Afghanistan, the coastal regions of Persia, northern and western India, and Mesopotamia. There is some evidence that trade contacts extended to Crete and possibly to Egypt.
> 
> There was an extensive maritime trade network operating between the Harappan and Mesopotamian civilizations as early as the middle Harappan Phase, with much commerce being handled by "middlemen merchants from Dilmun" (modern Bahrain and Failaka located in the Persian Gulf). Such long-distance sea trade became feasible with the innovative development of plank-built watercraft, equipped with a single central mast supporting a sail of woven rushes or cloth.
> 
> Indus Valley Civilization, Mohenjo Daro, Harappan Culture - Crystalinks*


Here, digest this...
Cambridge Journals Online - Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies - Abstract - A <i>Periplus</i> of Magan and Meluḫḫa

Also, harappans must have used aerial route to trade with Mesopotamian...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## K.P.K

Sneaker said:


> Here, digest this...
> Cambridge Journals Online - Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies - Abstract - A <i>Periplus</i> of Magan and Meluḫḫa
> 
> Also, harappans must have used aerial route to trade with Mesopotamian...




Maybe they dry leased the planes from ancient Bharat, after all you guys were flying over 6000 years ago.


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

zip said:


> Todays pakistan has a lot of historical importance ...there is no doubt about it . lot of activity has happened prior to invasion of arabs ..But either you chose or forced to choose alien way of life which is unfamiliar to native Indians ..Todays pakistan has stopped its spiritual journey by force or choice in Islam and people of this part of indus river are continuing their journey ..So you may be an offspring of Indias rich culture but you are not the successor ..you are now an expansion of arab ideology ..so just be an arab as they are your spirituak masters ..hats off to arabs for their success in this culturally rich part of earth



invasion of arabs influence in the scheme of things in the thousands of years of IVC history is negligible... i think you will find bharatis are the offspring of IVC get your facts right.


----------



## Sneaker

K.P.K said:


> Maybe they dry leased the planes from *ancient Bharat*, after all you guys were flying over 6000 years ago.


They "were" ancient bharat...


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Sneaker said:


> Here, digest this...
> Cambridge Journals Online - Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies - Abstract - A <i>Periplus</i> of Magan and Meluḫḫa
> 
> Also, harappans must have used aerial route to trade with Mesopotamian...




you earlier posted no harrapan artefacts were found in mesopotamia, made a joke of it and in typical bharati fashion, lots of exclamation marks, capital letters to over emphasize a pathetic response, here is the refutation and you havent responded. sir mortimer wheler is one of the greatest indologists in history who spent of his life excavating and discovering IVC i have yet to read a coherent tangible counter argument after i made a mockery of your post?? please respond to your original post about harrappan artefacts in mesopotamia

*"About 2000 B.C. it would have been possible to travel from Sutkagen-dot near the shores of the Arabian Sea over 300 miles west of Karachi (in Baluchistan) to the village of Rupar near the foot of the Simla hills - a distance of 1000 miles and to see on all sides men living in various degrees the same mode of life, making the same kind of pots and tools and ornaments and possibly administered by the same government.

"It will be observed that this great stretch of country coincides very nearly with the present Pakistan, and for a significant reason: Pakistan, like the Indus Civilization, belongs essentially to the vast fertile valley of the Indus and its tributaries, sheltered by hills, sea and desert from its less favoured neighbours save where in the Punjab, the northern plains continuously fringe the foot-hills of the Himalayas. The Indus Civilization can thus be claimed in a real sense as a pre-historic prototype of Pakistan.

"Within this immense territory, archaeologists have found no fewer than thirty-seven town or village sites (tells) representing this civilization, and many more un-doubtedly await discovery." (Pakistan before the Aryans, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler).

...

Ancient Mesopotamian texts speak of trading with at least two seafaring civilizations - Makkan and Meluha - in the neighborhood of India in the third millennium B.C. This trade was conducted with real financial sophistication in amounts that could involve tons of copper. The Mesopotamians speak of Meluha as an aquatic culture, where water and bathing played a central role. One of its most well-known structures is theGreat Bath of Mohenjo-daro. A number of Indus Valley objects have been found buried with Mesopotamians.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sneaker

Whirling_dervesh said:


> you earlier posted no harrapan artefacts were found in mesopotamia, made a joke of it and in typical bharati fashion, lots of exclamation marks, capital letters to over emphasize a pathetic response, here is the refutation and you havent responded. sir mortimer wheler is one of the greatest indologists in history who spent of his life excavating and discovering IVC i have yet to read a coherent tangible counter argument after i made a mockery of your post?? please respond to your original post about harrappan artefacts in mesopotamia


Do not confuse "harappan place" to "harappan civilization" as indus/saraswati valley civilization was called (mistakenly) after discovery in 1920... There is no proof whatsoever that any artifact from "harappa place" is there in mesopotamia.. but there is plenty of artifacts from saraswati civilization which probably came from lothal, in present day india. Add to that mesopotamian seals have been found only in Lothal and Kalibagan in India, shows that trade center was in India..


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

deepak.chauhan2312 said:


> how can something be in something which did not exist.


keep smoking the pot, you'll get there one day..



Bornubus said:


> The entire region of Pakistan was the part of India before 1947



no it wasnt, but thanks for your measly contribution anyway.


----------



## K.P.K

Whirling_dervesh said:


> you earlier posted no harrapan artefacts were found in mesopotamia, made a joke of it and in typical bharati fashion, lots of exclamation marks, capital letters to over emphasize a pathetic response, here is the refutation and you havent responded. sir mortimer wheler is one of the greatest indologists in history who spent of his life excavating and discovering IVC i have yet to read a coherent tangible counter argument after i made a mockery of your post?? please respond to your original post about harrappan artefacts in mesopotamia
> 
> *"About 2000 B.C. it would have been possible to travel from Sutkagen-dot near the shores of the Arabian Sea over 300 miles west of Karachi (in Baluchistan) to the village of Rupar near the foot of the Simla hills - a distance of 1000 miles and to see on all sides men living in various degrees the same mode of life, making the same kind of pots and tools and ornaments and possibly administered by the same government.
> 
> "It will be observed that this great stretch of country coincides very nearly with the present Pakistan, and for a significant reason: Pakistan, like the Indus Civilization, belongs essentially to the vast fertile valley of the Indus and its tributaries, sheltered by hills, sea and desert from its less favoured neighbours save where in the Punjab, the northern plains continuously fringe the foot-hills of the Himalayas. The Indus Civilization can thus be claimed in a real sense as a pre-historic prototype of Pakistan.
> 
> "Within this immense territory, archaeologists have found no fewer than thirty-seven town or village sites (tells) representing this civilization, and many more un-doubtedly await discovery." (Pakistan before the Aryans, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler).
> 
> ...
> 
> Ancient Mesopotamian texts speak of trading with at least two seafaring civilizations - Makkan and Meluha - in the neighborhood of India in the third millennium B.C. This trade was conducted with real financial sophistication in amounts that could involve tons of copper. The Mesopotamians speak of Meluha as an aquatic culture, where water and bathing played a central role. One of its most well-known structures is theGreat Bath of Mohenjo-daro. A number of Indus Valley objects have been found buried with Mesopotamians.*


Very educating thanks.


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

tsinga said:


> Pakistan was but a small part of Ancient India.



nobody is interested in your one liners unless you back it with up something till then please stay away from this thread



WAR-rior said:


> . And that ends the thread. No more propaganda and fake facts anymore. Ha ha ha.



this is British India, you had no part to play, why are you riding on the tailcoats of your colonial masters? the british invade and colonise the indian subcontinent and you inherit by default and lay claim to this vast expanse...gimme a break and gtfoh



Atanz said:


> @Whirling_dervesh. Read the comments by Indian's here. From experiance they follow the typical trend. Broadly there are two responses informed by either the poster being 'dumb' or intentional duplicity.
> 
> (i) That Pakistan broke off India in 1947.
> 
> (ii) Any historical mention of 'India' was in referance to today's India.
> 
> (iii) Geographic India and political India are merged by Indian's to create this false notion of India having been there since time began when the actuall reality is India is one day younger then Pakistan. Bharat and Pakistan republics came in existance in August 1947.
> 
> The fact that prior to 1947 was a colony called 'British India' from which to have evolved Bharat, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar [ Burma ] is lost on dumb posters and others use that as a wordlplay to create illusion of 'Bharat' having a existance prior to 1947. Bharat and Pakistan had equal existance as they both were in the embryonic stage within the womb of British colony in thegeograhic sub continient.
> 
> At a intellectuel level I think we have a solid cogent argument but we face the real problem of centuries of inertia most of it coming from western writing, the British Indian history and finally our singualr failure post 1947 to develop a solid historical base for Pakistan. It is as if we are afraid of saying 'Pakistan' with referance to any history pre 1947. The reality is not many countries existed in nthe past but that does not stop for example the Afghans referring to a even in 500ad and using the name Afganistan.
> 
> I have struggled with this problem in differant fora and whilst I can articulate a fifinally prepared response but that entails a long drawn out discussion with the Indian's normally setting of smokescreen to make the task harder.The shortest sharpest response that I have come down is as follows.
> 
> The name Alex has been around for millenia. If you run into a Alexander today that does not mean that person is Alexander the Great or Alexander Fleming. Over the millenia Alexander has been used but we all know it cannot have been the same Alexander.
> 
> In the same way if you look at the name 'India' it has been used over the millenia but it's meaning has differant. Over time it settled for what we now call India. This is like the way Asia has been around but what it conveyed has gradually changed. This often happens witth words and is called linquistic drift.
> 
> Drift (linguistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> List of continent name etymologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The word _Asia_ originated from the Ancient Greek word "Ἀσία",[7] first attributed to Herodotus (about 440 BCE) in reference to Anatolia or to the Persian Empire, in contrast to Greece and Egypt. It originally was* just a name for the east bank *of the Aegean Sea, an area known to the Hittites as Assuwa. In early Classical times, the Greeks started using the term "Asia" to refer to the whole region known today as Anatolia (the peninsula which forms the Asian portion of present-day Turkey). Eventually, however, the name had been stretched progressively further east, until it came to encompass the much larger land area with which we associate it today, while the Anatolian Peninsula started being called "Asia Minor" or "The Lesser Asia" instead.
> 
> And to the Indian's we are not wanting to use the name India today. We just want the indus basin to have a clear historical link with us withot any obfuscation whatsoever. WE want to bring clarity and concisness not create confusion which is what we have at the moment because in this confusion many of your people use to pillage our history and legacy. All because of a name.




Spot on, im not here to educate them..they can live in fools paradise, but as yet not one indian has refuted the articel and we are into 6 pages lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hulk

Capt.Popeye said:


> Just as the Romans, Phoenicians traded spices with South India. None of them even went to Karachi, they were not looking for sand; they were looking for spices!


The reason these articles come up is because they feel a sense of lost history. Afghan, Turks everyone's they have their people as their leader all over.


----------



## Skull and Bones

Pakistanis identify themselves with the invading forces who didn't showed up unlit the 900s AD, they have no participation in the Ancient Indus valley civilization.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Skull and Bones said:


> Pakistanis identify themselves with the invading forces who didn't showed up unlit the 900s AD, they have no participation in the Ancient Indus valley civilization.



pakistan is an acronym for punjab,afghania,sindh,kashmir,baluchistan and all that encompassses the people and its lands and its history and geography. india is a name given to you by the british which you kept as the article suggests. the IVC ENCOMPASSES all of sindh(saptha sindhu) and punjab..land of the seven rivers

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Force-India

Skull and Bones said:


> Pakistanis identify themselves with the invading forces who didn't showed up unlit the 900s AD, they have no participation in the Ancient Indus valley civilization.



Exactly. These people arrived after 900AD but claiming the IVC which is Dravidian and 5000 years old, just because that land is under thier control now is just pathetic.


----------



## my2cents

Atanz said:


> @Whirling_dervesh. Read the comments by Indian's here. From experiance they follow the typical trend. Broadly there are two responses informed by either the poster being 'dumb' or intentional duplicity.
> 
> (i) That Pakistan broke off India in 1947.
> 
> (ii) Any historical mention of 'India' was in referance to today's India.
> 
> (iii) Geographic India and political India are merged by Indian's to create this false notion of India having been there since time began when the actuall reality is India is one day younger then Pakistan. Bharat and Pakistan republics came in existance in August 1947.
> 
> The fact that prior to 1947 was a colony called 'British India' from which to have evolved Bharat, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar [ Burma ] is lost on dumb posters and others use that as a wordlplay to create illusion of 'Bharat' having a existance prior to 1947. Bharat and Pakistan had equal existance as they both were in the embryonic stage within the womb of British colony in thegeograhic sub continient.
> 
> At a intellectuel level I think we have a solid cogent argument but we face the real problem of centuries of inertia most of it coming from western writing, the British Indian history and finally our singualr failure post 1947 to develop a solid historical base for Pakistan. It is as if we are afraid of saying 'Pakistan' with referance to any history pre 1947. The reality is not many countries existed in nthe past but that does not stop for example the Afghans referring to a even in 500ad and using the name Afganistan.
> 
> I have struggled with this problem in differant fora and whilst I can articulate a fifinally prepared response but that entails a long drawn out discussion with the Indian's normally setting of smokescreen to make the task harder.The shortest sharpest response that I have come down is as follows.
> 
> The name Alex has been around for millenia. If you run into a Alexander today that does not mean that person is Alexander the Great or Alexander Fleming. Over the millenia Alexander has been used but we all know it cannot have been the same Alexander.
> 
> In the same way if you look at the name 'India' it has been used over the millenia but it's meaning has differant. Over time it settled for what we now call India. This is like the way Asia has been around but what it conveyed has gradually changed. This often happens witth words and is called linquistic drift.
> 
> Drift (linguistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> List of continent name etymologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The word _Asia_ originated from the Ancient Greek word "Ἀσία",[7] first attributed to Herodotus (about 440 BCE) in reference to Anatolia or to the Persian Empire, in contrast to Greece and Egypt. It originally was* just a name for the east bank *of the Aegean Sea, an area known to the Hittites as Assuwa. In early Classical times, the Greeks started using the term "Asia" to refer to the whole region known today as Anatolia (the peninsula which forms the Asian portion of present-day Turkey). Eventually, however, the name had been stretched progressively further east, until it came to encompass the much larger land area with which we associate it today, while the Anatolian Peninsula started being called "Asia Minor" or "The Lesser Asia" instead.
> 
> And to the Indian's we are not wanting to use the name India today. We just want the indus basin to have a clear historical link with us withot any obfuscation whatsoever. WE want to bring clarity and concisness not create confusion which is what we have at the moment because in this confusion many of your people use to pillage our history and legacy. All because of a name.




In my opinion there is no confusion on our part.We adopted India and Bharat as the official names of our country. Pakistan came into existence after partition of British India in 1947. You have decided early on to accept the history of Mogul invasion of Indian subcontinent as your history. Looks like you have realised what a blunder you have done by disowning your ancient past.

In contrast we have incorporated history of ancient India described in our Vedas. So, why blame Indians when in fact we are the torch bearers of ancient wisdom of Yoga philosophy and Ayurveda and still recite these scriptures during our marriages. We teach Sanskrit in our schools and promote epic poems of Ramayana and Mahabharata. We are living traditions of ancient India.


----------



## Bornubus

Whirling_dervesh said:


> keep smoking the pot, you'll get there one day..
> 
> 
> 
> no it wasnt, but thanks for your measly contribution anyway.


It doesn't matter what you think since the creation of nation state of Pakistan since 1947


----------



## The BrOkEn HeArT

A simple question to pakistanis-:
where was Pakistan before 1947??? 


Ans- In India. 
So pakistani brothers where you live right now , it was india's land. So be it. Don't have dream to change facts and history to feel good. You are living on India's land that you call it now 'pakistan'.

You post this thread in " Pakistan history forum " and talking about indian history. Hahahaha.. Lol. It proves there is no Pakistani history . You are just chasing a " word" call India.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xyxmt

RanvirSena said:


> Agreed both republics came into existance on the *SAME* *day. Great for Mauryan Empire although what time frame does that encapsulate in the last 5,000 years of history? Furthermore it was based in present day India although it spread west to present day Pakistan. By your logic the moghul Empire was first based in Lahore and from there it spread east? Shall we milch it as a proto Pakistan if you can milch Maurya as proto India?
> 
> Before you utter 'there was no Pakistan' I can safely also say there was no 'India' during that time unless you can give me proof from Mauryan times the usage of the term India.
> 
> *SAME** Although both republics came into existance on the same day India happens to have name that has been around for millenia. However that does not give it any more historical heritage then Pakistan in the same way me having a name Alexander does not give me historical continuity just on account of name having been around for centuries.
> 
> The product is new although the name is old and had a geograhic meaning the definition of which itself evolved over the millenia.


Where is all this big talk coming from, your country has never even produced an empire. Your history consists of being conquered by foreign kings including Mauryas and Guptas who came from India. Why such butthurt towards India? We are a continuation of the region of India since we make up the majority of that region. Bangladesh chose to align itself with a Bengali identity and Pakistan has with an Arab identity. We are a continuation of the Eastern Indian Empires of Maurya and the region of India in Republic form.


Mughals ruled from Delhi while forcibly converting your ancestors. And my ancestors rebelled against the Mughals and formed Benares state, nice try though.[/QUOTE]

its funny how you take pride in Mughal history, give us everything Mughal in India and you can keep the vast riches of Banares state/empire



RanvirSena said:


> Agreed both republics came into existance on the *SAME* *day. Great for Mauryan Empire although what time frame does that encapsulate in the last 5,000 years of history? Furthermore it was based in present day India although it spread west to present day Pakistan. By your logic the moghul Empire was first based in Lahore and from there it spread east? Shall we milch it as a proto Pakistan if you can milch Maurya as proto India?
> 
> Before you utter 'there was no Pakistan' I can safely also say there was no 'India' during that time unless you can give me proof from Mauryan times the usage of the term India.
> 
> *SAME** Although both republics came into existance on the same day India happens to have name that has been around for millenia. However that does not give it any more historical heritage then Pakistan in the same way me having a name Alexander does not give me historical continuity just on account of name having been around for centuries.
> 
> The product is new although the name is old and had a geograhic meaning the definition of which itself evolved over the millenia.


Where is all this big talk coming from, your country has never even produced an empire. Your history consists of being conquered by foreign kings including Mauryas and Guptas who came from India. Why such butthurt towards India? We are a continuation of the region of India since we make up the majority of that region. Bangladesh chose to align itself with a Bengali identity and Pakistan has with an Arab identity. We are a continuation of the Eastern Indian Empires of Maurya and the region of India in Republic form.


Mughals ruled from Delhi while forcibly converting your ancestors. And my ancestors rebelled against the Mughals and formed Benares state, nice try though.[/QUOTE]

looks like you never been to Delhi, it is Pakistan!


----------



## Manindra

Whirling_dervesh said:


> come back when you can write refute the author, no ones interested in your smartarse comments


I am just showing a mirror.


----------



## RanvirSena

Whirling_dervesh said:


> if it wasnt for pannini and his epic works in sanskrit in taxila , nalanda would be speaking hunter gatherer mumbo jumbo...


Panini was from KPK which is outside indian civilisation, the Vedas mentioned them as barabarians and he only invented classical Sanskrit. Modern day Sanskrit comes from modern day Haryana. Learn to make an empire, then u can brag about history,



xyxmt said:


> Where is all this big talk coming from, your country has never even produced an empire. Your history consists of being conquered by foreign kings including Mauryas and Guptas who came from India. Why such butthurt towards India? We are a continuation of the region of India since we make up the majority of that region. Bangladesh chose to align itself with a Bengali identity and Pakistan has with an Arab identity. We are a continuation of the Eastern Indian Empires of Maurya and the region of India in Republic form.
> 
> 
> Mughals ruled from Delhi while forcibly converting your ancestors. And my ancestors rebelled against the Mughals and formed Benares state, nice try though.



its funny how you take pride in Mughal history, give us everything Mughal in India and you can keep the vast riches of Banares state/empire


Where is all this big talk coming from, your country has never even produced an empire. Your history consists of being conquered by foreign kings including Mauryas and Guptas who came from India. Why such butthurt towards India? We are a continuation of the region of India since we make up the majority of that region. Bangladesh chose to align itself with a Bengali identity and Pakistan has with an Arab identity. We are a continuation of the Eastern Indian Empires of Maurya and the region of India in Republic form.


Mughals ruled from Delhi while forcibly converting your ancestors. And my ancestors rebelled against the Mughals and formed Benares state, nice try though.[/QUOTE]

looks like you never been to Delhi, it is Pakistan![/QUOTE]
Mughals conquered you and forcefully converted you, have some shame ****.



K.P.K said:


> Well let's see if any Indian can come forward and challenge this with hard facts rather then insecure one liners.
> 
> I have noticed the most petty and irrelevant to the topic arguments by the bhartis.


Have you ever produced an empire, yes or no?


----------



## PoKeMon

Skull and Bones said:


> Pakistanis identify themselves with the invading forces who didn't showed up unlit the 900s AD, they have no participation in the Ancient Indus valley civilization.



More to that, what is their contribution to the local land and stated civilization?

The likes of @Atanz and @Whirling_dervesh subjugated to foreign invaders and adopted their culture, religion and allegiance.

These people are hanging in mid way - cant claim arabian legacy, can not be the beacon of local civilization either. Somehow want an identity.

Pakistan is made of 3 types of people -

1- Invaders - So they can't claim local heritage.
2- Mohajirs - They do fall in same category
3- Locals - Got converted, hence lost their own identity.

@RanvirSena Why are you asking them for an empire of their own? Better ask them how many foreign empires they have allowed to rule them, convert them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## volcano

its other way around. Present day pakistan is a part of encient india. Pakistan is a new discovery, some thing which never existed between india, afganistan and persia.


----------



## WAR-rior

Kya Chutiyap thread hai.

If its so genuine why don't Pakistanis go international and claim their history?

Waha jaake bolti band hoti hai, when true acknowledged scholars finger point and laugh at Pakistani stories.


----------



## RanvirSena

PoKeMon said:


> More to that, what is their contribution to the local land and stated civilization?
> 
> The likes of @Atanz and @Whirling_dervesh subjugated to foreign invaders and adopted their culture, religion and allegiance.
> 
> These people are hanging in mid way - cant claim arabian legacy, can not be the beacon of local civilization either. Somehow want an identity.
> 
> Pakistan is made of 3 types of people -
> 
> 1- Invaders - So they can't claim local heritage.
> 2- Mohajirs - They do fall in same category
> 3- Locals - Got converted, hence lost their own identity.
> 
> @RanvirSena Why are you asking them for an empire of their own? Better ask them how many foreign empires they have allowed to rule them, convert them.


This is so true, they go around claiming other peoples history as they lack there own identity. I mean we gifted them Hinduism and Buddhism. We gifted them Sanskrit from Haryana. We gifted them knowledge from Nalanda which made taxila look like a retards academy. 

@Atanz was bullied by indians on another forum so he takes out his frustrations on a Pakistani forum where he has an advantage. On a neutral forum, this guy was considred a joke. He tries to bellittle india with his joke history and yet conveniently forgets indian history like:
Maurya
Gupta
Pala
Pratihara
Chola
Nalanda
Buddhism and bodh gaya
Vijaynagara
Defeating Seleucus
I could go on forever with our great empires and history which makes pakistans rubissh history look irrelevant. 

Pakistan hs been conquered by Greeks, turks, Indians, Persians, arabs, huns, british, afghans. Only turks afghans and british have conquered us and not even india in its entirety. We are superior in all aspects while pakistan was a weak region which never accomplished anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bornubus

RanvirSena said:


> This is so true, they go around claiming other peoples history as they lack there own identity. I mean we gifted them Hinduism and Buddhism. We gifted them Sanskrit from Haryana. We gifted them knowledge from Nalanda which made taxila look like a retards academy.
> 
> @Atanz was bullied by indians on another forum so he takes out his frustrations on a Pakistani forum where he has an advantage. On a neutral forum, this guy was considred a joke. He tries to bellittle india with his joke history and yet conveniently forgets indian history like:
> Maurya
> Gupta
> Pala
> Pratihara
> Chola
> Nalanda
> Buddhism and bodh gaya
> Vijaynagara
> Defeating Seleucus
> I could go on forever with our great empires and history which makes pakistans rubissh history look irrelevant.
> 
> Pakistan hs been conquered by Greeks, turks, Indians, Persians, arabs, huns, british, afghans. Only turks afghans and british have conquered us and not even india in its entirety. We are superior in all aspects while pakistan was a weak region which never accomplished anything.


+ Do not underestimate :- 

sikhs

Marathas 

as far as Peshawar with Lahore as the capital of empire though many Muslims chiefs from Punjab were their Ally and friend


Even during Mughals Indians were among HIGHEST GRADE mansabdar a great privileges only reserved for Mughal Royal blood.

That's why Indians were appointed as Governors of empire in Lahore and kabul

Man Singh I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

WAR-rior said:


> Kya Chutiyap thread hai.
> 
> If its so genuine why don't Pakistanis go international and claim their history?
> 
> Waha jaake bolti band hoti hai, when true acknowledged scholars finger point and laugh at Pakistani stories.



They don't laugh actually, in fact now they have started to separate Pakistan from Indian history thanks to our efforts. Indian now mean ganga land, south india, etc When they talk about indus valley history they always mention Pakistan. Most of Indian history is relatively recent phenomena, after aryans invaded and conquered India in last 2500 years or so. They formed empires in fertile lands of South Asia and ruled over their low caste slaves in east India, central india south india etc.

So when Indians have to look further back they come back crawling to IVC. Basically India is only country who's history start with another country, mehergarh in Balochistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kabira

In fact north west Indian hindu/sikhs from punjabi, himacheli, jammu are the ones who are in fore front in differentiating between their history and Indian history of east, central and south india. We don't have to do much work but we support their struggle.


----------



## scorpionx

For starters in the history of Ancient India, the following passages from various Greek chronicles and travel logs are strictly recommended before coming into any hilarious hypothesis.

*Ancient India @Megasthenes*

India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile. The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000. Being thus of such vast extent, it seems well-nigh to embrace the whole of the northern tropic zone of the earth, and in fact at the extreme point of India the gnomon of the sundial may frequently be observed to cast no shadow, while the constellation of the Bear is by night invisible, and in the remotest parts even Arcturus disappears from view. Consistently with this, it is also stated that shadows there fall to the southward

*Ancient India @Arrian*

But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world; Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months' journey. Megasthenes would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point. The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name.

*Ancient India @Plutarch*

As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was •thirty-two furlongs, its depth •a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. 3 For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
.........................................................................................................................................................

From the above passages, what is the only thing obvious here? The answer is quite simple. The Greek records of ancient India did not merely stop at Indus basin. The further they advanced, their idea of geographical India became gradually more transparent. The Greek expression of the territory beyond East of Indus was strictly a geography called 'India'. just as anything beyond East of Aegean sea was Asia whose eastern limits were yet to be explored by them. 

https://ia600501.us.archive.org/18/...ribedByMegasthenesAndArrianByMccrindleJ.W.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## RanvirSena

scorpionx said:


> For starters in the history of Ancient India, the following passages from various Greek chronicles and travel logs are strictly recommended before coming into any hilarious hypothesis.
> 
> *Ancient India @Megasthenes*
> 
> India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile. The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000. Being thus of such vast extent, it seems well-nigh to embrace the whole of the northern tropic zone of the earth, and in fact at the extreme point of India the gnomon of the sundial may frequently be observed to cast no shadow, while the constellation of the Bear is by night invisible, and in the remotest parts even Arcturus disappears from view. Consistently with this, it is also stated that shadows there fall to the southward
> 
> *Ancient India @Arrian*
> 
> But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world; Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months' journey. Megasthenes would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point. The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name.
> 
> *Ancient India @Plutarch*
> 
> As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was •thirty-two furlongs, its depth •a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. 3 For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
> .........................................................................................................................................................
> 
> From the above passages, what is the only thing obvious here? The answer is quite simple. The Greek records of ancient India did not merely stop at Indus basin. The further they advanced, their idea of geographical India became gradually more transparent. The Greek expression of the territory beyond East of Indus was strictly a geography called 'India'. just as anything beyond East of Aegean sea was Asia whose eastern limits were yet to be explored by them.


Brother, can u tell me history of bhumihars?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bornubus

scorpionx said:


> For starters in the history of Ancient India, the following passages from various Greek chronicles and travel logs are strictly recommended before coming into any hilarious hypothesis.
> 
> *Ancient India @Megasthenes*
> 
> India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile. The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000. Being thus of such vast extent, it seems well-nigh to embrace the whole of the northern tropic zone of the earth, and in fact at the extreme point of India the gnomon of the sundial may frequently be observed to cast no shadow, while the constellation of the Bear is by night invisible, and in the remotest parts even Arcturus disappears from view. Consistently with this, it is also stated that shadows there fall to the southward
> 
> *Ancient India @Arrian*
> 
> But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world; Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months' journey. Megasthenes would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point. The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name.
> 
> *Ancient India @Plutarch*
> 
> As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was •thirty-two furlongs, its depth •a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. 3 For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
> .........................................................................................................................................................
> 
> From the above passages, what is the only thing obvious here? The answer is quite simple. The Greek records of ancient India did not merely stop at Indus basin. The further they advanced, their idea of geographical India became gradually more transparent. The Greek expression of the territory beyond East of Indus was strictly a geography called 'India'. just as anything beyond East of Aegean sea was Asia whose eastern limits were yet to be explored by them.
> 
> https://ia600501.us.archive.org/18/...ribedByMegasthenesAndArrianByMccrindleJ.W.pdf


Tnx

I have learn a lot from your posts

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deepak.chauhan2312

Whirling_dervesh said:


> keep smoking the pot, you'll get there one day..
> .



ohkay so thats how you got there good but buddy history says Pakistan word is not ancient and ancient India was in ancient India.It was a gateway of India for west thats how they started calling it India but this doesn't mean other people were of different race


----------



## My-Analogous

Manindra said:


> Pakistan is no India/Bharat.
> If it would be then it would Islamic Republic of India/Bharat.



Wait for my new thread to clear your head and yes almost all major civilization of Hindustan is currently in Pakistan areas and once all my research completed i will post in PDF in three to four days

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

RanvirSena said:


> This is so true, they go around claiming other peoples history as they lack there own identity. I mean we gifted them Hinduism and Buddhism. We gifted them Sanskrit from Haryana. We gifted them knowledge from Nalanda which made taxila look like a retards academy.
> 
> @Atanz was bullied by indians on another forum so he takes out his frustrations on a Pakistani forum where he has an advantage. On a neutral forum, this guy was considred a joke. He tries to bellittle india with his joke history and yet conveniently forgets indian history like:
> Maurya
> Gupta
> Pala
> Pratihara
> Chola
> Nalanda
> Buddhism and bodh gaya
> Vijaynagara
> Defeating Seleucus
> I could go on forever with our great empires and history which makes pakistans rubissh history look irrelevant.
> 
> Pakistan hs been conquered by Greeks, turks, Indians, Persians, arabs, huns, british, afghans. Only turks afghans and british have conquered us and not even india in its entirety. We are superior in all aspects while pakistan was a weak region which never accomplished anything.



The day that you 1,300 million do anything to me I will become a 'Hindoo '. The problem I was outnumbered like 10 to 1 and my nature is such that I can't struugle to ignore negative comments about Pakistan. That just led with insufficient time to cover my passion Pakistan history.


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

indianrabbit said:


> The reason these articles come up is because they feel a sense of lost history. Afghan, Turks everyone's they have their people as their leader all over.


It's not an article, it's an extract from a comprehensive book, By an eminent scholar get your facts right. And the rest of what you wrote is gobbledygook, learn to write coherent sentences that's all that I can hope from you as clearly refuting the thread would be beyond you.



deepak.chauhan2312 said:


> ohkay so thats how you got there good but buddy history says Pakistan word is not ancient and ancient India was in ancient India.It was a gateway of India for west thats how they started calling it India but this doesn't mean other people were of different race


Read previous posts it's getting boring now, Pakistan is an acronym for Punjab Sind afghania etc India is your slave name



Skull and Bones said:


> Pakistanis identify themselves with the invading forces who didn't showed up unlit the 900s AD, they have no participation in the Ancient Indus valley civilization.


Clearly not, otherwise we wouldn't be posting here, ancient Ivc belongs to us, come and claim it if you can



Force-India said:


> Exactly. These people arrived after 900AD but claiming the IVC which is Dravidian and 5000 years old, just because that land is under thier control now is just pathetic.


What's more pathetic is your crying about something you have zero knowledge, who mentioned Dravidians? And IVC ppl just got up and vanished? Keep dreaming it's our land our history our geography you have to live with it



my2cents said:


> In my opinion there is no confusion on our part.We adopted India and Bharat as the official names of our country. Pakistan came into existence after partition of British India in 1947. You have decided early on to accept the history of Mogul invasion of Indian subcontinent as your history. Looks like you have realised what a blunder you have done by disowning your ancient past.
> 
> In contrast we have incorporated history of ancient India described in our Vedas. So, why blame Indians when in fact we are the torch bearers of ancient wisdom of Yoga philosophy and Ayurveda and still recite these scriptures during our marriages. We teach Sanskrit in our schools and promote epic poems of Ramayana and Mahabharata. We are living traditions of ancient India.



I agree to an extent what your saying however 60-70 years of disowning our history is a small drop in an ocean of antiquity if you look at the bigger picture. People are waking up, No body is blaming Indians for being opportunists. Rgveda was written in IVC, and all the Hindu stuff in your last paragraph, there's no evidence harrapans were Hindus. Hinduism is a British term, Santana dharma is anything and nothing.



RanvirSena said:


> Panini was from KPK which is outside indian civilisation, the Vedas mentioned them as barabarians and he only invented classical Sanskrit. Modern day Sanskrit comes from modern day Haryana. Learn to make an empire, then u can brag about history,
> 
> 
> 
> its funny how you take pride in Mughal history, give us everything Mughal in India and you can keep the vast riches of Banares state/empire
> 
> 
> Where is all this big talk coming from, your country has never even produced an empire. Your history consists of being conquered by foreign kings including Mauryas and Guptas who came from India. Why such butthurt towards India? We are a continuation of the region of India since we make up the majority of that region. Bangladesh chose to align itself with a Bengali identity and Pakistan has with an Arab identity. We are a continuation of the Eastern Indian Empires of Maurya and the region of India in Republic form.
> 
> 
> Mughals ruled from Delhi while forcibly converting your ancestors. And my ancestors rebelled against the Mughals and formed Benares state, nice try though.



looks like you never been to Delhi, it is Pakistan![/QUOTE]
Mughals conquered you and forcefully converted you, have some shame ****.


Have you ever produced an empire, yes or no?[/QUOTE]
Mehrgarh, Gandhara, IVC were ancient civilisations empires if not what were they?



RanvirSena said:


> This is so true, they go around claiming other peoples history as they lack there own identity. I mean we gifted them Hinduism and Buddhism. We gifted them Sanskrit from Haryana. We gifted them knowledge from Nalanda which made taxila look like a retards academy.
> 
> @Atanz was bullied by indians on another forum so he takes out his frustrations on a Pakistani forum where he has an advantage. On a neutral forum, this guy was considred a joke. He tries to bellittle india with his joke history and yet conveniently forgets indian history like:
> Maurya
> Gupta
> Pala
> Pratihara
> Chola
> Nalanda
> Buddhism and bodh gaya
> Vijaynagara
> Defeating Seleucus
> I could go on forever with our great empires and history which makes pakistans rubissh history look irrelevant.
> 
> Pakistan hs been conquered by Greeks, turks, Indians, Persians, arabs, huns, british, afghans. Only turks afghans and british have conquered us and not even india in its entirety. We are superior in all aspects while pakistan was a weak region which never accomplished anything.


Lol other than 100 years of maurya rule, no bharati laid foot on The area that is now Pakistan. Why are you so desperate to prove your empires credentials and why are hindutvas desperately trying to forge and fraud links to the great Indus Valley civilisations. Fact is IVC was there in our land 2000 Years before any of the states you have mentioned above, Harappa and mohenjadaro were there flourishing while your 'empires' were busy hunting and gathering berries and picking nits of each other



Bornubus said:


> + Do not underestimate :-
> 
> sikhs
> 
> Marathas
> 
> as far as Peshawar with Lahore as the capital of empire though many Muslims chiefs from Punjab were their Ally and friend
> 
> 
> Even during Mughals Indians were among HIGHEST GRADE mansabdar a great privileges only reserved for Mughal Royal blood.
> 
> That's why Indians were appointed as Governors of empire in Lahore and kabul
> 
> Man Singh I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


By your logic Sikhs can't claim ancient IVC because their history started with guru Nanak? In the 1400/1500's, oh sorry they didn't exist before?



WAR-rior said:


> [*QUOTE
> 
> *="save_ghenda, post: 7077941, member: 158989"]They don't laugh actually, in fact now they have started to separate Pakistan from Indian history thanks to our efforts. Indian now mean ganga land, south india, etc When they talk about indus valley history they always mention Pakistan. Most of Indian history is relatively recent phenomena, after aryans invaded and conquered India in last 2500 years or so. They *formed
> 
> * empires in fertile lands of South Asia and ruled over their low caste slaves in east India, central india south india etc.
> 
> So when Indians have to look further back they come back crawling to IVC. Basically India is only country who's history start with another country, mehergarh in Balochistan.[/*QUOTE
> 
> *]
> No Bakchodi. Post concrete links to prove acceptence of Pakistani fake propaganda by international bodies.


The article says it all, the point of thread is or you to refute, but the level or lack of intellect on your part means you won't go beyond ad hominem attacks


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Bornubus said:


> Mughals conquered you and forcefully converted you, have some shame ****.
> 
> 
> Have you ever produced an empire, yes or no?


Mehrgarh, Gandhara, IVC were ancient civilisations empires if not what were they?


Lol other than 100 years of maurya rule, no bharati laid foot on The area that is now Pakistan. Why are you so desperate to prove your empires credentials and why are hindutvas desperately trying to forge and fraud links to the great Indus Valley civilisations. Fact is IVC was there in our land 2000 Years before any of the states you have mentioned above, Harappa and mohenjadaro were there flourishing while your 'empires' were busy hunting and gathering berries and picking nits of each other


By your logic Sikhs can't claim ancient IVC because their history started with guru Nanak? In the 1400/1500's, oh sorry they didn't exist before?[/QUOTE]
And why not IVC was not exclusive to present day Pakistan "region" of indian subcontinent[/QUOTE]

You know when someone's lost an argument they start with insults. Reported.


----------



## Bornubus

Sorry i mistakenly quote someone else post or its a glitch ,i shall delete it

@mods
@Whirling_dervesh

@waz

@Oscar


----------



## WAR-rior

Whirling_dervesh said:


> It's not an article, it's an extract from a comprehensive book, By an eminent scholar get your facts right. And the rest of what you wrote is gobbledygook, learn to write coherent sentences that's all that I can hope from you as clearly refuting the thread would be beyond you.
> 
> 
> Read previous posts it's getting boring now, Pakistan is an acronym for Punjab Sind afghania etc India is your slave name
> 
> 
> Clearly not, otherwise we wouldn't be posting here, ancient Ivc belongs to us, come and claim it if you can
> 
> What's more pathetic is your crying about something you have zero knowledge, who mentioned Dravidians? And IVC ppl just got up and vanished? Keep dreaming it's our land our history our geography you have to live with it
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to an extent what your saying however 60-70 years of disowning our history is a small drop in an ocean of antiquity if you look at the bigger picture. People are waking up, No body is blaming Indians for being opportunists. Rgveda was written in IVC, and all the Hindu stuff in your last paragraph, there's no evidence harrapans were Hindus. Hinduism is a British term, Santana dharma is anything and nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> looks like you never been to Delhi, it is Pakistan!


Mughals conquered you and forcefully converted you, have some shame ****.


Have you ever produced an empire, yes or no?[/QUOTE]
Mehrgarh, Gandhara, IVC were ancient civilisations empires if not what were they?


Lol other than 100 years of maurya rule, no bharati laid foot on The area that is now Pakistan. Why are you so desperate to prove your empires credentials and why are hindutvas desperately trying to forge and fraud links to the great Indus Valley civilisations. Fact is IVC was there in our land 2000 Years before any of the states you have mentioned above, Harappa and mohenjadaro were there flourishing while your 'empires' were busy hunting and gathering berries and picking nits of each other


By your logic Sikhs can't claim ancient IVC because their history started with guru Nanak? In the 1400/1500's, oh sorry they didn't exist before?


The article says it all, the point of thread is or you to refute, but the level or lack of intellect on your part means you won't go beyond ad hominem attacks[/QUOTE]
dude. I just asked a simple valid question. Now he dint respond. You do it plz. Please post credible source to prove world has accepted Pakistani version of crap as that person claimed. Do it and I will shut up. Post the links of international summits where existing theory of Sub continent history same as Indian ancient history, refuted.

Why all such stories start in Pakistan and die within Pakistani borders?


----------



## KingMamba

Srinivas said:


> What a rubbish, The Entire region East of Indus is called India.
> 
> When Vasco de Gama set sail to find India he did not land in Karachi, he landed in Souther part of India.



Look at the dates jahil, de Gama was before or after the Greeks and Darius? The Op is talking about what India meant durings its origin and you bring up what Euros thought it means hundreds of years later lmao.



Capt.Popeye said:


> Just as the Romans, Phoenicians traded spices with South India. None of them even went to Karachi, they were not looking for sand; they were looking for spices!



Another jahil, the op is talking about what India meant when it was first recorded in history. It is well known that during the time of Alexander and everything preceding him when anybody referred to Ind or hind they were referencing Sindh, modern day Pakistan. It was only during the end of Alexander empire and beginning of the Seleucid empire that it denoted anything east of Pakistan. For example even Indonesia was considered India and was called the East Indies. Which is why people wrongly say Columbus was looking for a route to India but in actuality he was trying to get to the East Indies or modern day Indonesia.



scorpionx said:


> For starters in the history of Ancient India, the following passages from various Greek chronicles and travel logs are strictly recommended before coming into any hilarious hypothesis.
> 
> *Ancient India @Megasthenes*
> 
> India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile. The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000. Being thus of such vast extent, it seems well-nigh to embrace the whole of the northern tropic zone of the earth, and in fact at the extreme point of India the gnomon of the sundial may frequently be observed to cast no shadow, while the constellation of the Bear is by night invisible, and in the remotest parts even Arcturus disappears from view. Consistently with this, it is also stated that shadows there fall to the southward
> 
> *Ancient India @Arrian*
> 
> But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world; Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months' journey. Megasthenes would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point. The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name.
> 
> *Ancient India @Plutarch*
> 
> As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was •thirty-two furlongs, its depth •a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. 3 For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
> .........................................................................................................................................................
> 
> From the above passages, what is the only thing obvious here? The answer is quite simple. The Greek records of ancient India did not merely stop at Indus basin. The further they advanced, their idea of geographical India became gradually more transparent. The Greek expression of the territory beyond East of Indus was strictly a geography called 'India'. just as anything beyond East of Aegean sea was Asia whose eastern limits were yet to be explored by them.
> 
> https://ia600501.us.archive.org/18/...ribedByMegasthenesAndArrianByMccrindleJ.W.pdf



The others I can understand for they are dumb as shit but you are far more inteligent. What you have written is 100 percent correct that those Greeks you mentioned considered parts east of the Indus basin as India as well but and this is the main point, the author in the op is talking about history even earlier than the men you have mentioned. There is no doubt that in the time of Alexander and Darius before him Hind and later Ind referenced parts of modern Pakistan only, because as stated in the OP the Persians did not consider there to be anything further east and what the Greeks of the era knew pf those regions came from their interactions with Persians. In fact Alexander did not know there were further kingdoms east until he had arrived in the region himself and it was under his successor the Selecids that anything further east was added as a part of "India". That of course meant all lands east which as I mentioned before included places like Indonesia which were referred to as the East Indies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

This is the problem. These Indian's are failing to comprehend that just because the name India has been around for a long time does not mean it is the same India they belong to or for that matter the one the British made.

I have said it before and I will bring this simple example again. If my name was Alexander it does not mean I am Alexander Fleming or Alexander the Great. In the same way India in 500BC meant differant than it did later. These people keep on shifting from one timeframe to another.

Frankly the main thing we are here is to educate our own people in our history. Even if Lord Shiva came and tried to tell these Indian's they would not agree. so let us just spen our effort on our own people and once slowly move on to the international community. 

I am going to approach some Chinese and see if we can get their help to spread the word in China because I am sure they will be interested in our Buddhist Gandhara and Taxila.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## scorpionx

KingMamba said:


> The others I can understand for they are dumb as shit but you are far more inteligent. What you have written is 100 percent correct that those Greeks you mentioned considered parts east of the Indus basin as India as well but and this is the main point, the author in the op is talking about history even earlier than the men you have mentioned. There is no doubt that in the time of Alexander and Darius before him Hind and later Ind referenced parts of modern Pakistan only, because as stated in the OP the Persians did not consider there to be anything further east and what the Greeks of the era knew pf those regions came from their interactions with Persians.That of course meant all lands east which as I mentioned before included places like Indonesia which were referred to as the East Indies.


And how exactly this conclusion has been achieved?The Persian boundary ended at Hydaspes _(Jhelum) _enough west to the eastern border of present modern Pakistan and further east there were a number of powerful kingdoms. It is difficult to assume that Persian historians did not know about these regions.If you have read Herodotus (I am sure you have) you can clearly see he had a fair idea about the ethno-cultural diversity of the region which matches all the description of North and North western part of India today. Only problem was he could see only things the Persian historians had let him see in Egypt and Babylon.



> In fact Alexander did not know there were further kingdoms east until he had arrived in the region himself and it was under his successor the Selecids that anything further east was added as a part of "India".


Alexander did not have any idea about the region 'Asia' either. Plutarch in the very beginning of his work tells us about how curious Alexander was about the unseen land he would once conquer. Does that mean Asia never existed before Greek army set foot on it? The Greeks had of course limited idea about the geographical limit of the land called 'India' in the East but the more they proceeded they did not identify with individual names of kingdoms but in a generalized cultural and geographic expression which had nothing to do with the present 'political India'. This had been the case at the time of Darius, it happened during Arrian and Plutarch and continued for the next thousand years.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SamantK

Another attempt to steal the heritage of India! 

Pakistan and Pakistanis should understand one thing
Claim that you were a part of India and inheritors of Indian Heritage - no issues, claim that you were the only inheritors of Indian heritage, Indians and the World will laugh on you silly


----------



## Ammyy

Pakistan comes into existence only after 1947, before that is was part of India.


----------



## Lucid Thoughts

India/Pakistan really is just Punjab. Face it non-Punjabis, we da best!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Force-India

Whirling_dervesh said:


> Clearly not, otherwise we wouldn't be posting here, ancient Ivc belongs to us, come and claim it if you can
> 
> What's more pathetic is your crying about something you have zero knowledge, who mentioned Dravidians? And IVC ppl just got up and vanished? Keep dreaming it's our land our history our geography you have to live with it



Whatever makes you sleep tonight. Black US citizens are not even 10% of total population today, once they were 100%. But hey you can imagine whatever you like. It costs nothing


----------



## Kabira

Force-India said:


> Whatever makes you sleep tonight. *Black US citizens are not even 10% of total population today, once they were 100%*. But hey you can imagine whatever you like. It costs nothing



Dude go to sleep, honestly hindutvas are embarrassing historians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## My-Analogous

SamantK said:


> Another attempt to steal the heritage of India!
> 
> Pakistan and Pakistanis should understand one thing
> Claim that you were a part of India and inheritors of Indian Heritage - no issues, claim that you were the only inheritors of Indian heritage, Indians and the World will laugh on you silly



You guys try your level best to hijack old heritage of our peoples, but world will never accept your claim. So keep trying and by the way IVC civilization was not even followers of Shaivism, Vaishnavism or Shaktism etc (i didn't called them hindu b/c there is no religion called Hindu in past 5000 years and it is just a new invention of past 70 to 80 years). They probably atheist or some other religion so even religion wise you can't claim that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ghoul

scorpionx said:


> For starters in the history of Ancient India, the following passages from various Greek chronicles and travel logs are strictly recommended before coming into any hilarious hypothesis.
> 
> *Ancient India @Megasthenes*
> 
> India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile. The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000. Being thus of such vast extent, it seems well-nigh to embrace the whole of the northern tropic zone of the earth, and in fact at the extreme point of India the gnomon of the sundial may frequently be observed to cast no shadow, while the constellation of the Bear is by night invisible, and in the remotest parts even Arcturus disappears from view. Consistently with this, it is also stated that shadows there fall to the southward
> 
> *Ancient India @Arrian*
> 
> But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world; Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months' journey. Megasthenes would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point. The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name.
> 
> *Ancient India @Plutarch*
> 
> As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was •thirty-two furlongs, its depth •a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. 3 For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
> .........................................................................................................................................................
> 
> From the above passages, what is the only thing obvious here? The answer is quite simple. The Greek records of ancient India did not merely stop at Indus basin. The further they advanced, their idea of geographical India became gradually more transparent. The Greek expression of the territory beyond East of Indus was strictly a geography called 'India'. just as anything beyond East of Aegean sea was Asia whose eastern limits were yet to be explored by them.
> 
> https://ia600501.us.archive.org/18/...ribedByMegasthenesAndArrianByMccrindleJ.W.pdf



India meant "land of Indus" in Greek. Indus was the Greek version of "Sindh". The Arabs and Persians called the land east of Indus as "Hind", for they had no "S" in their language. Present day "India" is anything but "land of Indus". Modern India is should be called Gangaland. And foreigners use to generalize all other regions in the world. Like for Arabs, the whole central Asia was collectively "Khorasan"...

And Pakistan indeed has a relatively separate history from India. The truth is that most of those "ancient Indians" were actually ancestors of Pakistanis than modern day Indians...India was unified for the first time by the British. Before that, the whole sub-continent was called "hindustan", "Hind" etc. And why aren't you guys as keen to claim Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as you are for Pakistan? 



save_ghenda said:


> In fact north west Indian hindu/sikhs from punjabi, himacheli, jammu are the ones who are in fore front in differentiating between their history and Indian history of east, central and south india. We don't have to do much work but we support their struggle.



I heard Biharis have conquered the Indian Punjab and Himachalis have passed property laws to defend their hometown, but only in vain as even there the Bihari invasion has started.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Ammyy said:


> Pakistan comes into existence only after 1947, before that is was part of India.


India comes into existence only after 1947 plus one day after Pakistan



scorpionx said:


> For starters in the history of Ancient India, the following passages from various Greek chronicles and travel logs are strictly recommended before coming into any hilarious hypothesis.
> 
> *Ancient India @Megasthenes*
> 
> India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile. The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000. Being thus of such vast extent, it seems well-nigh to embrace the whole of the northern tropic zone of the earth, and in fact at the extreme point of India the gnomon of the sundial may frequently be observed to cast no shadow, while the constellation of the Bear is by night invisible, and in the remotest parts even Arcturus disappears from view. Consistently with this, it is also stated that shadows there fall to the southward
> 
> *Ancient India @Arrian*
> 
> But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world; Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months' journey. Megasthenes would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point. The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name.
> 
> *Ancient India @Plutarch*
> 
> As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was •thirty-two furlongs, its depth •a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. 3 For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
> .........................................................................................................................................................
> 
> From the above passages, what is the only thing obvious here? The answer is quite simple. The Greek records of ancient India did not merely stop at Indus basin. The further they advanced, their idea of geographical India became gradually more transparent. The Greek expression of the territory beyond East of Indus was strictly a geography called 'India'. just as anything beyond East of Aegean sea was Asia whose eastern limits were yet to be explored by them.
> 
> https://ia600501.us.archive.org/18/...ribedByMegasthenesAndArrianByMccrindleJ.W.pdf


Completely missing the point of the thread, Indus Valley Civilisation Was flourishing 2500 Years before before megasthenes,Arian or Plutarch came about, This is a map below of the world according to Herodotus who came before any of those Greek philosophers you mentioned. Megasthenes, Plutarch , Arian were either around the time or after Alexander's conquests therefore they may have contact with mauryas and purus, panda as etc who by that time had settled in the Gangetic plains

File:Herodotus world map-en.svg - Wikimedia Commons

The world according to Greeks in 500 bc

http://www.livius.org/a/1/maps/herodotus_map.gif



Force-India said:


> Whatever makes you sleep tonight. Black US citizens are not even 10% of total population today, once they were 100%. But hey you can imagine whatever you like. It costs nothing


You need to lay off the drugs, and stop dreaming of Black U.S. CITIZENS bro

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 3.14159

Whirling_dervesh said:


> India comes into existence only after 1947 plus one day after Pakistan......



Please read the original text of the Parliament, titled "Indian Independence Act" dated 18th July 1947:

*Indian Independence Act, 1947.*

*CHAPTER 30.

An Act to make provision for the setting up in India of two independent Dominions, to substitute other provisions for certain provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, which apply outside those Dominions, and to provide for, other matters consequential on or connected with the setting up of those Dominions.

Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :-

1.-(i) As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.

(2) The said Dominions are hereafter in this Act referred to as "the new Dominions", and the said fifteenth day of August
is hereafter in this Act referred to as " the appointed day ".

2.-(1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) Territories of this section, the territories of India shall be the territories under the new the sovereignty of His Majesty which, immediately before the appointed day, were included in British India except the territories which, under subsection (2) of this section, are to be the territories of Pakistan. *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

If Gandhara was already under Achaemenid rule, Darius' Hindu must have lain beyond it, and so to the south or east. Later Iranian records refer to Sindhu, presumably an adoption of the Sanskrit spelling, whence derives the word `Sind', now Pakistan's southernmost province. It seems unlikely though, that Sindhu was Sind in the late sixth century BC, since Darius subsequently found it necessary to send a naval expedition to explore the Indus. Flowing through the middle of Sind, the river would surely have been familiar to any suzerain of the region. More probably, then, Hindu lay east of Gandhara, perhaps as a wedge of territory between it, the jana-padas of eastern Panjab, and deserts of Rajasthan. *It thus occupied much of what is now the Panjab province of Pakistan*. 



*Herodotus, of course, knew only of the Indus region, and that by hearsay. Hence he did not report that the land of Hindu was of sensational extent, nor did he deny the popular belief that beyond its furthest desert, where in reality the Gangetic plain interminably spreads, lay the great ocean which supposedly encircled the world; Hindu or `India' (but in fact Pakistan) was therefore believed to be the end of terra firma*, a worthy culmination to any emperor's ambitions as well as a fabulous addition to his portfolio of conquests. In abbreviated form, Herodotus' History circulated widely. A hundred years after his death it was still avidly read by northern Greeks in Macedonia, where a teenage Alexander `knew it well enough to quote and follow its stories'


----------



## Ammyy

Whirling_dervesh said:


> India comes into existence only after 1947 plus one day after Pakistan



Day after Pakistan? Don't read false history.




Rupee note in 1917...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kabira

Ammyy said:


> Day after Pakistan? Don't read false history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rupee note in 1917...



do you see picture of your master in it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ammyy

save_ghenda said:


> do you see picture of your master in it?



Pakistan was created by those masters of yours  otherwise it was part of India ... as you can see in that pic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

Ammyy said:


> Pakistan was created by those masters of yours  otherwise it was part of India ... as you can see in that pic.



We came up with idea and name on our own. While rest of it was left as master originally conquered.



ghoul said:


> India meant "land of Indus" in Greek. Indus was the Greek version of "Sindh". The Arabs and Persians called the land east of Indus as "Hind", for they had no "S" in their language. Present day "India" is anything but "land of Indus". Modern India is should be called Gangaland. And foreigners use to generalize all other regions in the world. Like for Arabs, the whole central Asia was collectively "Khorasan"...
> 
> And Pakistan indeed has a relatively separate history from India. The truth is that most of those "ancient Indians" were actually ancestors of Pakistanis than modern day Indians...India was unified for the first time by the British. Before that, the whole sub-continent was called "hindustan", "Hind" etc. And why aren't you guys as keen to claim Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as you are for Pakistan?
> 
> 
> 
> I heard Biharis have conquered the Indian Punjab and Himachalis have passed property laws to defend their hometown, but only in vain as even there the Bihari invasion has started.



bhaiyas are to rest of indians what afghanis are to Pakistanis. Bin bulaye haramkhor mehmaan jho khabhi wapis jane ka nai sochte. Anyway at least in India bhaiyas are legal citizens so they can go anywhere.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Ammyy said:


> Pakistan was created by those masters of yours  otherwise it was part of India ... as you can see in that pic.



Are you a imbecile? A cretin? Both Pakistan and India 'were created' by the same master - the British. Before 1947 was NOT your India. It only shares a name. It was British India. Look at the map and flag of British India. The British made it it. If a slavemaster got hold of you and locked you up with a bunch of other slaves it does not mean all of you slaves are a family. The only thing you share is your slavemaster,

In the past the British came with gun's made your great, great grandad into a slave, they came to my great, great grandad with guns and made him a slave. The prison that they built they called it BRITISH INDIA. As soon as they left were free and we went our way.

Mine got made slaves and locked in the British Indian prison in 1849 when they conquered Punjab and conquered Sindh in 1843. Do you know how you becama a British Indian? Maybe you voted to join it, maybe you wanted to join it?

This is how the British 'Made their British India'. 6,000 Sindhi's sacrificed their lives because they did NOT want to be part of British India. 256 British died making 'British India' and this cretin thinks the British 'divided us'. They bloody united us at point of death. Read below, learn some facts before you talk history.

Battle of Miani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: Cretin why does that Rupee note have King Georges profile on it? Knock, knock what does that tell you? It was part of *BRITISH INDIA.*

*British India ==========> Pakistan, Bharat, Bangladesh, Burma *tied togather by British soldiers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## K.P.K

Ammyy said:


> Day after Pakistan? Don't read false history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rupee note in 1917...



Now look to the left of it it's got pic of king George the v, unless he was an Indian this is British Indian currency.


----------



## SarthakGanguly

scorpionx said:


> And how exactly this conclusion has been achieved?The Persian boundary ended at Hydaspes _(Jhelum) _enough west to the eastern border of present modern Pakistan and further east there were a number of powerful kingdoms. It is difficult to assume that Persian historians did not know about these regions.If you have read Herodotus (I am sure you have) you can clearly see he had a fair idea about the ethno-cultural diversity of the region which matches all the description of North and North western part of India today. Only problem was he could see only things the Persian historians had let him see in Egypt and Babylon.
> 
> 
> Alexander did not have any idea about the region 'Asia' either. Plutarch in the very beginning of his work tells us about how curious Alexander was about the unseen land he would once conquer. Does that mean Asia never existed before Greek army set foot on it? The Greeks had of course limited idea about the geographical limit of the land called 'India' in the East but the more they proceeded they did not identify with individual names of kingdoms but in a generalized cultural and geographic expression which had nothing to do with the present 'political India'. This had been the case at the time of Darius, it happened during Arrian and Plutarch and continued for the next thousand years.


I will tell you something. Let them pursue this. Pakistani 'history' is a joke the entire world over. Their own inability to come to terms with reality is something we can't and (if we can we) shouldn't fix. Their pursuit for history in isolation and claiming sole ownership is looked down upon in every place of importance and will continue to be so in the near future. We should stick to observing them and probably having a laugh over it in our pastimes. Let them indulge. Pakistan Studies Part II for Kids perhaps.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Pakistan

@SarthakGanguly I know we are on the right path? Shall I tell you why? The mere fact that you guy's are acting like bees bees being smoked tell s me a lot.

The last people we expect to support us, the last people who we will ask to validate is Indian's. This is purely a internal Pak matter. If what your saying is true why are you people spending so much attention on our history when non of you were invited?

We niether ask, or require your permission.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SarthakGanguly

Atanz said:


> @SarthakGanguly I know we are on the right path? Shall I tell you why? The mere fact that you guy's are acting like bees bees being smoked tell s me a lot.
> 
> The last people we expect to support us, the last people who we will ask to validate is Indian's. This is purely a internal Pak matter. If what your saying is true why are you people spending so much attention on our history when non of you were invited?
> 
> We niether ask, or require your permission.


On the contrary. I want you to document all these. You have my best wishes. I am your most earnest fan.  Please keep it up. I loved reading Pakistan Studies books. Sure, I will like these as well. No sarcasm. I am all for your exclusive Pakistani history. Tathastu. 

Most Indians know little about the history taught in Pakistan. So they are taking things personally. I love this new endeavour. I am honestly loving it. Please continue and let nothing deviate you from your mission.


----------



## Force-India

I wonder why these Pakistanis are desprate to claim Indian history.Yes Pakistan controls that area now agreed. But history is a fact and the fact is this land has been of the Vedic people whose descendants live in India. This land had been invaded by many many other civilisations. But the point is why Pakistanis are so desprate to prove themselves the same people who lived there in past. The reason is you guys know you are invaders and can't claim the history of this land to simulate fake proudness, specialy after the so called 1000 years muslim rule which has become a joke. No matter what you claim, you are not the same people who lived there 5000 years ago, deal with it. Are you able to read Devnagri script? Are you able to read Sanskrit? 1857 Hindi Urdu divide what was it? You are the ones who lived here for 5000 years and then you are the same people who invaded your own land. Nice try though. You people arived in 900AD start your so called Pakistani history from there as it is in your books. Now everyone make fun of it does not mean you will re write history. But none the less, your atempt of Pakistani History Version 2 will fail too after some time because you people change party when something you claim loses its shine. You people only like to claim all good goody things and ignore rest. Such loser attitude will never make you real proud.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Ha Ha Ha. The mere fact that your here says everything .............................. No sod off !

This is about us. Period. I don't expect one Indian to agree with us out of 1,300 million.

What you thought was the only problem was 'Mullah Pakistani'. Your wrong. The history we are espousing is entirely secular.

F- India if you have a valid arument do put if forth. No gibberish. There used to be a Joe Shearer here. I rarely agreed with him but least he put forward a reasoned argument. You guy's are no hopers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Force-India

No the only reason we are here is because you are claiming our history. You can claim greeks history we wont mind 

Ya and you are not the part of that history since you didnt arrived yet in that Vedic land before 900AD buddy

You can carry on with your propaganda now i wont disturb hehe and yea good luck you need lot of it


----------



## Indus Pakistan

You don't still get it. We don't want your history. We don't want anything to do with you. Can't you figure our 1947 yet? When do we even go near your history?

We only stick to our soil, our land, our Indus Basin - The cradle of civilization.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## scorpionx

Whirling_dervesh said:


> Completely missing the point of the thread, Indus Valley Civilisation Was flourishing 2500 Years before before megasthenes,Arian or Plutarch came about, This is a map below of the world according to Herodotus who came before any of those Greek philosophers you mentioned. Megasthenes, Plutarch , Arian were either around the time or after Alexander's conquests therefore they may have contact with mauryas and purus, panda as etc who by that time had settled in the Gangetic plains


Brilliant!! Now all in our effort to validate your claim that _‘Ancient India was in Pakistan region not present day India’_, we have to discard Megashtenes, Arrian, Strabo, Plutarch and have to strictly face towards Herodotus. Now try to understand the logical fallacies of your argument here.

Open any book on elementary history and see how professional historians divide different phases of world as well as regional history into distinctive time frames. All of them maintain a consistent standard protocol depending upon certain parameters. Generally we can classify the phases into prehistoric (period that does not have any recorded history), Ancient history (period between the time humans start keeping recorded history in a more or less accurate chronological order till postclassical age (approximately from 300-500 AD onwards) arrives. Now from this rough classification, which period ancient Indian history falls in and who qualifies to be regarded as ancient historians? History of ancient India did not just stop at Herodotus, it continued further. Megasthenes (350-290BC), Strabo (64BC-24AD), Plutarch (45-120AD), Arrian (around 100AD), all travellers, historians fall under the ‘ancient’ category. Just their description does not fit your nationalist agenda does not mean they suddenly become modern historians, neither their India lost its antiquity before ‘India’ of Herodotus.

Coming to the principle argument of yours that India that was represented by Herodotus actually is located in modern day Pakistan. Fundamental flaw in this argument is Herodotus and other pre-Alexandrian historians like Hekataios and Ktesias had a very rudimentary awareness (not knowledge in literal sense) about the region called India and most of their accounts depended on Persian versions, often blended with mythological fantasies and absurd fabrications. On the other hand, we know the Persian boundary ended at Hydaspes. It is quite unbelievable that the Persians did not know what lay beyond Hydaspes and Indus. Those cultural and ethnographic diversities, climate and general habits we see in the _history _of Herodotus perfectly matche with the ones of India; Herodotus might have limitations with his geographical estimations but his information about the pluralistic varieties were not all incorrect. The path he chose was later followed by his successors who not taking the trouble to identify the land before Indus with individual names like Magadha, Gandhara or Anga chose to express it as a compact collection of geographic and cultural varieties that was called India as an entirety.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ito

Yes, this is true, but before 1947 Pakistan region was part of India. Hence anything that happened there before is the legacy of India and not of Pakistan.


----------



## Armstrong

@scorpionx - What are you saying ? 

You were supposed to say 'Ancient India was in Buttistan' ! 

*On a serious note* - Don't you think that many of your compatriots too could be accused of hagiography ? A lie of omission is still a lie...is it not ? Their continued proclamations of a geographic and historic 'India' being the same as the modern day 'State of India' or that the latter being a modern day rendition of the former which was, in their opinion, a country, too is way off the mark...is it not ? That somehow the State of India as it exists today is the natural evolution of the Indian Subcontinent or that just because 'India' or 'Indian' is taken as the common denominator here, automatically to speak of one is to speak of the other.

That really isn't accurate....is it ? Their failure to appreciate that India of the Ancient times and also of much later on is spoken off in the same vein as one now speaks of East-Asia or Latin America and their continued attempts at painting an ornate and romanticized notion of a Greater India that existed in the past as a singular civilization from the outskirts of Kabul to the banks of Dhaka with a common denominator between them too is incorrect...is it not ?

Furthermore this continued infatuation with what the Greeks dubbed this land or that land means nothing; the Sumerians before them, to the best of what I know, didn't call this region India or by any other name as they were more localized in their outlook on this. They instead referred to the lands by the name of their tribes - Meluhha as in case of the civilization that cropped up near the Indus Valley. Likewise I, at least, don't know of anyone referring to the inhabitants of Mehergarh or Gandhara as Indians either. So what really does a tag prove if not merely something that was born out as a convenient way to dub something but later stuck on - What does that prove anything ?

If we were to take half the arguments thrown about here; whole swathes of Europe should look to Germany as the nucleus, evolution and the the modern day rendition of Ancient Europe west of the Roman Empire, as most of those lands were called Germania. But no one does that because history and more so archaeology is appreciated, over there, as a lot more complex than a study that etches lines on a map and can be used to draw endless PR and political mileage from !

Therefore why do many of your compatriots, as well as mine, have an overly simplistic take of history and archaeology ?

*Serious Mode Off *

I bet in a past life I - a pure blooded Aryan Prince - would've kicked your Dravidian butt back to South India many times over !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zibago

Armstrong said:


> You were supposed to say 'Ancient India was in Buttistan' !


Elections in Buttistan
Gullu Butt




vs DJ Butt








Armstrong said:


> @scorpionx - What are you saying ?
> 
> You were supposed to say 'Ancient India was in Buttistan' !
> 
> *On a serious note* - Don't you think that many of your compatriots too could be accused of hagiography ? A lie of omission is still a lie...is it not ? Their continued proclamations of a geographic and historic 'India' being the same as the modern day 'State of India' or that the latter being a modern day rendition of the former which was, in their opinion, a country, too is way off the mark...is it not ? That somehow the State of India as it exists today is the natural evolution of the Indian Subcontinent or that just because 'India' or 'Indian' is taken as the common denominator here, automatically to speak of one is to speak of the other.
> 
> That really isn't accurate....is it ? Their failure to appreciate that India of the Ancient times and also of much later on is spoken off in the same vein as one now speaks of East-Asia or Latin America and their continued attempts at painting an ornate and romanticized notion of a Greater India that existed in the past as a singular civilization from the outskirts of Kabul to the banks of Dhaka with a common denominator between them too is incorrect...is it not ?
> 
> Furthermore this continued infatuation with what the Greeks dubbed this land or that land means nothing; the Sumerians before them, to the best of what I know, didn't call this region India or by any other name as they were more localized in their outlook on this. They instead referred to the lands by the name of their tribes - Meluhha as in case of the civilization that cropped up near the Indus Valley. Likewise I, at least, don't know of anyone referring to the inhabitants of Mehergarh or Gandhara as Indians either. So what really does a tag prove if not merely something that was born out as a convenient way to dub something but later stuck on - What does that prove anything ?
> 
> If we were to take half the arguments thrown about here; whole swathes of Europe should look to Germany as the nucleus, evolution and the the modern day rendition of Ancient Europe west of the Roman Empire, as most of those lands were called Germania. But no one does that because history and more so archaeology is appreciated, over there, as a lot more complex than a study that etches lines on a map and can be used to draw endless PR and political mileage from !
> 
> Therefore why do many of your compatriots, as well as mine, have an overly simplistic take of history and archaeology ?
> 
> *Serious Mode Off *
> 
> I bet in a past life I - a pure blooded Aryan Prince - would've kicked your Dravidian butt back to South India many times over !


Average citizen of Buttistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Armstrong said:


> [*On a serious note* - Don't you think that many of your compatriots too could be accused of hagiography ? A lie of omission is still a lie...is it not ? Their continued proclamations of a geographic and historic 'India' being the same as the modern day 'State of India' or that the latter being a modern day rendition of the former which was, in their opinion, a country, too is way off the mark...is it not ? That somehow the State of India as it exists today is the natural evolution of the Indian Subcontinent or that just because 'India' or 'Indian' is taken as the common denominator here, automatically to speak of one is to speak of the other.
> 
> That really isn't accurate....is it ? Their failure to appreciate that India of the Ancient times and also of much later on is spoken off in the same vein as one now speaks of East-Asia or Latin America and their continued attempts at painting an ornate and romanticized notion of a Greater India that existed in the past as a singular civilization from the outskirts of Kabul to the banks of Dhaka with a common denominator between them too is incorrect...is it not ?
> 
> Furthermore this continued infatuation with what the Greeks dubbed this land or that land means nothing; the Sumerians before them, to the best of what I know, didn't call this region India or by any other name as they were more localized in their outlook on this. They instead referred to the lands by the name of their tribes - Meluhha as in case of the civilization that cropped up near the Indus Valley. Likewise I, at least, don't know of anyone referring to the inhabitants of Mehergarh or Gandhara as Indians either. So what really does a tag prove if not merely something that was born out as a convenient way to dub something but later stuck on - What does that prove anything ?
> 
> If we were to take half the arguments thrown about here; whole swathes of Europe should look to Germany as the nucleus, evolution and the the modern day rendition of Ancient Europe west of the Roman Empire, as most of those lands were called Germania. But no one does that because history and more so archaeology is appreciated, over there, as a lot more complex than a study that etches lines on a map and can be used to draw endless PR and political mileage from !
> 
> Therefore why do many of your compatriots, as well as mine, have an overly simplistic take of history and archaeology ?
> 
> *Serious Mode Off *
> 
> I bet in a past life I - a pure blooded Aryan Prince - would've kicked your Dravidian butt back to South India many times over !



你說的不錯。

Imagine though, if the Yellow River was no longer a part of China?

It seems inconceivable. Yet that is what happened to India, the Indus River is now in a different country.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

Chinese-Dragon said:


> 你說的不錯。
> 
> Imagine though, if the Yellow River was no longer a part of China?
> 
> It seems inconceivable. Yet that is what happened to India, the Indus River is now in a different country.



Yellow River was in Ancient Pakistan !  

Dude even in the past India was considered a Subcontinent of Countries not as a singular entity by a long shot. Just as Pakistanis broke or wanted to break all connections with Indic Civilizations were wrong likewise the Indians insisting that the modern day State of India is somehow the natural evolution of an Ancient Indie superimposed onto the paradigm of the notion of a modern day 'Nation-State' is equally wrong !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Armstrong said:


> Yellow River was in Ancient Pakistan !



Is that why I love Lahore chicken so much? 



Armstrong said:


> Dude even in the past India was considered a Subcontinent of Countries not as a singular entity by a long shot. Just as Pakistanis broke or wanted to break all connections with Indic Civilizations were wrong likewise the Indians insisting that the modern day State of India is somehow the natural evolution of an Ancient Indie superimposed onto the paradigm of the notion of a modern day 'Nation-State' is equally wrong !



I guess it was a bit different in China. We had a system of "central authority" (with Tianzi at the center) and even a fully functioning bureacracy (civil servants were hired via anonymous imperial exams) over 2000 years ago.

So we can say that China is certainly the successor to the civilizations of Ancient China. And Taiwan is not. 

Because the KMT are gross.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Armstrong

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Is that why I love Lahore chicken so much?







Chinese-Dragon said:


> I guess it was a bit different in China. We had a system of "central authority" (with Tianzi at the center) and even a fully functioning bureacracy (civil servants were hired via anonymous imperial exams) over 2000 years ago.
> 
> So we can say that China is certainly the successor to the civilizations of Ancient China. And Taiwan is not.
> 
> Because the KMT are gross.



But China isn't the successor to the whole of East-Asia...is she ? Thats the point I'm trying to make here !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Armstrong said:


> But China isn't the successor to the whole of East-Asia...is she ? Thats the point I'm trying to make here !



Exactly sir, we are NOT the successor to all of East Asia.

Only the ones that existed in this land (China). Han, Tang, Ming, Song and all that great stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## scorpionx

Armstrong said:


> @scorpionx - What are you saying ?
> 
> You were supposed to say 'Ancient India was in Buttistan' !
> 
> *On a serious note* - Don't you think that many of your compatriots too could be accused of hagiography ? A lie of omission is still a lie...is it not ? Their continued proclamations of a geographic and historic 'India' being the same as the modern day 'State of India' or that the latter being a modern day rendition of the former which was, in their opinion, a country, too is way off the mark...is it not ? That somehow the State of India as it exists today is the natural evolution of the Indian Subcontinent or that just because 'India' or 'Indian' is taken as the common denominator here, automatically to speak of one is to speak of the other.
> 
> That really isn't accurate....is it ? Their failure to appreciate that India of the Ancient times and also of much later on is spoken off in the same vein as one now speaks of East-Asia or Latin America and their continued attempts at painting an ornate and romanticized notion of a Greater India that existed in the past as a singular civilization from the outskirts of Kabul to the banks of Dhaka with a common denominator between them too is incorrect...is it not ?
> 
> Furthermore this continued infatuation with what the Greeks dubbed this land or that land means nothing; the Sumerians before them, to the best of what I know, didn't call this region India or by any other name as they were more localized in their outlook on this. They instead referred to the lands by the name of their tribes - Meluhha as in case of the civilization that cropped up near the Indus Valley. Likewise I, at least, don't know of anyone referring to the inhabitants of Mehergarh or Gandhara as Indians either. So what really does a tag prove if not merely something that was born out as a convenient way to dub something but later stuck on - What does that prove anything ?
> 
> *Serious Mode Off*
> 
> I bet in a past life I - a pure blooded Aryan Prince - would've kicked your Dravidian butt back to South India many times over !


You are absolutely right here. The word 'India' today expresses a political entity, a comparatively recent phenomenon where as India in Historical discussions refers to a geographical and cultural entity that was spread over from the Indus (though this statement is a subject to debate, as some ancient historians like Pliny places the Western boundary of historical India beyond it) from NW to the Bengal in SE, notwithstanding the political boundaries of the sixteen powerful _Mahajanapadas._ Historians use India in a civilizational context, not in a single political entity. But another thing to note here is, India as a single political nation did not exist then, but elements of cultural India certainly exist today.


> If we were to take half the arguments thrown about here; whole swathes of Europe should look to Germany as the nucleus, evolution and the the modern day rendition of Ancient Europe west of the Roman Empire, as most of those lands were called Germania. But no one does that because history and more so archaeology is appreciated, over there, as a lot more complex than a study that etches lines on a map and can be used to draw endless PR and political mileage from !


The reason why whole Europe does not look to Germans as the nucleus is, Germans were a specific linguistic-cultural unit comprising several tribes just as the Finnish, Scandinavians, Celts, Gauls or Slavs who acted as carriers of the Roman civilizational elements, their laws, arts, classical literature and architecture. The Roman theme was the center authority here, just as the 'Indo' theme we are talking of. This is the same reason why Historians take India in a civilizational context; the Indus valley civilization, it's parallel and later continuation in further South East which we call _Indo-Gangetic_ plain, the vedic and late vedic era, the _Buddhist _era, the _Mayuras, Kushanas_ and _Guptas_, all are part of the same cultural evolution whose geographic boundaries varied from time to time, but carried the same elements of culture through out the land that was often termed as _Aryavarta _or_ Bharat._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

ghazaliy2k said:


> You guys try your level best to hijack old heritage of our peoples, but world will never accept your claim. So keep trying and by the way IVC civilization was not even followers of Shaivism, Vaishnavism or Shaktism etc (i didn't called them hindu b/c there is no religion called Hindu in past 5000 years and it is just a new invention of past 70 to 80 years). They probably atheist or some other religion so even religion wise you can't claim that.


That's among the biggest load of BS I have heard.


----------



## Armstrong

scorpionx said:


> You are absolutely right here. The word 'India' today expresses a political entity, a comparatively recent phenomenon where as India in Historical discussions refers to a geographical and cultural entity that was spread over from the Indus (though this statement is a subject to debate, as some ancient historians like Pliny places the Western boundary of historical India beyond it) from NW to the Bengal in SE, notwithstanding the political boundaries of the sixteen powerful _Mahajanapadas._ Historians use India in a civilizational context, not in a single political entity. But another thing to note here is, India as a single political nation did not exist then, but elements of cultural India certainly exist today.
> 
> The reason why whole Europe does not look to Germans as the nucleus is, Germans were a specific linguistic-cultural unit comprising several tribes just as the Finnish, Scandinavians, Celts, Gauls or Slavs who acted as carriers of the Roman civilizational elements, their laws, arts, classical literature and architecture. The Roman theme was the center authority here, just as the 'Indo' theme we are talking of. This is the same reason why Historians take India in a civilizational context; the Indus valley civilization, it's parallel and later continuation in further South East which we call _Indo-Gangetic_ plain, the vedic and late vedic era, the _Buddhist _era, the _Mayuras, Kushanas_ and _Guptas_, all are part of the same cultural evolution whose geographic boundaries varied from time to time, but carried the same elements of culture through out the land that was often termed as _Aryavarta _or_ Bharat._



I did not refer to the whole of Europe but Europe to the West of Rome; those areas were inhabited by Germanic tribes and the very term 'Germanic' refers to a common cultural elements running from them.

Therefore I don't think that 'culture' is a very good argument to define civilizations by; in fact I don't really know if the grouping together of civilizations is born out of something substantive or is it less a product of something substantive and more as a result of expediency when coining archaeological and anthropological nomenclatures.

Furthermore I still don't buy the 'culture' argument because what exactly were the common elements, in terms of culture, running throughout the land that was, as you said, called Aryavarta or Bharat ? Most of the things that I've read about the ancient civilizations in Pakistan (I don't know much about India) seem to lend credence to the belief that culture is an ever evolving organic thing and that to arbitrarily demarcate areas into A or B entities or anything of the sort may make sense from the point of view of ease but it does nothing so far as reflecting the ground realities of how things are. I'll give you an example; in the 3rd age/period at Mehrgarh the animal motifs found therein could have easily been depiction of those common elements that run throughout India that you're talking about and yet the same motifs have been found as far as Sialk and Hissar in Iran and Namazgah II in Turkmenistan. Likewise the most common elements that I can think of is paganism and the symbolism that comes with it that was practiced by the ancient people who inhabited these lands and yet we find that even when it comes to burials in graves found in Cemetry H at Harrappa the method is consistent with the form of burial practiced in Mesopotima in the Sargonid and Pre-Sargonid period. Even the Kushans borrowed heavily from the Scytho-Parthians that preceded them and had significant Central Asian influences in their Empires. 

I do suggest you read the archaeologist Ahmed Hasan Dani's _History of Pakistan - Pakistan through the Ages_ and _The Historic City of Taxila_ !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghoul

Hindu Shahis, Chachs of Sindh, Gandharans, King Porus and Alexander the great, Moenjodaro/Mehargarh civilization, Scythians, Kushans, White Huns, Ghaznavid/Ghurid wars etc etc are all part of the history of Pakistan, and have nothing to do with the modern day state of India. I don't get why Indians are getting ****hurt.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

ito said:


> Yes, this is true, but before 1947 Pakistan region was part of India. Hence anything that happened there before is the legacy of India and not of Pakistan.




*British* India







*Not* Indian Republic






and for us ( Pakistan ) this only covers 1843 to 1947. As Punjab was part of Sikh Empire before 1849 and Sindh was independant upto 1843. Sindh, Punjab 103 and 98 years respectively.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Read Prof Ahmad Hasan Dani' and his many books on Ancient Pakistan History.

Google

Ahmad Hassan Dani Interview Contents






* Ancient Pakistan - An Archaeological History: Volume I: The Stone Age (Volume 1) Paperback – May 29, 2014 *
by Mukhtar Ahmed (Author)

Amazon.com: Ancient Pakistan - An Archaeological History: Volume I: The Stone Age (Volume 1) (9781495490477): Mukhtar Ahmed: Books


** HEALTH WARNING: *Could all Indian members have a Defibralltion Unit handy in case on seeing the word "*Ancient*" as a prefix to name "*Pakistan*" causes shock and leads to cardiac arrest. A trained paramedic would be needed to perform life saving resuscitation. Tick this warning box and please proceed below.


















We do not discriminate history on basis of religion. History is history of* Indus Basin/Pakistan.*











** To the Pakistani's: *Start using the term '*Ancient Pakistani' *if you don't it will never gain currency and even in thousand years our people will talk of as if we are premature baby. So any history of Indus Basin prior to 1st century BC is 'Ancient Pakistan'.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 3.14159

At one point, the title post may have been correct, but it is clearly established for at least several hundreds years BC, that the subcontinent extends from the Indus to the Irrawaddy river basins, west to east, and then IndoChina lies beyond. The terms South Asia and East Asia are to be preferred over old terminologies for discussions today and here specially.


----------



## scorpionx

Armstrong said:


> I did not refer to the whole of Europe but Europe to the West of Rome; those areas were inhabited by Germanic tribes and the very term 'Germanic' refers to a common cultural elements running from them.
> 
> 
> Therefore I don't think that 'culture' is a very good argument to define civilizations by; in fact I don't really know if the grouping together of civilizations is born out of something substantive or is it less a product of something substantive and more as a result of expediency when coining archaeological and anthropological nomenclatures.
> 
> 
> Furthermore I still don't buy the 'culture' argument because what exactly were the common elements, in terms of culture, running throughout the land that was, as you said, called Aryavarta or Bharat? Most of the things that I've read about the ancient civilizations in Pakistan (I don't know much about India) seem to lend credence to the belief that culture is an ever evolving organic thing and that to arbitrarily demarcate areas into A or B entities or anything of the sort may make sense from the point of view of ease but it does nothing so far as reflecting the ground realities of how things are. I'll give you an example; in the 3rd age/period at Mehrgarh the animal motifs found therein could have easily been depiction of those common elements that run throughout India that you're talking about and yet the same motifs have been found as far as Sialk and Hissar in Iran and Namazgah II in Turkmenistan. Likewise the most common elements that I can think of is paganism and the symbolism that comes with it that was practiced by the ancient people who inhabited these lands and yet we find that even when it comes to burials in graves found in Cemetry H at Harrappa the method is consistent with the form of burial practiced in Mesopotima in the Sargonid and Pre-Sargonid period. Even the Kushans borrowed heavily from the Scytho-Parthians that preceded them and had significant Central Asian influences in their Empires.
> 
> 
> I do suggest you read the archaeologist Ahmed Hasan Dani's _History of Pakistan - Pakistan through the Ages_ and _The Historic City of Taxila_ !



Culture, as you rightly said by its organic nature evolve and that is why we tend to see different phases within a single culture/tradition. For example, the early Neolithic settlements of Mehrgarh show how architecture, habitation structures, plant and animal domestication, food and ceramic industry evolved within a single tradition. But different cultures/traditions can be distinguished from each other for their own uniqueness based upon the geographical and climatic influences on it. For example, Mesolithic, proto-Neolithic and Neolithic traditions in Baluchistan, Kashmir and those in India have distinct dissimilarities. Craft activities, burial practices, ceramic industry and habitant structures of the settlement west of river Indus show strong affiliations to those of Southern Turkmenistan and Northern Iran, those in Kashmir shows similar affection to East Asian traditions and those in the Gangetic plains evolved their own traditions (like cattle pens that are quite distinct by its own character in the sub-continent). So, not denying the fact that common cultural elements travel from one region to another, each region represent exclusive specialities that makes the foundation of future traditions distinctly recognizable from each other.

Now coming to culture as a common binding factor; Indians knew the art of clay-wood architecture and sculpture much before they came heavily in contact with Persians and Greeks. The Bull and elephant in Sarnath abacus was a complete Indian concept of art (Vincent Smith). From Gandhara in the North West to Anga in the East, the artistic themes of cave architecture, stupas, pillars and stone inscriptions, not withstanding their regional variations was quite common throughout the subcontinent. Sanskrit and Prakrit classical Buddhist and Jain literature flourished, Socio-economic and religious systems in this vast swath of land remained unaffected by the political rivalries of the sixteen political republics. This is the reason, the Greeks, Chinese or Arab travellers consistently recognized the region as a cultural/civilization unit quite unique of its own from what they saw dominant West of Indus.

Buddhist India is a must read to understand what ancient India was all about. You will definitely find it fascinating.

Buddhist India : Rhys Davids T.W. : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

scorpionx said:


> Culture, as you rightly said by its organic nature evolve and that is why we tend to see different phases within a single culture/tradition. For example, the early Neolithic settlements of Mehrgarh show how architecture, habitation structures, plant and animal domestication, food and ceramic industry evolved within a single tradition. But different cultures/traditions can be distinguished from each other for their own uniqueness based upon the geographical and climatic influences on it. For example, Mesolithic, proto-Neolithic and Neolithic traditions in Baluchistan, Kashmir and those in India have distinct dissimilarities. Craft activities, burial practices, ceramic industry and habitant structures of the settlement west of river Indus show strong affiliations to those of Southern Turkmenistan and Northern Iran, those in Kashmir shows similar affection to East Asian traditions and those in the Gangetic plains evolved their own traditions (like cattle pens that are quite distinct by its own character in the sub-continent). So, not denying the fact that common cultural elements travel from one region to another, each region represent exclusive specialities that makes the foundation of future traditions distinctly recognizable from each other.
> 
> Now coming to culture as a common binding factor; Indians knew the art of clay-wood architecture and sculpture much before they came heavily in contact with Persians and Greeks. The Bull and elephant in Sarnath abacus was a complete Indian concept of art (Vincent Smith). From Gandhara in the North West to Anga in the East, the artistic themes of cave architecture, stupas, pillars and stone inscriptions, not withstanding their regional variations was quite common throughout the subcontinent. Sanskrit and Prakrit classical Buddhist and Jain literature flourished, Socio-economic and religious systems in this vast swath of land remained unaffected by the political rivalries of the sixteen political republics. This is the reason, the Greeks, Chinese or Arab travellers consistently recognized the region as a cultural/civilization unit quite unique of its own from what they saw dominant West of Indus.
> 
> Buddhist India is a must read to understand what ancient India was all about. You will definitely find it fascinating.
> 
> Buddhist India : Rhys Davids T.W. : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive



Dunno mate I'm still not too sure about that; when I read Ahmed Hasan Dani - He disputes the findings of Sir John Marshall in their suggestion that the Englishmen found a common vein between the Indus Valley Civilization and potentially Hinduism (historically and evolutionary contextualized of course). Dani instead maintains that Marshall was extrapolating more meaning from the archaeological findings at Mohenjo Daro than he should've including erroneously translating the meaning of the word to the Mound of the Dead instead of it being the Mound of Meluhha - the ancient people that inhabited these lands that the Sumerian tablets spoke of. IN Dani's opinion he found more evidence to suggest that these Indus Valley Civilizations had almost as much contact and cross-cultural imprints with the civilizations or settlements in the middle of the Gangetic plain as much as they did with Central Asia and more so, true to that time, Mesopotima. Including religious symbolism, trade, migrations and even political contacts. 

Now I personally have no problems if the ancient lands that form today's Pakistan were part of the Indic Civilization but I do take very strong exception to the suggestion that the modern day states of India and Pakistan are packaged together as part of some ancient Greater India of ages past. This view ignores the fact that Pakistan is a country that exists on the peripheries of greater Middle Eastern, Indic and Central Asian Civilizations and has imprints from all of them in addition to providing the crucible whereby local cultures or civilizations that evolved along the banks of Indus came into contact with either of those 3 directions and created something unique. 

Briefly we have an 'ancient' history entwined but also independent of India ! 

Aur bhai key eik bhi post ko thank nahin kiyaaa ?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## My-Analogous

SamantK said:


> That's among the biggest load of BS I have heard.



Proof it wrong. Your comments are not proving me wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## scorpionx

Armstrong said:


> Dunno mate I'm still not too sure about that; when I read Ahmed Hasan Dani - He disputes the findings of Sir John Marshall in their suggestion that the Englishmen found a common vein between the Indus Valley Civilization and potentially Hinduism (historically and evolutionary contextualized of course). Dani instead maintains that Marshall was extrapolating more meaning from the archaeological findings at Mohenjo Daro than he should've including erroneously translating the meaning of the word to the Mound of the Dead instead of it being the Mound of Meluhha - the ancient people that inhabited these lands that the Sumerian tablets spoke of. IN Dani's opinion he found more evidence to suggest that these Indus Valley Civilizations had almost as much contact and cross-cultural imprints with the civilizations or settlements in the middle of the Gangetic plain as much as they did with Central Asia and more so, true to that time, Mesopotima. Including religious symbolism, trade, migrations and even political contacts.
> 
> Now I personally have no problems if the ancient lands that form today's Pakistan were part of the Indic Civilization but I do take very strong exception to the suggestion that the modern day states of India and Pakistan are packaged together as part of some ancient Greater India of ages past. This view ignores the fact that Pakistan is a country that exists on the peripheries of greater Middle Eastern, Indic and Central Asian Civilizations and has imprints from all of them in addition to providing the crucible whereby local cultures or civilizations that evolved along the banks of Indus came into contact with either of those 3 directions and created something unique.
> 
> Briefly we have an 'ancient' history entwined but also independent of India !
> 
> Aur bhai key eik bhi post ko thank nahin kiyaaa ?


There is an obvious unbridgeable difference between IVC and early vedic civilization and except few Hindutva historians almost all agree that the evidence 'Hindu' religious elements in IVC are much less compelling than those are found in the Gangetic plain. And it will be too early to connect IVC with the early vedic civilizational elements as there are certain limitations for the mystery of IVC script. So, Dani is absolutely correct in his assertion.India and Pakistan definitely were not part of a greater ancient India together if we strictly define India in a political context. It is just that Greeks recognized anything beyond east of Indus as India in a broader context just as they expressed Asia as anything beyond Aegean coast in a general sense.

What I am only in disagreement with is the author's dishonesty to stick to Herodotus' version of India only and not others who were fairly way more accurate in describing the region that was called India. I have no reservation in saying that the cradle of civilization IS in modern Pakistan nation state and NOT in modern Indian nation state. But it is ridiculous to me that ancient India never existed in present modern Indian state for the author's own intellectual failure to comprehend what 'ancient India' actually meant.

So, can we sign a treaty of truce here?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armstrong

scorpionx said:


> There is an obvious unbridgeable difference between IVC and early vedic civilization and except few Hindutva historians almost all agree that the evidence 'Hindu' religious elements in IVC are much less compelling than those are found in the Gangetic plain. And it will be too early to connect IVC with the early vedic civilizational elements as there are certain limitations for the mystery of IVC script. So, Dani is absolutely correct in his assertion.India and Pakistan definitely were not part of a greater ancient India together if we strictly define India in a political context. It is just that Greeks recognized anything beyond east of Indus as India in a broader context just as they expressed Asia as anything beyond Aegean coast in a general sense.
> 
> What I am only in disagreement with is the author's dishonesty to stick to Herodotus' version of India only and not others who were fairly way more accurate in describing the region that was called India. I have no reservation in saying that the cradle of civilization IS in modern Pakistan nation state and NOT in modern Indian nation state. But it is ridiculous to me that ancient India never existed in present modern Indian state for the author's own intellectual failure to comprehend what 'ancient India' actually meant.
> 
> So, can we sign a treaty of truce here?



Okay - We have truce !  

As long as you tell @levina *Apaa* that I - a pure blooded Aryan - and she a - chubby Dravidian - can never be the siblings !  

Tell her that just because we both have east-asian eyes, love food more than life itself and would want cricket to be banned in South Asia doesn't mean that we're related !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## KingMamba

scorpionx said:


> And how exactly this conclusion has been achieved?The Persian boundary ended at Hydaspes _(Jhelum) _enough west to the eastern border of present modern Pakistan and further east there were a number of powerful kingdoms. It is difficult to assume that Persian historians did not know about these regions.If you have read Herodotus (I am sure you have) you can clearly see he had a fair idea about the ethno-cultural diversity of the region which matches all the description of North and North western part of India today. Only problem was he could see only things the Persian historians had let him see in Egypt and Babylon.
> 
> 
> Alexander did not have any idea about the region 'Asia' either. Plutarch in the very beginning of his work tells us about how curious Alexander was about the unseen land he would once conquer. Does that mean Asia never existed before Greek army set foot on it? The Greeks had of course limited idea about the geographical limit of the land called 'India' in the East but the more they proceeded they did not identify with individual names of kingdoms but in a generalized cultural and geographic expression which had nothing to do with the present 'political India'. This had been the case at the time of Darius, it happened during Arrian and Plutarch and continued for the next thousand years.



The conclusion comes from the fact that Darius claimed he had conquered India and made it a province. Also as shown in the post 21 both the Greeks and the Persians thought that there was emptiness beyond the India they knew. What Herodotus was referring to was the cultural diversity in the parts of India they knew about.

Of course he did not see it but what he knew about, was from what he learned from the exchange between Persians and Greeks. That is not an argument at all, and yes as invaders proceeded eastward and discovered more lands they expanded the idea of India. This I have neither disputed and in fact mentioned myself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Levina

Armstrong said:


> Okay - We have truce !
> 
> As long as you tell @levina *Apaa* that I - a pure blooded Aryan - and she a - - can never be the siblings !


Do you even know that there 're small groups of Dravidan speaking ppl in Pakistan and Afghanistan??? 
Brahui language is isolated from all of the other members of tDravidan family, that goes on to prove that you and me might have something in common...infact our chink eyes 're a proof. 








> Tell her that just because we both have east-asian eyes, love food more than life itself and would want cricket to be banned in South Asia doesn't mean that we're related !


No way, we just have chink eyes and long fringes in common . I'm very choosy when it comes to food.


> chubby Dravidian


Did you call me chubby??
I'm anything but chubby...
I dont mind being called a brown south Indian auntieee. lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

levina said:


> Do you even know that there 're small groups of Dravidan speaking ppl in Pakistan and Afghanistan???
> Brahui language is isolated from all of the other members of tDravidan family, that goes on to prove that you and me might have something in common...infact our chink eyes 're a proof.
> 
> View attachment 217321
> 
> 
> No way, we just have chink eyes and long fringes in common . I'm very choosy when it comes to food.
> Did you call me chubby??
> I'm anything but chubby...
> I dont mind being called a brown south Indian auntieee. lol



I am not a Barahui !


----------



## Levina

Armstrong said:


> I am not a Barahui !


Prove it!!!



You're my long lost brahui chink-eyed baby elephant.


----------



## Armstrong

levina said:


> Prove it!!!
> 
> 
> 
> You're my long lost brahui chink-eyed baby elephant.



I am not from Baluchistan for starters ! 

I am a Kashmiri of Punjab for another ! 

Its alright....I know because we Aryans defeated you Dravidians so badly....battle after battle...your inferiority complex forces you to be more like us hence the 'long lost brother' tag !


----------



## Levina

> Its alright....I know because we Aryans defeated you Dravidians so badly....battle after battle...your inferiority complex forces you to be more like us hence the 'long lost brother' tag !


Agreed!
Your aryan ancestors defeated my dravidan ancestors, and destroyed everything which had a Dravidan stamp on it, just like the ISIS vandals who 're destroying the greatest sites in ancient Mesopotamia. The future generation of Iraq would be taught a skewed version of history.



Armstrong said:


> I am not from Baluchistan for starters !


What if one of your ancestors had brahui connection??



> I am a Kashmiri of Punjab for another !


Reminds me of my trainee


----------



## scorpionx

KingMamba said:


> The conclusion comes from the fact that Darius claimed he had conquered India and made it a province. Also as shown in the post 21 both the Greeks and the Persians thought that there was emptiness beyond the India they knew. What Herodotus was referring to was the cultural diversity in the parts of India they knew about.
> 
> Of course he did not see it but what he knew about, was from what he learned from the exchange between Persians and Greeks. That is not an argument at all, and yes as invaders proceeded eastward and discovered more lands they expanded the idea of India. This I have neither disputed and in fact mentioned myself.


Pretty selective map reading actually. Herodotus drew a map based upon his Persian sources and there river Indus flows eastward to the ocean. It is difficult to imagine that the source he was relying could see the desert but could not identify the direction of such a mighty river. I will take his description with a pinch of salt here. What seemed more plausible to me that the Persians on the bank of Jhelum (which actually falls on the ancient route to central Asia) must have been more accurately aware what lay beyond it than those sources who were wandering near Thar desert and gave Herodotus their version of story.


----------



## Armstrong

levina said:


> Agreed!
> Your aryan ancestors defeated my dravidan ancestors, and destroyed everything which had a Dravidan stamp on it, just like the ISIS vandals who 're destroying the greatest sites in ancient Mesopotamia. The future generation of Iraq would be taught a skewed version of history.



Yeh kaafiii fazoool baaat key aaap neiii ! 

Take a joke as a joke !


----------



## Levina

Armstrong said:


> Yeh kaafiii fazoool baaat key aaap neiii !
> 
> Take a joke as a joke !


Enhhh?? Ab kya hua?
What did I do to earn your ire....again???
I was just saying that Brahui are a relict population of Dravidians, surrounded by speakers of Indo-Iranian languages, remaining from a time when Dravidian was more widespread (and may be later they were ousted from the region by the so called Aryans). Just FYI- There's no proof of Dravidian languages being related to any other language family. So presence of Brahui in Pakistan is not a mere co-incidence.


----------



## Armstrong

levina said:


> Enhhh?? Ab kya hua?
> What did I do to earn your ire....again???
> I was just saying that Brahui are a relict population of Dravidians, surrounded by speakers of Indo-Iranian languages, remaining from a time when Dravidian was more widespread (and may be later they were ousted from the region by the so called Aryans). Just FYI- There's no proof of Dravidian languages being related to any other language family. So presence of Brahui in Pakistan is not a mere co-incidence.



Post # 140


----------



## farhan_9909

No Doubt Pakistan indeed is the successor state of the true ancient india.


----------



## Levina

Armstrong said:


> Post # 140


Unfortunately thats the bitter truth. 
Lets take another example, when muslim invaders under the leadership of Mohammad Khilji attacked Nalanda. He killed lots of Buddhists and demolished the University. Over 9 million books and manuscripts were burnt down. Nalanda university was the world's first residential university. And around the same time the buddhists were attacked by orthodox Brahmins, countless Buddhist monasteries and pagodas were destroyed, thousands of Buddhist monks and nuns were massacred. And the man responsible for it was Brahmin Hindu king Pushyamitra Sunga.
And today nothing is left of the Nalanda university. 
Since time immorial this is how civilisations thrived, and then became obscure. 
Why're you offended?


----------



## Armstrong

levina said:


> Unfortunately thats the bitter truth.
> Lets take another example, when muslim invaders under the leadership of Mohammad Khilji attacked Nalanda. He killed lots of Buddhists and demolished the University. Over 9 million books and manuscripts were burnt down. Nalanda university was the world's first residential university. And around the same time the buddhists were attacked by orthodox Brahmins, countless Buddhist monasteries and pagodas were destroyed, thousands of Buddhist monks and nuns were massacred. And the man responsible for it was Brahmin Hindu king Pushyamitra Sunga.
> And today nothing is left of the Nalanda university.
> Since time immorial this is how civilisations thrived, and then became obscure.
> Why're you offended?



There was no need for that; when you knew for a fact that I wasn't even serious about the Aryan-Dravidian thing - It was in bad taste !


----------



## Levina

Armstrong said:


> There was no need for that; when you knew for a fact that I wasn't even serious about the Aryan-Dravidian thing - It was in bad taste !


Oh come on!
You're over-reacting.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

scorpionx said:


> Culture, as you rightly said by its organic nature evolve and that is why we tend to see different phases within a single culture/tradition.



Culture is such a loose, amorphous concept that it can be hard to describe even in the present context. Doing so to cultures millenia's back in time is very, very difficult and is so open to subjective interpretation. Examples of this can be seen when IVC is described as 'Indian' culture. That is hilarious.



> For example, the early Neolithic settlements of Mehrgarh show how architecture, habitation structures, plant and animal domestication, food and ceramic industry evolved within a single tradition. But different cultures/traditions can be distinguished from each other for their own uniqueness based upon the geographical and climatic influences on it. For example, Mesolithic, proto-Neolithic and Neolithic traditions in *Baluchistan, Kashmir *and those in* India *have distinct dissimilarities.



Above exposes why I sometimes think there is no point in discussing with you guy's. You Indian's really treat the word "Pakistan" like a swear word. Just look at the duplicity on your part. You move from using names of provinces, Balochistan, Kashmir then you zoom out and use India. What was so wrong with saying Pakistan? Would that have given you cardiac arrest? You either use zoom in and say, Balochistan, Kashmir, Bihar, Orrisa etc or use Pakistan and *India.* Look how you jumped around but used the term "India" but avoided mentioning Pakistan.



> Craft activities, burial practices, ceramic industry and habitant structures of the settlement west of river Indus show strong affiliations to those of Southern Turkmenistan and Northern Iran,



Again your aversion to "Pakistan". Tell me instead of saying "west of Indus" what was so horrible about just saying "Western Pakistan"? You were quite happy to add Northern and Southern to Iran and Turkmenistan. Would it have killed you to say "Western Pakistan"?



> those in Kashmir shows similar affection to East Asian traditions and those in the Gangetic plains evolved their own traditions (like cattle pens that are quite distinct by its own character in the sub-continent)



Precisely what are you talking about? Links please?



> Now coming to culture as a common binding factor; Indians knew the art of clay-wood architecture and sculpture much before they came heavily in contact with Persians and Greeks. The Bull and elephant in Sarnath abacus was a complete Indian concept of art (Vincent Smith). From Gandhara in the North West to Anga in the East, the artistic themes of cave architecture, stupas, pillars and stone inscriptions, not withstanding their regional variations was quite common throughout the subcontinent. Sanskrit and Prakrit classical Buddhist and Jain literature flourished, Socio-economic and religious systems in this vast swath of land remained unaffected by the political rivalries of the sixteen political republics. This is the reason, the Greeks, Chinese or Arab travellers consistently recognized the region as a cultural/civilization unit quite unique of its own from what they saw dominant West of Indus.



This is a dead horse your beating. Nobody here is trying to claim Ancient Pakistan was part of North America. We accept that it was part of a larger geographic area within which it shared some similarities as well as dissimilarities. Ancient Pakistan/Indus Basin is on the fracture zone between South/Central Asia and has been subjected by forces from both sides. This means while it shares some aspects with east but it also has influences from the west.

I would like to compare the subcontinent to Europe. Diverse but still having something in common. The Spanish or the Greeks have had significant influences from the Meditearean world. In fact places like Spain were even ruled by Muslim Arabs, Greece was ruled by Muslim Ottomans. However today they are all still considered part of Europe. Yet they still have their own history. That said they are not like Swedish.

The problems with Indian's is they refuse to give us our own space that Iberians of Spain/Portugal have. It is like somebody foisting a pan European history on Spanish that eradicates their unique history. I would like Indian's to regard Pakistan like Greece or Spain are regarded in the European context.

I think deep down you guy's refuse to accept the 1947 event. So you insist on grabbing our history whilst at the very same time act like we don't exist.You delude yourself into thinking we were just teleported to the Indus Basinin 1947. Pakistan, hell it might exist in reality when it comes to talk about terrorism, radicalism but talk ancient history you will go super averse to even using the term "Pakistan". This shows how even in 2015 you have not come to terms with 1947.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

scorpionx said:


> So, Dani is absolutely correct in his assertion.India and Pakistan definitely were not part of a greater ancient India together if we strictly define India in a political context. It is just that Greeks recognized anything beyond east of Indus as India in a broader context just as they expressed Asia as anything beyond Aegean coast in a general sense.



Indeed. This raises the question that do we treat what Greeks said as word of god? Infallible? The Greeks were from Europe. Most of their writing includes things that are silly to say the least. Lot of it is hearsay. So we can't treat what Greaks said as holy. Their initial intro to South Asia was limited to Indus Basin. Herdodotus's India is in fact Ancient Pakistan. After large parts of Indus Basin/Ancient Pakistan fell to Greek control during Alexanders conquest that gave the Greeks a chance to see and explore further east so their knowledge expanded immensly of present day India.

Similar to how definition of Asia expanded to include further lands to the east as they became known the same happened with India. However just because Greeks over time included most of South Asia as India does not mean much. Turkey, Syria,Iran, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, China, Japan, Philipines are all included in a ridicalous European construct called "Asia".

Ever seen a Tunisian? Ever seen a Sicilian? You would need forsensic team to figure out who is who. According to European construct, Sicilian is one of their own and Tunisian is African. Ever seen Greek? Ever seen a Turk or Syrian? You would need Crime Scene Investigators to figure out who is who. Yet the former is European and latter Asian.

Yet have you seen a Korean or a Malay? Both them are bracketed as Asian like the Syrian. Even a bonehead can tell the differances. So let us not treat what these old sources said as scientific fact. These are best to be used as pointers.



> What I am only in disagreement with is the author's dishonesty to stick to Herodotus' version of India only and not others who were fairly way more accurate in describing the region that was called India. I have no reservation in saying that the cradle of civilization IS in modern Pakistan nation state and NOT in modern Indian nation state. But it is ridiculous to me that ancient India never existed in present modern Indian state for the author's own intellectual failure to comprehend what 'ancient India' actually meant.



I certainly can agree with the broad thrust of what you said. I would feel much happier if we accepted that South Asia did exist and does exist as a broad geographic descriptor much as Europe exists. Within this space there has been lots of threads sometimes woven togather other times like climbing plants diverging from each other. If we can agree on this frankly I think we have almost overcome the problem.

The only thing then left is nomenclature. It should not give undue advantage to one side or cause or lead to confusion to the benefit one. If this can be addressed then we can have South asia party and celebrate. I will buy the drinks !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## scorpionx

Atanz said:


> Above exposes why I sometimes think there is no point in discussing with you guy's. You Indian's really treat the word "Pakistan" like a swear word. Just look at the duplicity on your part. You move from using names of provinces, Balochistan, Kashmir then you zoom out and use India. What was wrong with saying Pakistan? Would that have give you cardiac arrest? You either use zoom in and say, Balochistan, Kashmir, Bihar, Orrisa etc or use Pakistan and *India.* Look how you jumped around but avoided mentioning Pakistan.





> I have no reservation in saying that the cradle of civilization IS in modern Pakistan nation state and NOT in modern Indian nation state.


 @Post 133
Atanz Sahib, I already mentioned that major advance Mesolithic, Proto Neolithic and Neolithic settlements are all located west of Indus, in part of modern Pakistan. Nothing wrong in saying Pakistan, isn't?


Atanz said:


> Precisely what are you talking about? Links please?





> To recapitulate of the contacts of the Neolithic cultures of these two regions (Swat valley and Kashmir) with that of China, we find unmistakable examples of two items of material equipment of the Yangshao culture of north China, namely the harvester (semi-lunar knife with holes) and jade beads which were included in the inventory of the Neolithic cultures, the Kashmir and Swat valley respectively.





> Thus, the Mehrgarh materials find close analogies in the Jeitunian of southern Turkmenistan, as well as in several sites of northern Iran (Tepe Sang-i-Chakmak). Several features of the Neolithic cultures in the mountainous regions (e.g. semi-lunar knives) may be placed within the area of East Asian traditions. These may be seen as a reflection of cultural links, as well as common cultural traditions with the Xingjiang Neolithic cultures.



History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The Dawn of Civilization : Earliest Times to 700 B.C. : A. H. Dani : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive


----------



## KingMamba

scorpionx said:


> Pretty selective map reading actually. Herodotus drew a map based upon his Persian sources and there river Indus flows eastward to the ocean. It is difficult to imagine that the source he was relying could see the desert but could not identify the direction of such a mighty river. I will take his description with a pinch of salt here. What seemed more plausible to me that the Persians on the bank of Jhelum (which actually falls on the ancient route to central Asia) must have been more accurately aware what lay beyond it than those sources who were wandering near Thar desert and gave Herodotus their version of story.



Plausibility is not certainty, I am sure you would agree.


----------



## scorpionx

KingMamba said:


> Plausibility is not certainty, I am sure you would agree.


Off course not. At least I was much less certain than OP was


----------



## KingMamba

levina said:


> Enhhh?? Ab kya hua?
> What did I do to earn your ire....again???
> I was just saying that Brahui are a relict population of Dravidians, surrounded by speakers of Indo-Iranian languages, remaining from a time when Dravidian was more widespread (and may be later they were ousted from the region by the so called Aryans). Just FYI- There's no proof of Dravidian languages being related to any other language family. So presence of Brahui in Pakistan is not a mere co-incidence.



Most scholars post the introduction of the Brahui language long after the ancient era I am talking early 1000s AD,


----------



## Srinivas

Whirling_dervesh said:


> sorry to burst your bubble and your low level of intellect, but 'melluhans' as they were reffered to then from harrappa and mohenjadaro were trading as far as mesopotamia 2-3000 years before vasco de gama was a twinkle in the eye of his daddy...



Harrapa Mohenjadaro civilization sites and ports are also located in Gujarat, Haryana. Lothal is a famous port where trade happened.

One of World's oldest port Lothal







51. World's Oldest Port - Lothal | Free chat, desi chat, india chat, video chat, voice chat, chat rooms



KingMamba said:


> Look at the dates jahil, de Gama was before or after the Greeks and Darius? The Op is talking about what India meant durings its origin and you bring up what Euros thought it means hundreds of years later lmao.



If you people want to live in denial, I have no problem.

It was in the banks of Yamuna Great empires flourished which is where the center of gravity of Sub Continent lies.


----------



## Levina

KingMamba said:


> Most scholars post the introduction of the Brahui language long after the ancient era I am talking early 1000s AD,


Let's start again....
Brahui is considered the mother of 7000yrs old Dravidan languages.


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Srinivas said:


> Harrapa Mohenjadaro civilization sites and ports are also located in Gujarat, Haryana. Lothal is a famous port where trade happened.
> 
> One of World's oldest port Lothal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 51. World's Oldest Port - Lothal | Free chat, desi chat, india chat, video chat, voice chat, chat rooms
> 
> 
> 
> If you people want to live in denial, I have no problem.
> 
> It was in the banks of Yamuna Great empires flourished which is where the center of gravity of Sub Continent lies.



Just as the ancient Egyptians civilisation was to the great river Nile the same can be said for the Indus Valley civilisation. The bulk and heart of the great pyramids and tombs towns planning were in the main source and Nile settlements in Egypt while further settlements extended to the lower Nile riparian which extends further into Sudan. Further pyramids extend to Sudan in that lower riparian of the river Nile.

Similarly the bulk of major sites and cities of harrapan sites lie in the upper Indus and extend to the lower Indus riparian and out to the Arabian ocean. IVC constitutes virtually the whole of Pakistan whereas lothal and dholivara constitue 1% of India. We can safely say dholivara and lothal were an extension of ancient IVC much as what Sudanese Nile is an extension of the main Nile of Egypt which the world knows. 

Your claim is at a par with sudans!



Whirling_dervesh said:


> Just as the ancient Egyptians civilisation was to the great river Nile the same can be said for the Indus Valley civilisation. The bulk and heart of the great pyramids and tombs towns planning were in the main source and Nile settlements in Egypt while further settlements extended to the lower Nile riparian which extends further into Sudan. Further pyramids extend to Sudan in that lower riparian of the river Nile.
> 
> Similarly the bulk of major sites and cities of harrapan sites lie in the upper Indus and extend to the lower Indus riparian and out to the Arabian ocean. IVC constitutes virtually the whole of Pakistan whereas lothal and dholivara constitue 1% of India. We can safely say dholivara and lothal were an extension of ancient IVC much as what Sudanese Nile is an extension of the main Nile of Egypt which the world knows.
> 
> Your claim is at a par with sudans!




I doubt the great Pakistani IVC had thought of the Radcliffe boundaries

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Srinivas

Whirling_dervesh said:


> Just as the ancient Egyptians civilisation was to the great river Nile the same can be said for the Indus Valley civilisation. The bulk and heart of the great pyramids and tombs towns planning were in the main source and Nile settlements in Egypt while further settlements extended to the lower Nile riparian which extends further into Sudan. Further pyramids extend to Sudan in that lower riparian of the river Nile.
> 
> Similarly the bulk of major sites and cities of harrapan sites lie in the upper Indus and extend to the lower Indus riparian and out to the Arabian ocean. IVC constitutes virtually the whole of Pakistan whereas lothal and dholivara constitue 1% of India. We can safely say dholivara and lothal were an extension of ancient IVC much as what Sudanese Nile is an extension of the main Nile of Egypt which the world knows.
> 
> Your claim is at a par with sudans!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt the great Pakistani IVC had thought of the Radcliffe boundaries



Not a valid argument considering adjacent areas of Nile are deserts, India has many rivers and the civlization spread through out the land. Sarswati, Ganga and Yamuna are equally important rivers in the scriptures.


----------



## Levina

Whirling_dervesh said:


> Just as the ancient Egyptians civilisation was to the great river Nile the same can be said for the Indus Valley civilisation. The bulk and heart of the great pyramids and tombs towns planning were in the main source and Nile settlements in Egypt while further settlements extended to the lower Nile riparian which extends further into Sudan. Further pyramids extend to Sudan in that lower riparian of the river Nile.
> 
> Similarly the bulk of major sites and cities of harrapan sites lie in the upper Indus and extend to the lower Indus riparian and out to the Arabian ocean. IVC constitutes virtually the whole of Pakistan whereas lothal and dholivara constitue 1% of India. We can safely say dholivara and lothal were an extension of ancient IVC much as what Sudanese Nile is an extension of the main Nile of Egypt which the world knows.
> 
> Your claim is at a par with sudans!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt the great Pakistani IVC had thought of the Radcliffe boundaries


You're somebody's duplicate ID!!
And I know whose. 
FYI- @Srinivas

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Srinivas said:


> Not a valid argument considering adjacent areas of Nile are deserts, India has many rivers and the civlization spread through out the land. Sarswati, Ganga and Yamuna are equally important rivers in the scriptures.


What has deserts got to do with anything? We are looking at boundaries and and extension of river based civilisations. Egypt being upper Nile and Sudan being in the lower Nile riparian. Get with it



levina said:


> You're somebody's duplicate ID!!
> And I know whose.
> FYI- @Srinivas


Nobody's duplicate, your deluded


----------



## Srinivas

Whirling_dervesh said:


> What has deserts got to do with anything? We are looking at boundaries and and extension of river based civilisations. Egypt being upper Nile and Sudan being in the lower Nile riparian. Get with it



Except that Egypt and Sudan(No civilization) has no commonality in civilization, not the case of Indian Sub continent.


----------



## Shark2

Very funny thread. All the great Dynasties in the history of South Asia were founded in
what is modern India like Maurya, Gupta, Chola, Vijayanagar, Mughal and Maratha Empires.
On the other hand Pakistan never had its own civilization as Pakistan was throughout its
history under the rule of foreign invaders.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

*Soanian Culture ?
Mehr Garh ?
Kulli ?
Zhob?
Harappa ?
Mohenjo Daro ?
Amri ?
Gandhara ?*

and the *Moghul *came from the West in present day Pakistan captured Lahore thence moved into what is now India. At times Lahore served as the Moghul capital. So how no idea how you turn Central Asian dynasty that ruled us and you into exclusively yours. Is that another example of 'Oh because it was India'.

If my name is Alexander does that also make me Alexander?


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Srinivas said:


> Except that Egypt and Sudan(No civilization) has no commonality in civilization, not the case of Indian Sub continent.


Global Arab Network | Sudan’s pyramids, nearly as grand as Egypt’s, go unvisited | Travel | Travel


Wrong again....notice the similarities in this article to the 'long dried river' to the Indian claims. You have as much claim to IVC as the Sudan has to ancient Egyptian civilisation.






Pyramids at Meroe, some 200 kilometres north of Khartoum, are rarely visited despite being UNESCO World Heritage Site like those in Egypt.


The small, steep pyramids rising up from the desert hills of northern Sudan resemble those in neighbouring Egypt but, unlike the famed pyramids of Giza, the Sudanese site is largely deserted.

The pyramids at Meroe, some 200 kilometres north of Khartoum, are rarely visited despite being a UNESCO World Heritage Site like those in Egypt. Sanctions against the government of longtime President Omar al-Bashir over Sudan’s long-running internal conflicts limit its access to foreign aid and donations, while also hampering tourism.

The site, known as the Island of Meroe because an ancient, long-dried river ran around it, once served as the principle residence of the rulers of the Kush kingdom, known as the Black Pharaohs. Their pyramids, ranging from 6 metres to 30 metres tall, were built between 720 and 300 BC. The entrances usually face east to greet the rising sun.

The pyramids bear decorative elements inspired by pharaonic Egypt, Greece and Rome, according to UNESCO, making them priceless relics. However, overeager archaeologists in the 19th century tore off the golden tips of some pyramids and reduced some to rubble, said Abdel-Rahman Omar, the head of the National Museum of Sudan in Khartoum.

On a recent day, a few tourists and white camels roamed the site, watched by a handful of security guards. Sudan’s tourism industry has been devastated by economic sanctions imposed over the conflicts in Darfur and other regions. Al-Bashir’s government, which came to power following a bloodless Islamist coup in 1989, has struggled to care for its antiquities.

But Omar said Sudan receives just 15,000 tourists a year.

_The Arab Weekly_
_(The Associated Press)_

Tweet

Share

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Srinivas

Those are Arab Bedouins they are wanderers. Egyptians are different to Arabs just like Pakistanis are different to Arabs Lol.

Egyptians are Sudanese do not come under one civilization But the region east of Indus come under one civilization. If you want to hug you brothers based on the new civilization that you people adopted from Arabs .... not an issue but what you are trying to do here is trying to rewrite the history that suits your narrative.,

Arabs do not have any prominent civilization until your prophet came and started his system. India's case is different you are arguing on behalf of a Pakistan which is on the western edge of Indian civilization.







Whirling_dervesh said:


> Global Arab Network | Sudan’s pyramids, nearly as grand as Egypt’s, go unvisited | Travel | Travel
> 
> 
> Wrong again....notice the similarities in this article to the 'long dried river' to the Indian claims. You have as much claim to IVC as the Sudan has to ancient Egyptian civilisation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pyramids at Meroe, some 200 kilometres north of Khartoum, are rarely visited despite being UNESCO World Heritage Site like those in Egypt.
> 
> 
> The small, steep pyramids rising up from the desert hills of northern Sudan resemble those in neighbouring Egypt but, unlike the famed pyramids of Giza, the Sudanese site is largely deserted.
> 
> The pyramids at Meroe, some 200 kilometres north of Khartoum, are rarely visited despite being a UNESCO World Heritage Site like those in Egypt. Sanctions against the government of longtime President Omar al-Bashir over Sudan’s long-running internal conflicts limit its access to foreign aid and donations, while also hampering tourism.
> 
> The site, known as the Island of Meroe because an ancient, long-dried river ran around it, once served as the principle residence of the rulers of the Kush kingdom, known as the Black Pharaohs. Their pyramids, ranging from 6 metres to 30 metres tall, were built between 720 and 300 BC. The entrances usually face east to greet the rising sun.
> 
> The pyramids bear decorative elements inspired by pharaonic Egypt, Greece and Rome, according to UNESCO, making them priceless relics. However, overeager archaeologists in the 19th century tore off the golden tips of some pyramids and reduced some to rubble, said Abdel-Rahman Omar, the head of the National Museum of Sudan in Khartoum.
> 
> On a recent day, a few tourists and white camels roamed the site, watched by a handful of security guards. Sudan’s tourism industry has been devastated by economic sanctions imposed over the conflicts in Darfur and other regions. Al-Bashir’s government, which came to power following a bloodless Islamist coup in 1989, has struggled to care for its antiquities.
> 
> But Omar said Sudan receives just 15,000 tourists a year.
> 
> _The Arab Weekly
> (The Associated Press)_
> 
> Tweet
> 
> Share


----------



## Tiger Genie

you now school kids attending history class in Pakistan are really lucky. Their book is so tiny


----------



## Whirling_dervesh

Tiger Genie said:


> you now school kids attending history class in Pakistan are really lucky. Their book is so tiny


Firstly It seems like you need to go back to school first son, 'you now' or do you mean 'you know'. Secondly if the history book is so tiny why are Indian academics so desperate to steal it lol



Srinivas said:


> Those are Arab Bedouins they are wanderers. Egyptians are different to Arabs just like Pakistanis are different to Arabs Lol.
> 
> Egyptians are Sudanese do not come under one civilization But the region east of Indus come under one civilization. If you want to hug you brothers based on the new civilization that you people adopted from Arabs .... not an issue but what you are trying to do here is trying to rewrite the history that suits your narrative.,
> 
> Arabs do not have any prominent civilization until your prophet came and started his system. India's case is different you are arguing on behalf of a Pakistan which is on the western edge of Indian civilization.


With that kind of reply, I'm sorry you are beyond help. Good luck with your struggles.


----------

