# Did Ancient Pakistanis Defeated The Mighty Alexander The Great.,



## SnIPeR Xr

Did Ancient Pakistanis Defeated The Mighty Alexander The Great.,Time to re-write Pakistan's history.



Year : 326 BCE
Location : Banks of River Jehlum (Hydaspes)
Adversaries: Mighty Roman Army with all the resources one can imagine, the same army which trampled the persians, against a tiny princely state between Jehlum and Chenab, ruled by King which goes down in history by name Porus.
Personalities: A young and ambitious but demunitive Alexander who never tasted a defeated in battlefield , against a 7 feet tall King, who was known to be proud man. 

Here is the initial verbal exchange between the two:

http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/...reat-and-porus/


King Poros to Alexander, who plunders cities:I instruct you to withdraw. What can you, a mere man, achieve against a god? Is it because you have destroyed the good fortune of others by meeting weaker men in battle that you think yourself more mighty than me? But I am invincible: not only am I the king of men, but even of godswhen Dionysus (who they say is a god) came here, we used own power to drive him away. So not only do I advise you. but also I instruct you, to set off for Greece with all speed. I am not going to be frightened by your battle with Darius or by all the good fortune you had in the face of the weakness uf the other nations. But vou think von are more mighty. So set off for Greece. Because if we had needed Greece, we would have subjected it long before Xerxes; but as it is, we have paid no attention to it- because it is a useless nation, and there is nothing among them worth the regard of a kingeveryone desires what is better.


Alexender to his troops:

Comrades-in-arms, do not be upset again at the letter of Poross that 1 have read out. Remember what Darius wrote too- It is a fact that the only state of mind barbarians have is obtuseness. Like the animals under themtigers, lions, elephants, which exult in their courage but are easily hunted thanks to mans naturethe kings of the barbarians too exult in the numbers ol their armies but are easily defeated by the intelligence of the Greeks.



Alexander, to King Poros, greetings: You have made us even more eager to be spurred on to battle against you by saying that Greece has nothing worth the regard of a king but that you have everythinglands and cities. And i know that every man desires to seize what is better rather than to keep what is worse. Since, then, WE Greeks do not have thesethings and you barbarians possess them, we desire what is better and wish to have them from you. You write to me that you are king of gods and of all men even to the extent of having more power than the god. But i am engaging in war with a loudmouthed man and an absolute barbarian, not with a god. The whole world could not stand up to a god in full armorthe rumble of thunder, the flash of lightning, or the anger of the bolt. So the nations I have defeated in war cause you no astonishment and neither do boastful words on your part make me a coward.

Our history, yes the Pakistani history as we teach to our young minds tell us the though the ancient Pakistani, A Panjabi from ancient lands that lie between Jehlum and Chanab river, fought tooth and nail with the armies of Alexender but eventually lost and brought in Chains infront of Alexander, who being impressed by his bravery spared his life and gave him back his kingdom. 

I would say what a load of tosh and mockery of our ancient history it has been, and non other but us (just like in the case of IVC) teaching our kids the wrong version of history. Fools we are.

The version of history which is being told to the rest of world was written by someone after nearly 300 years of Alexender's death. And ofcourse it was written by a Roman. Unbiased source?? My arse.

Here is what now people are coming to realise of actual events that unfolded on the banks of Jehlum.

1) *Alexander and his armies only manage to come in the heartlands of ancient Pakistan when the ruler of Texilla Ambi, in his sheer anamosity and hatred for Porus, made a pack with Alexdener to destroy Porus in partnership. Ambi allowed Alexander the safe passage via Taxilla to reach river Jehlum. (This problem of trachery run deeps and still exist in modern day Pakistanis)*

2) The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to
save his and his soldiers` lives. He was a broken man at his return from his mis-adventures.

3) Mr E.A.W. Badge has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following:

"In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander`s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom".

Mr Badge further writes that the soldiers of Alexander were grief-stricken and they began to bewail the loss of their compatriots. They threw off their weapons. They expressed their strong desire to
surrender. They had no desire to fight. Alexander asked them to give up fighting and himself said,
"Porus, please pardon me. I have realized your bravery and strength. Now I cannot bear these agonies. WIth a sad heart I am planning to put an end to my life. I do not desire that my soldiers should also be ruined like me. I am that culprit who has thrust them into the jaw of death. It
does not become a king to thrust his soldiers into the jaws of death."

*These expressions of `Alexander, The Great!` do not indicate from any stretch of imagination his victory over Porus? Can such words be uttered by a `World Conquerer"?*

4) Alexnder is known to be a cruel man in history. He was neither a noble man nor did
he have a heart of gold. He had meted out very cruel and harsh treatment to his earlier enemies. Basus of Bactria fought tooth and nail with Alexander to defend the freedom of his motherland. When he was brought before Alexander as a prisoner, Alexander ordered his servants to whip
him and then cut off his nose and ears. He then killed him. Many Persian generals were killed by him.
The murder of Kalasthenese, nephew of Aristotle, was committed by Alexander because he criticised Alexander for foolishly imitating the Persian emperors. Alexander also murdered his friend Clytus in anger. His father`s trusted lieutenant Parmenian was also murdered by Alexander.

Considering above, its foolish to assume that Alexander just handover the lands of a "defeated" king and actually help him expand his rule. These are more of less, conditions imposed by Porus on Alexander until the later was given a safe passage down the indus towards the arabian sea, the easiest route back home for Alexander and his armies.

5) Alexander died of injuries later, sustained during this epic battle. 

6) The events that followed this battle, clearly showed that the acts of Roman army was of one with tails firmly tucked between their legs and of a defeated army. They only stuck to the indus in their retreat, did not follow the same path where they came from i.e. Afghanistan, their path to Arabian sea without venturing out on lands. Thoughout their journey down indus, they were picked off. I was watching a documentary long time ago in which a historian was tracing the track of so called "victorious Alexander army". They were showing the skeleton of the Roman army Littered around the coast of Pakistan, which btw can still be found. They presented those as the ones died of "thrust" and "hunger". That is laughable. how can a victorious army die of hunger and thrist?? It more like a case of being "picked off" what remained of it. 


*Conclusion: When are we going to owe something which well and truely belong to us?? Google the name Porus and you will find how indians are highjacking him as a "indian king". When are we going to set the record straight. In hollywood, they glorified insignificant Scot as braveheart, made movie on highly exaggarated spartans, yet here we got a King of a small state, brought down the mighty and egoistic Alexander "The Great" to his knees. No movies for him, yet the people who share the same blood dont even owe him. Shame really. *

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Masterchief

Dude alexander was never deafeted ,king porus was defeated because the treachery of king of ambhi who taught alexander how to fight elephants,the animals the greek feared as they had heared about these animals enroute,porus fought bravely and impressed alexander with his bravery ,alexander gave porus his kingdom back and never crossed jhelum because of reports that mighty king of magadha was waiting for him there with 8000 chariots ,scores of elephants and a large cavalry,alexander's soldiers were tired and he had to move back,there was no pakistan then so using the word india should not be a problem, unless you want to change the history yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

I wouldnt take peoples perceptions too personally. As long as we recognise our own history, nobody can deny it. Especially not when we have the land and lineage to show for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bhairava

I thought there were no such terms as Pakistanis prior to 1947.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## jayron

SnIPeR Xr said:


> Did Ancient Pakistanis Defeated The Mighty Alexander The Great.,Time to re-write Pakistan's history.
> *Conclusion: When are we going to owe something which well and truely belong to us?? Google the name Porus and you will find how indians are highjacking him as a "indian king". When are we going to set the record straight. In hollywood, they glorified insignificant Scot as braveheart, made movie on highly exaggarated spartans, yet here we got a King of a small state, brought down the mighty and egoistic Alexander "The Great" to his knees. No movies for him, yet the people who share the same blood dont even owe him. Shame really. *



Porus or Purushotham (His actual name) may be from the land which is now Pakistan. But Pakistanis do not want to remember anything pre-Islamic and remotely Indic. You people prefer to celebrate the Ottomans , Arabs and Persians than the people from your own land. Most of the Gandharan kingdom which was the amalgamation of Greek and Indian culture was in Pakistan. I wish and hope Pakistanis go beyond the time the idea of Pakistan was conceived and appreciate the land's ancient and rich culture.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## UnitedPak

gaurav yadav said:


> Dude alexander was never deafeted ,king porus was defeated because the treachery of king of ambhi who taught alexander how to fight elephants,the animals the greek feared as they had heared about these animals enroute,porus fought bravely and impressed alexander with his bravery ,alexander gave porus his kingdom back and never crossed jhelum because of reports that mighty king of magadha was waiting for him there with 8000 chariots ,scores of elephants and a large cavalry,alexander's soldiers were tired and he had to move back,there was no pakistan then so using the word india should not be a problem, unless you want to change the history yourself.



There was no India either, so using the names of the Kingdoms shouldnt be a problem. The whole point of the article is that people use the British India map to trump all regional identities of the subcontinent with the only intention to mislead.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## aristocrat

What in the name of god is ancient pakistan??First time the word pakistan was ever used was in 1940's.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Gounder said:


> I thought there were no such terms as Pakistanis prior to 1947.



According to Pakistani authors ,Pakistan's history goes back to 711 AD,when the 1st Muslims arrived to present day Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## justanobserver

UnitedPak said:


> There was no India either



Yes there was (and there is). 

Remeber 'Indika' ? Name of the book that Megasthenes wrote when he visited the Mauryan emperor in Patliputra. I'm sure it doesn't refer to Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

UnitedPak said:


> There was no India either, so using the names of the Kingdoms shouldnt be a problem. The whole point of the article is that people use the British India map to trump all regional identities of the subcontinent with the only intention to mislead.



Herodotus disagrees with you.

"Eastward of India lies a tract which is entirely sand. Indeed, of all the inhabitants of Asia, concerning whom anything is known, the Indians dwell nearest to the east, and the rising of the Sun."


By the way, existence of India as a nation,depends on when India gained statehood

However the criteria for India's existence as a country depends on when India was first established state on the land


On the side note,Iran is the oldest nation country in the world 3200BC

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## justanobserver

It's sad we lost most of our written history when Taxila, Vikramshila, Nalanda were raided and we have to rely on Greek accounts

However Pakistan should be the last country to claim that heritage, after all they named their missles "ghauri" and "ghazni"

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## UnitedPak

justanobserver said:


> Yes there was (and there is).
> 
> Remeber 'Indika' ? Name of the book that Megasthenes wrote when he visited the Mauryan emperor in Patliputra. I'm sure it doesn't refer to Pakistan



The term Indika was derived from the *Indus river* which I am pretty sure refers to modern day Pakistan. Hence the Maurya Empire is not called Indkia empire, but Maurya Empire. Dont confuse the modern usage of the term. 

Like I said, the intention is to mislead.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Urbanized Greyhound

According to all of recorded history Porus was clearly defeated ...and without being demeaning to any one here ......

It was claimed by sources both Indian and Greek , that if he( Alexander ) had advanced upto Magadha (against Dhana Nanda) , he would have certainly subjugated and conquered it.

As was often said " A man who destroyed the army of Darius the great of persia ..and who in a year traversed the distance from Greece across Asia minor , to the very boundaries of the subcontinent, could not withdraw being apprehensive of a single king...."

the reasons for his withdrawal are myriad .....with many claims and counterclaims .....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## flameboard

It is in fact so. The people living on the land were I think Persians and the wounds he suffered were caused people that were living on land now called Pakistan, he was in what is now northern Pakistan when he was severely injured and he sailed down the Indus river when he was too injured to carry on.


----------



## justanobserver

> The term Indika was derived from the Indus river which I am pretty sure refers to modern day Pakistan. Hence the Maurya Empire is not called Indkia empire, but Maurya Empire. Dont confuse the modern usage of the term.
> 
> *Like I said, the intention is to mislead. *




Mauryans were the rulers, the name Indika refers to the all land east of the Indus. Remember Megasthenes wrote about the Mauryans in *Patliputra* (in Indika) which is in present day Bihar (Patna=Patliputra)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## justanobserver

For reference

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## prototype

One more attempt to distort history,and guess from were it all emerge-Pakistan

To make u people believe urself about ur superior trait u people keep coming which such spectacular stories born out of ur incompetence and subjugation from the new world order, believing this was the same force which conquered the world at one time and will do it once again if the faith in ummah is reinforced.

Grow up guys,nobody is even now interested in whom defeated whom,just they will have a look at history and say,Ya Alexander defeated Porus,now whats for dinner tonight

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Masterchief

Going by the author's logic dr hk khorana,kalpana chawla are pakistanis because their ancestors lived in lahore,c'mon guys this guy telling us that porus was a pakistani, when there was no such nation itself at that time is hilarious,and as sir william wallace once remarked, 'i know i hate the englishmen but since their princess love me they will call me one of their own and i would extremely hate that, for whatever the circumstances iam and i remain a scot'


----------



## AR

UnitedPak said:


> There was no India either, so using the names of the Kingdoms shouldnt be a problem. The whole point of the article is that people use the British India map to trump all regional identities of the subcontinent with the only intention to mislead.



my goodness.... india was even there as back as 5000 years....
We even have an ocean named after our country.... which was called after its name as back as 2000 years and is continuous being called so...

and you are saying there was no country named "India" prior to 1947
learn some GK..... In 1947 pakistan emerged from India... india was there since millenniums

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## justanobserver

You know what, going by this logic. Since the Indus is in Pakistan, all Pakistani's are Hindus

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Urbanized Greyhound

UnitedPak said:


> The term Indika was derived from the *Indus river* which I am pretty sure refers to modern day Pakistan. Hence the Maurya Empire is not called Indkia empire, but Maurya Empire. Dont confuse the modern usage of the term.
> 
> Like I said, the intention is to mislead.



That is not possible .....because Megasthenes was an ambassadar to Chandragupta Maurya 's court,which was centred in Magadha ,with his capital at Pataliputra ( present day Patna ). Megasthenes choose the name for depicting the culture of the people living in the *subcontinent* in contemporary times , when sanskrit was the court language and vedic rituals were followed . The Indika name was clearly used to indicate the ancestors of *Indians *.....

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## prototype

A.R.. said:


> my goodness.... india was even there as back as 5000 years....
> We even have an ocean named after our country.... which was called after its name as back as 2000 years and is continuous being called so...
> 
> and you are saying there was no country named "India" prior to 1947
> learn some GK..... In 1947 pakistan emerged from India... india was there since millenniums



One more example is the East India Company,from were did they get the name India as it was created some 200 yrs before the independence of India.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Masterchief

Porus was a gandhar and they are hindus,if the poster has his way tomorrow he will call bhagat singh a pakistani

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The HBS Guy

*@Urbanized Greyhound:* WoW yaar! you know a lot about history...


----------



## bc040400065

justanobserver said:


> Yes there was (and there is).
> 
> Remeber 'Indika' ? Name of the book that Megasthenes wrote when he visited the Mauryan emperor in Patliputra. I'm sure it doesn't refer to Pakistan



And i m not surprized that you don't know from where the word INDIKA originates and belongs.


----------



## justanobserver

^
Please read previous posts


----------



## prototype

bc040400065 said:


> And i m not surprized that you don't know from where the word INDIKA originates and belongs.



he had and he proved it all along the thread,it is like this that u dont have much counterclaims

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## abrahams

UnitedPak said:


> There was no India either



well guess one among the oldest books is bible.... especially the old testament... which i believe has connections both with quran and the jewish holy book... 

so check out Esther 1:1 and Esther 8:9 to see the word.. India...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## UnitedPak

justanobserver said:


> Mauryans were the rulers, the name Indika refers to the all land east of the Indus. Remember Megasthenes wrote about the Mauryans in *Patliputra* (in Indika) which is in present day Bihar (Patna=Patliputra)



The origin of the term is not up for discussion but pretty much fact. Alexander only came into contact with the Indus valley, which he referred to as Indika. The usage of the term does not prove that all of British India is also part of _this_ Indika. Your entire argument is based on misleading terms and other India definitions. I wont entertain this as its been discussed to death. (see other threads)
*
The article does NOT talk of Pakistan as a political concept, but as a geographic region which has gone by a lot of different names, however the people have remained the same, hence its Pakistani history. Lumping the entire subcontinent as one does not make it Indian.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ganga

First of all Alexander the great was never defeated.The battle was quite bloody due to the presence of elephants in defenders side.Alexander's soldiers had never seen an elephant before in their life.As a result they panicked and many got killed.But at the end Alexander was victorious and king porous was captured. Porous and his men were Hindus.They went to battle chanting the name of Lord Shiva.


----------



## The HBS Guy

abrahams said:


> well guess one among the oldest books is bible.... especially the old testament... which i believe has connections both with quran and the jewish holy book...
> 
> so check out Esther 1:1 and Esther 8:9 to see the word.. India...


*
BIBLE Esther 1:1*

Now it took place in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned from *India* to Ethiopia over 127 provinces,

*BIBLE Esther 8:9*

So the king's scribes were called at that time in the third month (that is, the month Sivan), on the twenty-third day; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, the satraps, the governors and the princes of the provinces which extended from *India* to Ethiopia, 127 provinces, to every province according to its script, and to every people according to their language as well as to the Jews according to their script and their language.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## justanobserver

UnitedPak said:


> The origin of the term is not up for discussion but pretty much fact. Alexander only came into contact with the Indus valley, which he referred to as Indika. The usage of the term does not prove that all of British India is also part of this Indika. _Your entire argument is based on misleading terms and other India definitions_. I wont entertain this as its been discussed to death.





The term Indica is originally used by Megasthenes (*not* Alexander) when he was visiting the court of Chandragupta Maurya in Patliputra (which is not in modern day Pakistan)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## prototype

A simple fact Alexander's conquest continued till magadha and Bengal were he eventually he faced Nanda and gandhari empire were his forces mutinied because of exhaustion,so that means to reach up to there,he had to simple defeat Porus

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Masterchief

We dont need to give proofs for our presence in the world at that time,at that time university of taxila was there and so was chanakya who was deeply hurt when king of ambhi accepted alexander's bribes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bc040400065

alex mercer said:


> he had and he proved it all along the thread,it is like this that u dont have much counterclaims



Its a fact that if this article was an "Ancient Indian Hindu King Porus defeated Alexander the Great" the response from you indian members would have been totally different. Just the use of word "Pakistan" brings pain alot of pain to you all. Its a fact.... 

Nafrat chupaye nai chupti

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

UnitedPak said:


> *
> The article does NOT talk of Pakistan as a political concept, but as a geographic region which has gone by a lot of different names, however the people have remained the same, hence its Pakistani history. Lumping the entire subcontinent as one does not make it Indian.*



Pakistan as a ancient/historical geographic region is chronological error.

Pakistan was formed where there was a higher concentration of Muslims during partition.

That happened to be at west and east of modern day India.

However ,If you wish to see Pakistan's history encompassing all events which took place on land which belongs to present day Pakistan,then be my guest ,as i too believe that Indus valley civilization should be more linked with Pakistan rather than India.

But judging how pre-Islamic Pakistani people are demonized and seen as inferior people in your society ,i doubt if your people will ever accept it that history.

Even if they do accept,they"ll accept it motivated by greed for the achievements of that time(with selective amnesia),rather than a genuine love for one's past/history

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mirza Jatt

bc040400065 said:


> Its a fact that if this article was an "Ancient Indian Hindu King Porus defeated Alexander the Great" the response from you indian members would have been totally different. Just the use of word "Pakistan" brings pain alot of pain to you all. Its a fact....
> 
> *Nafrat* chupaye nai chupti



replace the word in bold with "Jhooth"...and then see it from Indian view how funny it is to try to prove something which is just a plain lie. 

Porus was a hindu is a well known fact..whats the doubt on it ?? Indians so far have given a better and logical arguments than your Pakistani friends,you will easily know it it, if you have any knowledge of history...read them carefully and honestly judge whats the truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

KingKong31 said:


> *
> BIBLE Esther 1:1*
> 
> Now it took place in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned from *India* to Ethiopia over 127 provinces,
> 
> *BIBLE Esther 8:9*
> 
> So the king's scribes were called at that time in the third month (that is, the month Sivan), on the twenty-third day; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, the satraps, the governors and the princes of the provinces which extended from *India* to Ethiopia, 127 provinces, to every province according to its script, and to every people according to their language as well as to the Jews according to their script and their language.



Wow!
though not that surprised ,as the old testament has many refences to Babylon

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AR

bc040400065 said:


> Its a fact that if this article was an "Ancient Indian Hindu King Porus defeated Alexander the Great" the response from you indian members would have been totally different. Just the use of word "Pakistan" brings pain alot of pain to you all. Its a fact....
> 
> Nafrat chupaye nai chupti



so why do you bring pakistan in Indian history?
your history starts after 1947 you are free to talk about every date after that


----------



## MYSTIC

UnitedPak said:


> *
> The article does NOT talk of Pakistan as a political concept, but as a geographic region which has gone by a lot of different names, however the people have remained the same, hence its Pakistani history. Lumping the entire subcontinent as one does not make it Indian.*



Persia or Iran as wee know it today is a lot smaller than the Persian empire. The empire got split into smaller pieces but that does not mean it is not part of persian history. Similarly, the creation of Pakistan does mean that all of history pre-1947 is not part of Indian history.

There is a reason why it is called the Indian sub continent. It is because we have a shared history. Why do Pakistanis shy away from this fact. Is it some kind of superiority complex that you feel bad to be associated with Hindu India of the past.


----------



## justanobserver

A.R.. said:


> so why do you bring pakistan in Indian history?
> your history starts after 1947 you are free to talk about every date after that



Apparently their history starts when Muhhamed Bin Qasim, annexed (read raped and plundered) Sindh and most parts of Punjab

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## The HBS Guy

MYSTIC said:


> Why do Pakistanis shy away from this fact. Is it some kind of superiority complex that you feel bad to be associated with Hindu India of the past.



It's so because they do not want to have anything to do with India or ancient India or stuff like that.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

justanobserver said:


> Apparently their history starts when Muhhamed Bin Qasim, annexed (read raped and plundered) Sindh and most parts of Punjab



I hope Indians too accept this fact ,rather than ignorantly saying Pakistan did not exist before 1947.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## prototype

bc040400065 said:


> Its a fact that if this article was an "Ancient Indian Hindu King Porus defeated Alexander the Great" the response from you indian members would have been totally different. Just the use of word "Pakistan" brings pain alot of pain to you all. Its a fact....
> 
> Nafrat chupaye nai chupti



any doubt about the Hindu background of Porus,we all know it,we oppose because for as it is to much to digest the distortion of history to this much extent,Alexander's conquest continued very much into the heartlands of India,but we r not ashamed to accept it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ganga

I want to ask all Pakistani members here a question.

The city of Lahore was founded by the son of lord Ram LUV.Another Pakistani city named Kasur was founded by his twin brother KUSH.I want to know how many Pakistani members would call them 'Ancient Pakistanis'.


----------



## Peacefulll

Indian Jatt said:


> replace the word in bold with "Jhooth"...and then see it from Indian view how funny it is to try to prove something which is just a plain lie.
> 
> Porus was a hindu is a well known fact..whats the doubt on it ?? Indians so far have given a better and logical arguments than your Pakistani friends,you will easily know it it, if you have any knowledge of history...read them carefully and honestly judge whats the truth.



True! This thread is astounding! The first time the word Pakistan was used was in the 1940s. Columbus set out to discover *India*, it was *India* that was referred to by numerous ancient historians, it was *India* that Alexander the great wanted to conquer. Pakistan as a concept, took birth in the 1940s and came to fruition in 1947.

And there is nothing wrong with that! Old is not always gold. Nations like India and China that have had civilizations for thousands of years are so much behind the USA which is barely 2+ centuries old! 

But this thread is pure falsification of history and is amusing, to say the least. Pakistan was formed as a bastion for Islam, and on the basis of the theory of a home for subcontinental Muslims. A Pakistani can justifiably feel proud of the idea of Pakistan, and the concept of Pakistan, there is no need to bring in such 'masala' about ancient Pakistan and all that!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mirza Jatt

Ganga said:


> I want to ask all Pakistani members here a question.
> 
> The city of Lahore was founded by the son of lord Ram LUV.Another Pakistani city named Kasur was founded by his twin brother KUSH.I want to know how many Pakistani members would call them 'Ancient Pakistanis'.



wow !! i did not know this...can you brief on this ?


----------



## Spring Onion

gaurav yadav said:


> Porus was a gandhar and they are hindus,if the poster has his way *tomorrow he will call bhagat singh a pakistani*



 And he was a terrorist. damn these Pakistanis started it against Britishers


----------



## The HBS Guy

Q1 - Why are those mountain ranges called Hindu Kush?

Q2- I have heard that 'Hindu Kush' means 'Slaughter of Hindus'...how true is that?

---------- Post added at 11:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 PM ----------




Jana said:


> And he was a terrorist. damn these Pakistanis started it against Britishers



Please don't derail the thread. There's a fact based discussion going on here.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

gaurav yadav said:


> Dude alexander was never deafeted ,king porus was defeated because the treachery of king of ambhi who taught alexander how to fight elephants,the animals the greek feared as they had heared about these animals enroute,porus fought bravely and impressed alexander with his bravery ,alexander gave porus his kingdom back and never crossed jhelum because of reports that mighty king of magadha was waiting for him there with 8000 chariots ,scores of elephants and a large cavalry,alexander's soldiers were tired and he had to move back,there was no pakistan then so using the word india should not be a problem, unless you want to change the history yourself.



I didn't said that Alexender was defeated.

Yes king porus was defeated but it was his gloriuos defeat which stopped the mighty greek army from marching into the Modern Land of India.

It was for the first time in history that Alexender recognized The bravery of some person/Ruler and Placed his personality above him.

There was no India in the history.

*As Described,the Rulers ambhi and Porus were two Rulers ruling in different Territories.*


No where in the history it is written that The land forming present subcontinent was bounded by any Central state or was conjoined by any boundary containing the present day's Pakistan,India,Bangladesh,Nepal,Bhutan and Burma.

What is the base of calling those Different territories ruled by different rulers as one single Major territory.
_The truth is that there was no such kind of Head territory Ruling or heading those small territories in the past which was even near to the definition of defining a piece of land territory._

What are the bases of calling a piece of land a territory if that land holds many sub territories ruled by different rulers???

Ans:There are only two bases;

1)If the territory has a central power house either with full authority or with no authority acting only as a show piece.
2)If some boundary is been demarked to compile all those territories in a single Major territory.

But there is no mention in a history of either a central government acting as a head of all those territories or either those territories were bounded by a demarked Boundary.


Actually the real situation was that:

*"In ancient times,There were hundreds or thousands of Countries present in the Piece of land which now a day called as south Asia.

The todays south asia includes the countries Pakistan,India,Bangladesh,Burma,Bhutan and Nepal.
The history,culture & Traditions of those territories belongs to the respective countries in which those territories were present.

There can be similarities in way of living of the people living in those territories belongs to some Modern day Mentioned country with those of some other modern day Mentioned country but this doesn't implies for any of these country to claim the history of some other mentioned country". *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kambojaric

"Pakistan was formed as a bastion for Islam, and on the basis of the theory of a home for subcontinental Muslims. A Pakistani can justifiably feel proud of the idea of Pakistan, and the concept of Pakistan, there is no need to bring in such 'masala' about ancient Pakistan and all that!"

Why not, its our land, people who inhabited these lands are our ancestors and YES they werent muslims. Indians need to get out of this mentality that Pakistanis only care about Muslim rule. As i have mentioned before on these forums i am also very proud of being a Kamboh (kamboja), a pre islamic kingdom (roughly north west Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan).


----------



## Kambojaric

Ganga said:


> I want to ask all Pakistani members here a question.
> 
> The city of Lahore was founded by the son of lord Ram LUV.Another Pakistani city named Kasur was founded by his twin brother KUSH.I want to know how many Pakistani members would call them 'Ancient Pakistanis'.



Please dont bring religion into this thread, you can believe whatever you want to, got no problem with that but can you prove scientifically that a Gods son came and built my city? If no then since im not a Hindu i find your argument baseless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peacefulll

Bamxa said:


> "Pakistan was formed as a bastion for Islam, and on the basis of the theory of a home for subcontinental Muslims. A Pakistani can justifiably feel proud of the idea of Pakistan, and the concept of Pakistan, there is no need to bring in such 'masala' about ancient Pakistan and all that!"
> 
> Why not, its our land, people who inhabited these lands are our ancestors and YES they werent muslims. Indians need to get out of this mentality that Pakistanis only care about Muslim rule. As i have mentioned before on these forums i am also very proud of being a Kamboh (kamboja), a pre islamic kingdom (roughly north west Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan).



Frankly, seeing some (not all) Pakistani comments on this forum and elsewhere about evil Hindus, and having seen all kinds of derogatory references to Hindus, and constantly referring to Indians as 'Hindu Baniyas or Brahmins', I find it tough to believe that the majority of Pakistan agrees with you. The sentiment seems to be a rejection of the past history of the people of present day Pakistan, and to view history only from the time of the advent of Islam and/or birth of Pakistan.

Keeping that aside for the moment, it is a fact that this patch of land was called India in the past, for thousands of years. Historians all over the world have documented *India*. So it does sound odd to speak of 'ancient Pakistanis defeating Alexander'.


----------



## Spring Onion

Peacefulll said:


> True! This thread is astounding! The first time the word Pakistan was used was in the 1940s. Columbus set out to discover *India*, it was *India* that was referred to by numerous ancient historians, it was *India* that Alexander the great wanted to conquer. Pakistan as a concept, took birth in the 1940s and came to fruition in 1947.
> 
> And there is nothing wrong with that! Old is not always gold. Nations like India and China that have had civilizations for thousands of years are so much behind the USA which is barely 2+ centuries old!
> 
> But this thread is pure falsification of history and is amusing, to say the least. Pakistan was formed as a bastion for Islam, and on the basis of the theory of a home for subcontinental Muslims. A Pakistani can justifiably feel proud of the idea of Pakistan, and the concept of Pakistan, there is no need to bring in such 'masala' about ancient Pakistan and all that!



why are bringing masla to declare bharatavarsha the same word India


----------



## justanobserver

SnIPeR Xr said:


> 1)If the territory has a central power house either with full authority or with no authority acting only as a show piece.
> 
> 
> But there is no mention in a history of either a central government acting as a head of all those territories or either those territories were bounded by a demarked Boundary.



So what was the Mauryan Empire then? ( Or the Gupta Empire or the Mughal Empire)
For your reference again








The entire region is called the "Indian subcontinent" for a reason

Here is another Civilization : (note I'm bringing in China only for the sake of reference and the fact that it's another country besides India which has preserved it's ancient (5000yrs) traditions )

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Peacefulll

Jana said:


> why are bringing masla to declare bharatavarsha the same word India



Theek hai ji, 'Bharat' bula lo, India bula lo, kya farak padta hai? (but don't call it Hindustan, we are not only 'Hindu'stan )

India's official name as per Indian constitution is 'Bharatiya Ganarajya', (republic of India).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AR

Bamxa said:


> Please dont bring religion into this thread, you can believe whatever you want to, got no problem with that but can you prove scientifically that a Gods son came and built my city? If no then since im not a Hindu i find your argument baseless.



so you are now saying things and cities related to prophet mohamad are baseless.. your logic there goes baseless


----------



## Spring Onion

KingKong31 said:


> Q1 - Why are those mountain ranges called Hindu Kush?
> 
> Q2- I have heard that 'Hindu Kush' means 'Slaughter of Hindus'...how true is that?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 11:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't derail the thread. There's a fact based discussion going on here.



And who told you the Hindukush mountain range is synonymous with the religion of Hindus ??

and who told you that the mountain range has only one name that is hindukush?

it has many names ranging from Himalayas to hindukush and so on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## prototype

SnIPeR Xr said:


> *"In ancient times,There were hundreds or thousands of Countries present in the Piece of land which now a day called as south Asia.
> 
> The todays south asia includes the countries Pakistan,India,Bangladesh,Burma,Bhutan and Nepal.
> The history,culture & Traditions of those territories belongs to the respective countries in which those territories were present.
> 
> There can be similarities in way of living of the people living in those territories belongs to some Modern day Mentioned country with those of some other modern day Mentioned country but this doesn't implies for any of these country to claim the history of some other mentioned country". *



So based on the above said line how would u like to describe about the Mauryan and gupta kingdoms, ancient hindu dynasties with their HQ's present in the modern day India,and among the dynasties which brought forward the India legend

1.Did they conquered the present day Pakistan and consider them as foreign invasion
2.Pakistan was very much a part of Mauryan empire and hence were the part of indian history
3.Or Mauryan empire is considered the part of Pakistani history

Just for the sake of argument,nothing else

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mjnaushad

A.R.. said:


> so you are now saying things and cities related to prophet mohamad are baseless.. your logic there goes baseless


Religion is not limited to country. But its hard for a troll to understand.


----------



## The HBS Guy

Jana said:


> it has many names ranging from Himalayas to hindukush and so on.



Are you telling me that Hindu Kush and Himalaya are the same mountain ranges?


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

Bombensturm said:


> According to Pakistani authors ,Pakistan's history goes back to 711 AD,when the 1st Muslims arrived to present day Pakistan.



Acoording to SOME AUTHORS.Not all.


Mohammed bin qasim is a part of our history not start of our history.

He was just an outside reformer whose work we appreciate.

And yes before arrival of MBQ RAJA DAHIR WAS OUR RULER,OUR ANCESTOR.NO MATTER WHETHER HE WAS GOOD OR BAD HE WAS OUR MAN,OUR ANCESTOR.

Yes he was not good BUT he was our's.

MBQ is the person who came as an outsider and liberated us from his cruel rule.

We liked his way of governance and the religion Islam,Thats why our ancestors decided to adopt islam which we are still following.


But going by the stupid theories of Indians it means that:

*If a person's Father was hindu and the person later changed his religion to Christianity.*

Does this means that after entering Christianity the history,Culture and ANcestors of that person suddenly vanished up??

Does this means that,That persons history starts from the day when he entered christianity and that person have no past??

Does this means that the Hindu father of that person is no longer father of him and that person have no ancestors.

What a logic presented by indians

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## justanobserver

Jana said:


> and who told you that the mountain range has only one name that is hindukush?
> 
> it has many names ranging from Himalayas to hindukush and so on.




The Hindukush is a *part* (read sub-range) of the Himalayas

btw the name Himalaya (&#2361;&#2367;&#2350;&#2366;&#2354;&#2351 is a combination of Him (snow) and Alaya (abode) in *Sanskrit*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## prototype

KingKong31 said:


> Are you telling me that Hindu Kush and Himalaya are the same mountain ranges?



Not same mountain range,but a sub range of Himalayas just like Karakorum,or we can say the extended range of Karakorum

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## muse

Curious position taken by our Indian friends - who suggest that the histories of all that comprise Pakistan are not those of Pakistan - They say Pakistan was born 60 something years ago - No doubt, but so was "India", a word the English gave them, is this not so?

No, they argue, because Peoples who never saw themselves as anything other than a caste membership can now be claimed as Indian -- and yet the same does not apply to Pakistan??

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Bamxa said:


> Please dont bring religion into this thread, you can believe whatever you want to, got no problem with that but can you prove scientifically that a Gods son came and built my city? If no then since im not a Hindu i find your argument baseless.



Hes not bringing religion here,he actually brought out a valid point about etymology of Lahore

And what he said is right.

Etymology of Lahore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the problem with Pakistanis anything related to Hinduism is immediately ignored. 

Irrespective of the fact literature like Mahabharata and Ramayana ,aside from the religious aspect tell a good deal about the geography and culture of people back then.More importantly including lands of Pakistan.


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

jayron said:


> Porus or Purushotham (His actual name) may be from the land which is now Pakistan. But Pakistanis do not want to remember anything pre-Islamic and remotely Indic. You people prefer to celebrate the Ottomans , Arabs and Persians than the people from your own land. Most of the Gandharan kingdom which was the amalgamation of Greek and Indian culture was in Pakistan. I wish and hope Pakistanis go beyond the time the idea of Pakistan was conceived and appreciate the land's ancient and rich culture.



I admit that we are confused nation regarding our history.

But now the time has come;

*"We are clearly saying that we are the people who were world's earliest civilization dating back to 5000 years.

Our Ancestors Build the cities of mohenjodaro and harrippa,so far words first ever modern cities.

The territories our ancestors occupying were the Indus valley delta.

It just happened 800 years before that a Muslim Invader MBQ arrived on our sea ports.

He brought the religion of Islam,We liked the religion and our ancestors fore fathers adopted the Religion Islam.

But before that our Ancestors were HINDUS,IDOL WORSHIPPERS.

But those hindus were our ancestors our fore fathers.Thier History is our history,Their culture tradition is our tradition.(Except for those who coincides with teachings of islam)".*

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Spring Onion

Peacefulll said:


> Theek hai ji, 'Bharat' bula lo, India bula lo, kya farak padta hai? (but don't call it Hindustan, we are not only 'Hindu'stan )
> 
> India's official name as per Indian constitution is 'Bharatiya Ganarajya', (republic of India).



And bharatram was not refereed to hindu rashtra 

BTW bhartis can take credit for defeating Alexander we have no issue this might heal wounds of those lost 700 years


----------



## justanobserver

muse said:


> Curious position taken by our Indian friends - who suggest that the histories of all that comprise Pakistan are not those of Pakistan - They say Pakistan was born 60 something years ago - No doubt, but so was "India", a word the English gave them, is this not so?
> 
> No, they argue, because Peoples who never saw themselves as anything other than a caste membership can now be claimed as Indian -- and yet the same does not apply to Pakistan??




Actually its the 'curious position' taken by your countrymen who claim that Ancient India refers to present day Pakistan ! 

The 'position' fell flat on it's face when countered with evidence eg: Indika written by Megasthenes tells us about the Mauryan Empire with it's capital in Patliputra (present day Patna in Bihar)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AR

muse said:


> Curious position taken by our Indian friends - who suggest that the histories of all that comprise Pakistan are not those of Pakistan - They say Pakistan was born 60 something years ago - No doubt, but so was "India", a word the English gave them, is this not so?



No... Pakistan emerged from India that dosent mean India born at the same time....
just like bangladesh emerged from pakistan but you can't say pakistan was not present before 71.. or pakistan also born in 71...

no offence!!

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## SpArK

I always wondered what if Sir Cyril Radcliffe who has drawn the lines of partition chose another region, say for example around north east of the present India for the new nation.


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

aristocrat said:


> What in the name of god is ancient pakistan??First time the word pakistan was ever used was in 1940's.



What in the name of god is MUMBAI.???

First time the word MUMBAI was ever used in 1992.

There was no MUMBAI before 1992-3 so all the history,traditions,Culture,Traditions and remaining belongs to the ANCIENT BOMBAY.

There was no MUMBAI before 1993,So history of MUMBAI starts from 1993.

The City of Mumbai have no ancestors.

All the history is of other AnCIENT city BOMBAY





How does it sounds???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## justanobserver

> What in the name of god is MUMBAI.???



*This* god 

Mumbai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The name Mumbai is an eponym, derived from Mumba or Maha-Amba&#8212;the name of the Koli goddess Mumbadevi&#8212;and Aai, "mother" in Marathi.[12]


----------



## SpArK

SnIPeR Xr said:


> What in the name of god is MUMBAI.???



Sachin Tendulkar ???



> First time the word MUMBAI was ever used in 1992.
> 
> There was no MUMBAI before 1992-3 so all the history,traditions,Culture,Traditions and remaining belongs to the ANCIENT BOMBAY.
> There was no MUMBAI before 1993,So history of MUMBAI starts from 1993.
> 
> The City of Mumbai have no ancestors.



It was given back the original Marathi name.. which was used in 16th and 17 th century




> How does it sounds???



Sounds ridiculous

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## prototype

Just leave Mauryas and Guptas,can simple anyone tell me how was British controlled territory before 1947 was known as British India and a company which came to trade in 1617 in this territory was named British East India company,if India does not existed before 1947,why dont they never used any term associated with Pakistan before


----------



## Mirza Jatt

SnIPeR Xr said:


> What in the name of god is MUMBAI.???
> 
> First time the word MUMBAI was ever used in 1992.
> 
> There was no MUMBAI before 1992-3 so all the history,traditions,Culture,Traditions and remaining belongs to the ANCIENT BOMBAY.
> 
> There was no MUMBAI before 1993,So history of MUMBAI starts from 1993.
> 
> The City of Mumbai have no ancestors.
> 
> All the history is of other AnCIENT city BOMBAY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it sounds???



the term Mumbai has been used for hundreds of years..even before Bombay was used..you did not reasearch on itbefore posting that. Its the local name of Bombay. ..bombay was the name given by the britishers..whereas mumbai was its original name..which is back in use after the locals protested in 1993

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The HBS Guy

SnIPeR Xr said:


> What in the name of god is MUMBAI.???
> 
> First time the word MUMBAI was ever used in 1992.
> 
> There was no MUMBAI before 1992-3 so all the history,traditions,Culture,Traditions and remaining belongs to the ANCIENT BOMBAY.
> 
> There was no MUMBAI before 1993,So history of MUMBAI starts from 1993.
> 
> The City of Mumbai have no ancestors.
> 
> All the history is of other AnCIENT city BOMBAY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it sounds???



*Free advice: Speaking about things you know nothing of only makes you look like a fool. Read on:*

*Toponymy of Mumbai*

The name Mumbai is an eponym, derived from Mumba or Maha-Amba&#8212;the name of the Koli goddess Mumbadevi&#8212;and Aai, "mother" in Marathi.[12]

The oldest known names for the city are Kakamuchee and Galajunkja; these are sometimes still used.[13][14] *Ali Muhammad Khan, in the Mirat-i-Ahmedi (1507) referred to the city as Manbai.*[15] In 1508, Portuguese writer Gaspar Correia used the name Bombaim, in his Lendas da &#205;ndia ("Legends of India").[16][17] This name possibly originated as the Old Portuguese phrase bom baim, meaning "good little bay",[18] and Bombaim is still commonly used in Portuguese.[19] In 1516, Portuguese explorer Duarte Barbosa used the name Tana-Maiambu: Tana appears to refer to the adjoining town of Thane and Maiambu to Mumbadevi.[20]
The temple of local Hindu goddess Mumbadevi, after whom the city of Mumbai derives its name.

*Other variations recorded in the 16th and the 17th centuries include: Mombayn (1525)*, Bombay (1538), Bombain (1552), Bombaym (1552),* Monbaym (1554)*,* Mombaim (1563)*, *Mombaym (1644)*, Bambaye (1666), Bombaiim (1666), Bombeye (1676), and Boon Bay (1690).[19][21] After the British gained possession of the city in the 17th century, the Portuguese name was officially anglicised as Bombay.[22]

*By the late 20th century, the city was known as Mumbai or Mambai to Marathi speakers* and as Bambai in Hindi, Persian and Urdu. The English name was officially changed to Mumbai in November 1995.[23] This came at the insistence of the Marathi nationalist Shiv Sena party that had just won the Maharashtra state elections and mirrored similar name changes across the country. A theory was proposed suggesting that &#8220;Bombay&#8221; was a corrupted English version of &#8220;Mumbai&#8221; and an unwanted legacy of British colonial rule. The push to rename Bombay was part of a larger movement to strengthen Marathi identity in the Maharashtra region. However, the city is still referred to as Bombay by some of its residents and Indians from other regions as well.[24] However, mentions of the city by the name other than Mumbai have been controversial, resulting emotional outbursts and violently political.[25][26]

A widespread popular etymology of Bombay holds that it was derived from a Portuguese name meaning "good bay". This is based on the facts that bom is Portuguese for "good" and ba&#237;a (or the archaic spelling bahia) means "bay". However, this literal translation would have been incorrect in grammatical gender, as bom is masculine, while baia is feminine; a correct Portuguese rendering of "good bay" would be boa ba(h)ia. In case, baim is an archaic, masculine word for "little bay".[18]

Portuguese scholar Jos&#233; Pedro Machado in his Dicion&#225;rio Onom&#225;stico Etimol&#243;gico da L&#237;ngua Portuguesa (1981; "Portuguese Dictionary of Onomastics and Etymology"), seems to reject the "Bom Bahia" hypothesis, suggesting that the presence of a bay was a coincidence (rather than a basis of the toponym) and led to a misconception, that the noun (bahia; "bay") was an integral part of the Portuguese name.[27]

Mumbai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

muse said:


> Curious position taken by our Indian friends - who suggest that the histories of all that comprise Pakistan are not those of Pakistan - They say Pakistan was born 60 something years ago -



Its more to do with people's confusion here with the terms :nation,country ,state.



> No doubt, but so was "India", a word the English gave them, is this not so?



_India_ is a latin term,it was not the English who gave us.
Its the name we chose for our nation............why?thats another topic.



> No, they argue, because Peoples who never *saw* themselves as anything other than a *caste membership* can now be claimed as Indian -- and yet the same does not apply to Pakistan??



Its a very good point you have brought here.

Its important to lay stress on the word *saw*.Yes we do accept we were caste membership back then,

and who wasn't ? any feudal society at that time had this hierarchy.

Ex:Britian :Nobles>Monks>Traders>Peasants

But however,its your country men who still stick to this feudal practice of discriminating the Dhimis,kafirs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AR

SnIPeR Xr said:


> What in the name of god is MUMBAI.???
> 
> First time the word MUMBAI was ever used in 1992.
> 
> There was no MUMBAI before 1992-3 so all the history,traditions,Culture,Traditions and remaining belongs to the ANCIENT BOMBAY.
> 
> There was no MUMBAI before 1993,So history of MUMBAI starts from 1993.
> 
> The City of Mumbai have no ancestors.
> 
> All the history is of other AnCIENT city BOMBAY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it sounds???



actually it was "mumbai" initially and local used to call it by this name only... but Britishers distorted this name to "bombay" nothing else

and its not the talk of name... as you can not call the history of MUMBAI as history of DELHI....

similarly you cant call the histoy of India as history of Pakistan

Did you get my point?????

NOW tell me, How does it sounds???

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UnitedPak

A.R.. said:


> No... Pakistan emerged from India that dosent mean India born at the same time....
> just like bangladesh emerged from pakistan but you can't say pakistan was not present before 71.. or pakistan also born in 71...
> 
> no offence!!



So you are saying that India and British India are the same nation?

Pakistanis and Indians do have shared history. This includes Maurya Empire, British Indian empire and some others. These are the only examples that can be compared to the Persian empire, where all countries involved can trace back their history.

However in our case, most of history the region was scattered with smaller kingdoms and empires. These cannot be "shared" if only the people of specific regions can trace back to them, i.e Indus Valley, Gandhara, Kushans, Porus, Punjab, Sindh etc. You cant use the subcontinent excuse to claim common ancestors with regions that have nothing to do with your people.

The 1947 excuse is getting old. History is defined by the people.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## justanobserver

Bombensturm said:


> India is a latin term



Fun fact:

Did you know that 'China' is a Sanskrit term (at-least in one of the theories) ? 


> The word "China"[nb 1] is derived from Cin (&#1670;&#1740;&#1606, a Persian name for China popularized in Europe by Marco Polo.[13][14] In early usage, "china" as a term for porcelain was spelled differently from the name of the country, the two words being derived from separate Persian words.[15] *Both these words are derived from the Sanskrit word C&#299;na (&#2330;&#2368;&#2344*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

SnIPeR Xr said:


> Acoording to SOME AUTHORS.Not all.
> 
> 
> Mohammed bin qasim is a part of our history not start of our history.
> 
> What a logic presented by indians



I brought that logic because its your nation which was formed based on the concept: *of uniting Muslims of the India*.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

A.R.. said:


> No... Pakistan emerged from India that dosent mean India born at the same time....
> just like bangladesh emerged from pakistan but you can't say pakistan was not present before 71.. or pakistan also born in 71...
> 
> no offence!!



india wasnt even a country until 1947.....funny to see people like you claim otherwise


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

SnIPeR Xr said:


> I admit that we are confused nation regarding our history.
> 
> But now the time has come;
> 
> *"We are clearly saying that we are the people who were world's earliest civilization dating back to 5000 years.
> 
> Our Ancestors Build the cities of mohenjodaro and harrippa,so far words first ever modern cities.
> 
> The territories our ancestors occupying were the Indus valley delta.
> 
> It just happened 800 years before that a Muslim Invader MBQ arrived on our sea ports.
> 
> He brought the religion of Islam,We liked the religion and our ancestors fore fathers adopted the Religion Islam.
> 
> But before that our Ancestors were HINDUS,IDOL WORSHIPPERS.
> 
> But those hindus were our ancestors our fore fathers.Thier History is our history,Their culture tradition is our tradition.(Except for those who coincides with teachings of islam)".*



Bravo!

If only every Pakistani was clear as you were.


----------



## Peacefulll

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> india wasnt even a country until 1947.....funny to see people like you claim otherwise



India might not have been a modern nation state, but historians have referred to India and documented India, from thousands of years. There have been innumerable empires, referred to in all history books and documented by all historians as *Indian*. Columbus set sail to discover *India*, Alexander the great dreamt of conquering *India*, and so on. India has been known for thousands of years.

Carry on with presenting 'ancient Pakistani history', but frankly, everyone in the world will ask the same questions that we are asking on this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

Ok let me try explaining it in simple words

Once upon a time, there existed a large portion of land called India, which even colombus searched but reached Northamaerica and called the people Red Indians thinking he has reached India , which was the name in 15th century.

*Ok lets consider India as a big Pizza
*







*Then bad guys after bad guys from dutch to french and to English came here seeing its rich wealth.. and English boy was successful

They tried to take a piece of our pizza*






*But already the poor Pizza was divided into states and kingdoms..*






But they revolted and seeked freedom..

*So a guy named radcliff came and cut it into 2.. and made it 2 free pieces*







*Story over.. go and sleep now..*

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## justanobserver

OMFG!!

We're stuck in an infinite lop !


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

justanobserver said:


> Yes there was (and there is).
> 
> Remeber 'Indika' ? Name of the book that Megasthenes wrote when he visited the Mauryan emperor in Patliputra. I'm sure it doesn't refer to Pakistan



The word "India", "Indika" and all references given to india containing IND terms are derived from the word INDUS which place is now in Pakistan.

Do you know what does it means? 

It means that if going realistically the Other parts of South asia apart of Indus valley,All are reffered as a PART of Indus valley with remaining Sub continent having no specific refference or Identity.

Because IVC was the most ancient Land in south asia ever known to people thats why refferences of Remaining SC are given to them by deriving them from Indus.

It Implies that The history,Tradition,culture of Indus is the real History and the reamining SB dont have its own specific culture and history.

Now the IVC is the part of PAKISTAN it means that Pakistan is real civilization of SB,The Original Race of SA and ancestors of INDIa,bhutan,Nepal,Bangladesh civilization.

Going by this Its actually Pakistan who should claim all the history,Culture and Tradition of south asia.


But I know that it will hurt you and as a person i will not claim it 
Because
*I want you to accept my history and my claim on the history of the land in which i am living and i want you to accept the history of the land in which you are living.*


And we should share the mutual history of our as part of both like sikh invasion on parts of IndiaPakistan.That history is mutual of both of us.For people Living in PAK the ancestors of that history and the people in InDIA the ancestors of that history.

and remember History and Ancestor ship has nothing to do with religion.


----------



## Bhairava

Urbanized Greyhound said:


> According to all of recorded history Porus was clearly defeated ...and without being demeaning to any one here ......
> 
> It was claimed by sources both Indian and Greek , that if he( Alexander ) had advanced upto Magadha (against Dhana Nanda) , he would have certainly subjugated and conquered it.
> 
> As was often said " A man who destroyed the army of Darius the great of persia ..and who in a year traversed the distance from Greece across Asia minor , to the very boundaries of the subcontinent, could not withdraw being apprehensive of a single king...."
> 
> the reasons for his withdrawal are myriad .....with many claims and counterclaims .....



No actually, meesengers informed Alexander about the vast armies of the Nandas and the Gangaridai kings that had converged on the banks of the Ganges and that coupled with near mutiny among the ranks of his soldiers,Alexander was forced to turn back.


> 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. 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 war elephants - _Plutarch, Alexander, 62_


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> india wasnt even a country until 1947.....funny to see people like you claim otherwise




Correction: *"Republic of India"* did not exist prior to 1947.

Depends on how you define a country

1)a geographical region considered to be the physical territory of a sovereign state, or of a smaller, or former, political division within a geographical region.

2)by establishment of state on the land.

3)By establishment of state of the nation


----------



## Rafi

South Asia has never (but for short periods of time, as part of various empire's) been a nation, the famous Pakistani lawyer Chaudhary Aitzaz Ahsan, eloquently proves the uniqueness of the Indus Valley and its separateness from the Ganges Civilization known as bharat. 

The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books
Synopsis
Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age. It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## justanobserver

> The word "India", "Indika" and all references given to india containing IND terms are derived from the word INDUS which place is now in Pakistan.
> 
> Do you know what does it means?
> 
> It means that if going realistically the Other parts of South asia apart of Indus valley,*All are reffered as a PART of Indus valley with remaining Sub continent having no specific refference or Identity.*





Ok now let me explain slowly. Indika was first used by *Megasthenes* when he visited the court of Chandragupta Maurya whos capital was in Patlitputra in modern day *Bihar*. Indika doesn't refer to the Indus valley, because the goddam Indus civilization was DEAD at that period. It refers to land *East* of the INDUS. (most of it)

Again a map of the Mauryan empire 






Notice that the important cities are not there in the erstwhile Indus valley civ.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

Deleted....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

SnIPeR Xr said:


> And people of Pakistan were once upon a time a part of that pizza.
> 
> Before its division into slices.
> 
> Now the people of PAK i.e cheese,Veg,Meat and all the stuff were separated in the slice from the larger part.
> 
> IT implies that the history of the chheese and other stuff which is now part of a slice names PAKISTAN is the history of that slice,All the time periods,Making which involved the making of THE CHEESE AND OTHER FORMING STUFF BELONGS TO THE COMPOSING STUFF OF the part of that slice.
> 
> and this is the history of the food stuff of THAT SLICE.



*Hik..hik...

Bon appetite. *


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

BENNY said:


> Ok let me try explaining it in simple words
> 
> Once upon a time, there existed a large portion of land called India, which even colombus searched but reached Northamaerica and called the people Red Indians thinking he has reached India , which was the name in 15th century.
> 
> *Ok lets consider India as a big Pizza
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Then bad guys after bad guys from dutch to french and to English came here seeing its rich wealth.. and English boy was successful
> 
> They tried to take a piece of our pizza*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But already the poor Pizza was divided into states and kingdoms..*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they revolted and seeked freedom..
> 
> *So a guy named radcliff came and cut it into 2.. and made it 2 free pieces*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Story over.. go and sleep now..*



And people of Pakistan were once upon a time a part of that pizza.

Before its division into slices.

Now the people of PAK i.e cheese,Veg,Meat and all the stuff were separated in the slice from the larger part.

IT implies that the history of the chheese and other stuff which is now part of a slice names PAKISTAN is the history of that slice,All the time periods,Making which involved the making of THE CHEESE AND OTHER FORMING STUFF BELONGS TO THE COMPOSING STUFF OF the part of that slice.

and this is the history of the food stuff of THAT SLICE.

And by the way that slice was the first one,Which was composed as the first part of that whole pizza.


----------



## Rafi

The times when the Indus Valley was part of the greater South Asia, is minuscule, in the 5000 plus years of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Even Religion wise, Buddhism was more prevalent, before the introduction of Islam - than Hinduism ever was.

Just as the modern Egyptian is proud of his Pyramids and the Ancient Egyptians, and just as the Greeks and Persians are proud of their ancestors, we Pakistanis are proud of our ancients, who to a large extent were separate and different from the modern indians.


----------



## SpArK

SnIPeR Xr said:


> And people of Pakistan were once upon a time a part of that pizza.
> 
> Before its division into slices.



Okayyy....



> Now the people of PAK i.e cheese,Veg,Meat and all the stuff were separated in the slice from the larger part.



Alright........



> IT implies that the history of the chheese and other stuff which is now part of a slice names PAKISTAN is the history of that slice,All the time periods,Making which involved the making of THE CHEESE AND OTHER FORMING STUFF BELONGS TO THE COMPOSING STUFF OF the part of that slice.



Hmmm hmmmmm... Did u yourself understand what you have said?/ 



> and this is the history of the food stuff of THAT SLICE.
> 
> And by the way that slice was the first one,Which was composed as the first part of that whole pizza.



yes that slice was the first one.. 
Then came the second one not from the first one though..



And they all lived happily ever after..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

The Indus Valley and the Ganges plane are two distinct and different civilizations, there is some overlap, but to a large extent the difference's is more than the commonality, even if Islam (God Forbid) had never come to South Asia, there would still have been a separation and partition. IMHO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

justanobserver said:


> Ok now let me explain slowly. Indika was first used by *Megasthenes* when he visited the court of Chandragupta Maurya whos capital was in Patlitputra in modern day *Bihar*. Indika doesn't refer to the Indus valley, because the goddam Indus civilization was DEAD at that period. It refers to land *East* of the INDUS. (most of it)
> 
> Again a map of the Mauryan empire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that the important cities are not there in the erstwhile Indus valley civ.



Yo Man.. the Maurya didnt dare to come to my state. 

Just kidding. 

OMG it included Iran too

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rafi

The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books

---------- Post added at 12:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 AM ----------

Synopsis
*Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. **Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age.* It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

justanobserver said:


> However Pakistan should be the last country to claim that heritage, after all they named their missles "ghauri" and "ghazni"



Well I am with you I also dont like our missiles to be named by Afghan Invaders.


And my request to our defence authorities is that PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE the next missile which will be inducted into arsenal whether it would be a CM or BM should be named "PORUS"


----------



## Bhairava

Whats the big deal people ??

Indians,atleast me has never wanted _exclusive patents_ to the shared history and culture.

But it is the Pakistanis (most of them) who think that their histroy miraculously started from 711 AD while simultaneously claiming _exclusive_ rights over the shared heritages like IVC,Taxila,Porus(in this case) etc.

If you guys are equally proud of that culture also,all I can say is a .Welcome it is _our_ history.

But titles like these claiming _exclusive_ rights just only merits a chuckle and nothing more.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Rafi

Gounder said:


> Whats the big deal people ??
> 
> Indians,atleast me has never wanted _exclusive patents_ to the shared history and culture.
> 
> But it is the Pakistanis (most of them) who think that their histroy miraculously started from 711 AD while simultaneously claiming _exclusive_ rights over the shared heritages like IVC,Taxila,Porus(in this case) etc.
> 
> If you guys are equally proud of that culture also,all I can say is a .Welcome it is _our_ history.
> 
> But titles like these claiming _exclusive_ rights just only merits a chuckle and nothing more.



The height of arrogance, how is it your history, this hubris by indians is laughable if it wasn't sad, we live on this territory and we claim all of its fruits, how can a Tamil or someone living in UP claim Baba Bulleh Shah or Waris, as part of your civilization, it is not bharat's or its modern incarnation india, to claim as its own. 

We own what is on our land, so keep your Ganges Civilization to your self, the IV and all of its cultures and civilization belong to us.


----------



## Rafi

The facts presented in this book highlight the dichotomy between the Indus region and India.
They show the almost unbroken continuity of a distinct social and political order, bearing testimony to the primordial and restless impulse of the Indus region to be a distinct and independent nation-state. They also bring out, in bold relief, the identity of the Indus person (the modern-day Pakistani) as distinct from the Arab, the Central Asian, the European, and the Indian. They all converge, finally, in the establishment in 1947, of Pakistan.

The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan


----------



## Rafi

The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books



http://www.defence.pk/forums/1255416-post92.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/1255457-post101.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/1255479-post105.html

Are u an Amazon salesman?/ Can i get a discount on books..??

After we belong to same forum naa??


----------



## Bhairava

Rafi said:


> The height of arrogance, how is it your history, this hubris by indians is laughable if it wasn't sad, we live on this territory and we claim all of its fruits, how can a Tamil or someone living in UP claim Baba Bulleh Shah or Waris, as part of your civilization, it is not bharat's or its modern incarnation india, to claim as its own.
> 
> We own what is on our land, so keep your Ganges Civilization to your self, the IV and all of its cultures and civilization belong to us.



If you had studied a bit of history you will know that we South Indians have the most genuine claim on the IVC ,for the simple fact that IVC was pretty much regarded as a *proto-Dravidian civilisation*,which perhaps explains why Brahui language still spoken in Parts of Balochistan is considered a Dravidian language.

A little bit of History always helps.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

SnIPeR Xr said:


> The word "India", "Indika" and all references given to india containing IND terms are derived from the word INDUS which place is now in Pakistan.
> 
> Do you know what does it means?




1) Indus flows through China,Pakistan,India

2)It originates from China.

The significance of river Indus in naming India is because historically it was used to specify India's location geographically.

Thats why even the ancient Chinese called India: Y&#236;nd&#249; - &#21360;&#24230; 

The Persian/Arabs used the term Hind,i.e people beyond the Indus river.



> It means that if going realistically the Other parts of South asia apart of Indus valley,All are reffered as a PART of Indus valley with remaining Sub continent having no specific refference or Identity.
> 
> Because IVC was the most ancient Land in south asia ever known to people thats why refferences of Remaining SC are given to them by deriving them from Indus.
> 
> It Implies that The history,Tradition,culture of Indus is the real History and the reamining SB dont have its own specific culture and history.
> 
> Now the IVC is the part of PAKISTAN it means that Pakistan is real civilization of SB,The Original Race of SA and ancestors of INDIa,bhutan,Nepal,Bangladesh civilization.
> 
> Going by this Its actually Pakistan who should claim all the history,Culture and Tradition of south asia.



Based on a river's course of flow,you are claiming possession of origin of cultures?




> But I know that it will hurt you and as a person i will not claim it
> Because
> *I want you to accept my history and my claim on the history of the land in which i am living and i want you to accept the history of the land in which you are living.*



More than hurting us,you"ll make a laughing stock of yourself.





> And *we should share the mutual history* That history is mutual of both of us.For people Living in PAK the ancestors of that history and the people in InDIA the ancestors of that history.


Agree!




> and remember History and Ancestor ship has nothing to do with religion.



In this case it actually does,because for many Hinduism is culture as well.
Also our nations were formed on 2 nation theory.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

alex mercer said:


> One more attempt to distort history,and guess from were it all emerge-Pakistan.



Yes this attempt is to distort those indian efforts in which they are taking our history,Our ancesters.

And we should take back what is ours.

Sorry if you have minded our attempts to distort your our history distortion programme.



> To make u people believe urself about ur superior trait u people keep coming which such spectacular stories born out of ur incompetence and subjugation from the new world order, believing this was the same force which conquered the world at one time and will do it once again if the faith in ummah is reinforced.



Where the heck this Ummah comes?

Was there islam present in the Indus valley 5000 years back?
We were hindus at that time 

No one have claimed anything about superiority.
Actually those are western archeologists who have told that IVC was the first ever modern civilization.Go and argue with them.

We just know that we are Ancestors of IVC.Which world believes that it was Most ancient and first ever modern civilization. 




> Grow up guys,nobody is even now interested in whom defeated whom,just they will have a look at history and say,Ya Alexander defeated Porus,now whats for dinner tonight




Now when It is acknowleged that PORUS belongs to the Ancestry of PAKs.Suddenly PORUS became Defeated one.And before it he was ...


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Rafi said:


> The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books
> 
> ---------- Post added at 12:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 AM ----------
> 
> Synopsis
> *Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. **Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age.* It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.




A link for an ebook?


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Peacefulll said:


> India might not have been a modern nation state, but historians have referred to India and documented India, from thousands of years. There have been innumerable empires, referred to in all history books and documented by all historians as *Indian*.



he couldnt distinguish between indians (hindustanis) and tribal native americans 




> Columbus set sail to discover *India*, Alexander the great dreamt of conquering *India*, and so on. India has been known for thousands of years.



it was easier to call it one thing rather than call it by what it REALLY was.....point is, what is today india was never really a single large united entity --unless of course you look at what it was during the golden years (Mughal empire)




> Carry on with presenting 'ancient Pakistani history', but frankly, everyone in the world will ask the same questions that we are asking on this thread.



some talk about Pakistani superiority complex, but it seems indian inferiority complex is what is getting in the way

ancient Pakistanis refers to the ancient ancestors of those, in those Indus lands who are today Pakistani......


same way ancient Pakistanis gave their gold and valuables to help support the Ottoman empire during its sad decline --- one of many reasons why the people of Turkey appreciate Pakistan to this day (presumably, Muslims in what is today india as well)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SpArK

No country existed with the same geography before not so long ago.. 


The boundaries kept changing. It all started with the great Indus valley civilisation and the migration of these people when population grew brought the best of the civilisation to the whole region.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

gaurav yadav said:


> Going by the author's logic dr hk khorana,kalpana chawla are pakistanis because their ancestors lived in lahore,c'mon guys this guy telling us that porus was a pakistani, when there was no such nation itself at that time is hilarious,and as sir william wallace once remarked, 'i know i hate the englishmen but since their princess love me they will call me one of their own and i would extremely hate that, for whatever the circumstances iam and i remain a scot'



Who said that PORUS was Pakistani???

I said that he belongs to our ancestors.
He lived and ruled in the areas of modern day Pakistan.

So he belongs to people of Pakistan.

It is just a matter of fact that we marked the boundaries of modern day Pakistan.Named that territory pakistan and now we are called Pakistanis.

But before Pakistanis we were people of Indus valley and aftr that we were Taxalions,Jhelumanions,Sindhis(Deebalions),Balochis,Makranians and no matter how many IONs we were.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zeeshe100

SnIPeR Xr said:


> Did Ancient Pakistanis Defeated The Mighty Alexander The Great.,Time to re-write Pakistan's history.
> 
> 
> 
> Year : 326 BCE
> Location : Banks of River Jehlum (Hydaspes)
> Adversaries: Mighty Roman Army with all the resources one can imagine, the same army which trampled the persians, against a tiny princely state between Jehlum and Chenab, ruled by King which goes down in history by name Porus.
> Personalities: A young and ambitious but demunitive Alexander who never tasted a defeated in battlefield , against a 7 feet tall King, who was known to be proud man.
> 
> Here is the initial verbal exchange between the two:
> 
> http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/...reat-and-porus/
> 
> 
> King Poros to Alexander, who plunders cities:I instruct you to withdraw. What can you, a mere man, achieve against a god? Is it because you have destroyed the good fortune of others by meeting weaker men in battle that you think yourself more mighty than me? But I am invincible: not only am I the king of men, but even of godswhen Dionysus (who they say is a god) came here, we used own power to drive him away. So not only do I advise you. but also I instruct you, to set off for Greece with all speed. I am not going to be frightened by your battle with Darius or by all the good fortune you had in the face of the weakness uf the other nations. But vou think von are more mighty. So set off for Greece. Because if we had needed Greece, we would have subjected it long before Xerxes; but as it is, we have paid no attention to it- because it is a useless nation, and there is nothing among them worth the regard of a kingeveryone desires what is better.
> 
> 
> Alexender to his troops:
> 
> Comrades-in-arms, do not be upset again at the letter of Poross that 1 have read out. Remember what Darius wrote too- It is a fact that the only state of mind barbarians have is obtuseness. Like the animals under themtigers, lions, elephants, which exult in their courage but are easily hunted thanks to mans naturethe kings of the barbarians too exult in the numbers ol their armies but are easily defeated by the intelligence of the Greeks.
> 
> 
> 
> Alexander, to King Poros, greetings: You have made us even more eager to be spurred on to battle against you by saying that Greece has nothing worth the regard of a king but that you have everythinglands and cities. And i know that every man desires to seize what is better rather than to keep what is worse. Since, then, WE Greeks do not have thesethings and you barbarians possess them, we desire what is better and wish to have them from you. You write to me that you are king of gods and of all men even to the extent of having more power than the god. But i am engaging in war with a loudmouthed man and an absolute barbarian, not with a god. The whole world could not stand up to a god in full armorthe rumble of thunder, the flash of lightning, or the anger of the bolt. So the nations I have defeated in war cause you no astonishment and neither do boastful words on your part make me a coward.
> 
> Our history, yes the Pakistani history as we teach to our young minds tell us the though the ancient Pakistani, A Panjabi from ancient lands that lie between Jehlum and Chanab river, fought tooth and nail with the armies of Alexender but eventually lost and brought in Chains infront of Alexander, who being impressed by his bravery spared his life and gave him back his kingdom.
> 
> I would say what a load of tosh and mockery of our ancient history it has been, and non other but us (just like in the case of IVC) teaching our kids the wrong version of history. Fools we are.
> 
> The version of history which is being told to the rest of world was written by someone after nearly 300 years of Alexender's death. And ofcourse it was written by a Roman. Unbiased source?? My arse.
> 
> Here is what now people are coming to realise of actual events that unfolded on the banks of Jehlum.
> 
> 1) *Alexander and his armies only manage to come in the heartlands of ancient Pakistan when the ruler of Texilla Ambi, in his sheer anamosity and hatred for Porus, made a pack with Alexdener to destroy Porus in partnership. Ambi allowed Alexander the safe passage via Taxilla to reach river Jehlum. (This problem of trachery run deeps and still exist in modern day Pakistanis)*
> 
> 2) The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to
> save his and his soldiers` lives. He was a broken man at his return from his mis-adventures.
> 
> 3) Mr E.A.W. Badge has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following:
> 
> "In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander`s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom".
> 
> Mr Badge further writes that the soldiers of Alexander were grief-stricken and they began to bewail the loss of their compatriots. They threw off their weapons. They expressed their strong desire to
> surrender. They had no desire to fight. Alexander asked them to give up fighting and himself said,
> "Porus, please pardon me. I have realized your bravery and strength. Now I cannot bear these agonies. WIth a sad heart I am planning to put an end to my life. I do not desire that my soldiers should also be ruined like me. I am that culprit who has thrust them into the jaw of death. It
> does not become a king to thrust his soldiers into the jaws of death."
> 
> *These expressions of `Alexander, The Great!` do not indicate from any stretch of imagination his victory over Porus? Can such words be uttered by a `World Conquerer"?*
> 
> 4) Alexnder is known to be a cruel man in history. He was neither a noble man nor did
> he have a heart of gold. He had meted out very cruel and harsh treatment to his earlier enemies. Basus of Bactria fought tooth and nail with Alexander to defend the freedom of his motherland. When he was brought before Alexander as a prisoner, Alexander ordered his servants to whip
> him and then cut off his nose and ears. He then killed him. Many Persian generals were killed by him.
> The murder of Kalasthenese, nephew of Aristotle, was committed by Alexander because he criticised Alexander for foolishly imitating the Persian emperors. Alexander also murdered his friend Clytus in anger. His father`s trusted lieutenant Parmenian was also murdered by Alexander.
> 
> Considering above, its foolish to assume that Alexander just handover the lands of a "defeated" king and actually help him expand his rule. These are more of less, conditions imposed by Porus on Alexander until the later was given a safe passage down the indus towards the arabian sea, the easiest route back home for Alexander and his armies.
> 
> 5) Alexander died of injuries later, sustained during this epic battle.
> 
> 6) The events that followed this battle, clearly showed that the acts of Roman army was of one with tails firmly tucked between their legs and of a defeated army. They only stuck to the indus in their retreat, did not follow the same path where they came from i.e. Afghanistan, their path to Arabian sea without venturing out on lands. Thoughout their journey down indus, they were picked off. I was watching a documentary long time ago in which a historian was tracing the track of so called "victorious Alexander army". They were showing the skeleton of the Roman army Littered around the coast of Pakistan, which btw can still be found. They presented those as the ones died of "thrust" and "hunger". That is laughable. how can a victorious army die of hunger and thrist?? It more like a case of being "picked off" what remained of it.
> 
> 
> *Conclusion: When are we going to owe something which well and truely belong to us?? Google the name Porus and you will find how indians are highjacking him as a "indian king". When are we going to set the record straight. In hollywood, they glorified insignificant Scot as braveheart, made movie on highly exaggarated spartans, yet here we got a King of a small state, brought down the mighty and egoistic Alexander "The Great" to his knees. No movies for him, yet the people who share the same blood dont even owe him. Shame really. *



[video=youtube;aLXl-otSLSI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLXl-otSLSI"][ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7voYWgo3CCc&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLXl-otSLSI[/video][/URL]


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

BENNY said:


> No country existed with the same geography before not so long ago.. .



When some Pakistani says the same thing then why suddenly India goes back to ancient times and became an Ancient country continuing towards the modern india and so on!!

At that time there was no India TOO. 

But we always called our selves Race of IVC which was PRESENT at that time.

The word Pakistani comes as an continuation of people of IVC.

Which are today known as Pakistanis.


----------



## SpArK

SnIPeR Xr said:


> When some Pakistani says the same thing then why suddenly India goes back to ancient times and became an Ancient country continuing towards the modern india and so on!!
> 
> At that time there was no India TOO.
> 
> But we always called our selves Race of IVC which was PRESENT at that time.
> 
> The word Pakistani comes as an continuation of people of IVC.
> 
> Which are today known as Pakistanis.



As i said earlier, the guy who was busy doing the paperwork of cutting the nation into 2 parts could easily place the nation anywhere in the whole of India , which was under their control. They chose the present area and people started to move after that according to religion..

so everything doesnt make sense about this nation debates.


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

justanobserver said:


> You know what, going by this logic. Since the Indus is in Pakistan, all Pakistani's are Hindus



We are not but we WERE hindus.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> he couldnt distinguish between indians (hindustanis) and tribal native americans


 
Yes! He was not a good with navigation,

But compared to you he certainly knew what the world of 1490 was.



> it was easier to call it one thing rather than call it by what it REALLY was.....point is, what is today india was never really a single large united entity --unless of course you look at what it was during the golden years (Mughal empire)



Did you miss the Ashoka's empire pic on the 2nd page.
Also many large Indian empires existed and even if they did not encompass entire modern India,not considering them as historical representation of Indian state is obtuse.

Like many Chinese empires did not encompass entire modern China,but that doesn't mean single large united Chinese entity did not exist.



> some talk about Pakistani superiority complex, but it seems* indian inferiority complex is what is getting in the way*



Thats been your traditional thought to mask your own inferiority complex.

The 1965 slogan,demonizing Hindus in your textbooks,many such examples.



> *ancient Pakistanis* refers to the ancient ancestors of those, in those Indus lands who are today Pakistani......



The term _ancient Pakistan_ is chronologically wrong based on the fact your nation is based on the concept of uniting Muslims of India.
................2 nation theory. 



> same way ancient Pakistanis gave their gold and valuables to help support the Ottoman empire during its sad decline --- one of many reasons why the people of Turkey appreciate Pakistan to this day (presumably, Muslims in what is today India as well)



Nice of them.


----------



## Rafi

My fellow Pakistanis have explained our position so well, I'm truly humbled by our great history,


----------



## Rafi

There is more awareness of our great history which is separate and distinct from the ganges civilization of india.


----------



## simplelogic

i am horrified with this thread..

What if some how Pakistan setups and remote base on mars and luckily finds some artifacts of some ancient Martian civilization who lived there...would they call them as ancient Pakistanis (According to logic of My fellow Pakistanis that geographically the land is theirs and so does its history)

*HELL NO!*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Rafi

History of Ancient Pakistan

Glory to our Motherland, which has been distinct and known the world over, as the land of the Indus, it is mentioned in this distinct context.


----------



## Rafi

simplelogic said:


> i am horrified with this thread..
> 
> What if some how Pakistan setups and remote base on mars and luckily finds some artifacts of some ancient Martian civilization who lived there...would they call them as ancient Pakistanis (According to logic of My fellow Pakistanis that geographically the land is theirs and so does its history)
> 
> *HELL NO!*



But the fatal flaw in your theory is that the people of Pakistan are the same people who built that great civilization, whereas a Martian base would be a new acquisition. 

We have been here since the dawn of humanity. 

The first known inhabitants of the modern-day Pakistan region are believed to have been the Soanian - Homo erectus, who settled in the Soan Valley and Riwat almost 2 million years ago. Over the next several thousand years, the region would develop into various civilizations like Mehrgarh and the Indus Valley Civilization.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Rafi said:


> History of Ancient Pakistan
> 
> Glory to our Motherland, which has been distinct and known the world over, as the land of the Indus, it is mentioned in this *distinct context*.



No it isn't
I checked both articles on wiki:History of Pakistan, History of India.

Both mention Indus valley civilization.


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

Indian Jatt said:


> replace the word in bold with "Jhooth"...and then see it from Indian view how funny it is to try to prove something which is just a plain lie.
> 
> Porus was a hindu is a well known fact..whats the doubt on it ?? Indians so far have given a better and logical arguments than your Pakistani friends,you will easily know it it, if you have any knowledge of history...read them carefully and honestly judge whats the truth.



Yes no doubt that he was a hindu but BIENG a Hindu does not mean being an Indian.

Hindu is not a second name of India.It is a name of religion and every person living on any place in the world with any race can be a hindu.

And PORUS hindu belongs to modern day's Pakistan and he was an ancestor of Pakistanis.

Because islam was not present at that time and hinduism was the major religion so his bieng hindu is obvious.

But hey India too was not present at that time so how he could become an indian??


But IVC was surely present at that time and the Race of IVC is now known as Pakistani.

So he was a hindu ancestor,Fore Father of Pakistani's.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

Bombensturm said:


> No it isn't
> I checked both articles on wiki:History of Pakistan, History of India.
> 
> Both mention Indus valley civilization.



The connection of the modern state of india, with the IVC is tenuous, 90% of the IVC is contiguous with Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

SnIPeR Xr said:


> Yes no doubt that he was a hindu but BIENG a Hindu does not mean being an Indian.
> 
> Hindu is not a second name of India.It is a name of religion and every person living on any place in the world with any race can be a hindu.
> 
> And PORUS hindu belongs to modern day's Pakistan and he was an ancestor of Pakistanis.
> 
> Because islam was not present at that time and hinduism was the major religion so his bieng hindu is obvious.
> 
> But hey India too was not present at that time so how he could become an indian??
> 
> 
> But IVC was surely present at that time and the Race of IVC is now known as Pakistani.
> 
> So he was a hindu ancestor,Fore Father of Pakistani's.



Just 1 question .. can all gujarathis and few marathis who were also part of Indus valley civilisation .. also a few from some northern indian modern states..

What will we call them now??


----------



## Rafi

History of Ancient Pakistan

The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books

Read the above book and check out the website, you might actually learn something


----------



## silent hill

tha ancient history of the people of the region and the region is al included into the history of pakistan, we are not taking away the taj mehal, so indian should not take away our taxill and moen jo daro..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Benny that map of the IVC is doctored, the majority of internationally accepted IV sites are located in Pakistan, Ancient Persia included most of the middle east, near east, but the homeland of the Persians is acknowledged to be what Iran is today.


----------



## softtec

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> it was easier to call it one thing rather than call it by what it REALLY was.....point is, *what is today india was never really a single large united entity --unless of course you look at what it was during the golden years (Mughal empire)*



If you miss the history, then know that in Chadragupta Morya, Ashoka, Vikramaditya had ruled almost the whole Indian subcontinent much earlier.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

the people in and around these cities and their respective provinces

Thar - Colours of the Desert
Quetta - Nature's Orchard
Gilgit - The Silk Route
Multan - City of Saints
Turbat - Romantic Interludes
Sukkur - Date Delights by the river
Hyderabad - City of Perfumes
Thatta - Treasures of the Past
Nowshera - Defenders of the Land
Chitral - Mysteries of the Kalash
Peshawar - Gateway to the East
Bahawalpur - The Splendour and Majesty
Islamabad - The Margalla Magic
Peshawar - Gateway to the East
Lahore - Garden of the Mughals
Karachi - Green Turtle Waters
Ziarat - The City of Flowers
Kaghan - Mountain Paradise
Taxila - The Exquisite Ghandhara
Murree - Songs of the Pines
Sialkot - The Diligence of Industry
Mohenjodaro - Indus Valley Civilization
Gwadar - The New Port City
Hala - Shades of Ash and Azure
Hasanabdal - The Gurdwara Glory


are an ancient people; they would later join the glory of what is today Pakistan Nation ---our paradise, our pride and joy. 

history didn't begin in 1947; but our unity, pride and honour did......The nameless contributors and people of an ancient civilization got a name.


----------



## Rafi

Most of the empires that lumped the Indus Valley with the Ganges Planes was for but a brief time compared with the more than 5000 years of our unique civilization.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Rafi said:


> The connection of the modern state of India, with the IVC is tenuous



Origins of Indian civilization lies here,hence the term tenuous is wrong.



> , 90&#37; of the IVC is contiguous with Pakistan



Modern state of Israel is contiguous with Iron Age kingdoms of the ancient Levant,those being Israel and Judah.


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Benny that map of the IVC is doctored, the majority of internationally accepted IV sites are located in Pakistan, Ancient Persia included most of the middle east, near east, but the homeland of the Persians is acknowledged to be what Iran is today.



We are talking of an age where there was no real sense of knowledge about nationhood or anything.. civilisations thrived on all around the world and people moved seeing the geographical benefits. if they have chosen another river delta *that* area would have been a greater civilisation too.. its not that they just grow up in there like tree from a seed. these people moved in search of food and often settled in places they find it more inhabitable..There were no borders or strict visa control posts.

I dont know why internet wariiors are fighting over this nationality issue.


----------



## jayron

silent hill said:


> tha ancient history of the people of the region and the region is al included into the history of pakistan, we are not taking away the taj mehal, so indian should not take away our taxill and moen jo daro..



Indians are comfortable with the multicultural identity. We have accepted and cherished the islamic influence in our culture. It is you Pakistanis who claim to be the descendants of Persians, Arabs and Turks and celebrate their culture and despise the original civilization of the land. The Pakistanis have fallen prey to the cheap politics of distancing you people from Indians as much as possible so that you think we are your eternal enemy.

Just an example. We know your reaction when the Babri masjid was demolished in India. Did any one raise a voice when the ancient Gandharan Buddha was destroyed by Taliban hooligans in SAWAT or the state of the Hindu temples? That shows how much you respect your culture.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rafi

The culture of the Indus Valley and even its religion has been separate, the people of this area were Buddhist when the ganges range was Hindu.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> history didn't begin in 1947; but our *unity,* pride and honour did......The nameless contributors and people of an ancient civilization got a name.



Didn't Muhammad bin Qasim conquest consist of land encompassing modern Pakistan?


----------



## Rafi

We are the inheritors of all the people and cultures of this geo-graphical area, indians have not and do not have any claim to its riches.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Rafi said:


> The culture of the Indus Valley and even its religion has been separate, the people of this area were Buddhist when the ganges range was Hindu.



Buddhism did not exist at that time.

In fact ,even conventional Hinduism did not exist back then,rather a crude/raw form of Hinduism existed back then.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Rafi

Bombensturm said:


> Didn't Muhammad bin Qasim conquest consist of land encompassing modern Pakistan?



MBQ is our pride, he came and liberated the people of Geographic Pakistan from darkness to light, pride in our ancestors and pride in our current civilization is not a zero sum game. Just as a religious Egyptian can be proud of his civilization, or a Persian can be a Muslim and also be proud of Cyrus the Great, or a modern day Christian Greek be proud of the ancient Hellenic civilization of Homer etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

jayron said:


> Indians are comfortable with the multicultural identity. We have accepted and cherished the islamic influence in our culture. It is you Pakistanis who claim to be the descendants of Persians, Arabs and Turks and celebrate their culture and despise the original civilization of the land. The Pakistanis have fallen prey to the cheap politics of distancing you people from Indians as much as possible so that you think we are your eternal enemy.
> 
> Just an example. We know your reaction when the Babri masjid was demolished in India. Did any one raise a voice when the ancient Gandharan Buddha was destroyed by Taliban hooligans in SAWAT? That shows how much you respect your culture.



Whats more interesting is that Pakistani engineers came to destroy them as Taliban were unable to do so.

The problem is Pakistanis want it both ways,They wish see themselves as both descendants of the Invaders(or rather the invaders themselves) as well as people of subcontinent.

This concern for IVC is more motivated by greed for historical triumphs rather than genuine interest in one history.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> MBQ is our pride, he came and liberated the people of Geographic *Pakistan from darkness* to light, pride in our ancestors and pride in our current civilization is not a zero sum game. Just as a religious Egyptian can be proud of his civilization, or a Persian can be a Muslim and also be proud of Cyrus the Great, or a modern day Christian Greek be proud of the ancient Hellenic civilization of Homer etc.



So the civilisation and the decendents were indeed darkness and is bad..

Decide on something atleast.


----------



## Rafi

Gandharan's were Buddhist, that is why you find many statues of the Buddha throughout northern Pakistan.

Greco-Buddhism (or Gr&#230;co-Buddhism) was the syncretism between the culture of Classical Greece and Buddhism in the then Gandhara region of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan


----------



## Evil Flare

justanobserver said:


> You know what, going by this logic. Since the Indus is in Pakistan, all Pakistani's are Hindus



then whats the name of your religion ?


----------



## r3alist

> Pakistan as a concept, took birth in the 1940s and came to fruition in 1947.



one key point - the people were not born in 1947 - the people have always been seperate - names dont mean much


your argument is that since pakistan become islamic it must give up its history with india as a swap.

truth is we have to a very large extent always been distinct people's - dravidans and tamils do not have any connection with pakistan - its plain to see if you open your eyes, we have a rich islamic and pre-islamic history which was distinct from the kingdoms and castes you call indian history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

BENNY said:


> So the civilisation and the decendents were indeed darkness and is bad..
> 
> Decide on something atleast.




That is a gross simplification, just as modern Scandinavians are proud of their Viking past, they are also proud of how they were enlightened by the advent of Christianity. 

We are proud of what we achieved and also of MBQ - they are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Von Hölle

*Pakistan can either claim its Islamic heritage or pre islamic history*..it can not "Have its cake and eat it too"


----------



## r3alist

> The problem is Pakistanis want it both ways,They wish see themselves as both descendants of the Invaders(or rather the invaders themselves) as well as people of subcontinent.



so let me get this straight


tamils and dravidans made the indus valley civilisation?

dravidans and tamils fought the ancient battles with alexander.

the people my friend, the people - they have always been different - they define a civilisation!


----------



## r3alist

Von Hölle;1255635 said:


> *Pakistan can either claim its Islamic heritage or preislamic history..it can not eats its cake and have it too.*




its painful for you to accept i know but the people that inhabit the geographical space of pakistan did not pop out from nowhere - they had a history before islam AND after it

south indians cant really claim the IVC can they?


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> That is a gross simplification, just as modern Scandinavians are proud of their Viking past, they are also proud of how they were enlightened by the advent of Christianity.
> 
> We are proud of what we achieved and also of MBQ - they are not mutually exclusive.



So basically you are not proud on your ancestor and ancestry but proud on the invader.

And who invaded Vikings???


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Rafi said:


> The culture of the Indus Valley and even its religion has been separate, the people of this area were Buddhist when the ganges range was Hindu.



I will have to break your heart.

*Pashupati *







*What does that look similar to?
*










*look at this greeting
*









*
look at the clothing
*





*look at the brahmin*





*
Its very much a proto-Indic culture.*


----------



## Rafi

Who are indians to decide what we are, and who we are, what have people in UP and Tamil Nadu and Bengal got to do with Waris, Baba Bulleh Shah, Farid etc.


----------



## Rafi

BENNY said:


> So basically you are not proud on your ancestor and ancestry but proud on the invader.
> 
> And who invaded Vikings???




who are you to decide, we are proud of both, it is not a zero sum game my friend/


----------



## jayron

Rafi said:


> That is a gross simplification, just as modern Scandinavians are proud of their Viking past, they are also proud of how they were enlightened by the advent of Christianity.
> 
> We are proud of what we achieved and also of MBQ - they are not mutually exclusive.



They now have realized it was a fake enlightenment and they don't act like the beacon of Christianity. That's why scandinavian countries are mostly non-religious and still are one of the most developed and tolerant societies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## r3alist

Rafi said:


> Who are indians to decide what we are, and who we are, what have people in UP and Tamil Nadu and Bengal got to do with Waris, Baba Bulleh Shah, Farid etc.



dont you know?


when the geographical region of pakistan become islamic we signed a contract to hand over our history - because really thats not fair on the indians since we have a rich ISLAMIC and PRE-ISLAMIC history.

what wonderful logic by the indians!


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> *Who are indians to decide what we are, and who we are*, what have people in UP and Tamil Nadu and Bengal got to do with Waris, Baba Bulleh Shah, Farid etc.



Ran out of gas or what.. lets get back to the topic please...


----------



## Von Hölle

r3alist said:


> its painful for you to accept i know but the people that inhabit the geographical space of pakistan did not pop out from nowhere - they had a history before islam AND after it
> 
> south indians cant really claim the IVC can they?



On the contrary I am delighted to hear.. you consider you had non muslim ancestors..it is relief to my ears ..*because up till now, what we have been hearing is that how you all direct descendants of Mohamed Bin Qasim and how you ruled India for a thousand years.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rafi

*Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India.* D*iscarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age.* It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> who are you to decide, we are proud of both, it is not a zero sum game my friend/



I am not deciding , i was just asking.. keep ur cool buddy.. im just a forumer doing a debate in an internet forum.


----------



## r3alist

Von Hölle;1255653 said:


> On the contrary I am delighted to hear.. you consider you had non muslim ancestors..it is relief to my ears ..*because up till now, what we have been hearing is that how you all direct descendants of Mohamed Bin Qasim and how you ruled India for a thousand year.*



oh that happened as well, a lot happened before that as well, which was ours too

in the meantime enjoy your own history

SOUTH INDIAN CIVILIZATION | Facebook


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

r3alist said:


> so let me get this straight
> 
> 
> tamils and dravidans made the indus valley civilisation?



Where did mention anything about Tamils or Dravidians?



> dravidans and tamils fought the ancient battles with alexander.


What next ?Aryans are only indigenous to Pakistan?



> the people my friend, the people - they have always been different - they define a civilisation!



Yes!People! Besides be more clear...what you are conveying.

Do you mean only Tamils and Dravidians encompass India?


----------



## Von Hölle

r3alist said:


> oh that happened as well, a lot happened before that as well, which was ours too
> 
> in the meantime enjoy your own history
> 
> SOUTH INDIAN CIVILIZATION | Facebook



See you are again making joke out your self *as I said before you can not Have your cake and eat it too !!*


----------



## Rafi

Von Hölle;1255653 said:


> On the contrary I am delighted to hear.. you consider you had non muslim ancestors..it is relief to my ears ..*because up till now, what we have been hearing is that how you all direct descendants of Mohamed Bin Qasim and how you ruled India for a thousand years.*




LoL /Now you are just being silly, what we are trying to tell you, is our pre-Islamic Civilization was mainly independent of the Ganges River Civilization which the the modern state of india is based upon.

Yes our country is a mix there are people who claim Arab, Persian, Afghan, Turkish origin, and there are just as many who claim Jatt, Gujjar, Rajput, Kashmiri origin.


----------



## r3alist

Von Hölle;1255660 said:


> See you are again making joke out your self *as I said before you can not Have your cake and eat it too !!*



this is not a liberty that is being taken, its entitlement and a a dues of the people of pakistan - to imply otherwise is wrong.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Rafi said:


> MBQ is our pride, he came and liberated the people of Geographic Pakistan from darkness to light, pride in our ancestors and pride in our current civilization is not a zero sum game. Just as a religious Egyptian can be proud of his civilization, or a Persian can be a Muslim and also be proud of Cyrus the Great, or a modern day Christian Greek be proud of the ancient Hellenic civilization of Homer etc.



I don't know about bringing form light into darkness or vice-versa.

But from knowledge the territories conquered by MBQ encompass Baluchistan to Khyber Pakhunwala ,i.e in other words Pakistan attains statehood for the first time.


----------



## Rafi

Von Hölle;1255660 said:


> See you are again making joke out your self *as I said before you can not Have your cake and eat it too !!*



Again who has appointed indians to decide what or who we are, are you going to stop a Persian claiming Cyrus because he was'nt Muslim


----------



## UnitedPak

BENNY said:


> As i said earlier, the guy who was busy doing the paperwork of cutting the nation into 2 parts could easily place the nation anywhere in the whole of India , which was under their control. They chose the present area and people started to move after that according to religion..
> 
> so everything doesnt make sense about this nation debates.



Nobody "chose" anything. There was nothing random about the border or the location of Pakistan. Pakistan provinces were majority Muslim well before the partition and there are still millions of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan today. The migrant population from India was tiny compared to the existing native population of Pakistan. But today we are all Pakistanis and your use of the partition history to justify claim on ancient history is illogical.

This map should topple your entire argument. I didnt make it btw.












simplelogic said:


> i am horrified with this thread..
> 
> What if some how Pakistan setups and remote base on mars and luckily finds some artifacts of some ancient Martian civilization who lived there...would they call them as ancient Pakistanis (According to logic of My fellow Pakistanis that geographically the land is theirs and so does its history)
> 
> *HELL NO!*



Ridiculous argument. Pakistanis are native to Pakistan.


----------



## Rafi

The people of Pakistan excepted the Islamic Creed of their own free will, just as the Greeks, Vikings excepted Christianity and Persians excepted Islam


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Rafi said:


> Again who has appointed indians to decide what or who we are, are you going to stop a Persian claiming Cyrus because he was'nt Muslim



Persians don't suffer from selective amnesia when it comes to their history.
They accept it entirely.


----------



## Water Car Engineer




----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Honestly.. most Pakistanis don't care about history.. because we like to live realisticly. History is not going to help us today.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Von Hölle

Rafi said:


> LoL /Now you are just being silly, what we are trying to tell you, is our pre-Islamic Civilization was mainly independent of the Ganges River Civilization which the the modern state of india is based upon.
> 
> Yes our country is a mix there are people who claim Arab, Persian, Afghan, Turkish origin, and there are just as many who claim Jatt, Gujjar, Rajput, Kashmiri origin.



By all means endorse it as your own, but you can have it only either way and not both.*.if you claim you that "you are pre islamic civilization" then you you have to accept that it is you who were invaded by islamic invaders from the West and then converted, you were infact invaded and not the invaders. *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

Bombensturm said:


> 1) Indus flows through China,Pakistan,India.



Indus didn't Flow in India.

Kashmir is occupied by India not Part of India.



> 2)It originates from China.
> 
> The significance of river Indus in naming India is because historically it was used to specify India's location geographically.



Wrong wrong wrong.

The significance of INDIA is that this name was originated from word INDUS.

India never exists at that time.

How the word Indus can be named after India when the word INDUS born first and the word INDIA Born and originated from INDUS after a long long time??

The ganges civilization(Original civilization of modern day india)
Was the *extension* of Indus civilization.



> Primarily centered along the Indus and the Punjab region, the civilization extended into the Ghaggar-Hakra River valley[7] and the Ganges-Yamuna Doab,
> Indus Valley Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






> Thats why even the ancient Chinese called India: Y&#236;nd&#249; - &#21360;&#24230;



The word is YINDU not india.

The word India didn't even existed at those times.

The word India is never used in any ancient History.



> The Persian/Arabs used the term Hind,i.e people beyond the Indus river.



You have clarified yourself.

Beyond the indus,means people living away from Indus.

So having no link with Indus.




> Based on a river's course of flow,you are claiming possession of origin of cultures?



Not on river course of flow but on the ORIGINS or the Piece of land in which the civilization exist's.

And that part is modern Pakistan.

Even if we claim it on river flow base then still it is ours Because the Indus's flow is all along Pakistan.

B/w why I am claiming the thing which is mine??


> The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (3300&#8211;1300 BCE; mature period 2600&#8211;1900 BCE) *which was centred mostly in the western part *of the Subcontinent[2][3] and *which flourished around the Indus River basin.[n 1] Primarily centered along the Indus and the Punjab*
> 
> *encompassing most of what is now Pakistan,*
> 
> Recently, Indus sites have been discovered in Pakistan's northwestern Frontier Province as well.





> More than hurting us,you"ll make a laughing stock of yourself.



Looks like it has already hurted you badly.. isn't it?? 





> Agree!



Wo wo stop it man.

I said that the history Of SIKH INVASION IN INDOPAK parts is mutually shared by both countries because it is present in both countries.

How can we share IVC with you when it is not present in India.?

Your Pin is still sticking in the same place.

Please leave this mentality that whole south asia is yours.



> In this case it actually does,because for many Hinduism is culture as well.
> Also our nations were formed on 2 nation theory.



Hinduism is not a culture.

the culture you are talking about is Ganges CV culture which is slightly different from IVC.

It is mixed with Hinduism which has nothing to do with it.Since it is Ganges Culture.The holy place of Ganges river in hinduism has spread this thinking that ganges culture is hindu culture.

Do you want to say that a hindu born and bred in Europe having no clue about ganges culture is not hindu because he does not follow the so called hindu culture which is actually a Ganges culture.?

Strange..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Von Hölle

Rafi said:


> Again who has appointed indians to decide what or who we are, are you going to stop a Persian claiming Cyrus because he was'nt Muslim



You can claim all you want, for all we care..but then you will be making a fool out of yourself..a*s both contradict each other. *


----------



## Rafi

Von Hölle;1255677 said:


> By all means endorse it as your but you can have it only either way and not both.*.if you claim you that "you are pre islamic civilization" then you you have to accept that it is you who were invaded by islamic invaders from the West and then converted, you were infact invaded and not the invaders. *



Do you realise how silly you sound LoL - you an indian is telling a Pakistani what we are and how we feel. hahaha - we except our identity in its entirety. We will have a cake and also eat it, what are you gonna do about it. How do like them apples.


----------



## gubbi

PakiiZeeshan said:


> Honestly.. *most Pakistanis don't care about history.. because we like to live realisticly*. History is not going to help us today.



Go through the entire thread, and many other such threads. If in anyway, the members on the forum represent a microcosm of today's Pakistani mindset, please tell me that the statement you made is the truth and in noway reflects what the majority of members here portray.

Whatever history one wants to selectively embrace while disowning other parts, its your call. But one thing is certain, there is no such thing as *'Ancient Pakistani'*. Period. Please to be continue your inane arguments.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Von Hölle

Rafi said:


> Do you realise how silly you sound LoL - you an indian is telling a Pakistani what we are and how we feel. hahaha - we except our identity in its entirety. We will have a cake and also eat it, what are you gonna do about it. How do like them apples.



*Don't get emotional ..give a logical counter!!*..for the rest refer to post above yours.


----------



## r3alist

> Whatever history one wants to selectively embrace while disowning other parts, its your call. But one thing is certain, there is no such thing as 'Ancient Pakistani'. Period. Please to be continue your inane arguments.



our people's are distinct - i dont think you can argue with me on that one.

if thats the case we can define ourselves as whatever we want to - because you certainly have no say in it.


----------



## Rafi

People in Pakistan know who they are, a friend of mine is a lieutenant colonel in the Pakistan Army he is proud of being a Jatt, he is also proud of Pakistan's Islamic past, to him and most Pakistanis these are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Rafi

gubbi said:


> Go through the entire thread, and many other such threads. If in anyway, the members on the forum represent a microcosm of today's Pakistani mindset, please tell me that the statement you made is the truth and in noway reflects what the majority of members here portray.
> 
> Whatever history one wants to selectively embrace while disowning other parts, its your call. But one thing is certain, there is no such thing as *'Ancient Pakistani'*. Period. Please to be continue your inane arguments.



Who are you to say that there is no such thing as Ancient Pakistani, the geo-graphic are that is Pakistan is separate for the Ganges and has been around for millennia. We are proud of our history, which no indian has any claim over, end of.....lol


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Ancient Pakistani? Ok every single Indians ancestors except Mongoloids(Manipuris,Assamese,Gorkhas,etc unless they are mixed) have "ancient Pakistani" roots. We all pretty much came through that rout of the kybar pass and through the area of Pakistan to get to the parts of modern India.


----------



## Rafi

Pakicetid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Pakicetids)
Pakicetids
Fossil range: Early Eocene&#8211;Middle Eocene
Pre&#1028;&#1028;OSDCPTJKPgN

Pakicetus.
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Cetacea
Family:	Pakicetidae
Genera
Pakicetus
Nalacetus
Ichthyolestes
Wikispecies has information related to: Pakicetidae
Pakicetids or Pakicetidae are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya&#8212;40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.[1]
As Cetacea, Pakicetidae precede the whales and dolphins in transition from land. Because their fossils were found near bodies of water, they are presumed to have spent part of their life in water.
Pakicetus was the first discovered in 1983 by Philip Gingerich, Neil Wells, Donald Russell, and S. M. Ibrahim Shah, and all species are known only from a few sites in Pakistan, hence the name of the first genera and the family as a whole. The region is believed to have been coastal to the Tethys Sea when the pakicetids lived, some 53 million years ago.
The pakicetids are presumed to be ancestors of modern whales because of the three following features unique to whales: peculiarities in the positioning of the ear bones within the skull, the folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth. The current theory is that modern whales evolved from archaic whales such as basilosaurids, which in turn evolved from something like the amphibious ambulocetids, which themselves evolved from something like the land-dwelling pakicetus






So the scientific community even for creatures millions of years old excepts Pakistan as a separate territory. :p


----------



## StingRoy

I don't understand this... While all Indians are ok considering the Pakistan was part of India... why are the Pakistanis hell bent upon vehemently claiming that they are not? Is it that humiliating for you guys to associate with India?

The whole thread was a good read though... history refresher course!


----------



## justanobserver

Moral of the story:

There exist two kinds of Pakistanis

1.Who believe Pakistan was born when Mohhamed Bin Qasim (from Arabia) invaded and civilized the barbaric masses

2.Who claim that ancient India was actually Pakistan, and hence all Indian heritage is Pakistani

There is however a third confused type (this state of mind is temporary) which tries to claim both 1 and 2, but fails utterly in the process (and mentally reverts back to either 1 or 2).

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Rafi

Pakicetid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pakicetids or Pakicetidae are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya&#8212;40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.[1]
As Cetacea, Pakicetidae precede the whales and dolphins in transition from land. Because their fossils were found near bodies of water, they are presumed to have spent part of their life in water.
Pakicetus was the first discovered in 1983 by Philip Gingerich, Neil Wells, Donald Russell, and S. M. Ibrahim Shah, and all species are known only from a few sites in Pakistan, hence the name of the first genera and the family as a whole. The region is believed to have been coastal to the Tethys Sea when the pakicetids lived, some 53 million years ago.
The pakicetids are presumed to be ancestors of modern whales because of the three following features unique to whales: peculiarities in the positioning of the ear bones within the skull, the folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth. The current theory is that modern whales evolved from archaic whales such as basilosaurids, which in turn evolved from something like the amphibious ambulocetids, which themselves evolved from something like the land-dwelling pakicetids.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StingRoy

Rafi said:


> Who are you to say that there is no such thing as Ancient Pakistani, the geo-graphic are that is Pakistan is separate for the Ganges and has been around for millennia. We are proud of our history, which no indian has any claim over, end of.....lol



See dear... associating your history with India does not take away the credit of being associated with the the Indus valley heritage. This is nothing to be ashamed about or being political about. I know it is hard to digest... but maybe you can ponder over a good cup of coffee.


----------



## r3alist

dezi said:


> I don't understand this... While all Indians are ok considering the Pakistan was part of India... why are the Pakistanis hell bent upon vehemently claiming that they are not? Is it that humiliating for you guys to associate with India?
> 
> The whole thread was a good read though... history refresher course!




how can pakistan be a part of india if it never existed according to you?

how can india be a part of a country that was given its name and power by the mughals then british?



we are not letting tamils, dravidans and such ilk as somehow being the descendants of the IVC, its plain common sense




justanobserver said:


> Moral of the story:
> 
> There exist two kinds of Pakistanis
> 
> 1.Who believe Pakistan was born when Mohhamed Bin Qasim (from Arabia) invaded and civilized the barbaric masses
> 
> 2.Who claim that ancient India was actually Pakistan, and hence all Indian heritage is Pakistani
> 
> There is however a third confused type (this state of mind is temporary however) which tries to claim both 1 and 2, but fails utterly in the process (and mentally reverts back to either 1 or 2).



and there exists one type of indian, the type who likes to stereotype about pakistani's.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StingRoy

Rafi said:


> Pakicetid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How is this related to your argument btw? 
It clearly mentions in the article that it was discovered in 1983 and the guys decided to name it after modern day Pakistan... although to some the name may sound offensive.


----------



## Rafi

There is no confusion in Pakistan, I've known many soldiers/intel people who are Rajput or Jatt or Sehgal or Gujjar who are proud as can be of Pakistan's Islamic history and are highly nationalistic against india.


----------



## justanobserver

r3alist said:


> we are not letting _tamils, dravidans and such ilk_ as somehow being the descendants of the IVC, its plain common sense





You just made a fool of yourself

The Indus Valley civilization is considered proto-Dravidian linguistically


----------



## r3alist

justanobserver said:


> You just made a fool of yourself
> 
> The Indus Valley civilization is considered proto-Dravidian linguistically



what a joke, show me a non hinduvata source for this


----------



## Rafi

dezi said:


> How is this related to your argument btw?
> It clearly mentions in the article that it was discovered in 1983 and the guys decided to name it after modern day Pakistan... although to some the name may sound offensive.



Because the creature lived millions of years ago, but because it belonged to the geo-graphic are of Pakistan, it has been given that name, by science - that is millions of years before human beings. And what we and my brothers and sisters have been arguing about.....


----------



## justanobserver

So turns out that Dravidians are actually the descendants of the IVC, and you guys are the people who came riding on camels from Saudi Arabia (Arbaic descent remember ?  )


----------



## Stumper

Sniper Xr : Thanks Mate. Your post were some of the best i have read in this forum so far.


----------



## r3alist

justanobserver said:


> So turns out that Dravidians are actually the descendants of the IVC, and you guys are the people who came riding on camels from Saudi Arabia (Arbaic descent remember ?  )



and the whole world is proto hindu according to you, right from iran to japan you see proto hinduism everywhere, delusion is for free so eat your heart out

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakiiZeeshan

Rafi said:


> LoL /Now you are just being silly, what we are trying to tell you, is our pre-Islamic Civilization was mainly independent of the Ganges River Civilization which the the modern state of india is based upon.
> 
> Yes our country is a mix there are people who claim Arab, Persian, Afghan, Turkish origin, and there are just as many who claim Jatt, Gujjar, Rajput, Kashmiri origin.



The people who claim Turkish, Arab and Persian origin are brainwashed and have some sort of complex issues...but thankfully most of those people can only be found on the internet and not in reality.
Most Pakistanis are native to modern day Pakistan, and we are proud of it

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

r3alist said:


> and the whole world is proto hindu according to you, right from iran to japan you see proto hinduism everywhere, delusion is for free so eat your heart out




Nice one bro, that is a beautiful shot to their solar plexus.


----------



## StingRoy

r3alist said:


> how can pakistan be a part of india if it never existed according to you?
> how can india be a part of a country that was given its name and power by the mughals then british?
> we are not letting tamils, dravidans and such ilk as somehow being the descendants of the IVC, its plain common sense


Read the whole thread to get answers to your first 2 questions.
On the third question... Thats where you are missing the identity of India... It is a multi cultural region and IVC was similarly a part of the south asian civilization which we term as India.... as are the Dravidians, Tamils, Marathas, Rajputs, Odras and Bengalis.


----------



## justanobserver

r3alist said:


> what a joke, show me a non hinduvata source for this



Enjoy reading 'your' history Indus writing: Sanskrit or Dravidian?




> d the whole world is proto hindu according to



proto-Dravid, I was talking linguistically about the Indus Valley Civilization (Hindu is not a linguistic group )


----------



## gubbi

Rafi said:


> Because the creature lived millions of years ago, but because it belonged to the geo-graphic are of Pakistan, it has been given that name, by science - that is millions of years before human beings. And what we and my brothers and sisters have been arguing about.....



It was found in 1983. Read the report again. In 1983, in present day Pakistan. So it was quite obvious that the creature would carry Pakistan's name as is the wont of many archeologists in naming fossils according to the places where they are found.

Again, I repeat. There is no such thing as "Ancient Pakistani". Period.


----------



## Rafi

dezi said:


> Read the whole thread to get answers to your first 2 questions.
> On the third question... Thats where you are missing the identity of India... It is a multi cultural region and IVC was similarly a part of the south asian civilization which we term as India.... as are the Dravidians, Tamils, Marathas, Rajputs, Odras and Bengalis.



No the IVC is a distinct and separate civilisation to the ganges based civilisation of bharat, india has no claim on IVC


----------



## StingRoy

Rafi said:


> Because the creature lived millions of years ago, but because it belonged to the geo-graphic are of Pakistan, it has been given that name, by science - that is millions of years before human beings. And what we and my brothers and sisters have been arguing about.....



This argument is almost a laughable metaphor if you are trying to establish your regional identity in the region.


----------



## gubbi

This is going to be an Epic thread. Having lost all its seriousness due to some thickskulled individuals, its now officially time to let hair down and enjoy!


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

SnIPeR Xr said:


> What the Heck.Indus didn't Flow in India.
> 
> Kashmir is occupied by India not Part of India.



Thats your notion,but the point it is a part of India as of now.





> The significance of INDIA is that this name was originated from word INDUS.



Isn't that what i said,The Indus river was used to 



> India never exists at that time.



Yes we did,both as a state and nation.



> How the word Indus can be named after India when the word INDUS born first and the word INDIA Born and originated from INDUS after a long long time??



You seem to have misinterpreted my post

I don't recall mentioning/hinting Indus was derived from India.

No one knows the origins of the name Indus,but we do know India was derived from Indus.




> The ganges civilization(Original civilization of modern day india)
> Was the *extension* of Indus civilization.


 I prefer not to discriminate between the two.







> The word is YINDU not India.



YINDU is derived from the Sanskrit name for Indus ,Sindhu 

The original name was Shendu ,i guess over time it got pronounced as Yindu.







This is according to Zhang Qian an imperial envoy to the world outside of China in the 2nd century BC, during the time of the Han Dynasty.



> "Southeast of Daxia is the kingdom of Shendu (India)... Shendu, they told me, lies several thousand li southeast of Daxia (Bactria). The people cultivate the land and live much like the people of Daxia. The region is said to be hot and damp. The inhabitants ride elephants when they go in battle. The kingdom is situated on a great river (Indus)" (Shiji, 123, Zhang Qian quote, trans. Burton Watson).






> The word India didn't even existed at those times.
> 
> The word India is never used in any ancient History.



The term *India* The English term one is from Greek &#7992;&#957;&#948;&#943;&#945; (Indía), via Latin India. Iindía in Byzantine (Koine Greek) ethnography denotes the region beyond the Indus (&#7992;&#957;&#948;&#972;&#962 river, since Herodotus (5th century BC) &#7969; &#7992;&#957;&#948;&#953;&#954;&#942; &#967;&#974;&#961;&#951;, h&#275; Indik&#275; ch&#333;r&#275;; "Indian land", &#7992;&#957;&#948;&#972;&#962;, Indos, "an Indian", from Avestan Hindu (referring to Sindh, and listed as a conquered territory by Darius I in the Persepolis terrace inscription). The name is derived ultimately from Sindhu, the Sanskrit name of the river, but also meaning "river" generically. Latin 



> Even if we claim it on river flow base then still it is ours Because the Indus's flow is all along Pakistan.



No nation has authority over an entire course of river.

Just like Pakistan has no authority over part of Indus river flowing in China or India.

Similarly neither India nor China have any authority over part of the river flowing inside Pakistani territory.




> Looks like it has already hurted you badly.. isn't it??



Thanks for your concern,but patience and persistence are my strong points 





> I said that the history Of *SIKH INVASION* IN INDOPAK parts is mutually shared by both countries because it is present in both countries.



Sikhs merely engaged the Durrani and Mughal empire ,and they gained lands.




> Please leave this mentality that whole south asia is yours.



Did any of post mention India claiming SA?



> Hinduism is not a culture.


Being born a Hindu i know what i am talking about.


----------



## justanobserver

gubbi said:


> This is going to be an Epic thread. Having lost all its seriousness due to some thickskulled individuals, its now officially time to let hair down and enjoy!





Best time I've had on PDF so far, epic thread
.

Some people seem to stuck on a 'mantra' however. Well here's my mantra 



> Moral of the story:
> 
> There exist two kinds of Pakistanis
> 
> 1.Who believe Pakistan was born when Mohhamed Bin Qasim (from Arabia) invaded and civilized the barbaric masses
> 
> 2.Who claim that ancient India was actually Pakistan, and hence all Indian heritage is Pakistani
> 
> There is however a third confused type (this state of mind is temporary) which tries to claim both 1 and 2, but fails utterly in the process (and mentally reverts back to either 1 or 2).


----------



## UnitedPak

justanobserver said:


> Moral of the story:
> 
> There exist two kinds of Pakistanis
> 
> 1.Who believe Pakistan was born when Mohhamed Bin Qasim (from Arabia) invaded and civilized the barbaric masses
> 
> 2.Who claim that ancient India was actually Pakistan, and hence all Indian heritage is Pakistani
> 
> There is however a third confused type (this state of mind is temporary) which tries to claim both 1 and 2, but fails utterly in the process (and mentally reverts back to either 1 or 2).



You clearly misunderstood.

Bin Qasim origin refers to the birth of our Islamic identity/nation. Our history of living in the Indus Valley goes back to the birth of IVC.

We claim the pre Islamic identity on the basis that it belongs to our ancestors and therefore is part of our identity. We can claim both because both belong to us. Nobody is claiming Indian heritage. Name one person who argues that the Muslim empires of South India belong to Pakistanis.

I dont see how we are being "selective" as we embrace all of our history regardless of religion. Only Indian members are upset about this.


----------



## Rafi

gubbi said:


> It was found in 1983. Read the report again. In 1983, in present day Pakistan. So it was quite obvious that the creature would carry Pakistan's name as is the wont of many archeologists in naming fossils according to the places where they are found.
> 
> Again, I repeat. There is no such thing as "Ancient Pakistani". Period.



If there was no ancient Pakistan why is an animal that lived millions of years before human beings, and also coincidently the ancestor of all living whales and dolphins, named after Pakistan. It does not matter if it was found in 1983, it as the IVC was found in Geographic Pakistan, that is why it was named after our glorious motherland,,,,,,,,

Check and mate


----------



## justanobserver

UnitedPak said:


> Nobody is claiming Indian heritage.



You did

When you claimed that "Indika" referred to present day Pakistan, when in actuality it described the Mauryan Empire



"UnitedPak said:


> Alexander only came into contact with the Indus valley, *which he referred to as Indika*.



*Wrong*


----------



## Rafi

Pakistani's believe their Geographic territory was separate and distinct from india, you will never convince us other wise, and claiming people are "thick skulled" is just a sign of a lost argument. 

I'm sure there are plenty of things in the Ganges planes that are exclusively "bharati" that indians can be proud of. Sing their praises as those are your ancestors and leave our ancestors to us.


----------



## StingRoy

Rafi said:


> No the IVC is a distinct and separate civilisation to the ganges based civilisation of bharat, india has no claim on IVC



See... present day India does not have claim on IVC agree... but historical India does. Ancient vedic texts have references to IVC and hence we believe in the whole Indus Valley civilization as having being a part of India and thus our history.

I will quote from another article: 


> The center of Indus Valley culture was along the Indus River basin and its tributaries, which places most of it in present day Pakistan, but ruins of this culture have also appeared as far west as northern Afghanistan along the Oxus river and east into present day Gujarat, and even into Haryana State in central India.



Afghanistan and parts of modern India were also a part of IVC, hence our claims to IVC are also relevant in this context.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## justanobserver

Rafi said:


> you will never convince us other wise



Actually we're just (at-least I am) laughing our ***** off with your notions of "Ancient Pakistanis".

Come on, post another dolphin link  Or how about that cool book ?


----------



## Rafi

You can claim what you want, but Pakistanis reject any linkage of their ancient civilisation to the bharati civilisation, these people ate meat, buried their dead, and also had no temples that would indicate hinduism.

The overlap of civilisation and culture is purely coincidental, it is not primary.


----------



## Rafi

justanobserver said:


> Actually we're just (at-least I am) laughing our ***** off with your notions of "Ancient Pakistanis".
> 
> Come on, post another dolphin link  Or how about that cool book ?



 You can laugh all you want buddy, reality bites - doesn't it. 

Your response indicates how bankrupt your argument is, so laugh all you want, while they put the straight jacket on


----------



## UnitedPak

justanobserver said:


> You did
> 
> When you claimed that "Indika" referred to present day Pakistan, when in actuality it described the Mauryan Empire



I said that the term India was derived from the *Indus river* and at the time of Alexander's invasion the term referred solely to the Indus Valley. Please note that the term was Greek so it wasnt actually "India".

I also said that there are brief cases of shared history among Pakistanis and Indians, like the Mauryan era and the British Raj. Nobody is denying this. All we are saying is that there are plenty of cases where our history has no links to the people of India, hence its Pakistani history. You are laying claim on such cases through terms like Indian subcontinent as if the modern nation and people of India own all of the subcontinent.

*"India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator." -Churchill*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Geographic Pakistan and Ancient Pakistan is one and the same thing that is why Scientists are attributing pre-historic life forms as part of our Geographic polity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shattered

Why don't you guys just chill  ? (by you i mean pakistanis and indians) the only thing i have noticed ever since i got on this fourm is one side accusing the other or prasing them selfs while degrading the otehr side. Can't well all just get along xD? I mean sereiously whats the point of debating on the past bulid for a better future .


----------



## justanobserver

UnitedPak said:


> I also said that there are brief cases of shared history among Pakistanis and Indians, like the Mauryan era and the British Ra




The Maurya Era, The Gupta Era, The Pala Era and the Mughal Era









UnitedPak said:


> "India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator." -Churchill




The irony..... the irony


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

UnitedPak said:


> "India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator." -Churchill



Being from a former colony,all of sudden finding solace in an imperialist's opinion ,eh?






The Brits had a lot of negative predictions for our nation ,but 62 years down the line we are doing good from where they left us.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Rafi

"India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator." -Churchill

Churchill hit the nail on the head, indian nationhood is a fallacy, a fairy tale, science has acknowledged a difference between the Indus and Ganges, except and move on, claim something of the separate and distinct bharati geography.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Shattered said:


> Why don't you guys just chill  ? (by you i mean pakistanis and indians) the only thing i have noticed ever since i got on this fourm is one side accusing the other or prasing them selfs while degrading the otehr side. Can't well all just get along xD? I mean sereiously whats the point of debating on the past bulid for a better future .



Proper interpretation of ones history is mandatory for ones proper future.

After all we don't wish to repeat our mistakes do we?


----------



## justanobserver

Bombensturm said:


> Being from a former colony,all of sudden finding solace in an imperialist's opinion ,eh?



Sweet delicious irony....

Another fun fact, most Pakistani's claim to have gotten Independence '*from*' India. (i.e Bhagat Singh and Gandhi aren't heroes). offtopic though

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shattered

Bombensturm said:


> Proper interpretation of ones history is mandatory for ones proper future.
> 
> After all we don't wish to repeat our mistakes do we?



Talking about it over a froum won't do anything =p. no but really =p

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Churchill may have been an imperialist, but he was also a great man, who claimed victory over the axis hordes who were the enemies of humanity. 

I can admire Rommel but not the country for which he fought.


----------



## Rafi

justanobserver said:


> Sweet delicious irony....
> 
> Another fun fact, most Pakistani's claim to have gotten Independence '*from*' India. (i.e Bhagat Singh and Gandhi aren't heroes). offtopic though



Bhagat and Gandhi fought for bharat, which is not the same as Geographic Pakistan aka IVC


----------



## justanobserver

Rafi said:


> Bhagat and Gandhi fought for bharat, which is not the same as Geographic Pakistan aka IVC


^
See ?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

justanobserver said:


> Sweet delicious irony....
> 
> Another fun fact, most Pakistani's claim to have gotten Independence '*from*' India. (i.e Bhagat Singh and Gandhi aren't heroes). offtopic though









This liking for the Brits is not surprising.

This guy gives a good opinion about how dealings went between the Muslim league and Brits back then


Besides,with this overflowing love for IVC,Pakistanis seem to forgotten how East Pakistan fits in.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

Claiming another peoples culture is akin to cultural terrorism, why cant you be just proud of bharat - which is acknowledged as modern indias historical civilisation. What is there to be ashamed in that?????????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

justanobserver said:


> The Maurya Era, The Gupta Era, The Pala Era and the Mughal Era
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irony..... the irony



Most Indians recognise the cultural and historical differences between south Indians, east Indians and north Indians, but when it comes to Pakistanis, we are suddenly all the same with the same history and same ancestors.
No doubt we have common ancestors but 5000 years ago is far far too early for that. The subcontinent has been inhabited for 10s of thousands of years.

Also, Churchill was referring to British India, not modern India.



justanobserver said:


> Sweet delicious irony....
> 
> Another fun fact, most Pakistani's claim to have gotten Independence '*from*' India. (i.e Bhagat Singh and Gandhi aren't heroes). offtopic though



Pakistan gained independence from British India and British rule. Not India or Indian rule. This is the same confusion Indians show with the history argument. You lose track if you call everything India. 

To make it clear, Ancient India is not equal to Indian subcontinent which is not equal to British Indian empire which is not equal to Republic of India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## justanobserver

Chalo bhai log, gotta sleep. 

Hopefully this thread will swell in size aur kal ka mera entertainment quota satisfy karega


----------



## Rafi

Bombensturm said:


> YouTube - Conversations With History - Tariq Ali
> 
> This liking for the Brits is not surprising.
> 
> This guy gives a good opinion about how dealings went between the Muslim league and Brits back then
> 
> *ontopic*
> Funny no Pakistani mentions East Pakistan.



Tariq Ali is a Communist, he has typical Communist fantasies, I thought indians disliked them, especially their home grown versions such as the Naxalites. Going off topic, but why is the indian elite so in love with english that they struggle to speak their mother tongues. 

If there is an obsession with the brits, it is the indians that have it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

justanobserver said:


> Chalo bhai log, gotta sleep.
> 
> Hopefully this thread will swell in size aur kal ka mera entertainment quota satisfy karega



bye bye

We look forward to educating you, on Pakistan and its glorious history.


----------



## shiningindiacow

Damb this indian shining cow has lost all its glory ,these Pakistanis , persians kurasan guys must have been real men , more than likely still are ,can i come over to your side guys.this shining cow is dull without you.


----------



## Kambojaric

Bombensturm said:


> Proper interpretation of ones history is mandatory for ones proper future.
> 
> After all we don't wish to repeat our mistakes do we?



Theres not much point in having this discussion really, had it once before as well, and the conclusion was? nothing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## misterme2

gaurav yadav said:


> We dont need to give proofs for our presence in the world at that time,at that time university of taxila was there and so was chanakya who was deeply hurt when king of ambhi accepted alexander's bribes





Chanakya was a visionary beyond his times. Even today his great knowledge ad intellectual would be useless due to these dumbs babus running India. India needs fundamental change from primary education onwards. You cannot sugarcoat history, the kids need to be taught the reality and what India underwent throughout the ages. At the same time, you can really turn this history of conquest, death, torture, etc into a positive note by stressing how Hindus and Muslims am together. I stand by this today and forever, India needs to really emphasize education at the lower levels to all our kids. By emphasizing this, we an overcome so many hurdles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GodlessBastard

Bamxa said:


> Theres not much point in having this discussion really, had it once before as well, and the conclusion was? nothing.



I have a question for Pakistanis, and this is meant to be honest and with no ill intentions.

What do Pakistanis consider to be THEIR history? For much of its pre-Islamic history "Pakistan" was ruled by powerful Hindu empires, like the Nandas, Mauryas, Guptas, Palas, etc. 

Do you feel proud of that history, even though they were not Islamic? 

If not, when what do Pakistanis consider to be THEIR history? (I am talking pre-1947 of course)

Judging by names of Pakistani weapons, their seems to be a great affection for Central Asian/Turkic/Afghan history, even though those cultures have little in common with the native (Hindu) culture of the land now called "Pakistan".

And keep in mind that "Hindu" is not just a religious term, but more accurately a cultural term, and for three thousand years the region now called "Pakistan" has been part of the Hindu cultural sphere.


----------



## misterme2

Rafi said:


> bye bye
> 
> We look forward to educating you, on Pakistan and its glorious history.



What history there was no history prior to independence. We are all seeds of the same mother. You do realize the only place in India where Islam was accepted willingly was Kerala, right?


----------



## DesiGuy

*only an idiot will think that there is pakistan ancient history.*


----------



## Water Car Engineer

> yet here we got a King of a small state, brought down the mighty and egoistic Alexander "The Great" to his knees. No movies for him



Hello, porus was defeated. And there was a movie of alexander the great war against raja porus. Very small battle scene.





















*watch this one below if its not blocked.(full video)*


----------



## PakSher

DesiGuy said:


> *only an idiot will think that there is pakistan ancient history.*



This is Pakistan History. The fort in Lahore is a Pakistani Fort and the Mughal Architecture in Pakistan is our heritage. Mohenjodaro is part of Pakistan. 

Port Qasim was built in Sind where Mohammad Bin Qasim invaded India and Taxila where Alexander deployed is 20 miles from Islamabad. These are treasures of Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DesiGuy

whatever. you guys just live in different world than the rest of world. so not even worth showing you facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakSher

I think that will be better for Indians. Even hindus are vegetarins but Indians restaurants try to copy Pakistani dishes to make them Indian (Mutton Biryani, Tandoori Chicken, Lamb Kabob), which vegetarian in India eats lamb and mutton. Yes, you are going to say Indians do eat chicken now? Now so they are trying to be like Pakistanis because before they were vegetarians.

Another Indian stunt, when you meet Indians, all of them know Pakistanis speak Urdu, Indians pet comment: " Do you speak Hindi", answer No, I speak urdu which is the language we speak.


----------



## Masterchief

@paksher:The dishes you spoke are mughlai,its one of the common things shared by indo-pak,dont troll


----------



## Kinetic

UnitedPak said:


> There was no India either, so using the names of the Kingdoms shouldnt be a problem. The whole point of the article is that people use the British India map to trump all regional identities of the subcontinent with the only intention to mislead.



Who said there was no India??? Alexander was fighting against the *Indians*. The king Purushottam was Indian ans the main source of info is the book written by Greek writer Megasthinis is 'Indica'.

Alexander's Indian campaign

Alexander's Indian campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kinetic

PakSher said:


> This is Pakistan History. The fort in Lahore is a Pakistani Fort and the Mughal Architecture in Pakistan is our heritage. Mohenjodaro is part of Pakistan.
> 
> Port Qasim was built in Sind where Mohammad Bin Qasim invaded India and Taxila where Alexander deployed is 20 miles from Islamabad. These are treasures of Pakistan.



This is treasure of Pakistan now but there is no indication that the Lahore fort and other Mughal architectures, Taxila or Mohenjodaro was Pakistani, but Indian. Ashoka, Vikramaditya, Akbar were the emperors of India.


----------



## Rig Vedic

Rafi said:


> The Indus Valley and the Ganges plane are two distinct and different civilizations, there is some overlap, but to a large extent the difference's is more than the commonality, even if Islam (God Forbid) had never come to South Asia, there would still have been a separation and partition. IMHO.



So Jinnah (from Gujarat) was not from Pakistani civilization, and Manmohan Singh (from Chakwal) and Advani (from Sindh) are not from Indian civilization?


----------



## Kinetic

Rafi said:


> The Indus Valley and the Ganges plane are two distinct and different civilizations, there is some overlap,



They were distinct but both were in India. And many of the sites in current India as well.... like Lothal, Kalibangan etc








> but to a large extent the difference's is more than the commonality, even if Islam (God Forbid) had never come to South Asia, there would still have been a separation and partition. IMHO.



This difference suddenly came up just ten years before partition. If some how India or Pakistan be-parted than the new nations will also claim that they were different for thousand of years. But that not true because from was India. 
*
Show us one evidence that few decades before 'Pakistan' there was talk about partition of India regarding the region you are talking about.*

As of 1945/46 Jinnah were ready to give up partition if Congress would have fulfilled his demand.


----------



## pmukherjee

Rafi said:


> who are you to decide, we are proud of both, it is not a zero sum game my friend/



You are right. It is a past we both share. It is what we both should be proud of and not fight over. Ask any Alaskan Americans, they are proud of their Russian past and heritage. By rejecting its pre-Islamic past, Pakistan stands to lose so much. There is so much that we have in common, it is a shared past. India is the past that Pakistan shares with India. Yes, that includes the Greeks, the Mongols, the Persians, the Arabs, the British and many more.


----------



## SaifullahK

Rafi said:


> MBQ is our pride, he came and liberated the people of Geographic Pakistan from darkness to light




Our ancestors were living in Jahiliyya (darkness) until the liberator Muhammad bin Qasim came and smashed the idols of the false gods and showed our ancestors the true path. Now we are proud to have embraced the light of Islam.


----------



## Masterchief

SaifullahK said:


> Our ancestors were living in Jahiliyya (darkness) until the liberator Muhammad bin Qasim came and smashed the idols of the false gods and showed our ancestors the true path. Now we are proud to have embraced the light of Islam.


 and i presume that the so called 'false gods' and 'idols' you are reffering is related to hinduism,if that is it then you only remain in darkness,a darkness of hatred,btw iam not surprised to see your degraded mentality,happy trolling


----------



## Kinetic

SaifullahK said:


> Our ancestors were living in Jahiliyya (darkness) until the liberator Muhammad bin Qasim came and smashed the idols of the false gods and showed our ancestors the true path. Now we are proud to have embraced the light of Islam.



Who is false god and who is correct god who are you to decide! If you ask your ancestors then they would answer that their god was rite not the one you fallow, its depends on belief. And not just the idols but MBQ also smashed your ancestors as well otherwise it would not have possible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bhim

Pakistan Ancestory.....is till 1946, before that there were no Pakistani or Pakistan. So this is one point you will have to bear with.
The only way out can be if you could prove your lineage if by finding how or at what time of life Islam made its presence in your life.

Of course now that you have become an independent country, the dillemma would be, tobe out of the clutches of India, so the need arose to take on an new Identity. So what better place than the Muslim world..Iran, Iraq, etc Etc and OIC nations. Now to put a new identity, most Pakistanis are trying hard to somehow be one with Persians, Arabs ets. but the sad part is not much of incouragement from the other side.
Still I know its quite embarrasing to be without History, but instead of trying to find history amongst nonrelated sects, who will give you only discouragement, try it from your actual roots. 
.


Finnaly Ancient Pakistani concept holds no water.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LadyGaga

There is no such thing as "ancient pakistan".It is an entity created in 1947 and any history that predates 1947 cannot be attributed to this entity.I am not insisting that it should be attributed to India either.In any case,how does this kind of jingoism help in the current scenario?


----------



## rockstarIN

Pakistanis should accept their ancestors & cultures as it is and should proud of the same. Like Egyptians, who also are Muslims but proud of their history and Indian history is for all the people in the Indian Subcontinent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rockstarIN

By the way, can anybody tell me 
*How Alexander beat the War Elephants?*


----------



## UnitedPak

Bhim said:


> Pakistan Ancestory.....is till 1946, before that there were no Pakistani or Pakistan. So this is one point you will have to bear with.
> The only way out can be if you could prove your lineage if by finding how or at what time of life Islam made its presence in your life.
> 
> Of course now that you have become an independent country, the dillemma would be, tobe out of the clutches of India, so the need arose to take on an new Identity. So what better place than the Muslim world..Iran, Iraq, etc Etc and OIC nations. Now to put a new identity, most Pakistanis are trying hard to somehow be one with Persians, Arabs ets. but the sad part is not much of incouragement from the other side.
> Still I know its quite embarrasing to be without History, but instead of trying to find history amongst nonrelated sects, who will give you only discouragement, try it from your actual roots.
> .
> 
> 
> Finnaly Ancient Pakistani concept holds no water.




Everyone has history. You can only be "without history" if you dont know your history (seems Indians dont or they would know what was happening in India 5000 years ago instead of looking towards the Indus). Pakistanis know their history, from the Indus Valley civilisation, Gandhara kingdom to the Islamic kingdoms and all the way to the Pakistan movement. *This is our history because it belongs to our people.* We are not claiming to be Arabs, Persians or Indians when we just clarified our identity as belonging to the Indus Valley and not Arabia, Persia or India.

Its also worth noting that only Indian members are obsessing about the misunderstood MbQ version when most Pakistanis here accept IVC as being part of their identity. The important thing is that furious denials by Indians dont matter in the slightest to us. We know our history, identity, culture and religion very well, so we dont have to look across to neighbours.

*
"We are a nation with our distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, name and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion. Legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitude and ambitions; in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life." -Quaid-e-Azam*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jayron

Harappan Language- Proto Dravidian relation
The Harappan language (also Indus language) is the unknown language of the Bronze Age (2nd millennium BC) Harappan civilization (Indus Valley Civilization, or 'IVC'). The language being unattested in any contemporary source, hypotheses regarding its nature are reduced to purported loanwords and substratum influence, notably the substratum in Vedic Sanskrit and a few terms recorded in Sumerian cuneiform (such as Meluhha), in conjunction with analyses of the undeciphered Indus script.

There are a number of hypotheses as to the nature of this unknown language:

* * The Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis places it in the vicinity of either Elamite or Dravidian, perhaps identical with Proto-Dravidian itself. This is endorsed by Kamil Zvelebil, Asko Parpola and Iravatham Mahadevan.[1][2]
* Michael Witzel (2001) as an alternative to the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis suggests an underlying, prefixing language that is similar to Austroasiatic, notably Khasi; he calls it "para-Munda" (i.e. a language related to the Munda subgroup or other Austroasiatic languages, but not strictly descended from the last common predecessor of the contemporary Munda family).[3][4]*
* a "lost phylum", i.e. a language with no living continuants (or perhaps a last living reflex in the moribund Nihali language). In this case, the only trace left by the IVC language would be historical substratum influence, in particular the substratum in Vedic Sanskrit.
* an Indo-European language, close or identical to Proto-Indo-Iranian: suggested by Shikaripura Ranganatha Rao.[5]
* a Semitic language: Malati Shendge (1997) identified the Harappan culture with an "Asura" empire, and these Asura further with the Assyrians.[6]

There is a handful of possible loanwords reflecting the IVC language. Sumerian Meluhha may be derived from a native term for the IVC, also reflected in Sanskrit mleccha, and Witzel (2000) further suggests that Sumerian GIimmar (a type of tree) may be cognate to Rigvedic &#347;imbala and &#347;almali (also names of trees).[7]

The question has some political significance in Indian communalism, the Dravidian and Indo-European hypotheses being embraced by Dravidian and Hindu nationalists, respectively (see Indigenous Aryans for details).

Harappan language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*
Present day Dravidian Languages Distribution*


----------



## jayron

Rafi said:


> Pakicetid
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> (Redirected from Pakicetids)
> Pakicetids
> Fossil range: Early EoceneMiddle Eocene
> Pre&#1028;&#1028;OSDCPTJKPgN
> 
> Pakicetus.
> Scientific classification
> Kingdom:	Animalia
> Phylum:	Chordata
> Class:	Mammalia
> Order:	Cetacea
> Family:	Pakicetidae
> Genera
> Pakicetus
> Nalacetus
> Ichthyolestes
> Wikispecies has information related to: Pakicetidae
> Pakicetids or Pakicetidae are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.[1]
> As Cetacea, Pakicetidae precede the whales and dolphins in transition from land. Because their fossils were found near bodies of water, they are presumed to have spent part of their life in water.
> Pakicetus was the first discovered in 1983 by Philip Gingerich, Neil Wells, Donald Russell, and S. M. Ibrahim Shah, and all species are known only from a few sites in Pakistan, hence the name of the first genera and the family as a whole. The region is believed to have been coastal to the Tethys Sea when the pakicetids lived, some 53 million years ago.
> The pakicetids are presumed to be ancestors of modern whales because of the three following features unique to whales: peculiarities in the positioning of the ear bones within the skull, the folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the arrangement of cusps on the molar teeth. The current theory is that modern whales evolved from archaic whales such as basilosaurids, which in turn evolved from something like the amphibious ambulocetids, which themselves evolved from something like the land-dwelling pakicetus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the scientific community even for creatures millions of years old excepts Pakistan as a separate territory. :p



Rafi You are awesome !


----------



## airuah

this thread can just be described as one sentence

"Pakistan's obsession with India"...

just because you dont have a seperate history...dosent mean you have to claim everything that is associated with India....


what can you expect from people who glorify kings like Ghauri who did nothing but plunder wealth from ancient India(that includes present day Pakistan as well) Just because history tells them that he plundered India they glorify him not even thinking that they were a part of that same India at that time( I pity people why glorify the person who killed their own people.)


----------



## LaBong

> "We are a nation with our distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, name and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion. Legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitude and ambitions; in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life." -Quaid-e-Azam



Quaid-e-Azam's "nation" wasn't ancient Pakistan as it has been put in the article, but it's the nation of a particular religious group of whole subcontinent. Ancient non-Muslim Pakistanis aren't included in that "nation".


----------



## AR

so I must now summarize the whole thread 

"Ancient Pakistan did not Defeated The Mighty Alexander The Great, There was no such 'ancient pakistan', however pakistan may claim history after 1947 AD. over that piece of land"


----------



## Bang Galore

Rafi said:


> The culture of the Indus Valley and even its religion has been separate, the people of this area were Buddhist when the ganges range was Hindu.



And since the Buddha lived in modern day Bihar, how do you think Buddhism got there? The Buddha lived in the 6th century BC, it does not explain the religion before that time.



Rafi said:


> You can claim what you want, but Pakistanis reject any linkage of their ancient civilisation to the bharati civilisation, these people ate meat, buried their dead, and also had no temples that would indicate hinduism.
> 
> The overlap of civilisation and culture is purely coincidental, it is not primary.



That's a silly argument based on ignorance. Many Hindus do bury their dead & have been eating meat for ages.



Rafi said:


> *Who are you to say that there is no such thing as Ancient Pakistani, the geo-graphic are that is Pakistan is separate for the Ganges* and has been around for millennia. We are proud of our history, *which no indian has any claim over*, end of.....lol



Actually that's a bit of a problem. you see, the guy whose symbols are the symbols of the Indian state ;Asoka was a governor of Taxila before he became emperor. One of our epics, the *Mahabharata *has as one of its principal characters- Gandhari; the mother of one of the two warring clans(Kauravas). She came from Gandhara (hence the name) & without her......well...no story!
So you see, we will have a claim, whether you like it or not.


This is one of the more interesting discussions on this forum for a long time & I am in full agreement with the surprisingly(refershingly so)many Pakistanis who rightly claim the ancient culture of their land as their own. Makes a nice change from the usual stories of having come from somewhere else which seems to be popular with many internet warriors who lurk in these forums.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GUNNER

Now fighting over history, are we..

Pretty strange, given that both Pakistan and India share a common history which has nothing to do with religion or nationality.

The land, which is now Pakistan, had a rich history in the form of great civilizations. We can own and acknowledge it without going into claims of rights.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Boomerang

Wow, Really!!! and what was his name who defeated Alexander... Porus Qureshi? or Porus Afridi? or Porus Nasarulla.......

What is your next invention?........let me guess.. the first Aliens to visit Earth were ancient Pakistani? ofcourse in Chinese designed rocket

Why don't you read some actually history books with open eyes, rather then keep your eyes covered with ignorance.

Well I dont want to spoil your mood but if you remember Porus was a Hindu King! 

Hmm so...


----------



## MYSTIC

going by the logic of many Pakistanis in this thread they should not even have the Mughals in their history books as there capital were Delhi and Agra which are now part of India.


----------



## StingRoy

GUNNER said:


> Now fighting over history, are we..
> 
> Pretty strange, given that both Pakistan and India share a common history which has nothing to do with religion or nationality.
> 
> The land, which is now Pakistan, had a rich history in the form of great civilizations. We can own and acknowledge it without going into claims of rights.



One of the very few intelligent comments I have read in this thread. 

We have a shared history culturally for thousands of years and lets be proud of this heritage instead of bickering on laying claims of exclusivity.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nwmalik

jayron said:


> Porus or Purushotham (His actual name) may be from the land which is now Pakistan. But Pakistanis do not want to remember anything pre-Islamic and remotely Indic. You people prefer to celebrate the Ottomans , Arabs and Persians than the people from your own land. Most of the Gandharan kingdom which was the amalgamation of Greek and Indian culture was in Pakistan. I wish and hope Pakistanis go beyond the time the idea of Pakistan was conceived and appreciate the land's ancient and rich culture.


yes u r right.
unfortunate but true.
we should remember and not forget our culture and history. This is what we r.
But religion is equally important also

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

Extremely funny the way Pakistanis on one hand lay claim to the IV civilization due to geographical location and then while claiming descendence to the Mughals, forget that the Mughal empire was based in Delhi 

Who cares.. Pakistan can have all the history and the past. *India will settle for the present and future *

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## rockstarIN

*Did Ancient Pakistanis Defeated The Mighty Alexander The Great.,*

This is the thread here, but we only talk here only about 'Ancient Pakistanis'

Can we stick to the thread?

Can anybody tell how Alexander defeated Porus's mighty war elephants?

Alexander's weaponry was excellent, but given the battle zone which was not an open area (where Alexander's wars had been fought) how did he manage to beat the elephants?

His biggest strength is his cavalry, which does not have the special skills to fight against the elephant. His soldiers did see the elephants before contrary to the belief (one of the battle with Persians who had 12 elephants with them).

What I believe that the war was so bloody and stalemate as depicted in the film.


----------



## Peshwa

karan.1970 said:


> Extremely funny the way Pakistanis on one hand lay claim to the IV civilization due to geographical location and then while claiming descendence to the Mughals, forget that the Mughal empire was based in Delhi
> 
> Who cares.. Pakistan can have all the history and the past. *India will settle for the present and future *




Karan....in fact i would be fine claiming all Mughal achievements to India on the same logic....

Contributing to 1/3rd of the world GDP, building a wonder and coining the term "Mogul" as a sign of success based on their achievements is by no means an easy task....

Hell....I appoint you to make the deal with the Pakistanis for giving up Mogul history for the little bump in the road for Alexander....mountains out of molehills.... LOL!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## notsuperstitious

Yes Purushottam won the war if ancient Pakistan existed.


----------



## GUNNER

Peshwa said:


> Hell....I appoint you to make the deal with the Pakistanis for giving up Mogul history for the little bump in the road for Alexander....mountains out of molehills.... LOL!



If only it were so easy. The Moguls are part of the history of the land which is now Pakistan and India. But so are people like Abdullah Bhatti who stood up against them. 

A few posts aren't gonna change this fact or how history will be written.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Rain

Whether we like it or not Pakistanis and north indians share a long history. some time our fav leaders were on same side and some time they were cutting eachothers' throats yet all of them are our history and we should be proude of history.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

toppys1 said:


> after so many pages is india still india or ancient pakistan?



India is still india but it was not still india 5000years back.

The term India is used by modern history tellers to describe the history of that ancient region which was at that time called HINDUSTAN
And it is used only to refer to that region.
It does not means that at that time there was a country india.

There was no india.This term is only used by modern history tellers to refer ANCIENT hindustan.

But this word has evolved into its modern form HINDUSTAN from many ancient names used by ancient civilizations to describe south asian region.
And those words describe the religion followed by south asians that was hinduism.

Those names were YINDU named by chinese civilization.

The word Y shows its affection to the chinese language.

The word YINDU is derived from HINDU and this word have nothing to do with term india.

So far India have gained succes to mislead world with the word India that it describes the ancient Hindustan.
But this is not the case.
This effort was made in order to claim all the history of south asia.

*All the people of south asia at that time were hindus.

Those people include modern day Indopak bangladesh,nepal burma,bhutan,srilanka and maldives.

All of those people were hindus at that time.

Later on some people changed thier religion but how does it implies that they dont have any right on the history of their ancestors?*

*If a christian is living in a certain part of srilanka.
But his Ancestors were hindus and rulers of that part in which he is living.
His hindu ancestors made mandiirs temples and ,many other buildings in that part.
But a certain event changed all the hindus of that area into christians.

Does it means that now they are no more christian so all of the history of that area no more belongs to them and it is not their history.

Now hindus of other parts of srilanka should claim all of those history,buildings,traditions just because they are hindus even when they didn't stepped in that area and didn't took a bit in develping those buildings or even their happens no such event or any kind of relation or mutual interaction b/w the people of that area and those hindus who are claiming on it.

How is that logical????



Does history starts from religion???
Does change in religion vanishes all the history of a person???
If a person chages his religion but his ancestors are following the same old old religion,Does it means that those people are no longer ancestor of that person??
Does it means that, from the time when he changed his religion that person no longer have any Father,mother,sister,brother,uncle aunt???*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

rockstar said:


> By the way, can anybody tell me
> *How Alexander beat the War Elephants?*



A series of videos on Alexander's Indian campaign given by some Historians.

YouTube - Battles BC-Alexander part 1/6

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The HBS Guy

SnIPeR Xr said:


> India is still india but it was not still india 5000years back.
> 
> The term India is used by modern history tellers to describe the history of that ancient region which was at that time called HINDUSTAN
> And it is used only to refer to that region.
> It does not means that at that time there was a country india.
> 
> There was no india.This term is only used by modern history tellers to refer ANCIENT hindustan.
> 
> But this word has evolved into its modern form HINDUSTAN from many ancient names used by ancient civilizations to describe south asian region.
> And those words describe the religion followed by south asians that was hinduism.
> 
> Those names were YINDU named by chinese civilization.
> 
> The word Y shows its affection to the chinese language.
> 
> The word YINDU is derived from HINDU and this word have nothing to do with term india.
> 
> So far India have gained succes to mislead world with the word India that it describes the ancient Hindustan.
> But this is not the case.
> This effort was made in order to claim all the history of south asia.
> 
> *All the people of south asia at that time were hindus.
> 
> Those people include modern day Indopak bangladesh,nepal burma,bhutan,srilanka and maldives.
> 
> All of those people were hindus at that time.
> 
> Later on some people changed thier religion but how does it implies that they dont have any right on the history of their ancestors?*
> 
> *If a christian is living in a certain part of srilanka.
> But his Ancestors were hindus and rulers of that part in which he is living.
> His hindu ancestors made mandiirs temples and ,many other buildings in that part.
> But a certain event changed all the hindus of that area into christians.
> 
> Does it means that now they are no more christian so all of the history of that area no more belongs to them and it is not their history.
> 
> Now hindus of other parts of srilanka should claim all of those history,buildings,traditions just because they are hindus even when they didn't stepped in that area and didn't took a bit in develping those buildings or even their happens no such event or any kind of relation or mutual interaction b/w the people of that area and those hindus who are claiming on it.
> 
> How is that logical????
> 
> 
> 
> Does history starts from religion???
> Does change in religion vanishes all the history of a person???
> If a person chages his religion but his ancestors are following the same old old religion,Does it means that those people are no longer ancestor of that person??
> Does it means that, from the time when he changed his religion that person no longer have any Father,mother,sister,brother,uncle aunt???*



The most ancient name of the country/region/land was 'Bharat/Bharatvarsh'

The mention of these words can be found in ancient hindu scriptures which are dated to be thousands of year old.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

One interesting point to note here is,this whole thing about claiming Raja Paurava's nationality in modern context is similar to the conundrum the Greeks and Macedonians fight on.

Whether Alexander was Macedonian or Greek?


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

The history of those hindus who were living in Bangladesh at certian time and were ruling on it.
But after the change of religion the hindus of india cannot claim that the Hindu History of Muslim bangladesh is ours.

That history is still bangladesh's history and the Hindu ancestors of bangladesh are still ancestors of Muslim bangladeshis.

Hindus living in india cannot claim on the ancestors of bangladesh just on the basis of religion.

When they dont have similar DNA or race,how They can claim on ancestors of any people.

The claim based on religion will not change their DNA to that of those hindu ancestors of bangladesh.


Simiarly the history of hindu ancestors of modern nepal is the history of people of nepal no matter what religion they follow.

The history of hindu ancestors of bhutan people is their history.

The history of ancestors of Pakistani people who were living and ruling the territories of modern Pakistan are ancestors of Pakistanis and their History Should be Included in Pakistan's history.

No other country can claim on their history as the history of that country.

Only in some cases we can say that the two countries or territories can share certain events or time period or a thing.

Such as if a group of people migrated from Modern India to Modern Bangladesh in ancient times.
They lived their for a while but after that they returned back to india.

The events that took place in the lives of those people in the part of Modern day bangladesh is part of their history and also of the History of Modern Bangladesh and modern India.

The place of the history of those people in Bangladesh history is that they arrived here they lived here the did this & this and then they returned back.

The history of lives of those people while on Bangladesh is mutually shared by both countries.

But it is bounded to the fact that *IF* such event took place.
I think many of us understands the meaning of word IF.







If POURUS our ancestor was hero of the Battle of Hydapsis then AMBHI our ancestor a villain is also our ancestor,fore father
Nomatter what he did was good or bad.He was our ancestor.

Similarly Raja dahir was our Ancestor.

The Role of MBQ is just like a role of a policeman who came to rescue us from cruelity of our forefather and our Family member.
We are thankful to him for his kind work and for what good he has for us.

He is just an outside reformer.
He is part of our history as a policeman who at a certain time arrived in our lives and played a role in changing our lives.


----------



## justanobserver

SnIPeR Xr said:


> Hindus living in india cannot claim on the ancestors of bangladesh just on the basis of religion.
> 
> When they dont have similar DNA or race,how They can claim on ancestors of any people.



The Indians living in West Bengal are the same race, same DNA, same culture same language as the Bangladeshis

Compared to "ancient Pakistani' an Ancient 'Bengali' identity exists, as the Pala and Sena dynasties were essential Bengali (with capitals in Modern day West Bengal and Bangladesh)

btw according to recent studies, all people of the subcontinent (east of the Indus and the Southern most point in Sri Lanka) are more or less the same (genetically)



SnIPeR Xr said:


> Simiarly the history of hindu ancestors of modern nepal is the history of people of nepal no matter what religion they follow.



It's the history of the Indian *subcontinent*. eg: Buddha was born in Nepal, but he got enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree in Gaya (Bihar in present day India). 

History is shared by the people of the Indian (why are you guys allergic to this word?) *subcontinent*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MYSTIC

Indians are not against the idea of shared history. It is several Pakistanis that think India and Pakistan have always been different regions. India, Pakistan, Srilanka, Burma, Nepal, Banglasdesh were all once India. Where the Persian empire ended India started.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rig Vedic

Pakistan is founded on the two nation theory.

The concept of nation may not be the same as ancestry. *Jinnah was the grandson of a Hindu Gujarati named **Poonja Gokuldas Meghji*. 

However, changing the religion meant changing not only the nationality, but also the CIVILIZATION.



> *It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.*
> 
> 
> Muhammad Ali Jinnah's All India Muslim League Presidential Address delivered at Lahore, on March 22&#8211;23, 1940
> 
> Two-Nation Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

BENNY said:


> It was given back the original Marathi name.. which was used in 16th and 17 th century


The word MUMBAI was never used before 1992-3.

This word evolved from several names:


> The name Mumbai is an eponym, derived from Mumba or Maha-Ambathe name of the Koli goddess Mumbadeviand Aai, "mother" in Marathi.
> 
> The oldest known names for the city are Kakamuchee and Galajunkja; these are sometimes still used.Ali Muhammad Khan, in the Mirat-i-Ahmedi (1507) referred to the city as Manbai. In 1508, Portuguese writer Gaspar Correia used the name Bombaim, in his Lendas da Índia ("Legends of India"). This name possibly originated as the Old Portuguese phrase bom baim, meaning "good little bay", and Bombaim is still commonly used in Portuguese. In 1516, Portuguese explorer Duarte Barbosa used the name Tana-Maiambu: Tana appears to refer to the adjoining town of Thane and Maiambu to Mumbadevi.
> 
> 
> The temple of local Hindu goddess Mumbadevi, *after whom the city of Mumbai derives its name.*Other variations recorded in the 16th and the 17th centuries include: Mombayn (1525), Bombay (1538), Bombain (1552), Bombaym (1552), Monbaym (1554), Mombaim (1563), Mombaym (1644), Bambaye (1666), Bombaiim (1666), Bombeye (1676), and Boon Bay (1690).[19][21] After the British gained possession of the city in the 17th century, the Portuguese name was officially anglicised as Bombay.






> Sounds ridiculous


Very rediculos.
Similar to this:


> Originally Posted by aristocrat
> What in the name of god is ancient pakistan??First time the word pakistan was ever used was in 1940's.


----------



## The HBS Guy

SnIPeR Xr said:


> The word MUMBAI was never used before 1992-3.



Oops! Looks like some people never read the replies to their posts:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/1255370-post78.html


----------



## Rig Vedic

We have to understand the process whereby a Hindu Gujarati named Poonja Gokuldas Meghji belonged to one civilization, whereas his grandson Jinnah belonged to a completely different and conflicting civilization.


----------



## Rafi

I again reiterate that the IVC is distinct from bharat which is the civilization of modern india, plus the culture and history of modern Pakistan is also distinct from modern india, except to indian Punjabis who are about 3&#37; of the population.

The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books

Synopsis
Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age. It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.

This book in its brilliant and well thought out thesis destroys the myth of a "india" it explains that through out history the Indus Saga is distinct from bharat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

This image proves that the ethnic groups are shared are the Baloch, Pushtoons, Punjabis, and the only ones shared with india are the Punjabi.


----------



## Rafi

Tag:- Ancient Pakistani city Mohenjodaro part of the Indus Valley Civilization.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MYSTIC

Rafi said:


> This image proves that the ethnic groups are shared are the Baloch, Pushtoons, Punjabis, and the only ones shared with india are the Punjabi.



lol...

By your logic Sindhis and Punjabis should also have their own seperate history.


----------



## Rafi

Ancient Pakistan-China-Middle East trade...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MYSTIC

Rafi said:


> Tag:- Ancient Pakistani city Mohenjodaro part of the Indus Valley Civilization.



Have you seen Swastika that the archeologist have found? What does that point towards? It is a common culture. The Indian subcontinent went through a major change due to islamic invaders. Before that India started where Persia ended.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Tag:- Mehrgarh Ancient Pakistan.


----------



## MYSTIC

Rafi said:


> Ancient Pakistan-China-Middle East trade...




There was no Pakistan at that time. There is no such thing as Ancient Pakistan. Arabs, Europeans and Chinese traded with *Indians* not ancient Pakistanis.


----------



## Rafi

MYSTIC said:


> Have you seen Swastika that the archeologist have found? What does that point towards? It is a common culture. The Indian subcontinent went through a major change due to islamic invaders. Before that India started where Persia ended.



Pakistan was a part of the Persian Empire for long periods of time, in point of fact today our language has many similarities with Persian.

The people of IVC eat meat, buried their dead, and had no temples, and were completely and utterly distinct from the Ganges based bharat. There was some slight overlap, *Geographic Pakistan, Ancient Pakistan, and Modern Pakistan is a completely different civilization. *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

MYSTIC said:


> There was no Pakistan at that time. There is no such thing as Ancient Pakistan. Arabs, Europeans and Chinese traded with *Indians* not ancient Pakistanis.




I repeat there is no such thing as india, never has and never will, it is only the people around the Indus that established links and trade with the Ancient World.


----------



## Rafi

Look at this Patriotic Baba's Face - he is a poor man but he goes to the Wagah Border everyday, he knows who he is and what he is, and where he comes from. 

Just as the tough Jatt Pakistani Infantry Officer ready to die for his country, or the Rajput PA Armoured Corps Officer ready to defend his country.


----------



## The HBS Guy

Rafi said:


> Look at this Patriotic Baba's Face - he is a poor man but he goes to the Wagah Border everyday, he knows who he is and what he is, and where he comes from.
> 
> Just as the tough Jatt Pakistani Infantry Officer ready to die for his country, or the Rajput PA Armoured Corps Officer ready to defend his country.



hmm I can believe your claims if you tell me that 'Baba' is over 5000 years old.


----------



## Rig Vedic

Rafi said:


> I repeat there is no such thing as india, never has and never will, it is only the people around the Indus that established links and trade with the Ancient World.



It was people of the Indian subcontinent that were known as Indians since ancient times, not just those on the banks of the Indus.

However, in Sanskrit, the correct name in Bharat.


----------



## Rafi

Ancient Pakistani City Mohenjadaro

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rig Vedic

Rafi said:


> I again reiterate that the IVC is distinct from bharat which is the civilization of modern india, plus the culture and history of modern Pakistan is also distinct from modern india, except to indian Punjabis who are about 3% of the population.



Try to find some Punjabi verbs that do not come from Sanskrit.


----------



## Rafi

Rig Vedic said:


> It was people of the Indian subcontinent that were known as Indians since ancient times, not just those on the banks of the Indus.
> 
> However, in Sanskrit, the correct name in Bharat.



No you are wrong, the people of the Ganges based civilization are/were bhartis, they are distinct from the Indus based Civilization 


The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books

Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age. It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Rig Vedic said:


> Try to find some Punjabi verbs that do not come from Sanskrit.



And do you know how many Persian words are in Punjabi - so by your logic Persians can claim Punjab as part of their civilization 

---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------








---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

YouTube - Allama Iqbal - Sikwa and Jawab e Shikwa sung by Tina Sani

We have established our unique and distinct identity - it is a de facto and de jure reality you will have to get used to it.


----------



## Rig Vedic

Rafi said:


> And do you know how many Persian words are in Punjabi - so by your logic Persians can claim Punjab as part of their civilization
> 
> ---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------
> .




I asked about Punjabi VERBS that don't come from Sanskrit. Verbs are the root of a language.

I agree that Pakistani Punjabis generally prefer to speak URDU (which is a language that was born in UP) and they may love to use lots of Arab and Persian words.

By the way the guy in photo was the grandson of a Hindu Gujarati.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Indus Valley = Ancient Pakistan = Geographic Pakistan = Modern Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Quaid E Azam was born in Karachi and was a full member of the Indus Based Civilization, in fact all the immigrants who moved and live in our Country are part of us and we are part of them. 

But the Geographic area of Pakistan is distinct and would have been distinct even if (God forbid) Islam had not been embraced by the majority of its inhabitants.


----------



## Rig Vedic

Rafi said:


> Quaid E Azam was born in Karachi and was a full member of the Indus Based Civilization, in fact all the immigrants who moved and live in our Country are part of us and we are part of them.
> 
> But the Geographic area of Pakistan is distinct and would have been distinct even if (God forbid) Islam had not been embraced by the majority of its inhabitants.



What about the East Pakistanis, who were the majority population of your country?


----------



## Rafi

Ancient Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Ancient Pakistan



Who was the president and where was the capital, then?


----------



## Rafi

Rig Vedic said:


> What about the East Pakistanis, who were the majority population of your country?



We shared a common religion, but because of some cultural differences - including language, and despicable indian interference we were broken apart. We are brothers now


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> We *shared a common religion*, but because of some cultural differences - including language, and despicable indian interference we were broken apart. We are brothers now



There are more people sharing it here. what about them?/ not brothers?/ huh?? so sad...


----------



## Rafi

This guy is a good candidate as any LoL 
I Present a King/Priest.


----------



## Rig Vedic

Rafi said:


> We shared a common religion, but because of some cultural differences - including language, and despicable indian interference we were broken apart. We are brothers now



But then the majority population of your country was not living in the Indus valley. How can the identity of a country leave out majority of the population.


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> This guy is a good candidate as any LoL
> I Present a King/Priest.



candidate?/ when is/was the election?


----------



## Rafi

BENNY said:


> There are more people sharing it here. what about them?/ not brothers?/ huh?? so sad...



Doh, Muslims are brothers everywhere - but they are not part of the Ancient Pakistani Civilization, just as a white convert from Britain would be my brother/sister in Islam, but would be different from me culturally.


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Doh, Muslims are brothers everywhere - but they are not part of the Ancient Pakistani Civilization, just as a white convert from Britain would be my brother/sister in Islam, but would be different from me culturally.



what about the millions of people who travelled from here to there and from there to here during the great divide???

Can they claim the same??


----------



## Rafi

Rig Vedic said:


> But then the majority population of your country was not living in the Indus valley. How can the identity of a country leave out majority of the population.



That is why they have their own country now, and we wish them the best of luck, it was partly because of cultural difference why there was a break up, and also due to indian treachery. 

Indus Valley Civilization = Ancient Pakistan = Geographic Pakistan = Modern PAKISTAN


----------



## Rafi

BENNY said:


> what about the millions of people who travelled from here to there and from there to here during the great divide???
> 
> Can they claim the same??



Of course the people who decided to move and live in Pakistan can claim its heritage, just as an immigrant to America who moves there and becomes a naturalised citizen can claim Thomas Jefferson and George Washington as his own. 

And people who migrated away if they feel they are part of the IVC aka Geographic Pakistan they are welcome to feel part of our distinct civilization


----------



## SpArK

@Rafi- I Am still waiting for ur answer.



> what about the millions of people who travelled from here to there and from there to here during the great divide???
> 
> Can they claim the same??



Their population might have increased many fold times from initial millions in 60+ years.. what will be their claim?


----------



## Rig Vedic

Rafi said:


> That is why they have their own country now, and we wish them the best of luck, it was partly because of cultural difference why there was a break up, and also due to indian treachery.
> 
> Indus Valley Civilization = Ancient Pakistan = Geographic Pakistan = Modern PAKISTAN



So, if majority of the population were not in the Indus valley, then what was the identity on the basis of which which Pakistan was demanded by Jinnah?


----------



## Kinetic

Rafi said:


> That is why they have their own country now, and we wish them the best of luck, it was partly because of cultural difference why there was a break up, and also due to indian treachery.
> 
> Indus Valley Civilization = Ancient Pakistan = Geographic Pakistan = Modern PAKISTAN



Just writing in big font's do make your words true. Learn the true meaning of Indus and India. There was nothing Pakistani before the partition as mentioned by many and they were Indians. Also Indus valley civilization extends to India as well with many sites in India... like Lothal and Kalibangan.


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Of course the people who decided to move and live in Pakistan can claim its heritage, just as an immigrant to America who moves there and becomes a naturalised citizen can claim Thomas Jefferson and George Washington as his own.
> 
> And people who migrated away if they feel they are part of the IVC aka Geographic Pakistan they are welcome to feel part of our distinct civilization



So we can assume there will be a lot of people here in India, who can claim that Indus valley civilisation is their's , as much like any person there.


----------



## Rafi

I do not understand the indian obsession with us, most Pakistanis are perfectly happy in their own skin, we know our past and present and have a clear idea of our future. We see no contradiction in loving the IVC and also loving MBQ, Babur, Gauri etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

BENNY said:


> So we can assume there will be a lot of people here in India, who can claim that Indus valley civilisation is their's , as much like any person there.



Only if they acknowledge that it is distinct and that it is Geographic Pakistan. No Pakistani claims bharat as its own.


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> I do not understand the indian obsession with us, most Pakistanis are perfectly happy in their own skin, we know our past and present and have a clear idea of our future. We see no contradiction in loving the IVC and also loving MBQ, Babur, Gauri etc.




Talk on the topic please..... obsession thread was closed earlier.


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Only if they acknowledge that it is distinct and that it is Geographic Pakistan. No Pakistani claims bharat as its own.



We dont claim the same too..

But the whole region was divided into subcultures and sub kingdoms.

It was never a single entity. the maps keep changing.


oops i forgot the flaggy

.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rig Vedic

Rafi said:


> I do not understand the indian obsession with us, most Pakistanis are perfectly happy in their own skin, we know our past and present and have a clear idea of our future. We see no contradiction in loving the IVC and also loving MBQ, Babur, Gauri etc.



All these invaders slaughtered millions of people and destroyed thousands of temples in the Indus Valley area. 

Finally, most of the people living there lost their religion.

By the way, you should definitely respond the question in post #325


----------



## Rafi

The Indus provides the key water resources for the economy of Pakistan - especially the Breadbasket of Punjab province, which accounts for most of the nation's agricultural production, and Sindh. The word Punjab is a \ word panj meaning Five, and &#257;b meaning Water, giving the literal meaning of the Land of the Five Rivers. The Five rivers after which Punjab is named are the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and the Sutlej. The river also supports many heavy industries and provides the main supply of potable water in Pakistan.

The Indus's name is Sindh, what does it have to do with a religion, it is a geographically based river, what does it have to do with your Ganges based country. LoL


----------



## Kinetic

Rafi said:


> I do not understand the indian obsession with us, most Pakistanis are perfectly happy in their own skin, we know our past and present and have a clear idea of our future. We see no contradiction in loving the IVC and also loving MBQ, Babur, Gauri etc.



Reply to my post if you can. Its not obsession but you claim something that belongs to us as well. 

Watch the video....

YouTube - 1 - Najam Sethi Special 2010.11.02


----------



## Rafi

BENNY said:


> We dont claim the same too..
> 
> But the whole region was divided into subcultures and sub kingdoms.
> 
> It was never a single entity. the maps keep changing.
> 
> 
> oops i forgot the flaggy
> 
> .



Thanks for the flaggy buddy, respect you for that  

How can someone living in Kerala - claim the Indus Valley it is beyond me, there was no cultural similarity Punjabis, Kashmiris Pashtoon, Baluchi, Hazara have about much in common with someone from Kerala as we have with the French. LoL


----------



## riju78

Rafi said:


> The Indus provides the key water resources for the economy of Pakistan - especially the Breadbasket of Punjab province, which accounts for most of the nation's agricultural production, and Sindh. The word Punjab is a \ word panj meaning Five, and &#257;b meaning Water, giving the literal meaning of the Land of the Five Rivers. The Five rivers after which Punjab is named are the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and the Sutlej. The river also supports many heavy industries and provides the main supply of potable water in Pakistan.



if u read a bit down after the above lines in wiki u will see this

The name Indus is used in Arrian's Indica for the mighty river crossed by Alexander, based on Nearchus's contemporaneous account. "Indus" is a Hellenic derivative of the Iranian Hindu, in turn derived from Sindhu, the name of the Indus in the Rigveda. The Sanskrit Sindhu generically means river, stream, ocean, probably from a root sidh meaning to keep off; Sindhu is attested 176 times in the Rigveda, 95 times in the plural, more often used in the generic meaning. Already in the Rigveda, notably in the later hymns, the meaning of the word is narrowed to refer to the Indus river in particular, for example in the list of rivers of the Nadistuti sukta. This resulted in the anomaly of a river with masculine gender: all other Rigvedic rivers are female, not just grammatically, being imagined as goddesses and compared to cows and mares yielding milk and butter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Kinetic said:


> Reply to my post if you can. Its not obsession but you claim something that belongs to us.
> 
> Watch the video....
> 
> YouTube - 1 - Najam Sethi Special 2010.11.02



It is not yours, it is in our country so it is ours just as French man could want London to be French, but that would not change the fact that London was English, will remain English and always will be English. 

And regarding Mr Sethi, I could put up a vid with Miss Roy - what does that prove, don't be naughty.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Thanks for the flaggy buddy, respect you for that
> 
> How can someone living in Kerala - claim the Indus Valley it is beyond me, there was no cultural similarity Punjabis, Kashmiris Pashtoon, Baluchi, Hazara have about much in common with someone from Kerala as we have with the French. LoL



oops .. where in my post have i claimed IVC??

I said its shared by both in a particular geographical area in north india and the present day pakistan.. 

These people did not stay there if you know some history they migrated and grew as time passed by and spread since there was no visa controls.

*A civilisation is not a particular place, but the people involved* ( thats a basic factor) .. the culture is not confined to a particular place, it spreads with the spread of the population or the people involved.

I dont know how much you will understand that simple factor..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

Regarding the name - just because ideas go from one geographic area to another does not mean that both those areas are part of the same civilization, if Penicillin is discovered in one place, and that knowledge is taken to another, it does not make those two distinct place one and the same.


----------



## ajtr

It was one of the skirmish against the balochi tribes i think Alexander suffered life threatenig wounds while returning back and due to which he died later on.


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Regarding the name - just because ideas go from one geographic area to another does not mean that both those areas are part of the same civilization, if Penicillin is discovered in one place, and that knowledge is taken to another, it does not make those two distinct place one and the same.



Dude civilisation does nt mean a place or a geographical area..

And its not idea.. its the people itself..

Its a culture.. not confined to the area.. i think u dont understand the actual term.. 

You must have heard the term "be more civilised" in this forum itself.. 
It doesnt refer to a place, but a behavior or pattern..

Read some books that is relavant or maybe history lessons to rightly undertstand the meaning of the word "civilisation".

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rafi

Bro the fact that the IVC is distinct is a fact, it can only be claimed by the specific people who live there. History has shown us that though populations have migrated, there has never been such a massive migration that the people who live on the soil, move in entirety, so modern Pakistanis by genetics are the builders of IVC - QED we are the only people entitled to call it ours. 

I'm sure there are some great things in Kerala - those are yours, me and majority of Pakistani would not dream of co-opting that history as it has nothing to do with us, hope that answers your question


----------



## Rafi

This photograph symbolises what I am trying to say.

IVC = Ancient Pakistan = Geographic Pakistan = Modern Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Bro the fact that the IVC is distinct is a fact, it can only be claimed by the specific people who live there. History has shown us that though populations have migrated, there has never been such a massive migration that the people who live on the soil, move in entirety, so modern Pakistanis by genetics are the builders of IVC - QED we are the only people entitled to call it ours.
> 
> I'm sure there are some great things in Kerala - those are yours, me and majority of Pakistani would not dream of co-opting that history as it has nothing to do with us, hope that answers your question



Ok let me transform into Kindergarden mode now:

Suppose a group of people from Mohanjadaro decides to move from that place to a better place and build a settlement.

Question number:1

What is their civilisation?

Is it called a new name??

Are the two sites of Mohanjadaro and Harappa the only places of Indus valley civilisation?


Any person with brains can assume that only a few thousands people existed at these sites at that time of the age.. Its not was a huge population or anything.. People moved and established settlements during the course of age..


Your claim is nothing but pure fanboy stuff.. use the commonsense more.

We @ Kerala has got nothing to do with IVC. We shifted from artic due to polar bear shortages.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## karan.1970

Rafi said:


> This photograph symbolises what I am trying to say.
> 
> IVC = Ancient Pakistan = Geographic Pakistan = Modern Pakistan



I think this one is more clear about hte facts

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> This photograph symbolises what I am trying to say.
> 
> IVC = Ancient Pakistan = Geographic Pakistan = Modern Pakistan



Ok that is just a place/settlement inside modern day pakistan.

does this small settlement or place had the boundaries of thousands of kilometres??/

Heck, at that age not even kingdoms existed.


----------



## Rafi

Baba is not confused - he know's who he is, just as the vast majority of Pakistanis do, we are at one with IVC, our ancestors, MBQ, Babur, Gauri, Abdali etc.


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Baba is not confused - he know's who he is, just as the vast majority of Pakistanis do, we are at one with IVC, our ancestors, MBQ, Babur, Gauri, Abdali etc.



Is this guy part of civilisation??

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Rafi

BENNY said:


> Ok let me transform into Kindergarden mode now:
> 
> Suppose a group of people from Mohanjadaro decides to move from that place to a better place and build a settlement.
> 
> Question number:1
> 
> What is their civilisation?
> 
> Is it called a new name??
> 
> Are the two sites of Mohanjadaro and Harappa the only places of Indus valley civilisation?
> 
> 
> Any person with brains can assume that only a few thousands people existed at these sites at that time of the age.. Its not was a huge population or anything.. People moved and established settlements during the course of age..
> 
> 
> Your claim is nothing but pure fanboy stuff.. use the commonsense more.
> 
> We @ Kerala has got nothing to do with IVC. We shifted from artic due to polar bear shortages.



Show some respect benny, when you resort to insults it shows the bankrupt nature of your argument.


----------



## Mirza Jatt

Rafi said:


> Bro the fact that the IVC is distinct is a fact, it can only be claimed by the specific people who live there. History has shown us that though populations have migrated, there has never been such a massive migration that the people who live on the soil, move in entirety, so modern Pakistanis by genetics are the builders of IVC - QED we are the only people entitled to call it ours.
> 
> I'm sure there are some great things in Kerala - those are yours, me and majority of Pakistani would not dream of co-opting that history as it has nothing to do with us, hope that answers your question



Indus valley was not pakistani nor Indian civilisation...it was definitely part of the large India....your claim that the modern day pakistanis by genetics are the builders of IVC, thn I wont say its wrong..but saying it was eentirely and only yours, is where I disagree.

*Indus valley civilisation spread to a very large area...it went down southwards where it had third most important city after harappa and Mohenjedaro..."Lothal"..that is in present day Gujarat...the IVC spread westwards across rajasthan and Gujarat.* 

a simple wiki pic should help.






*EDIT : Karan 1970 beat me to the post.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## riju78

Rafi said:


> The Indus's name is Sindh, what does it have to do with a religion, it is a geographically based river, what does it have to do with your Ganges based country. LoL



if u have some time please read this too...
Rigvedic rivers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there is no harming in learning something new every day!


----------



## Rafi

karan.1970 said:


> I think this one is more clear about hte facts



That map actually reinforces my argument Thanks mate  It proves my contention that IVC included all of Pakistan, but only small parts of other geographic civilizations. I was actually looking for it.


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Show some respect benny, when you resort to insults it shows the bankrupt nature of your argument.



i am just arguing on ur point.

Civilisation, the term has been used to refers to human cultures which are more complex in terms of technology, politics and division of labour.

So basically all thing which are part of it has changed..

Now dont tell me you are following the same technology, politics and division of labour of 2500 BC.


----------



## The HBS Guy

BENNY said:


> Is this guy part of civilisation??



Look carefully! It is a wax model of a Baba who lived 5000 years ago kept at Madame Tussauds. You can even see guards around the statue with their hands folded.

@ Topic: Rafi I did not get your point, how does this Baba being patriotic Pakistani reinforce your assertion?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## riju78

KingKong31 said:


> @ Topic: Rafi I did not get your point, how does this Baba being patriotic Pakistani reinforce your assertion?



i was going to ask the same question.. 
so if the british decided to divide india along a different line could indians have claimed ivc??
come on rafi...


----------



## Rafi

The Persians are the ones who named this river as well as the name Punjab, wow you learn something new everyday. And the sheer amount of indians coming on this thread to argue with me, about something that belongs to Pakistanis shows your fanatical obsession with Pakistan and all things Pakistani, bring it on guys 

IVC = Ancient Pakistan = Geographic Pakistan = Modern Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> The Persians are the ones who named this river as well as the name Punjab, wow you learn something new everyday. *And the sheer amount of indians coming on this thread to argue with me, about something that belongs to Pakistanis shows your fanatical obsession with Pakistan and all things Pakistani, bring it on guys *
> 
> IVC = Ancient Pakistan = Geographic Pakistan = Modern Pakistan



Ok guys lets just leave the thread , so that he can believe what he think without any counter arguments.

OK Indus Valley *Civilisation* = a old *place *called ancient pakistan= modern Pakistan


----------



## Rafi

BENNY said:


> i am just arguing on ur point.
> 
> Civilisation, the term has been used to refers to human cultures which are more complex in terms of technology, politics and division of labour.
> 
> So basically all thing which are part of it has changed..
> 
> Now dont tell me you are following the same technology, politics and division of labour of 2500 BC.



No because the people who built that civilization are still living in that geographic area, so there forefathers are responsible for it. For modern indians to claim IVC is the same as me claiming the Pyramids as part of my civilization, you can be proud of the IVC as part of the human story, but it is not yours as your forefathers have no genetic link to it.


----------



## justanobserver

BENNY said:


> OK Indus Valley Civilisation = a old place called ancient pakistan= modern Pakistan



And somehow East Pakistan fitted into it too


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> No because the people who built that civilization are still living in that geographic area, so there forefathers are responsible for it. For modern indians to claim IVC is the same as me claiming the Pyramids as part of my civilization, you can be proud of the IVC as part of the human story, but it is not yours as your forefathers have no genetic link to it.



Forefathers of lot of people elsewhere used to live there too.. 

So u are basically saying the* few people* who have started to settle in that place never travelled or moved and all *people around it or maybe far just fallen from sky. *

Ok i prefer to talk to someone who knows what he is saying. so  bye bye...


----------



## Rafi

BENNY said:


> Ok guys lets just leave the thread , so that he can believe what he think without any counter arguments.
> 
> OK Indus Valley *Civilisation* = a old *place *called ancient pakistan= modern Pakistan



Benny my friend - no hard feelings - it is something we believe in passionately, it has no negative connotations, I'm sure bharat too has its wondrous history, and I don't claim, and have no right to claim it, just as modern indian's have no right or claim on the IVC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

BENNY said:


> Forefathers of lot of people elsewhere used to live there too..
> 
> So u are basically saying the* few people* who have started to settle in that place never travelled or moved and all *people around it or maybe far just fallen from sky. *
> 
> Ok i prefer to talk to someone who knows what he is saying. so  bye bye...



I also prefer to talk to someone who has an idea about human migration and culture  which I am afraid you have no concept of.


----------



## Rafi

Jhelum is a part of the country where many people join the Defence Forces of Pakistan, so it could be that the descendants of the people who fought Alexander are the one and the same as the new generation willing to fight and die against india. Wow


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Benny my friend - no hard feelings - it is something we believe in passionately, it has no negative connotations, I'm sure bharat too has its wondrous history, and I don't claim, and have no right to claim it, just as modern indian's have no right or claim on the IVC.



ok just one more question, how many people still stays in the old ruins of mohanjadaro and harappa now??

Do u have any record as to decline if i say they moved during the course of history to other places?

yes indeed a settlement of IVC can be found in modern Indias gujarat too..just like 2 settlements of mohanjadaro and harappa in present day Pakistan.

Come on dude.. did those people ever knew there were other people , do they have any idea about the concept of nation? ..

be more sensible.. think what they thought at those days.. there were no internet or newspapers.. just few people moving around in jungles and hunting for food and settling near river banks to cultivate grains...


----------



## Rafi

indiandream267 said:


> hmm.. so do u agree with the fact that all the islamic invaders were marauding gangsters who killed and raped ure ancestors..??



Mate you have Pakistani flags on your id, but you are an indian, you probably have sort of psychiatric issue.


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Jhelum is a part of the country where many people join the Defence Forces of Pakistan, so it could be that the descendants of the people who fought Alexander are the one and the same as the new generation willing to fight and die against india. Wow



yup.. 5000 years old civilisation decendants joining defence force in modern age is the proof.

Ok buddy.. time for me to go...i had enough of BS.


----------



## The HBS Guy

*@Indiandream:* Wrong flags!


----------



## Kinetic

Rafi said:


> It is not yours, it is in our country so it is ours just as French man could want London to be French, but that would not change the fact that London was English, will remain English and always will be English.



Thats what we are saying you a French take over England and rename it to France but that doesn't change the thousand years of history of England. Its same for Indus valley civilization that was Indian and doesn't change the fact if most of the part is in Pakistan now. 

You didn't reply that there was no question of Pakistan much before the partition but now you claim different!!! 



> And regarding Mr Sethi, I could put up a vid with Miss Roy - what does that prove, don't be naughty.



Does you have any video of Roy regarding Indus valley civilization?? D*oes Mr Sethi hates Pakistan like Roy hates India??? Than how can you compare???* I see he quite supports Pakistan and QEA Jinnah but want to correct the lies which you study in your text books and that is quite reflected in your views. 

Here it is given what was India for thousand of years and can you differentiate the region????

http://ancientvoice.wdfiles.com/local--files/images/EpicIndiaCities.jpg

*There is no point of talking further as you seems already made your mind with the views that Mr. Sethi wanted to correct. *


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Mate you have Pakistani flags on your id, but you are an indian, you probably have sort of psychiatric issue.



he is from Lothal settlement of present day gujarat of the IVC.. 

so i think flag is okay.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## karan.1970

Rafi said:


> That map actually reinforces my argument Thanks mate  It proves my contention that IVC included all of Pakistan, but only small parts of other geographic civilizations. I was actually looking for it.



Glad I could help.. 

Another way to look at is that more than 50% of the area in the map is outside Pakistan . So you could lay a coalition claim to the civilization but you dont have absolute majority 

Just having fun...


----------



## Rafi

It's all good my original contention remains the same.

IVC = Ancient Pakistan = Geographic Pakistan = Modern Pakistan.

Names change but the people remain the same, that is why when Julius Caesar conquered France at that time it was called Gaul, and why the French people feel kinship with Vercingetorix even though he had no idea of what France is. 

It is because the French DNA is the same as the people of the Gaul - and the people who live in Jhelum have lived there for millennia, and their ancestors fought Alexander so valiantly, their descendants are ready to fight and kill enemies of Pakistan, as that district contributes heavily to PA recruitment

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

Modern india has no right to IVC as modern Pakistanis have no right to bharat we are 2 distinct civilizations.

This book explains, without religion there was a glaring difference. 

The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books

Synopsis
Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age. It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

The Glorious History of Our Motherland

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

This was one of the oldest cities on earth built by our forefathers of the IVC - makes me proud, of their strength bravery and ingenuity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## indiandream267

Rafi said:


> The Glorious History of Our Motherland



exactly, the glorious history of our motherland , India, that was looted and decimated by the barbaric marauding invaders.


----------



## indiandream267

Rafi said:


> Modern india has no right to IVC as modern Pakistanis have no right to bharat we are 2 distinct civilizations.
> 
> This book explains, without religion there was a glaring difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Synopsis
> Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age. It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.



hahaha... i think this is tenth time when ure giving link to this book, its hilarious.


----------



## UnitedPak

*Benny and other Indian members.*

Please dont troll and stick to the topic. Name calling and mocking is against the rules.

Imo people here are completely missing the point. There is no such thing as any "ancient nation". The ancient history of a region becomes part of the history of the people. You can Google ancient Britain, ancient Scotland, or any other region. These nations did not exist in ancient times but the term refers to their ancient past.

Indian members are arguing a lot of contradicting points so please elaborate more:
Some are arguing that Pakistanis have no history or ancestry before 1947
Some say Pakistanis cannot claim both Islamic and non Islamic history
Some say Pakistanis can claim all history, but its shared

Lets make one thing clear: An empire is defined by the fact that it encompasses multiple nations. You cannot define India as something that encompasses multiple empires and kingdoms nonstop for all of time. This is obviously a definition for the *subcontinent*, which in no way belongs to India.

Pakistanis have every right to reclaim their ancient history and refer to it by the correct names like IVC, Gandhara kingdom. We dont recognise the imaginary India that encompasses multiple empires and kingdoms at every point in time. You are claiming Indian subcontinent history on the basis of your modern name. This is flawed logic. If Pakistan renames to Asia it doesnt mean we can claim all Asian history, even if we are part of Asia.

We dont deny shared history like Mauryan empire and British Raj. These are legit examples of a common past, but when you have IVC and other smaller kingdoms based _mostly_ in Pakistan, they cannot in any way be Indian.

Remember that Pakistan stands for, *P*unjab, *A*fghania, *K*ashmir, *S*indh and Baluchis*tan*. The history of these regions is the history of Pakistan. Yes there are overlaps as in any case and we dont deny them, but since these regions and their history belongs mostly to our people, we can, and will call it Ancient Pakistan.

Pakistani identity and history is not in question. We are 100% confident in this matter. But Indian members need to elaborate why they consider all the subcontinents history and identity part of their modern nation.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rafi

We are the eternal people, what was is ours, what is now is ours, what in the future on this land will be ours....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## indiandream267

Rafi said:


> This was one of the oldest cities on earth built by our forefathers of the IVC - makes me proud, of their strength bravery and ingenuity.



Exactly, This was one of the oldest cities on earth built by our forefathers, who worshipped lord Shiva, but unfortunately satanic invaders destroyed the peaceful land of our ancestors.


----------



## Rafi

United Pak you have explained my point much more eloquently than me, I salute you bruv.


----------



## indiandream267

the great bangladeshi Group Captain. Saiful Azam, who shot down Israeli jet on his own.
i dont know why many people call him pakistani..??


----------



## Rafi

indian dream or nightmare, you are a troll, if you can not hold a discussion like a civilized human being, it is better not to take part.


----------



## Rafi

indiandream267 said:


> the great bangladeshi Group Captain. Saiful Azam, who shot down Israeli jet on his own.
> i dont know why many people call him pakistani..??



Mate you need help, *because he was fighting for the Armed Forces of Pakistan ???????*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## indiandream267

Mr. unitedpak, i dont what is so confusing to u here.
it is very simple.
either ure the dissendants of the invaders who killed ure and mine ancestors here, or ure not.
reading the history that is taught in ure books, and the mind of a average pakistani who believes that their forefathers came from outside and ruled the dirty natives here.

so would u accept here, that ghaznis and ghauris were inavders and not ure forefathers..??
if no, then u have no claim on anything historical of that soil.


----------



## indiandream267

Rafi said:


> Mate you need help, *because he was fighting for the Armed Forces of Pakistan ???????*



so going by ure own logic, porus was also fighting for Inda. the land of his forefathers, where the hell has this pakistan come into picture here ?


----------



## Rafi

indiandream267 said:


> Mr. unitedpak, i dont what is so confusing to u here.
> it is very simple.
> either ure the dissendants of the invaders who killed ure and mine ancestors here, or ure not.
> reading the history that is taught in ure books, and the mind of a average pakistani who believes that their forefathers came from outside and ruled the dirty natives here.
> 
> so would u accept here, that ghaznis and ghauris were inavders and not ure forefathers..??
> if no, then u have no claim on anything historical of that soil.



We are both, our ancestors became part of the new civilization, you will find that the famous Rajput Janjua, fought Timur, but when they converted to Islam, they helped Timur's descendant Babur to conquer South Asia.


----------



## Rafi

indiandream267 said:


> so going by ure own logic, porus was also fighting for Inda. the land of his forefathers, where the hell has this pakistan come into picture here ?



No because there was no such as modern india at that point, he was fighting for his Jhelum, which part of ancient and geographic Pakistan.


----------



## indiandream267

Rafi said:


> We are both, our ancestors became part of the new civilization, you will find that the famous Rajput Janjua, fought Timur, but when they converted to Islam, they helped Timur's descendant Babur to conquer South Asia.



so u accept that your ancestors were beaten, thrashed, raped and forcefully converted by the invaders..??
then how can u glorfy such criminals who killed ure own ancestors, by naming ure weapons on thier names ?


----------



## indiandream267

Rafi said:


> No because there was no such as modern india at that point, he was fighting for his Jhelum, which part of ancient and geographic Pakistan.



hahahaha... modern india ..?? vat is modern india..??
there was ancient india at that time.
and he was fighting for his motherland, 

Porus, the great son of this great land, India.


----------



## Rafi

indiandream267 said:


> so u accept that your ancestors were beaten, thrashed, raped and forcefully converted by the invaders..??
> then how can u glorfy such criminals who killed ure own ancestors, by naming ure weapons on thier names ?



Because conquerors need to keep the population to establish economies to tax and keep rich, once the initial takeover occurred, very quickly the people with the help of Sufi's reverted to this new great world religion. After that they provided troops and resources to the new rulers and intermarried with them, so they can claim them as their own. 

That is why IVC is ours and MBQ, Babur, Ghauri, is ours also.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

indiandream267 said:


> Mr. unitedpak, i dont what is so confusing to u here.
> it is very simple.
> either ure the dissendants of the invaders who killed ure and mine ancestors here, or ure not.
> reading the history that is taught in ure books, and the mind of a average pakistani who believes that their forefathers came from outside and ruled the dirty natives here.
> 
> so would u accept here, that ghaznis and ghauris were inavders and not ure forefathers..??
> if no, then u have no claim on anything historical of that soil.



Invaders come and go, integrate or leave. There might be some descendants of the invaders but they have never replaced any population in Pakistan. Our roots are deep in the land where we have always lived. You cannot generalise an entire nation like this. Yes, some foreigners are honoured because of what they introduced, which you have every right to protest.

I also do not appreciate when you refer to "other Pakistanis saying this or that". There are plenty of Pakistanis in this thread you can listen to and debate with.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

Porus is from Jhelum, people from that area, would laugh in your face, if you called him that. In point of fact Porus himself would have no concept in being indian, he would understand about what it was to be from the Indus Civilization, which is totally different and separate from the bharat Ganges based civilization.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SnIPeR Xr

GodlessBastard said:


> I have a question for Pakistanis, and this is meant to be honest and with no ill intentions.
> 
> What do Pakistanis consider to be THEIR history? For much of its pre-Islamic history "Pakistan" was ruled by powerful Hindu empires, like the Nandas, Mauryas, Guptas, Palas, etc.
> 
> Do you feel proud of that history, even though they were not Islamic?.



Mauryas Mauryas Mauryas.

Why you Indians are continously talking about Maurya empire.

Why you people are trying to show that Maurya empire belongs to modern India.

Do you people even know what was mauryan Empire and *when did it extended towards the modern day Pakistan.*

*Being a hindu empire does not make Mauryan empire a Modern days Indian empire.*


Dont forget that We ancient Pakistanis too were hindus at that time.

And now we dont belong to modern india.

You Indians are trying so hard to prove that a hindu means Indian.

The fact is that we ancient Pakistani hindus belongs to the IVC which is now part of Modern Pakistan.


But the question is when did the Mauryan empire extended towards the modern Pakistan.Inhabited by Ancient Pakistani hindus???

The answer is that it extended in period of ASHOKA.

*now how does Ashoka's conquering of Ancient Pakistan shows any Hindu Dominancy when occupied ones too were Hindus????*
Putting this aside the Real fact is that

*Was Ashoka a Hindu or not*

The answer is that he converted towards the Bhuddism
He was a Budhist at that time. 



> Ashoka went into Ujjain and in the ensuing battle was injured, but his generals quelled the uprising. Ashoka was treated in hiding so that loyalists of the Susima group could not harm him. *He was treated by Buddhist monks and nuns. This is where he first learned the teachings of the Buddha, and it is also where he met Devi, who was his personal nurse and the daughter of a merchant from adjacent Vidisha. After recovering, he married her. It was quite unacceptable to Bindusara that one of his sons should marry a Buddhist, so he did not allow Ashoka to stay in Pataliputra but instead sent him back to Ujjain and made him the governor of Ujjain.*
> Ashoka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



First of all conquest of an Hindu land by Hindu people does not show any religious dominancy.

But Ashoka was not even a hindu he was a budhist and as written in the link he married the Buhddist girl devi and Bindusara for his being a budhist and marrying a budhist girl didnt allowed him to stay in a Hindu empire of Maurya.

After conquering Kalinga a budhism dominated empire,he was known for his devotion to the budhism religion.

So how Modern Indian hindus can claim that they conquered our hindu ancestors of Modern Pakistan.
What is a point Of Modern India'as hindu's dominancy here.

Actually those are Bhuddists of Eastern India who can claim that they conquered the Ancient Pakistan.

And that was not even ancient Pakistan.the Maurya empire was spread across the burma,Bangladesh,Bhutan and nepal and Indian states of TamilNadu/south India.

If Ancient Pakistan was conquered by them then Modern South india was also conquered by them.

*But does it means that in ancient times The modern Bangladesh,Burma,Bhutan,Nepal and India Collectively Attacked the modern Pakistan,Afghanistan and Iran ???* 

SO All those states should talk about their dominancy that they attacked Pakistan.Iran and Afghanistan.

What a flawed theory this is.




> If not, when what do Pakistanis consider to be THEIR history? (I am talking pre-1947 of course)



Our history starts 5000 years ago when first person in IV and also in whole of south asia started to live.Our history starts from his life on IV.

But if you want to know our part of History in Maurya empire context then that history is that our ancestors specially in the part of city of ancient TAKSHILA(now Taxila) were part of Maurya empire.
They were ruled by Chandragupta Maurya.

Our ancestors uphealed a Rebel against Maurya Rule During the period of ashoka.

Maurya Emperor Bindusara sent Ashoka to Quell the Uprising of our Ancesters in the Takshila and he done it so well.




> Judging by names of Pakistani weapons, their seems to be a great affection for Central Asian/Turkic/Afghan history, even though those cultures have little in common with the native (Hindu) culture of the land now called "Pakistan".



Thats why a discussion about this is going on Pakistan defence forum.
And Its a right of Pakistani's to discuss it.

Your Expert opinion like the above one is not needed.



> And keep in mind that "Hindu" is not just a religious term, but more accurately a cultural term, and for three thousand years the region now called "Pakistan" has been part of the Hindu cultural sphere.



Hinduism itself is not a culture but Indian hindus calls the indian culture related to hinduism as A hindu Culture.

This is wrong and it implies only for hindus living in India..

But what about those hindus who dont live in india??\


> Hinduism, its religious doctrines, traditions and observances are very typical and inextricably linked to the culture and demographics of India.
> Hindu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





> *A form of Hinduism particularly different from Indian roots and traditions is practiced in Bali, Indonesia,* where Hindus form 90% of the population.


----------



## indiandream267

UnitedPak said:


> Invaders come and go. The integrate and leave. *There might be some descendants of the invaders but they have never replaced any population in Pakistan.* Our roots are deep in the land where we have always lived. You cannot generalise an entire nation like this. Yes, some foreigners are honoured because of what they introduced, which you have every right to protest.
> 
> I also do not appreciate when you refer to "other Pakistanis saying this or that". There are plenty of Pakistanis in this thread you can listen to and debate with.



nopes sir, ure wrong here.
when ure country counts the invaders of their of thier land as thier national hero, when all the weapons are named after the same criminals who killed our own forefathers, u cannot come out of anywhere and say, our ancestors belong to this land.

invaders are invaders, they killed ure ancestors, and when u glorify them, then ure actually insulting ure own forefathers.


----------



## Rafi

Map showing Ancient Pakistans trade links

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

We and Porus, are not indian, never have been and will never be - ask modern Jhelumi's how they feel about india, they are proud that they join Pak Army and fight bharatis who are the eternal enemy of the Indus people ie Pakistanis


----------



## indiandream267

Rafi said:


> We and Porus, are not indian, never have been and will never be - ask modern Jhelumi's how they feel about india, they are proud that they join Pak Army and fight bharatis who are the eternal enemy of the Indus people ie Pakistanis



haha.. what is this jhelum jhelum...??
Porus and his forfathers ruled and lived on this land called India or Bharatvarsh.
if he was alive today, he would be proud to be called a Indian.


----------



## TARIQ BN ZIYAAD

assalam alaikum
Ppl on both sides have a lot of energy 

TARIQ


----------



## Rafi

indiandream267 said:


> dont get emotional here.
> its very simple.
> if someone killed my forefathers, and misbehaved my mother, i would *never* glorify such a criminal, forget about accepting his customs and religion.



That is just propaganda, people conquer so they can gain, if they raped and murdered people there is no gain in it. We willingly converted to a true and superior belief system, the great missionary movement of the Sufi's are responsible for this conversion, that is why they are loved to this day.


----------

