# Alexander the Great/ Mauryans/ Graeco-Bactrians



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

This series, 'Historical Background of Pakistan and its People', is written by Ahmed Abdulla and edited by K. Hasan.

----

PART-1: Historical Background of Pakistan and its People/Rarely part of India/IVC

PART-2: Coming of the Aryans/ Persian Rule

PART-4: THE SAKAS (SCYTHIANS) / KUSHANS/ HEPHTHALITES (WHITE HUNS)

----

PART-3

ALEXANDER'S INVASION







Western historians have tried to extol the cultural aspects of Alexander's invasion and to exaggerate the extent of its impact on the East. The truth of the matter is that he was a destroyer of civilizations and in this respect was no better than Changez or Hulagu. *[**This disputed claim is only the authors' opinion**]* He annihilated the greatest civilization of the time flourishing in Persia under the Achaemenians, effaced the finest cultural monuments erected by the great monarchs of that dynasty and by setting fire to the capital city of Persepolis and several other towns and cities, left Iran desolate and deserted. *It took Iran more than six centuries to revive and resuscitate itself from the devastation wrought by Alexander's armies.* Iran rose again and regained its lost power and prestige under the Sassanians in the 3rd century A.D. In Pakistan also Alexander and his forces carried out large-scale massacres. In lower Sind alone 80,000 people are said to have been put to the sword and innumerable men and women sold as slaves. (Early History of India, By V.A. Smith)

Since Alexander was determined to reach the eastern-most limits of the Persian Empire he could not resist the temptation to conquer Pakistan, which at this time was parceled out into small chieftain- ships, who were feudatories of the Persian Empire. Alexander *entered Pakistan from the northern route at Swat* but was given a tough fight by the local forces in which he himself is said to have been injured. Next, he reached Indus which was crossed at a place called Ohind, fifteen miles above Attock. The first local ruler he encountered was that of Taxila, *Raja Ambhi*, with his territories lying between Indus and Jhelum. This raja, because of the geographical position of his kingdom, kept himself well informed of developments across Indus and beyond, and was shrewd and pragmatic in his approach. Having received the information that the Achaemenian Emperor Darius III was ignominiously defeated by Alexander and that entire Iran had been over-run and devastated by his armies, Ambhi considered it prudent to conclude peace with the Greek dictator. *Alexander was extended a glorious welcome at Taxila* where he stayed for some time and held discussions with the learned people of the city. He was so pleased with the raja that he confirmed the latter as ruler of the area and gave him costly presents.






Further east, however, Alexander's advance was halted by the famous *Raja Poru*s who *inflicted considerable losses on the Greek forces*. Porus was the ruler of territories east of *Jhelum*. The local armies fought valiantly and but for some tactical mistakes might have won the war. In spite of the defeat, *Porus was confirmed as ruler in his principality in recognition of his prowess and patriotism*. Moreover, Alexander did not want to antagonise the local people and rulers in view of their potentialities and also in view of his own limited resources. "It is clear from classical accounts of Alexander's campaign that the Greeks were not unimpressed by what they saw in India (i.e. Sindhu or Indus Valley or Pakistan -- ancient India was in Pakistan region, not present day India). *They much admired the courage* of the Indian (Pakistani) troops, the *austerity* of the ascetics whom they met at Taxila and *the purity and simplicity of the tribes of the Punjab and Sind*. The Greeks were impressed by the ferocity with which the women of some of the Punjab tribes aided their menfolk in resisting Alexander." (The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham)

"The *Greeks* who were much *impressed* by the high stature of *the men in the Punjab* acknowledged that *in the art of war* they were far superior to the other nations by which Asia was at that time inhabited. The resolute opposition of Porus consequently was not to be despise." (The Oxford History of India, By V.A. Smith)

Alexander went up to the bank of the Beas somewhere near *Gurdaspur where his army, according to historians, refused to move further*. What- ever the immediate cause, by reaching Beas Alexander had almost touched the eastern-most frontier of the traditional boundaries of Pakistan and accomplished his mission. It was but logical that he should return. He came down through the entire length of Pakistan, crossed the Hub River near *Karachi* and departed for home dying on the way. It should not be overlooked that during his 10-month stay in Pakistan and during his movements from one end to the other he did not have smooth sailing. He had to fight small rulers almost everywhere in the N.W.F.P., Punjab and Sind. The Mallois of Mullistan *(Multan) inflicted considerable losses on his forces*.

*Alexander's invasion of this area and the extent of his journey again boldly highlight the fact that Pakistan's present boundaries were almost the same in those days*. From Hindu Kush, Dir and Swat to the banks of the Beas and down to Karachi - this entire area was *one single geographical, political and cultural bloc* under the suzerainty of the Persians. It will also be recalled that this was the same area as covered by the *Indus Valley Civilization* which continued to remain separate from India through the ages. Alexander's halt and return from the bank of the Beas is not without significance in this context. "The sphere of Persian influence in these early times can hardly have reached beyond the realm of the Indus and its affluents. We may assume, accordingly, that when Alexander reached the river Hyphasis, the ancient vipac, and modern Beas, and was then forced by his generals and soldiers to start upon his retreat, he had touched the *extreme limits of the Persian dominion* over which he had triumphed throughout." (The Cambridge History of India, Vol.1, Edited by E.J. Rapson)






The redeeming feature of this period that stands out distinctly is that *Pakistan, again, was NOT a part of India and was affiliated to a western power.* We have seen that whether during (a)* the Indus Valley Civilization 3000 B.C. - 1500 B.C.* or (b) during the period of* Aryan settlement 1500 B.C. - 1000 B.C.* or (c) during the half a millennium period after *further Aryan migrations eastward 1000 B.C. - 500 B.C.* or (d) during its affiliation with the *Achaemenian Empire 500 - 325 B.C.*, Pakistan was all along a separate entity having nothing to do with India. The period covered by these four chapters of its history is from *3000 B.C. to 325 B.C*., i.e., about *two thousand seven hundred years.*

The immediate impact of Alexander's invasion on Pakistan was faint and inconsequential. The long-term and indirect effects, however, were of considerable importance which shall be discussed at a later stage. Here we shall pick up the thread of political history and follow the destiny of this area immediately after Alexander's departure. 

----

UNDER THE MAURYAN EMPIRE

Alexander's invasion had a two-fold political effect: By crushing the Achaemenian Empire it loosened the already feeble control of the Persians over Pakistan; and by creating a *power vacuum* in this area it encouraged, for the first time in history, *intrusion by India into Pakistan.* Fortunately for India, at this opportune moment a *man from Punjab, Chandragupta Maurya*, was able to set up a strong government in the Gangetic Valley which extended its sway over most of northern India. Alexander's successor Seleucus who had yet to grid his loins and muster his forces after the Dictator's sudden and unexpected demise, was prevailed upon by diplomacy to *cede Pakistan to Chandragupta peacefully*, avoiding the sufferings of war whose outcome seemed uncertain to him. Pakistan, as such, became a part of India's Maurya Empire in 300 BC without war. *This was the first time in history that Pakistan was looking eastward and the first time it had become part of India and ruled by India.* But strangely indeed, shortly afterwards, the third Mauryan Emperor, Asoka, became* Buddhist* and Pakistan did not have to smart under Hinduism for long. Though incorporated in the Indian Empire, Pakistan escaped Hindu rule. Under Asoka's missionary activities she adopted Buddhism and was to *remain largely Buddhist* till the arrival of Muslims.






Mauryan rule, however, *did not last long*. *Pakistan's ties with India were severed barely a hundred years later in about 200 BC* when the *Greek King Demetrius**,* already in control of the areas beyond Hindu Kush with his capital at Bactria (*Balkh* in northern Afghanistan), pounced upon Pakistan at the very first opportunity. Within a few years (190-180 BC) Demetrius took over a considerable portion of the Indus basin. This ushered in the golden period of *Graeco-Bactrians who had their capital in Taxila*. This new state also embraced almost the whole of present day Pakistan within its eastern boundary extending up to Sutlej; had an independent existance and again looked westward having hardly anything to do with India. The greatest Graeco-Bactrian king was Menander who was a Buddhist and ruled from 160-140 BC. 

----

GRAECO-BACTRIAN RULE






Since Alexander's invasion, a number of *Greek families* had settled down in various parts of Pakistan and had made sizeable contribution to *art and architecture, science and medicine* during Mauryan period. "That during this period there were several foreign communities living in northwestern sub-continent can be established from India's own literary records. Asoka refers to his *Yavana* (Greek) subjects. He seems to have employed Greek nobles in the service of the state" (Studies in Indian history, By K.M. Pannikar). With the establishment of Greek rule, arts and sciences received fresh and vigorous impetus and *Taxila, their capital, became one of the greatest centres of learning*. Scholars from all over the world flocked here to acquire knowledge. "From now on the Yavanas are mentioned from time to time in Southasian literature. Through the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom western theories of astrology and medicine began to enter Southasia and perhaps the development of the Sanskrit drama was in part inspired from this source. *One of the Greek kings of the Punjab* is specially remembered by Buddhism as *the patron of the philosopher- monk Nagasena*; this was *Milinda (Menander)* whose long discussions with the sage are recorded in a well-known Pali text, the Questions of Milinda. Menander is said to have become a Buddhist" (The wonder that was India, By K.M. Bhasham). "In this area (Pakistan) which came to be known in Buddhist books as Uddiyana, Asoka's missionary activities seem to have borne fruit and soon it became one of the *classic centres of Buddhism*" (Studies in Indian history, by K.M. Pannikar). Sind was also under the jurisdiction of the Bactrian rulers. "*It is probable that both Apollodidus and his successor Menander ruled over Sind for a hundred years" *(The Imperial Gaztteer of India, Vol XXII). In the ancient and early Indian sources we find reference to cities built by the rulers of the Graeco-Bactrian states in the basin of the Indus Delta.






"The expansive policy of Bactria's Hellenistic rulers, who had conquered more peoples than Alexander himself, resulted in the establishment in the north-western part of the sub-continent, of the so-called *Indo-Greek Kingdom stretching from Kashmir to the coast of the Arabian Sea*. According to Strabon's testimony, the Indo-Greek kings in the south possessed the lower reaches of the Indus and the Saurashtra. The most powerful of them was Menander (mid-second century B.C.) a master of sea ports, mines, cities and custom-houses" (The Peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky).

"It is Hellenism that became the ideological form and justification of this process under the concrete historical conditions existing in the northwestern part of the subcontinent in the middle of the later half of the first millennium B.C. This was largely due to the *age-old political as well as economic ties between the territories of the Indus Basin and the countries of Western Asia.* These ties became especially strong after Alexander the Great's campaign and reached their climax (in the antiquity) at the turn of our era. The local aristocracy, as G.F. Ilian points out, "seems to have been gravitating more to the countries west and north west of Taxila than to the countries to the south of it, both economically and, by tradition, politically. This is attested, among other things by the *numerous rebellion raised here against Mauryan rule*.

"At the same time the Milindapanha (1,2) describes the *West Punjab as "the country of the Yonana,"* because in the time of Menander the Hellenized members of the local aristocracy and the *descendants of the Graeco-Macedonian invaders constituted here the ruling substratum of slave owning society*.






"The top of society harboured the *Greek language*: by the testimony of Philostratus Fraotes, King of Taxila (the latter half of the first century A.D.) spoke Greek fluently. It is in Greek, as Strabon states, that the message of the Indus (Pakistan) King Por to the Roman Emperor Augustus (27 B.C. to A.D. 14) was composed. Some scholars hold that Greek was fostered as a living tongue at the court of the Saka rulers in North-West sub-continent (i.e. Pakistan).

"The northern Southasian contingents supplied by Alexander the Great and his successors into their armies seem to have become hellenized much earlier than other sections of the population. *Indigenous troops were armed with Macedonian weapons and trained by Macedonian methods.* Hellenization worked on the offspring of *intermarriages* between Macedonian soldiers and Asiatic women, as well as on the population of numerous cities founded or re-built by the Graeco-Macedonian invaders. These cities were populated with Graeco-Macedonian soldiers unable for further service and with local dwellers. Thus according to Diodorus, Alexander recruited 10,000 peoples to inhabit a city he had founded in the Lower Indus. Seleucus Nicator carried on town construction too; he built many towns all over his vast kingdom, including "*Alexandropolis in the land of the Indus*" (The Peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky).

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

@Taimoor Khan @Hakikat ve Hikmet @Indus Pakistan @Pakhtoon yum @M. Sarmad @313ghazi @OsmanAli98 @PAKISTANFOREVER @TMA @Muslimrenaissance @lastofthepatriots @DESERT FIGHTER @Great Janjua @Yaseen1 @Skyliner @Sher Shah Awan @Proudpakistaniguy @War Thunder @Talwar e Pakistan @Itachi @Taimur Khurram

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> @Taimoor Khan @Hakikat ve Hikmet @Indus Pakistan @Pakhtoon yum @M. Sarmad @313ghazi @OsmanAli98 @PAKISTANFOREVER @TMA @Muslimrenaissance @lastofthepatriots @DESERT FIGHTER @Great Janjua @Yaseen1 @Skyliner @Sher Shah Awan @Proudpakistaniguy @War Thunder @Talwar e Pakistan @Itachi @Taimur Khurram


Thank you for tagging me. I will take delight from reading this later in the evening. But from the quick scan I can see the author is not scared of using 'Pakistan' in historical context. This is a pet peev of mine and any article that does this anoys but to no limit. Besides anything else if people don't use 'Pakistan' they are at worse negating it';s existence to struggling to come to terms with it's existence and at best have guilt complex about it. This suggests deep inferiority complex and has to be faced in a robust manner or it will always remain so.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## kris

Article was talking about two non existing nation's nation's of that time- India and Pakistan


----------



## Agnihotra

Mauryans were real deal, i am personally a fanboy of Chandragupta the great and Chanakya who were badass in their timeline, not only they took ragtag nomads and tribals of North and West India and built an Army of their own but also defeated India's largest Empire at that time but also forged a new dynasty that united all of Bharatvarsh under their rule.

later when one of the best general of Alexander who ruled Persia, Turkey, Levent, Central Asia and Afghanistan attacked their Empire to fulfill the goal of India under greek rule, not only they kicked Selucid back to Iran but also took Afghanistan and astern Iran as a price and his own daughter Helena as a trophy wife to add insult to injury.

this same helena gave birth to the 2nd Mauryan Emperor "Bindusara" who conquered Rajasthan, Gujarat and Most of Deccan for Mauryan Empire.

they were mightiest Emperors of India,from original Kshatriya Bloodline.

Mauryan empire under Chandragupta,





Empire under his son Bindusara





the emblem of Mauryan Empire (lion) and Dynasty(Moreya/peacock)








@padamchen @Nilgiri @ranjeet

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Corona

Is it just me or does this article read like a kid trying to list victories and loses to see who stacks up better?
"*Pakistan, as such, became a part of India's Maurya Empire in 300 BC without war.","Pakistan was looking eastward and the first time it had become part of India and ruled by India. ", "Pakistan did not have to smart under Hinduism for long*. ",,"*Though incorporated in the Indian Empire, Pakistan escaped Hindu rule.* "
Yeesh...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> According to Strabon's testimony, the Indo-Greek kings in the south possessed the lower reaches of the Indus and the Saurashtra. The most powerful of them was Menander (mid-second century B.C.) a master of sea ports, mines, cities and custom-houses" (The Peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky).
> 
> "It is Hellenism that became the ideological form and justification of this process under the concrete historical conditions existing in the northwestern part of the subcontinent in the middle of the later half of the first millennium B.C. This was largely due to the *age-old political as well as economic ties between the territories of the Indus Basin and the countries of Western Asia.* These ties became especially strong after Alexander the Great's campaign and reached their climax (in the antiquity) at the turn of our era. The local aristocracy, as G.F. Ilian points out, "seems to have been gravitating more to the countries west and north west of Taxila than to the countries to the south of it, both economically and, by tradition, politically. This is attested, among other things by the *numerous rebellion raised here against Mauryan rule*.
> 
> "At the same time the Milindapanha (1,2) describes the *West Punjab as "the country of the Yonana,"* because in the time of Menander the Hellenized members of the local aristocracy and the *descendants of the Graeco-Macedonian invaders constituted here the ruling substratum of slave owning society*.



Thanks for the tag. Interesting once again to look at the history of Pakistan and its peoples. I found the above very interesting, as some historiographers consider Awans to be the remnants of Bactrian Greeks, and the above geographical description matches areas where Awans once held sway. Whatever the case, all of this history belongs to all Pakistanis. And those pesky no bodies who constantly steal other peoples histories to feel good about themselves should have some shame.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Agnihotra said:


> Mauryans were real deal, i am personally a fanboy of Chandragupta the great and Chanakya who were badass in their timeline, not only they took ragtag nomads and tribals of North and West India and built an Army of their own but also defeated India's largest Empire at that time but also forged a new dynasty that united all of Bharatvarsh under their rule.
> 
> later when one of the best general of Alexander who ruled Persia, Turkey, Levent, Central Asia and Afghanistan attacked their Empire to fulfill the goal of India under greek rule, not only they kicked Selucid back to Iran but also took Afghanistan and astern Iran as a price and his own daughter Helena as a trophy wife to add insult to injury.
> 
> this same helena gave birth to the 2nd Mauryan Emperor "Bindusara" who conquered Rajasthan, Gujarat and Most of Deccan for Mauryan Empire.
> 
> they were mightiest Emperors of India,from original Kshatriya Bloodline.
> 
> Mauryan empire under Chandragupta,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empire under his son Bindusara
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the emblem of Mauryan Empire (lion) and Dynasty(Moreya/peacock)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @padamchen @Nilgiri @ranjeet



Maurya Empire was a big influence on India, but only ruled the Pakistan region for a hundred years.

The bigger influence on Pakistan in this period were the Greek states which ruled Pakistan.

You are welcome to open a thread on Indian history to discuss the Mauryans’ impact on India.

I want to keep this thread focused on Pakistani history.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

kris said:


> Article was talking about two non existing nation's nation's of that time- India and Pakistan



Nations, in the Westphalian sense, yes, cultures and geographical areas, no.

It is a common mistake to assume that India was then the Indus Valley. It is now a mistake assiduously promoted by those who recognise the urgent need for Pakistan to acquire a creation myth, and to be able to point to its existence from ancient times. We have seen the effects of a brilliant mind devoted to this back-story, when @Indus Pakistan coined the ingenious phrase 'co-terminous Pakistan'. That actually means nothing but Pakistan as it should have existed in the past to entitle Pakistanis to claim a coherent identity in the past, when the very focussed and topical need for that nation to exist had never been thought about.

Unfortunately, that wise man's efforts have been taken up by the less wise, and the result is a constant hail-storm of half-baked claims and brags and boasts by the less equipped. 

Most of this is sunken by two facts that stubbornly refuse to go away: the extent of the Indus Valley Civilisation shows clearly that it was not only not confined to the Indus Valley, some of its greatest achievements and creations were outside; further, that its cultural remainders were to be found where the survivors had left the crippled and dying culture and taken refuge in the second urban growth in India (I use this term deliberately here, for reasons that will be mentioned later) in the Yamuna-Ganges Valley. Ironically, the Yamuna might very well have nourished a successor civilisation both culturally and physically; besides the lost trail of the Harkara or Ghaggar, that khaki chaddis habitually claim as the original Saraswati, the Yamuna in its earlier path might have flowed into the Indus, and might well have had been a major contributor to the fertility that first promoted the IVC; its capture by the Ganges eco-system might well have been a major factor behind the desiccation of the rich hinterland of the IVC. The second factor is the testimony of the ambassador of the Greeks, of the Seleucids, to be precise, the closest of the Diadochi to India, that he visited the court of the Mauryas at Pataliputra, alas, never any part of co-terminous Pakistan, in his book on his visit and his experiences named Indika. Not Biharika; not Gangetika; not Prasipolis; not Icthyophagetica; Indika. 

The sub-continent was never a single coherent mass, not once in its history, not during the earlier empires, whether Maurya or Gupta, not under the Sultanate, not under the Mughals, not under the British, but was always a series of local, river cultures that resembled each neighbour on either side most, and whose neighbours in turn shared characteristics with its own neighbours, similarly. The nine river basins, the Ganga, the Brahmaputra, the Mahanadi, the Godavari, the Krishna, the Kaveri, the Tungabhadra, the Narmada and the Indus, in strictly clockwise order, were the formative elements in India's cultural life, and not the tribes and coalitions of horse-mounted brutes who swept in from time to time and brutalised the frontiers until the next succeeding wave swept in in their own turn and did to their predecessors what their predecessors had done at their own time of success.

I admire and applaud the brilliant effort of Indus Pakistan at knitting the diverse elements of Pakistani society today into some sort of cohesive previous history. It is a sad reflection on the insecurity of a nation-state that it has to devote the talents of its wise to creating a history that never existed, and an even sadder reflection that those who embrace this vision do not have the learning or the discernment to distinguish this from the plaster idols that were earlier worshipped.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## T-123456

Indus Pakistan said:


> *inferiority complex*


A deficiency of most people of the region.
''Skin whitening'' is the best example,black Africans dont care but you(the regions people) do.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pakistani E

T-123456 said:


> A deficiency of most people of the region.
> ''Skin whitening'' is the best example,black Africans dont care but you(the regions people) do.



Skin whitening creams are also very famous in several African countries. I see no difference between skin whitening creams and tanning booths/sprays used by White Europeans.

It seems as if darker people want to be white, and white people want to be darker. Humans are never happy it seems.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## newb3e

just started this documentary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

@Joe Shearer

In this era, all sorts of information are readily and instantly available, but some people still believe that 'myths' can be created and propagated easily.

More funny than sad, I would say...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-123456

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Skin whitening creams are also very famous in several African countries. I see no difference between skin whitening creams and tanning booths/sprays used by White Europeans.
> 
> It seems as if darker people want to be white, and white people want to be darker. Humans are never happy it seems.


You dont?
The difference is that one side has a psychological problem with his/her skin colour,wants to be ''white'' forever,thats why the creams and bleeching,while the other side likes a tan which happens every summer anyway. So,its nothing new for the white person,no complex at all.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

T-123456 said:


> ,black Africans dont care


I don't think you have been exposed to this species. They will reconfigure everything. Artificial straight hair, skin lightening, nose re-engineering. Just look at Micheal Jackson before and after pictures.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pakistani E

T-123456 said:


> You dont?
> The difference is that one side has a psychological problem with his/her skin colour,wants to be ''white'' forever,thats why the creams and bleeching,while the other side likes a tan which happens every summer anyway. So,its nothing new for the white person,no complex at all.



Nope. I had the fortune of being around a large number of White Europeans, especially women, who wish to be dark. Not just for summer, they literally wish they were born darker, it's why they love the "Tall, dark and handsome" trope so much. They spend thousands on tanning booths, spend hours in the sun on holidays, and even get cancer in the process, just so they can be a shade darker. They proudly say we want to marry Black men so our children are "exotic looking" and not boring "Pale". I actually have a friend who always says she wishes she was born Turkish. Lol.

I didn't come away from it thinking it was just a fad. But my experience isn't an encompassing thing, so I may be wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Indus Pakistan

T-123456 said:


> You dont?
> The difference is that one side has a psychological problem with his/her skin colour,wants to be ''white'' forever,thats why the creams and bleeching,while the other side likes a tan which happens every summer anyway. So,its nothing new for the white person,no complex at all.


I would go with @Sher Shah Awan on this. While tan happens naturely every year and thus is a natural condition as much as a person turning darker as they get older which often happens to brown skinned people. This is most evident in Pakistani farmers or workers who toil away in the sunshine. Over decades they will get darker and this can be seen in differantiation in areas of skin covered up. Thus a person using the skin whitening cream to recreate his/her normative skin complexion is no differant from those who tan themselves to recreate their summer iterations.

However having said this, there is much 'abuse' if that is the right word for it. This happens on both sides of divide. I have seen white people [often women] who have *charred *[with potential skin damage/carcinoma] themselves to the point where they look ridicalous. Of course then you also have people who abuse the skin lightening by turning albinos. Thus both sides are apt to abuse although the skin lightening gets all the attention - I think because of the colonial legacy/history etc

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## T-123456

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Nope. I had the fortune of being around a large number of White Europeans, especially women, who wish to be dark. Not just for summer, they literally wish they were born darker, it's why they love the "Tall, dark and handsome" trope so much. They spend thousands on tanning booths, spend hours in the sun on holidays, and even get cancer in the process, just so they can be a shade darker. They proudly say we want to marry Black men so our children are "exotic looking" and not boring "Pale". I actually have a friend who always says she wishes she was born Turkish. Lol.
> 
> I didn't come away from it thinking it was just a fad. But my experience isn't an encompassing thing, so I may be wrong.


Maybe because they're British(to white/pink almost),especially Scotish women are extreme pinkish(if its a word).
In the Netherlands/Germany/Belgium triangle i never met the women you mentioned(i know manyyyyyy).
And about marrying black or Arab or even Turk,maybe 001%,its all Multi culti here but still,not like in GB.
Btw,never experienced any race issues.



Indus Pakistan said:


> This is most evident in Pakistani farmers or workers who toil away in the sunshine.


Why would a farmer or worker want to use a whitening cream,for what purpose?
See anything strange here?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Joe Shearer said:


> We have seen the effects of a brilliant mind


Joe, I take it you have had tiple or two fueling the burst of wax lyrical.



Joe Shearer said:


> the extent of the Indus Valley Civilisation shows clearly that it was not only not *confined *to the Indus Valley


No civilization that I know or very few were ever limited to specific boundaries or certainly not conforming to modern borders. However all had a pivot or *foci* from which point in irregular waves they spread out, gradually fading away on the edges. It was not like any had a precise border with a Trumpian wall.

Let's look at Ancient Egyptian civilization which had the Nile as it's foci [analogous to IVC having River Indus] but it spread south into modern Sudan and it's influence extended as far south as modern Eritrea and Somalia.


















https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_pyramids








In fact the Ancient Egytians civilizations spread out from it's foci and permeated south along the Nile to Sudan, Ethopia, Somalia, Eritrea etc. This has given fuel to *Afrocentrism* wherein Ancient Egypt is seen as a attempt by Europeans to undo a African civilization by corralling it to the mouth the Nile on the Mediteranean. In other words carving a African civilization into a region and branding it as 'Egyptian' or as a entirely separate entity from rest of the continent.

To my eyes I regard the Indian attempt at diffusing IVC into a sub-continental civilization [I term it Gangacentrism] no differant to Afrpcentrism. Both are attempts to diffuse a regional civilization to a wider geography. If some IVC sites lap over into Afghanistan or India this is no differant from AE sites spilling into Sudan,Ethopia,Eritrea, Somalia etc.

Indeed I would argue that IVC 'fits' into Pakistan far better then Ancient Egypt or even Ancient Greece do with the the modern states mostly associated with them - Egypt and Greece. Note. Macedonia, Turkey and even Albania lay claim to aspects of Ancient Greece. I digress but compared to the 'fit' of Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, IVC fits better in Pakistan. 93% of the Indus Valley is within Pakistan. The foci is Pakistan. One look at IVC on a map of India clearly shows that IVC is hanging on the edge with most of India distal. Whereas almost of all of Pakistan sits on the foci of IVC with no location being more then hundred mile from large OVC site.








T-123456 said:


> Why would a farmer or worker want to use a whitening cream,for what purpose?


That was a conspicious example to make my point. It's as obtuse as me asking why would somebody want to look like their summer iterations? And I must add here that people I have seen in UK who tan themselves [tan shops are everywhere] recreate a complexion that is not their normal summer tan but goes well beyond that. Or it would be the colour you would get by sprawling outside almost full on naked day after day in the summer. That is not natural.

And I must reiterate. Lying naked under intense tanning lights in a crazy looking contraption with eye shields, slowly being toasted is, all in a attempt to look like they have been living on sun drenched beaches of Mediteranean is far, far from natural.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## T-123456

Indus Pakistan said:


> That was a conspicious example to make my point. It's as obtuse as me asking why would somebody want to look like their summer iterations? And I must add here that people I have seen in UK who tan themselves [tan shops are everywhere] recreate a complexion that is not their normal summer tan but goes well beyond that. Or it would be the colour you would get by sprawling outside almost full on naked day after day in the summer. That is not natural.


Ok then,lets just say,all these people are nuts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

T-123456 said:


> Ok then,lets just say,all these people are nuts.


Yep. Okay. Crazy as it may sound but I have first hand experiance of a tanning shop. Few years ago we saw a commertial property on sale and I of course went to view the premises. It was being used a tanning shop. Trust me when I went in their the women [most were females] had this bemusd look like 'what the hell is he doing here'? I joked I had come for a tan. As I walked around what a sight. The most un-natural thing you can imagine. I swear it looked uncomforable if not excruciating punishment to be sat underneath those light sources. And some of the women were way darker then me. I shudder to think how many hours and risk of cancer they expose themselves all in a attempt to 'tan'.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Indus Pakistan said:


> In fact the Ancient Egytians civilizations spread out from it's foci and permeated south along the Nile to Sudan, Ethopia, Somalia, Eritrea etc. This has given fuel to *Afrocentrism* wherein Ancient Egypt is seen as a attempt by Europeans to undo a African civilization by corralling it to the mouth the Nile on the Mediteranean. In other words carving a African civilization into a region and branding it as 'Egyptian' or as a entirely separate entity from rest of the continent.
> 
> To my eyes I regard the Indian attempt at diffusing IVC into a sub-continental civilization [I term it Gangacentrism] no differant to Afrpcentrism. Both are attempts to diffuse a regional civilization to a wider geography. If some IVC sites lap over into Afghanistan or India this is no differant from AE sites spilling into Sudan,Ethopia,Eritrea, Somalia etc.
> 
> Indeed I would argue that IVC 'fits' into Pakistan far better then Ancient Egypt or even Ancient Greece do with the the modern states mostly associated with them - Egypt and Greece. Note. Macedonia, Turkey and even Albania lay claim to aspects of Ancient Greece. I digress but compared to the 'fit' of Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, IVC fits better in Pakistan. 93% of the Indus Valley is within Pakistan. The foci is Pakistan. One look at IVC on a map of India clearly shows that IVC is hanging on the edge with most of India distal. Whereas almost of all of Pakistan sits on the foci of IVC with no location being more then hundred mile from large OVC site.



 An Alien culture has no right to usurp our history.

Pakistan is the Indus River, and it is that tie which has bound us together as one civilization since prehistory.



T-123456 said:


> Ok then,lets just say,all these people are nuts.



Northern half of Pakistan like North Punjab, Kashmir, KPK, and parts of Balochistan are light-skinned. They also tend to live in colder environments and have more heritage from Afghanistan or Iran.



T-123456 said:


> A deficiency of most people of the region.
> ''Skin whitening'' is the best example,black Africans dont care but you(the regions people) do.



It is a holdover from British rule where white skin was idolized and deified, while dark was considered inferior.

Racially most Pakistanis have similar facial features regardless of skin or hair color, esp when compared to neighbors.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> An Alien culture has no right to usurp our history.
> 
> Pakistan is the Indus River, and it is that tie which has bound us together as one civilization since prehistory.


Very well said. IVC fits in Pakistan far better then the Nile civilization fits in Egypt. As I posted earlier it's influence went well south into deeper Africa. Which is why some people [many Afro-Americans] claim that civilization as 'African'. They call that Afrocentrism. Where a achievement on given space is claimed by the wider geography. That is Nile = wider Africa continent. This is no differant from Gangacentrism which is Indus = wider Indian sub-continent.

So the question begs why has modern Egypt been far more succesfull in owning, branding the Nile civilization as it's own and left Sudan and wider Africa out in the cold? Well in my opinion three reasons but before I cover them I want Pak members to note that modern Egyptians speak Arabic, write in Arabic script [much like Paks] and are Muslim [same as Paks] but you don't see that being used to question or sever their ownership of their heritage.Anyway back to the three reasons -


1. When most of the Nile civilization was dug up by European archeaologists Egypt was a semi-independent state. Thus as the dicoveries were made Egypt naturally took the credit and all literature describes it as such. This is in marked contast to IVC. When the first major sites were dug up the Raj was still in place and as such it was branded as 'Indian'. That stuck as most of the literature described the discoveries in 'India'.
2. Afrocentrism or the attempt by Africans to claim Nile as a wider African civilization has come mostly from Afro-Americans who have had to face latent racism. White supremists will do everything to prevent wider Africa to claim Nile and instead carve up lower Nile as a separate entity within the winder Mediteranean thus linking it to Europe. On the other hand Indian's in a desperate effort to garner some shine to their country have used IVC and not faced any major resistence.
3. Egypt has done everything to take pride in their heritage whereas Pakistan has ignored the glorious IVC leaving the Indians to take all.

But it's time to make amends. I hope to see millions of tourists one day tripping over Mohenjo Daro, Harappa and then heading north to Greek/Gandharan sites like Taxila/Sirkap. Pakistan should be known as cradle of civilization, location of one of most fantastic synthesis of Greek/Ancient Pakistan civilizations as can be seen in the exquisite artifacts in Peshawar and Taxila Museums.

Not as terrorist hub.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## VCheng

Joe Shearer said:


> It is a common mistake to assume that India was then the Indus Valley. It is now a mistake assiduously promoted by those who recognise the urgent need for Pakistan to acquire a creation myth, and to be able to point to its existence from ancient times. We have seen the effects of a brilliant mind devoted to this back-story, when @Indus Pakistan coined the ingenious phrase 'co-terminous Pakistan'. That actually means nothing but Pakistan as it should have existed in the past to entitle Pakistanis to claim a coherent identity in the past, when the very focussed and topical need for that nation to exist had never been thought about.
> 
> Unfortunately, that wise man's efforts have been taken up by the less wise, and the result is a constant hail-storm of half-baked claims and brags and boasts by the less equipped.



Trying to paint the surface of water a more preferred color just to suit one's whims is an exercise in futility, nothing more. 

(But it is fun to observe anyway.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

VCheng said:


> Trying to paint the surface of water a more preferred color just to suit one's whims is an exercise in futility, nothing more.
> 
> (But it is fun to observe anyway.)



You have anything to add about Alexander the Great and the Greek successor states?


----------



## VCheng

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> You have anything to add about Alexander the Great and the Greek successor states?



He was one of the greatest warriors and conquerors in human history, no doubt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> @Joe Shearer
> 
> In this era, all sorts of information are readily and instantly available, but some people still believe that 'myths' can be created and propagated easily.
> 
> More funny than sad, I would say...



We would appreciate your insight about the topic at hand, brother.


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

VCheng said:


> He was one of the greatest warriors and conquerors in human history, no doubt.



Persia and the Greek states had far more impact on Pakistan and its history at this time than the Ganges-related state (Mauryans.) Plus, Chandragupta Maurya was a Punjabi, so actually he was one of us (part of Indus civilization) as well. Asoka became Buddhist and revolted against Brahmanism. Later Mauryans were also heavily influenced by Greeks, which led to the blossoming of Graeco-Buddhist culture.

It is popular tactic by the West and Indian historians to refer to IVC and Greek-Buddhist capitals of Taxilla, Gandara as "ancient India," but not factual.

The difference becomes even more apparent later with the arrival of more Iranic nomads from Central Asia and the Tarim basin. That will be the topic next time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Persia and the Greek states had far more impact on Pakistan and its history at this time than the Ganges-related state (Mauryans.) Plus, Chandragupta Maurya was a Punjabi, so actually he was one of us (part of Indus civilization) as well. Asoka became Buddhist and revolted against Brahmanism. Later Mauryans were also heavily influenced by Greeks, which led to the blossoming of Graeco-Buddhist culture.
> 
> It is popular tactic by the West and Indian historians to refer to IVC and Greek-Buddhist capitals of Taxilla, Gandara as "ancient India," but not factual.
> 
> The difference becomes even more apparent later with the arrival of more Iranic nomads from Central Asia and the Tarim basin. That will be the topic next time.



Please do keep in mind that we also have a proud heritage from a thousand years of ruling over the majority of the Indian subcontinent too. Why give it up?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

Indus Pakistan said:


> Very well said. IVC fits in Pakistan far better then the Nile civilization fits in Egypt. As I posted earlier it's influence went well south into deeper Africa. Which is why some people [many Afro-Americans] claim that civilization as 'African'. They call that Afrocentrism. Where a achievement on given space is claimed by the wider geography. That is Nile = wider Africa continent. This is no differant from Gangacentrism which is Indus = wider Indian sub-continent.
> 
> So the question begs why has modern Egypt been far more succesfull in owning, branding the Nile civilization as it's own and left Sudan and wider Africa out in the cold? Well in my opinion three reasons but before I cover them I want Pak members to note that modern Egyptians speak Arabic, write in Arabic script [much like Paks] and are Muslim [same as Paks] but you don't see that being used to question or sever their ownership of their heritage.Anyway back to the three reasons -
> 
> 
> 1. When most of the Nile civilization was dug up by European archeaologists Egypt was a semi-independent state. Thus as the dicoveries were made Egypt naturally took the credit and all literature describes it as such. This is in marked contast to IVC. When the first major sites were dug up the Raj was still in place and as such it was branded as 'Indian'. That stuck as most of the literature described the discoveries in 'India'.
> 2. Afrocentrism or the attempt by Africans to claim Nile as a wider African civilization has come mostly from Afro-Americans who have had to face latent racism. White supremists will do everything to prevent wider Africa to claim Nile and instead carve up lower Nile as a separate entity within the winder Mediteranean thus linking it to Europe. On the other hand Indian's in a desperate effort to garner some shine to their country have used IVC and not faced any major resistence.
> 3. Egypt has done everything to take pride in their heritage whereas Pakistan has ignored the glorious IVC leaving the Indians to take all.
> 
> But it's time to make amends. I hope to see millions of tourists one day tripping over Mohenjo Daro, Harappa and then heading north to Greek/Gandharan sites like Taxila/Sirkap. Pakistan should be known as cradle of civilization, location of one of most fantastic synthesis of Greek/Ancient Pakistan civilizations as can be seen in the exquisite artifacts in Peshawar and Taxila Museums.
> 
> Not as terrorist hub.



That's where you're wrong:

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

VCheng said:


> Please do keep in mind that we also have a proud heritage from a thousand years of ruling over the majority of the Indian subcontinent too. Why give it up?



That will be discussed later on, brother.

We should embrace all of our heritage, yes, even the pagan one.

Do you ever see Arabs, Turks, Persians disown their pre-Islamic past? Neither should we.

Tourism, archaeological, and historical education potential for Pakistan is vast and underdeveloped.

We can promote this soft power to mend the negative image of Pakistan in the West and the rest of the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> That will be discussed later on, brother.
> 
> We should embrace all of our heritage, yes, even the pagan one.
> 
> Do you ever see Arabs, Turks, Persians disown their pre-Islamic past? Neither should we.
> 
> Tourism, archaeological, and historical education potential for Pakistan is vast and underdeveloped.
> 
> We can promote this soft power to mend the negative image of Pakistan in the West and the rest of the world.



I will wait for further discussion as you mention. I have been hearing of this potential that Pakistan has for decades and decades now. May one day some of it will actually come about?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

VCheng said:


> I will wait for further discussion as you mention. I have been hearing of this potential that Pakistan has for decades and decades now. May one day some of it will actually come about?



Ok, I will tag you then. Look forward to it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> We would appreciate your insight about the topic at hand, brother.



While notions of the past are generally flexible, and succeeding generations tend to rewrite and reinterpret history to achieve their desired goals, we really don't have to try to justify our existence as a modern Nation State by propounding _deliberately ahistorical history_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi,

The truth to the fact is that Alexander got his ar-se handed to him by Raja Porus---and escaped with his military---.

Possibly got killed by an arrow close to he city of Multan @ Tulamba and had his death hidden from the troops---till they reached boated down the river Indus to the arabian sea---.

Alexander never showed any kindness to a king that he defeated---his militaries looted and pillaged all their conquests----so givinh Porus his kingdom back is a fantasy story propagated by the greeks---.

Who would want to admit that the Great Alexander got killed at Tulamba after getting a hiding from raja Porus---no greek would admit to that---.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> While notions of the past are generally flexible, and succeeding generations tend to rewrite and reinterpret history to achieve their desired goals, we really don't have to try to justify our existence as a modern Nation State by propounding _deliberately ahistorical history_



Yes, I got it the first time that you disagree with the author.

Let’s discuss the topic shall we. Greek history of Pakistan is a very interesting topic, many Pakistanis don’t know much about it.

We need to promote our history among our people, not everything began with Muhammad bin Qasim RAA.



MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> The truth to the fact is that Alexander got his ar-se handed to him by Raja Porus---and escaped with his military---.
> 
> Possibly got killed by an arrow close to he city of Multan @ Tulamba and had his death hidden from the troops---till they reached boated down the river Indus to the arabian sea---.
> 
> Alexander never showed any kindness to a king that he defeated---his militaries looted and pillaged all their conquests----so givinh Porus his kingdom back is a fantasy story propagated by the greeks---.
> 
> Who would want to admit that the Great Alexander got killed at Tulamba after getting a hiding from raja Porus---no greek would admit to that---.



Check out this account of the battle by Greek historian Diodorus Siculus:

“_Some of the Macedonians were trodden under foot, armour and all, by the beasts and died, their bones crushed. Others were caught up by the elephants' trunks and, lifted on high, were dashed back down to the ground again, dying a fearful death. Many soldiers were pierced through by the tusks and died instantly, run through the whole body. Nevertheless the Macedonians faced the frightening experience manfully. They used their long spears to good effect against the Indians stationed beside the elephants, and kept the battle even. Then, as javelins began to find their marks in the sides of the great beasts and they felt the pains of the wounds, the Indian riders were no longer able to control their movements. The elephants veered and, no longer manageable, turned upon their own ranks and trampled friendly troops."_


----------



## Joe Shearer

Indus Pakistan said:


> Joe, I take it you have had tiple or two fueling the burst of wax lyrical.



LOL.

What I wrote was NOT due to the ingenious theory that is being bandied around now, although that too demonstrated the superiority of that mind; it was due to reading a paper sent to me privately (meaning, outside the forum) that nearly blew me away. Nothing original, just a methodical and painstaking ethnographic monograph that covered every relevant aspect of the situation and answered questions that had not yet been asked.



> No civilization that I know or very few were ever limited to specific boundaries or certainly not conforming to modern borders. However all had a pivot or *foci* from which point in irregular waves they spread out, gradually fading away on the edges. It was not like any had a precise border with a Trumpian wall.



Before going on to the excellent point that you make subsequently, inverting an existing situation to make your point, let me explain: my annoyance is to the jejune and thoroughly amateur note with which the thread started. If you read it and understand my objections, we shall make no more of it; however, if you believe, sight unseen, or after deliberate scrutiny, that it is defensible, I should like the opportunity to change your mind. Not the basic theme, not in the form that you had presented it, but in terms of what is now presented, and the ineptitude and bigotry of which it reeks.



> Let's look at Ancient Egyptian civilization which had the Nile as it's foci [analogous to IVC having River Indus] but it spread south into modern Sudan and it's influence extended as far south as modern Eritrea and Somalia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_pyramids
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact the Ancient Egytians civilizations spread out from it's foci and permeated south along the Nile to Sudan, Ethopia, Somalia, Eritrea etc. This has given fuel to *Afrocentrism* wherein Ancient Egypt is seen as a attempt by Europeans to undo a African civilization by corralling it to the mouth the Nile on the Mediteranean. In other words carving a African civilization into a region and branding it as 'Egyptian' or as a entirely separate entity from rest of the continent.



Your basic point about 'Afrocentrism' is well taken; I have been reading and viewing a lot of these speculations and the racism is palpable.

My point is quite different.

You mentioned that there are not usually precise physical boundaries of a culture or a civilisation; there are, instead, foci. It is these foci that determine the cultural centre, not necessarily geography; for one thing, as you point out, the geographical and the cultural features rarely coincide.

What I have to say is not a denial of what you see as the foci; it is a reminder of the slender logical thread on which the logical argument proceeds. 

It is mistaken to view the Indus River as the focus, and to visualise the IVC as having been locked into a tight embrace with that valley. 

THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THE RELATIVE AGE OF THE SETTLEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED. MOHENJODARO IS NOT THE OLDEST LOCATION; NEITHER WAS HARAPPA. THESE WERE THE SITES THAT WERE DISCOVERED FIRST.

Without denying the Pakistani perception, I would like to recommend very strongly a study of the archaeological evidence and a report on the history of Iron Age archaeological finds, not just in co-terminous Pakistan, but outside as well. This will show in stark terms the situation as it extended then.



> To my eyes I regard the Indian attempt at diffusing IVC into a sub-continental civilization [I term it Gangacentrism] no differant to Afrpcentrism. Both are attempts to diffuse a regional civilization to a wider geography. If some IVC sites lap over into Afghanistan or India this is no differant from AE sites spilling into Sudan,Ethopia,Eritrea, Somalia etc.



Not my tree, not my marking of my territory. The IVC was a unique civilisation and was never reproduced anywhere else on the sub-continent or elsewhere. It is NOT my claim that it was a sub-continental civilisation; not at all. 

That, again, was NOT my point. 



> Indeed I would argue that IVC 'fits' into Pakistan far better then Ancient Egypt or even Ancient Greece do with the the modern states mostly associated with them - Egypt and Greece. Note. Macedonia, Turkey and even Albania lay claim to aspects of Ancient Greece. I digress but compared to the 'fit' of Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, IVC fits better in Pakistan. 93% of the Indus Valley is within Pakistan. The foci is Pakistan. One look at IVC on a map of India clearly shows that IVC is hanging on the edge with most of India distal. Whereas almost of all of Pakistan sits on the foci of IVC with no location being more then hundred mile from large OVC site.



It is not necessary to deny that the IVC was co-terminous with Pakistan; your assertion that the IVC was indeed largely centred on the same geographical features of modern day Pakistan is noted, but there are very strong archaeological reasons to review our assumptions. It will diffuse focus to suddenly float alternative views of the IVC, and I would prefer that we stick to the current views for the duration of this argument.

Pakistan today is entirely centred on territories to which the IVC extended; the question is, was the IVC entirely centred on territories that constitute Pakistan today?

TO BE CONTINUED.



> That was a conspicious example to make my point. It's as obtuse as me asking why would somebody want to look like their summer iterations? And I must add here that people I have seen in UK who tan themselves [tan shops are everywhere] recreate a complexion that is not their normal summer tan but goes well beyond that. Or it would be the colour you would get by sprawling outside almost full on naked day after day in the summer. That is not natural.
> 
> And I must reiterate. Lying naked under intense tanning lights in a crazy looking contraption with eye shields, slowly being toasted is, all in a attempt to look like they have been living on sun drenched beaches of Mediteranean is far, far from natural.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## M. Sarmad

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Yes, I got it the first time that you disagree with the author.



It's not about disagreeing with the author (or the OP), this whole idea of propounding deliberately ahistorical history to justify our existence as a modern Nation State is essentially flawed.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Let’s discuss the topic shall we. Greek history of Pakistan is a very interesting topic, many Pakistanis don’t know much about it.



There is no Greek history of 'Pakistan'...
Pakistan is not (just) a geographical entity but an 'idea' formulated by twentieth-century *Indian* Muslims.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Persia and the Greek states had far more impact on Pakistan and its history at this time than the Ganges-related state (Mauryans.) Plus, Chandragupta Maurya was a Punjabi, so actually he was one of us (part of Indus civilization) as well.



Who told you that Chandragupta Maurya was a Punjabi?

The reason I wrote so vehemently was that the patriotic efforts of @Indus Pakistan unleashed a horde of ill-read enthusiasts who stretch his arguments to preposterous lengths, and also include all kinds of polemic intended to create additional history.

Please have the patience to go through the enormous amount of historical discussion that has taken place on the Mauryas and their antecedents before making ridiculous statements.



> Asoka became Buddhist and revolted against Brahmanism. Later Mauryans were also heavily influenced by Greeks, which led to the blossoming of Graeco-Buddhist culture.



There is not a shred of evidence for either Asoka rejecting Brahmanism, as you call it, or of the beliefs of the later Mauryans. Who were these later Mauryans that you refer to, btw?



> It is popular tactic by the West and Indian historians to refer to IVC and Greek-Buddhist capitals of Taxilla, Gandara as "ancient India," but not factual.
> 
> The difference becomes even more apparent later with the arrival of more Iranic nomads from Central Asia and the Tarim basin. That will be the topic next time.



I am sure it will. And I am sure that your unpopular tactics will earn you the credit for successfully re-writing history. It is illusions like these that have held back Pakistan, and Pakistanis. You may congratulate yourself on contributing further to the retardation of Pakistanis' learning about their authentic past, and promoting a synthetic version that will lead to everybody viewing you with the same barely-concealed mockery that people consider Sanghis and their bizarre attempts at re-writing history.



Sher Shah Awan said:


> That's where you're wrong:



Great cartoons. Unfortunately, the history it projects is also a Hollywood version.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## M. Sarmad

Jinnah fought tooth and nail that the name "India" should not be allotted to the Congress. He called the place 'Hindustan' until he lost. 

"History of India" is not the History of Hindustan or Republic of India, it's our common history

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Yes, I got it the first time that you disagree with the author.
> 
> Let’s discuss the topic shall we. Greek history of Pakistan is a very interesting topic, many Pakistanis don’t know much about it.
> 
> We need to promote our history among our people, not everything began with Muhammad bin Qasim RAA.
> 
> 
> 
> Check out this account of the battle by Greek historian Diodorus Siculus:
> 
> “_Some of the Macedonians were trodden under foot, armour and all, by the beasts and died, their bones crushed. Others were caught up by the elephants' trunks and, lifted on high, were dashed back down to the ground again, dying a fearful death. Many soldiers were pierced through by the tusks and died instantly, run through the whole body. Nevertheless the Macedonians faced the frightening experience manfully. They used their long spears to good effect against the Indians stationed beside the elephants, and kept the battle even. Then, as javelins began to find their marks in the sides of the great beasts and they felt the pains of the wounds, the Indian riders were no longer able to control their movements. The elephants veered and, no longer manageable, turned upon their own ranks and trampled friendly troops."_



Yes. Checked out. So what? The Greeks died in battle. That does not change the facts. Alexander won; an unpleasant truth, and to be numbered with those other unpleasant truths that modern-day Pakistani fan-boys refuse to accept. 

This victory of Porus over Alexander, or the moral victory of Porus over Alexander, is to be counted on par with the victory of Pakistan in Kashmir in 1948, with her victory over India in every battle in 1965, after fighting off Indian aggression and Indian audacity at resisting a full-scale invasion of territory held and administered by India, and the moral victory won in 1971, when only East Pakistan, with its disloyal hordes, resisted rape and mass slaughter and broke away, and West Pakistan remained intact. Have we overlooked anything? Oh yes, the victory of Kargil, when at the cost of a few hundred NLI dead bodies abandoned to the enemy, Pakistan proudly held on to Point 5353, the proudest part of the Kargil heights, and the superb display of fighting spirit during Operation Parakram, when the timid Indians were held to their boundaries by superior moral pressure, without spending a single bullet. 

It is not easy to keep hoping that Pakistanis will learn to accept reality as it is, rather than push and pull and distort everything, and finally say, as one latter-day keyboard hero did, that he had been tutored in school about the number of tanks involved in the Battle of Chawinda, and would prefer to stick to that rather than the authentic figures quoted by member Niaz. As he said, there is hardly anybody left today who fought at Chawinda, so who is to certify the truth? A powerful argument: nobody from the IVC is left alive today; who is to say that they did not build a National Monument to Pakistan then? Nobody is alive who knew the Mauryas; who is to say that they were not of robust Punjabi stock?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> It's not about disagreeing with the author (or the OP), this whole idea of propounding deliberately ahistorical history to justify our existence as a modern Nation State is essentially flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Greek history of 'Pakistan'...
> Pakistan is not (just) a geographical entity but an 'idea' formulated by twentieth-century Indian Muslims.



We are learning from the history inside our borders and the historical experiences of our blood ancestors.

We don’t claim any of India’s ancient sites, they should not do likewise to us.

Claiming origin from ancient cities and sites inhabited by another people is what I would call contrived.

The Indus region (Sappta Sindhu) has been an important part of human history, and will remain geographically and culturally distinct from Gangetic civilization, as it has been for most of its history.



M. Sarmad said:


> Jinnah fought tooth and nail that the name "India" should not be allotted to the Congress. He called the place 'Hindustan' until he lost.
> 
> "History of India" is not the History of Hindustan or Republic of India, it's our common history



That was 1947, it is now 2019. Names change, are appropriated, and gain new meaning.

Today, Pakistan and India mean two diametrically opposite and opposed civilizations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> We are learning from the history inside our borders and the historical experiences of our blood ancestors.



Our border with India (and even Afghanistan) is not natural, it did not even exist a few decades ago, and may very well become irrelevant (like the developed world) in the future. But here we are discussing several thousand years of Indian history (i.e. the common history of modern-day nation states of the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan). And as for our blood ancestors, I hope you do realize that many of us have Non-Muslim Indian forefathers who converted to Islam over time.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> That was 1947, it is now 2019. Names change, are appropriated, and gain new meaning.



Names change but the History does not.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> I hope you do realize that many of us have Non-Muslim Indian forefathers who converted to Islam over time.



Not Indian (in today’s context.) We have ancestors who were from IVC, Iranis, Huns, Mongols, Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Turks, and Afghans.

Let’s get back on the specific topic now.


----------



## M. Sarmad

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Not Indian (in today’s context.)


In the historical context, of course.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> We have ancestors from IVC, Iranis, Huns, Mongols, Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Turks, and Afghans.



From the IVC? elaborate, please
As for the Mongols, Arabs, Persians and Turks, they are not the ancestors of 'most' of us.


----------



## Joe Shearer

I will try to explain, @Indus Pakistan , why it seemed necessary to call a halt to the flood of rubbish coming from some of your acolytes who obviously haven't brought to the subject your own insight and erudition, but have simply used this topic as an opportunity to buttress very insecure personalities. Look, for instance, from the very populist account of the OP, at these examples; while you might well look at them as weaponry with which to defeat enemies of the cause and build up the concept of a transcendental Pakistan, a nation in embryo for three thousand years, others see them as gospel truth, as you intended all along. These observations are necessarily addressed to you; the canaille hardly matter:




Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> "It is clear from classical accounts of Alexander's campaign that the Greeks were not unimpressed by what they saw in India (i.e. Sindhu or Indus Valley or Pakistan -- ancient India was in Pakistan region, not present day India).



Ancient India was at least as far East as Pataliputra, as the account of Megasthenes, the Greek Ambassador to the Maurya court at Pataliputra, suggests; he named his book Indika, as I have already mentioned. I really dislike propaganda spread by the uneducated.

*



They much admired the courage

Click to expand...

*


> of the Indian (Pakistani) troops,



...as distinct from the cowardice of the dhoti-wearing poltroons across the Beas? How strange can this straining to achieve an identity get?



> ..the *austerity* of the ascetics whom they met at Taxila and *the purity and simplicity of the tribes of the Punjab and Sind*.



Is it your case, in saying these rather desperate things, that it was different in the rest of India? That only ascetics in Taxila were austere, that only the tribes of the Punjab and Sind were pure and simple? Is there any evidence for your statements, or is it just that you so desperately want to lay claim to heritage issues, some heritage, any heritage?



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> What- ever the immediate cause, by reaching Beas Alexander had almost touched the eastern-most frontier of the traditional boundaries of Pakistan and accomplished his mission. It was but logical that he should return. He came down through the entire length of Pakistan, crossed the Hub River near *Karachi* and departed for home dying on the way.



He set out for Babylon, reached Babylon and died there after a very short illness.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> *Alexander's invasion of this area and the extent of his journey again boldly highlight the fact that Pakistan's present boundaries were almost the same in those days*. From Hindu Kush, Dir and Swat to the banks of the Beas and down to Karachi - this entire area was *one single geographical, political and cultural bloc* under the suzerainty of the Persians.



What is the basis for this assertion? (I am not using the word 'bizarre' because repeated use devalues it; in examining this note, its use might have been continuous without remission).

Alexander went through the Persian provinces that existed, in his effort to pacify the eastern provinces, also in an effort to quell Bessus, the Satrap who had the Persian Emperor killed.

Starting east of the heartland, as amateur historians might consider it, the Achaemenid Empire had the following provinces:

Hyrcania
Partha
Dahae
Chorasmaea
Aria
Massagetae
Sogdia
Bactria
Drangiana
Arachosia
Amyrgoi
Gandhara
Sattagydia
Hindush
Gedrosia
What was the distinctive feature of these provinces that singled some out from the others that he also entered? Pointing out that some of these provinces are today part of Pakistan does not amount to proving that these same provinces were marked out for separate and differential treatment. If they were just six others or seven others without any distinction one from the other, how do we get a cultural and political entity out of a random list of provinces that the Macedonians entered? There were not even any Persian Satraps in these Satrapies; they were ruled by petty kings and princes and chieftains, who amounted to little more than the quarrelsome Thakurs of a later time.

The curious part is that we readily accept the Greek assertion that these were provinces under the Achaemenids, but when it comes to the Battle of Hydaspes, suddenly the same sources are found unreliable.

TO BE CONTINUED. Continued. 12 noon.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> It will also be recalled that this was the same area as covered by the *Indus Valley Civilization* which continued to remain separate from India through the ages. Alexander's halt and return from the bank of the Beas is not without significance in this context. "The sphere of Persian influence in these early times can hardly have reached beyond the realm of the Indus and its affluents.



What is THAT supposed to mean?

Does it mean that India had nothing to do with the Indus Valley Civilisation? If so, where did the founders come from? Or are you not aware in the first place, thereby setting yourself up for the disastrous question of who they were?
Did the former inhabitants of the IVC crumble into dust after the IVC declined and vanished? Was there a mass extinction, as happened to the Mastodon? Have you ever heard of Northern Grey Painted Ware? (Hint: It was the most martial among the shards of pottery found on ancient Indian sites).
The incursion of the Indo-Aryan speaking migrants occurred sometime between 1700 and 1500 BC. By then the IVC was already in terminal decline, and from the archaeological remains and carbon dating, it appears that the culture did not continue beyond 1300 BC. So what were the people here doing, between 1500 BC and 516 BC? 
This is why, @Indus Pakistan, I feel cheated by you; for all your superior learning and academic insight, in effect, you inflamed a mob of proto-historians (or are we looking at microlithic ethnographers, microlithic referring to the size of their tools?), and walked away, leaving the rest of us to cope with these.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> The redeeming feature of this period that stands out distinctly is that *Pakistan, again, was NOT a part of India and was affiliated to a western power.* We have seen that whether during (a)* the Indus Valley Civilization 3000 B.C. - 1500 B.C.* or (b) during the period of* Aryan settlement 1500 B.C. - 1000 B.C.* or (c) during the half a millennium period after *further Aryan migrations eastward 1000 B.C. - 500 B.C.* or (d) during its affiliation with the *Achaemenian Empire 500 - 325 B.C.*, Pakistan was all along a separate entity having nothing to do with India. The period covered by these four chapters of its history is from *3000 B.C. to 325 B.C*., i.e., about *two thousand seven hundred years.*



More home-made history, with about the same effects on the human nervous system as its Tennessee Valley moonshine counterpart.

The Indus Valley Civilisation was set up in the first place by a mixed people; even a cursory acquaintance of the current state of knowledge in genetics about the origins of the inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilisation will give robust rebuttals of the pseudo-history cited above.
The second period of urban growth was not restricted to the Ganges Valley; it extended all over India, other than Tamilakam (look it up, chelas). The cities and towns ruled over by petty rulers encountered during Alexander's campaign were set up precisely in this period, between 1500 BC and 500 BC and even longer after; Alexander happened along only in 326 BC. 
These are really ridiculous assertions, unfounded and unheard of before the need to prepare and present falsified family trees for the modern nation of Pakistan extending backwards into that distant past.

TO BE CONTINUED.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> The immediate impact of Alexander's invasion on Pakistan was faint and inconsequential.





Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Fortunately for India, at this opportune moment a *man from Punjab, Chandragupta Maurya*, was able to set up a strong government in the Gangetic Valley which extended its sway over most of northern India.





Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Alexander's successor Seleucus who had yet to grid his loins and muster his forces after the Dictator's sudden and unexpected demise, was prevailed upon by diplomacy to *cede Pakistan to Chandragupta peacefully*, avoiding the sufferings of war whose outcome seemed uncertain to him. Pakistan, as such, became a part of India's Maurya Empire in 300 BC without war. *This was the first time in history that Pakistan was looking eastward and the first time it had become part of India and ruled by India.* But strangely indeed, shortly afterwards, the third Mauryan Emperor, Asoka, became* Buddhist* and Pakistan did not have to smart under Hinduism for long. Though incorporated in the Indian Empire, Pakistan escaped Hindu rule. Under Asoka's missionary activities she adopted Buddhism and was to *remain largely Buddhist* till the arrival of Muslims.





Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> *Pakistan's ties with India were severed barely a hundred years later in about 200 BC* when the *Greek King Demetrius**,* already in control of the areas beyond Hindu Kush with his capital at Bactria (*Balkh* in northern Afghanistan), pounced upon Pakistan at the very first opportunity. Within a few years (190-180 BC) Demetrius took over a considerable portion of the Indus basin. This ushered in the golden period of *Graeco-Bactrians who had their capital in Taxila*. This new state also embraced almost the whole of present day Pakistan within its eastern boundary extending up to Sutlej; had an independent existance and again looked westward having hardly anything to do with India. The greatest Graeco-Bactrian king was Menander who was a Buddhist and ruled from 160-140 BC.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> From the IVC? elaborate, please
> As for the Mongols, Arabs, Persians and Turks, they are not the ancestors of 'most' of us.



Check the the first part of this series. That information is there.


----------



## M. Sarmad

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Check the the first part of this series. That information is there.



I am not interested in stupid propaganda articles, any reliable academic source to back up your assertion?


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Joe Shearer said:


> the flood of rubbish coming from some of your acolytes who obviously haven't brought to the subject your own insight and erudition, but have simply used this topic as an opportunity to buttress very insecure personalities.



@Dubious You told me not to call him a verbose troll as it might hurt his feelings, but he has been continuously attacking me in every thread.

How come you have tied my hands but are allowing him and @Nilgiri to keep attacking me with personal attacks?

I have stopped responding to him, but the Moderators need to do something about it.

I have many more threads to create about Pakistani history and would appreciate some support in preventing them from getting derailed by some Indian trolls by personal attacks and insults.

I appreciate you guys for your fair moderation, that is why I won’t be confronting said posters.



M. Sarmad said:


> I am not interested in stupid propaganda articles, any reliable academic source to back up your assertion?



For which assertion do you require a reliable academic source?

The author quotes research in the first part, check it out there. The link is in the OP.

Please keep all IVC related queries there, as the topics here are Alexander and the Greek states ruling the Pakistan region.


----------



## M. Sarmad

Joe Shearer said:


> I will try to explain, @Indus Pakistan , why it seemed necessary to call a halt to the flood of rubbish coming from some of your acolytes who obviously haven't brought to the subject your own insight and erudition, but have simply used this topic as an opportunity to buttress very insecure personalities. Look, for instance, from the very populist account of the OP, at these examples; while you might well look at them as weaponry with which to defeat enemies of the cause and build up the concept of a transcendental Pakistan, a nation in embryo for three thousand years, others see them as gospel truth, as you intended all along. These observations are necessarily addressed to you; the canaille hardly matter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ancient India was at least as far East as Pataliputra, as the account of Megasthenes, the Greek Ambassador to the Maurya court at Pataliputra, suggests; he named his book Indika, as I have already mentioned. I really dislike propaganda spread by the uneducated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...as distinct from the cowardice of the dhoti-wearing poltroons across the Beas? How strange can this straining to achieve an identity get?
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your case, in saying these rather desperate things, that it was different in the rest of India? That only ascetics in Taxila were austere, that only the tribes of the Punjab and Sind were pure and simple? Is there any evidence for your statements, or is it just that you so desperately want to lay claim to heritage issues, some heritage, any heritage?
> 
> 
> 
> He set out for Babylon, reached Babylon and died there after a very short illness.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the basis for this assertion? (I am not using the word 'bizarre' because repeated use devalues it; in examining this note, its use might have been continuous without remission).
> 
> Alexander went through the Persian provinces that existed, in his effort to pacify the eastern provinces, also in an effort to quell Bessus, the Satrap who had the Persian Emperor killed.
> 
> Starting east of the heartland, as amateur historians might consider it, the Achaemenid Empire had the following provinces:
> 
> Hyrcania
> Partha
> Dahae
> Chorasmaea
> Aria
> Massagetae
> Sogdia
> Bactria
> Drangiana
> Arachosia
> Amyrgoi
> Gandhara
> Sattagydia
> Hindush
> Gedrosia
> What was the distinctive feature of these provinces that singled some out from the others that he also entered? Pointing out that some of these provinces are today part of Pakistan does not amount to proving that these same provinces were marked out for separate and differential treatment. If they were just six others or seven others without any distinction one from the other, how do we get a cultural and political entity out of a random list of provinces that the Macedonians entered? There were not even any Persian Satraps in these Satrapies; they were ruled by petty kings and princes and chieftains, who amounted to little more than the quarrelsome Thakurs of a later time.
> 
> The curious part is that we readily accept the Greek assertion that these were provinces under the Achaemenids, but when it comes to the Battle of Hydaspes, suddenly the same sources are found unreliable.
> 
> TO BE CONTINUED.



It's really hard to reply to such kind of stupid ahistorical propaganda with as much patience and knowledge as you do.... Admirable



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> For which assertion do you require a reliable academic source?



That we have ancestors from IVC, and Mongols, Arabs, Persians, and Turks are the ancestors of 'most' of Pakistanis.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> That we have ancestors from IVC, and Mongols, Arabs, Persians, and Turks are the ancestors of 'most' of Pakistanis.



_The greater genetic similarity of Pakistani populations to those in the west than to eastern populations is illustrated by the fact that four of the five frequent haplogroups in Pakistan (haplogroups 1, 2, 3, and 9, which together make up 79% of the total population) are also frequent in western Asia and Europe._
_
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC447589/#!po=48.5294_

Here is a useful thread shared by our brother @Indus Priest King RIP - https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/genetic-map-of-pakistan.558317/

Both links detail the various origins of different ethnic groups in Pakistan.

Do check them out and get back to us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> _The greater genetic similarity of Pakistani populations to those in the west than to eastern populations is illustrated by the fact that four of the five frequent haplogroups in Pakistan (haplogroups 1, 2, 3, and 9, which together make up 79% of the total population) are also frequent in western Asia and Europe.
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC447589/#!po=48.5294_




From the link you yourself provided:

*Punjabi*-speaking individuals form the *majority* population of Pakistan, but they represent a complex admixture of ethnic castes and groups (Ibbetson 1883) *and are not analyzed here

*
As for Eastern and Western populations*:
*
Pakistani populations mostly cluster around a pooled South Asian sample and lie close to a Middle Eastern sample (fig. 2_A_). This finding is unsurprising, in part because the South Asian sample included 62 Pakistani individuals (i.e., 32% of 196 total) and in part because Y variation in many areas of the world is predominantly structured by geography, not by language or ethnic affiliation (Rosser et al. 2000; Zerjal et al. 2001). The greater genetic similarity of Pakistani populations to those in the west than to eastern populations is illustrated by the fact that four of the five frequent haplogroups in Pakistan (haplogroups 1, 2, 3, and 9, which together make up 79% of the total population) are also frequent in *western Asia and Europe* but not in *China or Japan*

===

And sorry, this report disproves your assertion. Even the Non-Punjabi Pakistanis do *not* have Greek or Syrian or other Middle Eastern (Jewish) ancestors.

*The Y data *support the well-established origin of the Parsis in Iran, the suggested descent of the Hazaras from Genghis Khan’s army, and the origin of the Negroid Makrani in Africa, *but do not support traditions of Tibetan, Syrian, Greek, or Jewish origins for other populations.*

=====

Did you even bother to read it (or the question I asked) yourself before posting it here?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

Joe Shearer said:


> Alexander went through the Persian provinces that existed, in his effort to pacify the eastern provinces, also in an effort to quell Bessus, the Satrap who had the Persian Emperor killed.



EPIChistoryTV did a good job covering Alexanders campaign including this part you mention.

Well worth a watch:






@M. Sarmad

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

I don't get why the brief Mauryan rule over the Indus region is so over-exaggerated. Their loose rule lasted less than a century and was marred by revolts.



T-123456 said:


> A deficiency of most people of the region.
> ''Skin whitening'' is the best example,black Africans dont care but you(the regions people) do.


"Whiteness" doesn't really have anything to do with superiority/inferiority as you guys see it in regards to Pakistan and varies greatly. 

Being lighter skinned meant that you did not work the fields, which is considered a sign of being wealthy and well-off. 

It depends on the gender as well. Being light-skinned among men can also be seen as being too feminine and you can often be picked on by others.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> @Dubious You told me not to call him a verbose troll as it might hurt his feelings, but he has been continuously attacking me in every thread.
> 
> How come you have tied my hands but are allowing him and @Nilgiri to keep attacking me with personal attacks?
> 
> I have stopped responding to him, but the Moderators need to do something about it.
> 
> I have many more threads to create about Pakistani history and would appreciate some support in preventing them from getting derailed by some Indian trolls by personal attacks and insults.
> 
> I appreciate you guys for your fair moderation, that is why I won’t be confronting said posters.







> For which assertion do you require a reliable academic source?
> 
> The author quotes research in the first part, check it out there. The link is in the OP.
> 
> Please keep all IVC related queries there, as the topics here are Alexander and the Greek states ruling the Pakistan region.



So - no reliable academic sources.

Perhaps because no reliable academic wants to be caught anywhere near these assertions. Who knows?



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> I don't get why the brief Mauryan rule over the Indus region is so over-exaggerated. Their loose rule lasted less than a century and was marred by revolts.



Loose rule? marred by revolts? Oh, sorry, I forgot; these are not to be questioned or authenticated.

BTW, did you eminent historians notice what happened _before_ 516 BC and _after_ the Mauryas? 





> "Whiteness" doesn't really have anything to do with superiority/inferiority as you guys see it in regards to Pakistan and varies greatly.
> 
> Being lighter skinned meant that you did not work the fields, which is considered a sign of being wealthy and well-off.
> 
> It depends on the gender as well. Being light-skinned among men can also be seen as being too feminine and you can often be picked on by others.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> Did you even bother to read it (or the question I asked) yourself before posting it here?



I said mixture. We do have Greek, Arab, and other mixing from the time they ruled us.

Yes, I did read my link. You can try to search as much as you wish to justify your rejection of our history. Not my problem.

Arain, the second largest Punjabi group, for example, are patrilineal Arabs.

Anyway, we are veering off topic.



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> I don't get why the brief Mauryan rule over the Indus region is so over-exaggerated. Their loose rule lasted less than a century and was marred by revolts.



Mauryans have been re-written by modern Indian revisionists as an Indian Hindu government striving for Akhand Bharata and Hindutva.

You have the Hindu right promoting Asoka as some great Hindu leader defeating Pakistanis and Afghans and conqueroring parts of Iran, etc.

Asoka was a staunch Buddhist and an enemy of Hinduism, in reality. Also, he and the other Mauryan rulers were heavily influenced by the Greeks whom they were fighting back and forth during this period.

They were not saviors and champions of Hinduism as Indian propaganda would like us to believe. Their rule over The Pakistan was transient and loose, as well.


----------



## M. Sarmad

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Arain, the second largest Punjabi group, for example, are patrilineal Arabs.



They are the third largest Pubjabi group and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the claim/assertion that they are patrilineal Arabs.




Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> I said mixture. We do have Greek, Arab, and other mixing from the time they ruled us.



Let me remind you that You tried to claim that the forefathers of Pakistanis were not Indians but IVC people, Arabs, Turks, Greeks, Mughals etc.




Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Yes, I did read my link. You can try to search as much as you wish to justify your rejection of our history. Not my problem.



No, you did not.
And it's you my friend who is rejecting our history (and spewing ahistorical propaganda instead).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> And it's you my friend who is rejecting history



Ok, man. You are an Indian, and we are all Pakistanis.

Have a good one.  Allah hafiz.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Ok, man. You are an Indian, and we are all Pakistanis.
> 
> Have a good one.  Allah hafiz.




Quite the contrary, you, my friend, are one confused Greco-Turco-Mongoloid Arab.
And I am a Pakistani, who knows his history, and who is proud of his roots and heritage.
Allah Hafiz.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> Let me remind you that You tried to claim that the forefathers of Pakistanis were not Indians but IVC people, Arabs, Turks, Greeks, Mughals etc.


Forefathers of Pakistanis were primarily a mixture of IVC inhabitants and various peoples that migrated into the Indus Region. 

I would say that Arabs, Turks, Greeks and "Mughals" had an extremely limited impact in terms to genetic contribution.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> I said mixture. We do have Greek, Arab, and other mixing from the time they ruled us.
> 
> Yes, I did read my link. You can try to search as much as you wish to justify your rejection of our history. Not my problem.
> 
> Arain, the second largest Punjabi group, for example, are patrilineal Arabs.



'Your' rejection of 'our' history.

That Pakistani member has given us the most convincing argument in favour of Pakistan's case on Jammu & Kashmir that it has been my misfortune to encounter. His final argument could not, in fact, be answered, and I am still looking for a legal trained person to rebut his position.

I don't see where you have done anything even remotely comparable, other than this truly odious melange that resembles nothing so much as the same revisionist Hindu historians that you are so fond of castigating.



> Anyway, we are veering off topic.



What is the topic? It is drifting itself.



> Mauryans have been re-written by modern Indian revisionists as an Indian Hindu government striving for Akhand Bharata and Hindutva.
> 
> You have the Hindu right promoting Asoka as some great Hindu leader defeating Pakistanis and Afghans and conqueroring parts of Iran, etc.
> 
> Asoka was a staunch Buddhist and an enemy of Hinduism, in reality. Also, he and the other Mauryan rulers were heavily influenced by the Greeks whom they were fighting back and forth during this period.
> 
> They were not saviors and champions of Hinduism as Indian propaganda would like us to believe. Their rule over The Pakistan was transient and loose, as well.



It is clear that you have not read a single serious work on history; what you have said above is not to be found except in the web pages that amateurs infest, amateurs from both sides, videos on YouTube, for instance, the visual equivalents of pages from Wikipedia, or blogs by wildly enthusiastic engineers in the painful process of re-discovering history. 

Not a single statement made by you can be traced to any respectable text.

It is nothing short of disgraceful to concoct these mythical sources, ascribe your own prejudices and bigotry to them and present them as history.

You do nothing but embarrass those members who have demonstrated a firm grip on their country's history; Niaz Sahib, Indus Pakistan and M. Sarmad prominent among them, Kambojaric on specific topics on which his knowledge is deep and fathomless. My sincere respect for their views is sadly eroded by the destructive posts of untrained, unread amateurs.



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Forefathers of Pakistanis were primarily a mixture of IVC inhabitants and various peoples that migrated into the Indus Region.
> 
> I would say that Arabs, Turks, Greeks and "Mughals" had an extremely limited impact in terms to genetic contribution.



You have caught me by surprise, but that is the balanced view. Among the migrants, I suppose you are counting the Scythians and the Parthians, and the Kushana who followed. It is difficult to add to or to subtract from your summation.

@M. Sarmad

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pakistani E

Joe Shearer said:


> Great cartoons. Unfortunately, the history it projects is also a Hollywood version.



Well, I don't disagree. Some aspects of history go so far back in time, that all we can do is project our own views on what we find. IVC is one of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jaanbaz

Pakistan, North and Central India have shared history, people who can't see it need to actually start reading some books and perhaps get their DNA tested.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Well, I don't disagree. Some aspects of history go so far back in time, that all we can do is project our own views on what we find. IVC is one of them.



The problem is that the Indian government is firing on all cylinders when it comes to appropriating IVC and cities like Taxila, Gandhara.

Bollywood and the Indian media/government are pumping out relentless propaganda to claim our history and our civilization, and at the same time trying to deny us Pakistanis any link to it.

We Pakistanis are held back by our own people who cannot formulate a cohesive historical narrative, and it really shows in our an ability to project our softpower.

Alhamdulilah, the PTI government has begun the great task of opening up more sites and providing more resources to foreign/domestic tourists to improve Pakistan’s own understanding of its history and for the world to acknowledge it.

Imran Khan is doing wonders for our global image of “Ancient Pakistan.” I am excited to be living in this time.

We finally are able to cut through the propaganda and form a cohesive historical narrative based on our history as one of the world’s breadbaskets, first civilizations.

A dynamic history which included so many different actors who set their foot on our soil and each one left their mark to give us our rich culture.









Jaanbaz said:


> Pakistan, North and Central India have shared history, people who can't see it need to actually start reading some books and perhaps get their DNA tested.



Pakistan and neighboring states like Indian Punjab, Rajasthan, yes.

We also share much in common with Afghanistan, perhaps more as 25% of our population has an origin there and we have been united together for most of our history.

We also share much in culture with Turkey/Turks and Iran, as well, due to Islamic empires’ links.

Why reject all our linkages for only the Indian one?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Well, I don't disagree. Some aspects of history go so far back in time, that all we can do is project our own views on what we find. IVC is one of them.



No, no, champ, things have improved enormously in the last sixty years. We now know where the city builders came from, we know their genetics, we have a clue as to where the defeated citizens of the dying cities went. There is also a great deal of convergence on the famous language mystery.

Things are nowhere as bad.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## saiyan0321

Joe Shearer said:


> serious work on history;



Books and writers plz

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

saiyan0321 said:


> Books and writers plz



After 8?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## saiyan0321

Joe Shearer said:


> After 8?



Yeah sure... Just tag me..


----------



## M. Sarmad

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> I would say that Arabs, Turks, Greeks and "Mughals" had an extremely limited impact in terms to genetic contribution.



That's what I had been trying to tell our Arab/Turk wannabe friends here. 
Thanks




Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Forefathers of Pakistanis were primarily a mixture of IVC inhabitants and various peoples that migrated into the Indus Region.



Were the above-mentioned people/group of people the forefathers of Pakistanis only? or were they also the forefathers of an equal (if not more) number of Indians (the citizens of the present-day Republic of India)?


----------



## MastanKhan

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Yes, I got it the first time that you disagree with the author.
> 
> Let’s discuss the topic shall we. Greek history of Pakistan is a very interesting topic, many Pakistanis don’t know much about it.
> 
> We need to promote our history among our people, not everything began with Muhammad bin Qasim RAA.
> 
> 
> 
> Check out this account of the battle by Greek historian Diodorus Siculus:
> 
> “_Some of the Macedonians were trodden under foot, armour and all, by the beasts and died, their bones crushed. Others were caught up by the elephants' trunks and, lifted on high, were dashed back down to the ground again, dying a fearful death. Many soldiers were pierced through by the tusks and died instantly, run through the whole body. Nevertheless the Macedonians faced the frightening experience manfully. They used their long spears to good effect against the Indians stationed beside the elephants, and kept the battle even. Then, as javelins began to find their marks in the sides of the great beasts and they felt the pains of the wounds, the Indian riders were no longer able to control their movements. The elephants veered and, no longer manageable, turned upon their own ranks and trampled friendly troops."_


 
Hi,

It is obviously face saving here---. Alexander's army got smashed by Raja Porus---.

Alexander's behavior after the battle shows that he is running out the area with his military---they are escaping on boats---which is the surest and fastest way of getting out of the arena---as infantry cannot move fast enough---,

No military in the history of the conquest of frontier and punjab has ever stopped its progress down for further conquests after it had taken over these two areas---because after that---the going gets easier and there exists a massive opportunity of loot and plunder---.

So---this was basically a leaderless military who commander in chief had been taken out---.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> It is obviously face saving here---. Alexander's army got smashed by Raja Porus---.
> 
> Alexander's behavior after the battle shows that he is running out the area with his military---they are escaping on boats---which is the surest and fastest way of getting out of the arena---as infantry cannot move fast enough---,
> 
> No military in the history of the conquest of frontier and punjab has ever stopped its progress down for further conquests after it had taken over these two areas---because after that---the going gets easier and there exists a massive opportunity of loot and plunder---.
> 
> So---this was basically a leaderless military who commander in chief had been taken out---.



Yes brother, Raja Porus and his Punjabi soldiers were heroic in their battle with the Greeks and caused massive casualties.

The Greeks described it that they produced one Alexander but every man in this land was an Alexander.

This was also the same thing which the Mughals faced. Babur was so thoroughly impressed by the military prowess of Punjabis and Rajputs that he inducted them in his military and intermarried his family with them.

Punjab had always been the proving ground for various tribes and only the most battle hardened and brave could survive of the constant warfare in this region.

Our ancestors from the very beginning (IVC and onwards) faced constant migrations, invasions, and internecine warfare. This chiseled our nation into a martial one.


----------



## LeGenD

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> The truth to the fact is that Alexander got his ar-se handed to him by Raja Porus---and escaped with his military---.
> 
> Possibly got killed by an arrow close to he city of Multan @ Tulamba and had his death hidden from the troops---till they reached boated down the river Indus to the arabian sea---.
> 
> Alexander never showed any kindness to a king that he defeated---his militaries looted and pillaged all their conquests----so givinh Porus his kingdom back is a fantasy story propagated by the greeks---.
> 
> Who would want to admit that the Great Alexander got killed at Tulamba after getting a hiding from raja Porus---no greek would admit to that---.


Care to provide PROOF of this revisionist nonsense?

Throughout ages, conquerors have appointed "client kings" to govern distant lands on their behalf, and it made sense to retain popular regional rulers in this capacity.

Well-researched account of the Battle of Hydaspes:
https://www.ancient.eu/article/660/battle-of-hydaspes/

Alexander's conquest spree was way too ambitious in his era (from Macedonia to Indus river). However, Alexander's thirst for conquest was checked by his injuries and resultant infections in the end.

He was planning to subjugate entire subcontinent and Middle East with [fresh] armies, but his injuries got the better of him and his successors were too busy backstabbing each other; they even killed Alexander's son. 

Up to his time, nobody in history even came close to matching Alexander's tactical brilliance in warfare and span of conquest. Don't be naive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

LeGenD said:


> Well researched account of the Battle of Hydaspes


Rubbish article lacking basic consistency.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Indus Pakistan said:


> Rubbish article lacking basic consistency.


Still better (and more accurate) than any revisionist nonsense.

FYI:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> Were the above-mentioned people/group of people the forefathers of Pakistanis only?


How many countries do you know that are *exclusively* the descendants of a proto population?



M. Sarmad said:


> were they also the forefathers of an equal (if not more) number of Indians (the citizens of the present-day Republic of India)?


Why are you so constipated over Indians? To address the question you made only a small % of India would have impact from IVC. Arabs invaded Europe [Iberia] but you don't find their legacy in other end of Europe [Scandanavia].

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indus Pakistan said:


> How many countries do you know that are *exclusively* the descendants of a proto population?
> 
> Why are you so constipated over Indians? To address the question you made only a small % of India would have impact from IVC. Arabs invaded Europe [Iberia] but you don't find their legacy in other end of Europe [Scandanavia].



Question dodging and answering a question with a question?
You are better than that, Indus


----------



## MastanKhan

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Yes brother, Raja Porus and his Punjabi soldiers were heroic in their battle with the Greeks and caused massive casualties.
> 
> The Greeks described it that they produced one Alexander but every man in this land was an Alexander.
> 
> This was also the same thing which the Mughals faced. Babur was so thoroughly impressed by the military prowess of Punjabis and Rajputs that he inducted them in his military and intermarried his family with them.
> 
> Punjab had always been the proving ground for various tribes and only the most battle hardened and brave could survive of the constant warfare in this region.
> 
> Our ancestors from the very beginning (IVC and onwards) faced constant migrations, invasions, and internecine warfare. This chiseled our nation into a martial one.



Hi,

Many a people don't realize that the greek / macedonian army ran out of the punjab arena as if its tail was on fire---and chose the water route to escape---which was the SAFEST ROUTE and the fastest route for a defeated military---. As if they had suffered a catastrophic loss---and that loss was of the death of Alexander after his defeat at the hands of Porus---.

The thing is---any invading force coming from north and conquering Punjab had only flat lands in front of it to conquer where all the booty---loot and plunder was---.

So---why did this greek / macedonian army literally ran out of the arena---because its leader was dead and they had been defeated at Jhelum---.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

Joe Shearer said:


> That Pakistani member has given us the most convincing argument in favour of Pakistan's case on Jammu & Kashmir that it has been my misfortune to encounter. His final argument could not, in fact, be answered, and I am still looking for a legal trained person to rebut his position.



Azlan bhai is highly trained mind that can indeed be quite the challenge to confront well (and in any conclusive way). I do not envy you in that sparring. One of the very few I acknowledge as a master (தலைவன்) here on the forum. You came across another one recently in the China topic too.

@M. Sarmad

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> Were the above-mentioned people/group of people the forefathers of Pakistanis only?


No. Over 5,000 years a forefather's footprint spreads out. In 10 generations my DNA might well have spread out amongst 243 individuals. Take ancient Greeks. Traces of them can be found in Italy, North Africa, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and the general Mediteranean region. But nobody questions that modern Helles is the country that is most closely seen in context of ancient Greece.



M. Sarmad said:


> or were they also the forefathers of an equal (if not more) number of Indians (the citizens of the present-day Republic of India)?


We can't possibly give numbers for this but certainlyu IVC will have left a genetic print in the wider region, including Afghanistan, Central Asia and India. With respect to India the effect will be greater in regions close to Pakistan. Obviously further you go the effect is dispersed and gets weaker. There might even be traces in Sri Lanka. Humans migrate. You might even get outliers in Myanmar.

To refer to my earlier question this is like asking if the ancient Greeks were forefathers of an equal number or even more in the wider Mediteranean [Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Italy, Cyprus, Algeria, Spain] than are found in Greece itself. The answer would be there might or might not be but that does not change the fact that most equate the Helles republic with ancient Greece.

I mean people don,t go to Tripoli in Libya because some of the population has traces of ancient Greeks and even has some cultural or archeaological artifacts with Greek influence.

_I would wish if you could tell us what you are driving at? There is nothing exceptional in any of what we are saying. Any questions or doubts you raise can be applied to Egypt, Greece etc._

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LeGenD

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Many a people don't realize that the greek / macedonian army ran out of the punjab arena as if its tail was on fire---and chose the water route to escape---which was the SAFEST ROUTE and the fastest route for a defeated military---. As if they had suffered a catastrophic loss---and that loss was of the death of Alexander after his defeat at the hands of Porus---.
> 
> The thing is---any invading force coming from north and conquering Punjab had only flat lands in front of it to conquer where all the booty---loot and plunder was---.
> 
> So---why did this greek / macedonian army literally ran out of the arena---because its leader was dead and they had been defeated at Jhelum---.


I wonder what stopped Porus from executing Alexander after defeating him; either Porus was the world's greatest idiot [or] your account is utter rubbish.

Alexander's generals were absolutely fatigued after years of warfare, and they advised him to return to Macedonia to create a new army to subjugate the entire subcontinent. Alexander was also injured and needed to take a break.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indus Pakistan said:


> _I would wish if you could tell us what you are driving at? There is nothing exceptional in any of what we are saying. Any questions or doubts you raise can be applied to Egypt, Greece etc._



The disingenuous and precarious assertion that Pakistanis, most of them, do not share common ancestry with Indians cannot be admitted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

LeGenD said:


> I wonder what stopped Porus from executing Alexander after defeating him; either Porus was the world's greatest idiot [or] your account is utter rubbish.
> 
> Alexander's generals were absolutely fatigued by this time, and they advised him to return to Macedonia to create a new army to subjugate the entire subcontinent. Alexander was also injured and needed to take a break.



Hi,

Your sarcasm is showing a lack of intellect---.
That was a very 'stupid' comment---. Many a commanders generals have escaped in their defeat and so did Alexander with his army---.

He took to the water ways---because that was the fasest way to get out---.

Unlucky for him---a Siraiki---hiding in the reeds---targeted him with his bow and arrow at Tulamba---and let one fly that ended up as a fatal wound for Alexander---.

What a bunch of 'bullcrap' to go back and create a new army---and then do the conquest againn---.

Right there lay the whole of the sub continent for the taking and Alexander let it go---really---.

All excuses---.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> The disingenuous and precarious assertion that Pakistanis, most of them, do not share common ancestry with Indians cannot be admitted.




Nobody has said Pakistani's are a people unto themselves
No people are a species. All humans have common ancestry.
Pakistanis are related to Afghans, Iranians, Central Asians, Indians etc
No country is made up of population isolate but are blends.
Are you Indian or from what is today India?
Pakistani's are unique [be they Sindhi, punjabi, Pakhtuns, Baloch] from Indians as much as English, French, German's, Italians are unique from each other.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LeGenD

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Your sarcasm is showing a lack of intellect---.
> That was a very 'stupid' comment---. Many a commanders generals have escaped in their defeat and so did Alexander with his army---.
> 
> He took to the water ways---because that was the fasest way to get out---.
> 
> Unluck for him---a Siraiki---hiding in the reeds---targeted him with his bow and arrow at Tulamba---and let one fly that ended up as a fatal wound for Alexander---.
> 
> What a bunch of 'bullcrap' to go back and create a new army---and then do the conquest againn---.
> 
> Right there lay the whole of the sub continent for the taking and Alexander let it go---really---.
> 
> All excuses---.


Sir, your sheer ignorance is glittering.

Alexander absolutely defeated Porus in the Battle of Hydaspes (no _ifs_ and _buts_ in this case) and his forces continued to advance further; they traversed the rivers Chenab and Ravi and *invaded* the *principality of the Kathaioi (Kathas)* _next_; Alexander's forces slaughtered 17,000 people and took a huge number of captives from this sector alone. As the news of this massacre spread around; another regional King Saubhuti submitted to Alexander without offering resistance. Alexander eventually set his sights on the powerful Nanda Empire _*but*_ Alexander's generals were absolutely fatigued by this time and advised him to take a break from his relentless conquest spree, return to Macedonia, and create a new army. Therefore, Alexander had to change course and decided to exit from the region (Pakistan) by following the Indus river. However, this retreating maneuver was also mostly on foot and many of his subjects perished in the harsh desert conditions along the way; it took him a year to exit from Pakistan since the Battle of Hydaspes in 325 BC.

Kindly do your homework (read history in proper depth) before questioning somebody else's intellect.

Porus defeating Alexander in the Battle of Hydaspes is REVISIONIST FICTION just like Bollywood's fairytale Padmaavat; come back to your senses and do your homework.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pakistani E

Joe Shearer said:


> There is also a great deal of convergence on the famous language mystery.



That's news to me. Have they found the Rosetta stone for IVC language?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indus Pakistan said:


> Pakistani's are unique [be they Sindhi, punjabi, Pakhtuns, Baloch] from Indians as much as English, French, German's, Italians are unique from each other.



You are right
English, French and German languages are mutually intelligible !!




Indus Pakistan said:


> No people are a species. All humans have common ancestry.
> Pakistanis are related to Afghans, Iranians, Central Asians, Indians etc
> No country is made up of population isolate but are blends.



Agreed
Pakistanis are related to Indians



Indus Pakistan said:


> Nobody has said Pakistani's are a people unto themselves



Maybe you didn't


----------



## Indus Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> English, French and German languages are mutually intelligible


And fuckin-


Pashto, Punjabi [asides the Indian Punjab], Sindhi, Baloch are intelligible with 99% of India?
The Dravidian language of India is more distant then English and German [both are Anglo-Saxon share]
Irish can't understand English. Dutch can't understand german. Poles can't understand Slovakian etc?
And I ask again are you Indian or of Indian extraction?



M. Sarmad said:


> Pakistanis are related to Indians


I know you have a hard on for India but Pakistani's are also related to Iranians, Afghans etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indus Pakistan said:


> And fuckin-
> 
> 
> Pashto, Punjabi [asides the Indian Punjab], Sindhi, Baloch are intelligible with 99% of India?
> The Dravidian language of India is more distant then English and German [both are Anglo-Saxon share]
> Irish can't understand English. Dutch can't understand german. Poles can't understand Slovakian etc?
> .



Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible, Indus


----------



## Indus Pakistan

I actually only recently found out that Poles can understand Slovaks, Serbs and even to a degree Russians. Dutch can pick up German and Danish. Norwegians can pick up Swedish. English can easily talk with Irish, leave alone Yanks, Canadians, Black Jamaicans, Australians etc. French can pick up Waloons in Belguim. Germans, Italians, French can talk to various iterations of Swiss.



M. Sarmad said:


> Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible, Indus


Yes. And these have been imposed on most of the population in Pakistan and India. You do know good chunk of people across the globe speak English? Right?

In fact it just hit me now. There must be dozens of nationalties on PDF from across the globe. Guess what? We all use English. Wonders eh?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indus Pakistan said:


> Yes. And these have been imposed on most of the population in Pakistan and India. You do know good chunk of people across the globe speak English? Right?



Give it a rest, Indus
seriously


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Indus Pakistan said:


> Are you Indian or from what is today India?


Yes.

@M.Sarmad _I will assume you are Indian given that you avoided answering my question. Your agenda seems to be driven by refusal to accept 1947. This is my last reply to you. Good evening._

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-123456

Indus Pakistan said:


> German and English

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Agnihotra said:


> Mauryans were real deal, i am personally a fanboy of Chandragupta the great and Chanakya who were badass in their timeline, not only they took ragtag nomads and tribals of North and West India and built an Army of their own but also defeated India's largest Empire at that time but also forged a new dynasty that united all of Bharatvarsh under their rule.
> 
> later when one of the best general of Alexander who ruled Persia, Turkey, Levent, Central Asia and Afghanistan attacked their Empire to fulfill the goal of India under greek rule, not only they kicked Selucid back to Iran but also took Afghanistan and astern Iran as a price and his own daughter Helena as a trophy wife to add insult to injury.
> 
> this same helena gave birth to the 2nd Mauryan Emperor "Bindusara" who conquered Rajasthan, Gujarat and Most of Deccan for Mauryan Empire.
> 
> they were mightiest Emperors of India,from original Kshatriya Bloodline.
> 
> Mauryan empire under Chandragupta,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empire under his son Bindusara
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the emblem of Mauryan Empire (lion) and Dynasty(Moreya/peacock)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @padamchen @Nilgiri @ranjeet


Alexander's exploits in Pakistan paved way for the Mauryans to make inroads into this region; not a big deal to be honest; Alexander had softened Pakistani kingdoms to large extent earlier with sheer brutality.

After Alexander's death, his commanders were no longer allies of each other, and split Alexander's Empire into different governorates (Partition of Babylon); this split significantly weakened the Empire in question. Seleukos Nikator was on his own when he faced invasion from Chandragupta the great, and lost, but Chandragupta favored peaceful resolution of conflict in the end.

Helena wasn't a trophy wife of Chandragupta - you idiot. These two knew about each other beforehand (reportedly in love) and their marriage was *arranged* upon Helena's insistence, and this union facilitated peaceful resolution of the conflict between Mauryans and the Greeks. The couple had a happy marriage but Chandragupta died 4 years later and Helena returned to Macedonia afterwards.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## MastanKhan

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Your sarcasm is showing a lack of intellect---.
> That was a very 'stupid' comment---. Many a commanders generals have escaped in their defeat and so did Alexander with his army---.
> 
> He took to the water ways---because that was the fasest way to get out---.
> 
> Unluck for him---a Siraiki---hiding in the reeds---targeted him with his bow and arrow at Tulamba---and let one fly that ended up as a fatal wound for Alexander---.
> 
> What a bunch of 'bullcrap' to go back and create a new army---and then do the conquest againn---.
> 
> Right there lay the whole of the sub continent for the taking and Alexander let it go---really---.
> 
> All excuses---.



Hi,

In many an instance over centuries gone by---armies escaping out of an arena have massacred large number of populations with lesser military strengths---.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> In many an instance over centuries gone by---armies escaping out of an arena have massacred large number of populations with lesser military strengths---.


Where is the proof of your outlandish claims, and how come Alexander was able to advance deeper into India after the Battle of Hydaspes? You are a senior member of this forum and should be sensible enough to know when to stop and to admit when you are wrong.

Alexander defeated Porus in the battlefield, but allowed him to rule on his stead as a client king afterwards due to his regional popularity and courage (although at a great cost and loss of his sons). Porus was evidently serving the Greeks afterwards, and his kingdom was officially absorbed into the Alexander's Empire.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

LeGenD said:


> Alexander's exploits in Pakistan paved way for the Mauryans to make inroads into this region; not a big deal to be honest; Alexander had softened Pakistani kingdoms to large extent earlier with sheer brutality.
> 
> After Alexander's death, his commanders were no longer allies of each other, and split Alexander's Empire into different sectors of control (Partition of Babylon); this split significantly weakened the Empire. Seleukos Nikator was on his own when he faced invasion from Chandragupta the great, and lost, but Chandragupta favored peaceful resolution of conflict in the end.
> 
> Helena wasn't a trophy wife of Chandragupta - you idiot. These two knew about each other beforehand (reportedly in love) and their marriage was *arranged* upon Helena's insistence, and this union facilitated peaceful resolution of the conflict between Mauryans and the Greeks. The couple had a happy marriage but Chandragupta died 4 years later and Helena returned to Macedonia.


Great stuff Legend. Could not agree with you more. You know Arabs invaded Europe. But this is always rendered as Arab invasion of Spain, France. Meaning instead of using blunt terms like "Europe" the more nuanced terms are used that reflect the reality. Had Arab invasion expanded further into France, Germany, Poland etc then it would be correct o call it "Arab invasion of Europe". 

But as Arab invasion was restricted to Iberia and south of France this event is not rendered as "Arab invasion of Europe". Similarly only the Indus region [coterminous Pakistan] was invaded and when Porus faced Alexander it was not 'India' that faced Alexander anymore then Porus faced Europe [the invaders were from Europe].

Indeed it was not even Punjab that faced Alexander at Hydaspes. It was just a small kingdom not much larger then Jhelum district. The reason I took exception to the link you provided is the writer painted it as "India" faced Alexander. How could a small kingdom centred on Jhelum district be equated to the entire sub-continent. That is as false as saying Porus at Hydaspes faced Europe.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LeGenD

Indus Pakistan said:


> Great stuff Legend. Could not agree with you more. You know Arabs invaded Europe. But this is always rendered as Arab invasion of Spain, France. Meaning instead of using blunt terms like "Europe" the more nuanced terms are used that reflect the reality. Had Arab invasion expanded further into France, Germany, Poland etc then it would be correct o call it "Arab invasion of Europe".
> 
> But as Arab invasion was restricted to Iberia and south of France this event is not rendered as "Arab invasion of Europe". Similarly only the Indus region [coterminous Pakistan] was invaded and when Porus faced Alexander it was not 'India' that faced Alexander anymore then Porus faced Europe [the invaders were from Europe].
> 
> Indeed it was not even Punjab that faced Alexander at Hydaspes. It was just a small kingdom not much larger then Jhelum district. The reason I took exception to the link you provided is the writer painted it as "India" faced Alexander. How could a small kingdom centred on Jhelum district be equated to the entire sub-continent. That is as false as saying Porus at Hydaspes faced Europe.


Thank you.

I do not let the choice of terminologies get in the way of my judgement because this is not wise; your sensitivity in this regard is duly noted but this will hamper your judgement process in the long term. Forces coming from the West recognized inhabitants of now modern era Pakistan as "people of the Indus," and the word *India* is derived from this _perception_ in ancient and modern writings. Just concentrate on the contents, and not on terminologies. You are free to apply (and utilize) the title Pakistan in your personal writings wherever you deem fit but the course of events should be correctly highlighted.

B/W this is an important discovery: https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2016/08/pakistan-unearths-city-defeated-by.html (Archaeological evidence of the *Siege of Aornos* in Swat finally)

Alexander fought many battles in Pakistan, and but his fight with Porus is relatively well-known.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

LeGenD said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I do not let the choice of terminologies get in the way of my judgement because this is not wise; your sensitivity in this regard is duly noted but this will hamper your judgement process in the long term. Forces coming from the West recognized inhabitants of now modern era Pakistan as "people of the Indus," and the word *India* is derived from this _perception_ in ancient and modern writings. Just concentrate on the contents, and not on terminologies. You are free to apply (and utilize) the title Pakistan in your personal writings wherever you deem fit but the course of events should be correctly highlighted.
> 
> B/W this is an important discovery: https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2016/08/pakistan-unearths-city-defeated-by.html (Archaeological evidence of the *Siege of Aornos* in Swat finally)
> 
> Alexander fought many battles in Pakistan, and but his fight with Porus is relatively well-known.



We can’t very well use India to represent our past civilizations. The word India today means something vastly different than what it used to in the past.

Quaid e Azam was against the use of India for what is now known as the Republic of India. Maybe we could have pushed the case farther as Greece is doing with the FYRM.

72 years later, we have to own up to our own history and recognize our past. We have to copyright it as Pakistani, as Imran Khan is doing now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yankee-stani

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> We can’t very well use India to represent our past civilizations. The word India today means something vastly different than what it used to in the past.
> 
> Quaid e Azam was against the use of India for what is now known as the Republic of India. Maybe we could have pushed the case farther as Greece is doing with the FYRM.
> 
> 72 years later, we have to own up to our own history and recognize our past. We have to copyright it as Pakistani, as Imran Khan is doing now.



Come to think about I can understand why the Greeks make a big deal about Macedonia name change really sucks to be Macedonian these days when you have to rename to North Macedonia just cause you want EU gib thats and NATO gib thats lol yeah we need to do that playbook imagine all the Pakistani stores with sighs like "Indus is Pakistan" (@Indus Pakistan ) mean whenever I go to Astoria,Queens where there is a large Greek population their stores and resturants are filled with sighs saying "Macedonia is Greece"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sher Shah Awan said:


> That's news to me. Have they found the Rosetta stone for IVC language?



No, no; good Heavens, did I phrase it so badly? There has been progress in figuring out how it was written; let me find and attach the famous paper by Asko Parpola. Where did I read it again after years? On PDF itself?

I will print URL and inform you. You will find it fascinating, but be warned! The language is lucid and clear, but the concepts are demanding.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Crixus

You missed one thing Alexander was a given a free pass by King Ambhi of Taxila which belongs to Gandhara Mahanjanpada ......... Porus is a name give by greeks actual name was Purushottam


MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> The truth to the fact is that Alexander got his ar-se handed to him by Raja Porus---and escaped with his military---.
> 
> Possibly got killed by an arrow close to he city of Multan @ Tulamba and had his death hidden from the troops---till they reached boated down the river Indus to the arabian sea---.
> 
> Alexander never showed any kindness to a king that he defeated---his militaries looted and pillaged all their conquests----so givinh Porus his kingdom back is a fantasy story propagated by the greeks---.
> 
> Who would want to admit that the Great Alexander got killed at Tulamba after getting a hiding from raja Porus---no greek would admit to that---.



Seems after Tipu Sultan now Chandargupt become Punjabi musalmaan   @Joe Shearer @Nilgiri

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

LeGenD said:


> Where is the proof of your outlandish claims, and how come Alexander was able to advance deeper into India after the Battle of Hydaspes? You are a senior member of this forum and should be sensible enough to know when to stop and to admit when you are wrong.
> 
> Alexander defeated Porus in the battlefield, but allowed him to rule on his stead as a client king afterwards due to his regional popularity and courage (although at a great cost and loss of his sons). Porus was evidently serving the Greeks afterwards, and his kingdom was officially absorbed into the Alexander's Empire.



Hi,

Alexander was extremely ruthless and brutal to all his conquests that he made---.

In old warfare as in modern warfare---not all the army was concentrated in one place---. Smaller armies were sent out to search and conquer in the name of the King---.

https://historum.com/threads/alexanders-chest-wound.130984/

https://thesecondachilles.com/2013/11/01/alexanders-injuries-part-2/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Crixus said:


> You missed one thing Alexander was a given a free pass by King Ambhi of Taxila which belongs to Gandhara Mahanjanpada ......... Porus is a name give by greeks actual name was Purushottam
> 
> 
> Seems after Tipu Sultan now Chandargupt become Punjabi musalmaan   @Joe Shearer @Nilgiri



Indians don’t like these threads on Pakistani history, and want to prevent Pakistanis from claiming their own history.

It suits the narrative which India is pushing, I don’t blame them, they have the most to lose from Pakistan brandnaming IVC cities like Harappa, Mohen Jo Daro and Taxila, Gandhara.

However, our government and our society are going to be moving in this direction regardless of the sentiments of our neighbors.

We have too far lived in a strange ahistorical void which has impacted our society very negatively.

It has allowed strange inferiority complexes and lack of identity on our people. It needs to be rectified if we want Pakistan to rise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Agnihotra

LeGenD said:


> Alexander's exploits in Pakistan paved way for the Mauryans to make inroads into this region; not a big deal to be honest; Alexander had softened Pakistani kingdoms to large extent earlier with sheer brutality.
> 
> After Alexander's death, his commanders were no longer allies of each other, and split Alexander's Empire into different governorates (Partition of Babylon); this split significantly weakened the Empire in question. Seleukos Nikator was on his own when he faced invasion from Chandragupta the great, and lost, but Chandragupta favored peaceful resolution of conflict in the end.
> 
> Helena wasn't a trophy wife of Chandragupta - you idiot. These two knew about each other beforehand (reportedly in love) and their marriage was *arranged* upon Helena's insistence, and this union facilitated peaceful resolution of the conflict between Mauryans and the Greeks. The couple had a happy marriage but Chandragupta died 4 years later and Helena returned to Macedonia afterwards.



Lol as if your ragtag Punjabi "Kingdoms" had any chance to fight against Mauryans, they did what Punjabis are doing since eternity.

Spread their cheeks to their Conquerors like Porus and Ambhi, both Mauryans and Greeks used those as tissue papers and kicked them around when they forgot their Aukaat.

We all know what Ashoka did to people in Punjab when they revolted beforehe became Buddhist.

Helenas marriagewas pre arranged lol.

Instead of trying to re write history like a retarded idiot learn to accept that you were just a doormat of big empires and do tunuk tunuk run dance.


----------



## Republic

MastanKhan said:


> You fckng a'hole---what the fck you mean by that--
> /QUOTE]




Well, you could have avoided abuse.
It doesn't suit you.
Regards.



MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Many a people don't realize that the greek / macedonian army ran out of the punjab arena as if its tail was on fire---and chose the water route to escape---which was the SAFEST ROUTE and the fastest route for a defeated military---. As if they had suffered a catastrophic loss---and that loss was of the death of Alexander after his defeat at the hands of Porus---.
> 
> The thing is---any invading force coming from north and conquering Punjab had only flat lands in front of it to conquer where all the booty---loot and plunder was---.
> 
> So---why did this greek / macedonian army literally ran out of the arena---because its leader was dead and they had been defeated at Jhelum---.



It's your logical conclusion or you have some kind of source claiming this defeat ???


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Agnihotra said:


> Spread their cheeks to their Conquerors like Porus and Ambhi, both Mauryans and Greeks used those as tissue papers and kicked them around when they forgot their Aukaat.



Raja Porus was a hero and brave warrior, recognized as such even by Greek historians. He stood like a rock against the greatest military of the known world and achieved equivalence with them.



Agnihotra said:


> Instead of trying to re write history like a retarded idiot learn to accept that you were just a doormat of big empires and do tunuk tunuk run dance.



You have some issues with Punjabis it seems. Please try to keep the racism down. We are having an academic discussion here.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Republic

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> The problem is that the Indian government is firing on all cylinders when it comes to appropriating IVC and cities like Taxila, Gandhara.
> 
> Bollywood and the Indian media/government are pumping out relentless propaganda to claim our history and our civilization, and at the same time trying to deny us Pakistanis any link to it.
> 
> We Pakistanis are held back by our own people who cannot formulate a cohesive historical narrative, and it really shows in our an ability to project our softpower.
> 
> Alhamdulilah, the PTI government has begun the great task of opening up more sites and providing more resources to foreign/domestic tourists to improve Pakistan’s own understanding of its history and for the world to acknowledge it.
> 
> Imran Khan is doing wonders for our global image of “Ancient Pakistan.” I am excited to be living in this time.
> 
> We finally are able to cut through the propaganda and form a cohesive historical narrative based on our history as one of the world’s breadbaskets, first civilizations.
> 
> A dynamic history which included so many different actors who set their foot on our soil and each one left their mark to give us our rich culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan and neighboring states like Indian Punjab, Rajasthan, yes.
> 
> We also share much in common with Afghanistan, perhaps more as 25% of our population has an origin there and we have been united together for most of our history.
> 
> We also share much in culture with Turkey/Turks and Iran, as well, due to Islamic empires’ links.
> 
> Why reject all our linkages for only the Indian one?



Nobody is claiming your history. It is a shared history. You have shunned your history for so many years and started your pages of history books from Muhammad bin Kasim. Your after independence history books are filled with literature which vehemently dissociate you people from your roots and associates with Arabs. Every Pakistani house hold keep a self written SIZRA (family history) which proudly associates it with some ancient Arab family. Then how can you claim your history before Bin Kasim ???

You can't set your foot on two boats. Either proudly claim that you are the Sion of IVC or shout in arrogance that you people ruled us for 1000 years. You can't claim both. First you decide what you are (doesn't matter true or false) then write your all literature putting forth that particular narrative.

Regards.


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> Were the above-mentioned people/group of people the forefathers of Pakistanis only? or were they also the forefathers of an equal (if not more) number of Indians (the citizens of the present-day Republic of India)?


I draw a rightful distinction between the historical Indus region and modern-day India. This includes historical and genetic factors which is supported by solid evidence.



Agnihotra said:


> Lol as if your ragtag Punjabi "Kingdoms" had any chance to fight against Mauryans, they did what Punjabis are doing since eternity.
> 
> Spread their cheeks to their Conquerors like Porus and Ambhi, both Mauryans and Greeks used those as tissue papers and kicked them around when they forgot their Aukaat.
> 
> We all know what Ashoka did to people in Punjab when they revolted beforehe became Buddhist.
> 
> Helenas marriagewas pre arranged lol.
> 
> Instead of trying to re write history like a retarded idiot learn to accept that you were just a doormat of big empires and do tunuk tunuk run dance.


What a childish and distasteful comment.

The Indus Region was weakened first by the Achaemenid conquest and the power vacuum that resulted from their collapse which led to warring city-states. Alexander had to exterminate many tribes, who until then had history dating back hundreds of years as the men fought till death and the women committed mass-suicide.

Porus's tiny Kingdom, which had an army most likely made up of farmer conscripts went up against the most powerful and largest Empire of that time; that certainly deserves respect.

The Indus Region was militarily devastated and had no fight left by the time the Mauryans invaded. Mauryan loose occupation that was marred with revolts lasted less than a century before they were booted out.

The next Indian-origin Empire to directly invade the Indus were the Marathas and we all know how that played out. Their occupation lasted less than a year as the blood of hundreds of thousands of Marathas flowed through our rivers. Descendants of Maratha slaves can still be found in the various corners of Pakistan.



Republic said:


> Nobody is claiming your history. It is a shared history. You have shunned your history for so many years and started your pages of history books from Muhammad bin Kasim. Your after independence history books are filled with literature which vehemently dissociate you people from your roots and associates with Arabs. Every Pakistani house hold keep a self written SIZRA (family history) which proudly associates it with some ancient Arab family. Then how can you claim your history before Bin Kasim ???
> 
> You can't set your foot on two boats. Either proudly claim that you are the Sion of IVC or shout in arrogance that you people ruled us for 1000 years. You can't claim both. First you decide what you are (doesn't matter true or false) then write your all literature putting forth that particular narrative.
> 
> Regards.


We are not setting our foots on two boats, we have our own boat which respectfully contains Islamic and Pre-Islamic history that we have no obligation to choose precedence over one.

There is no binary option as you are trying to conjure, both of these two periods are important to the history and culture of Pakistan.

You should worry about your own.



Republic said:


> Nobody is claiming your history. It is a shared history.


What shared history?

I don't see Sudanese trying to claim the Egyptian Civilization because some of it encompassed parts of modern-day Sudan.



LeGenD said:


> Where is the proof of your outlandish claims, and how come Alexander was able to advance deeper into India after the Battle of Hydaspes? You are a senior member of this forum and should be sensible enough to know when to stop and to admit when you are wrong.


He did not advance deeper in to "India" after Hydaspes. He planned to return to Mesopotamia by following the Indus River south and then advancing along the coast Westwards.



Joe Shearer said:


> You have caught me by surprise, but that is the balanced view. Among the migrants, I suppose you are counting the Scythians and the Parthians, and the Kushana who followed. It is difficult to add to or to subtract from your summation.


All of the peoples that you mentioned definitely contributed, but my post was mainly in reference to the steppe-pastoralists that introduced BMAC culture to the Indus Valley which merged with Harrapan culture, beliefs and traditions to form early Vedism.



Agnihotra said:


> Instead of trying to re write history like a retarded idiot learn to accept that you were just a doormat of big empires and do tunuk tunuk run dance.


You clear have some sort of a grudge against Punjabis, are you mad that despite them making up around 3% of your population they dominate your cultural/entertainment industries and your military?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Republic

> ="Talwar e Pakistan, post:
> We are not setting our foots on two boats, we have our own boat which respectfully contains Islamic and Pre-Islamic history that we have no obligation to choose precedence over one.
> 
> There is no binary option as you are trying to conjure, both of these two periods are important to the history and culture of Pakistan.
> 
> You should worry about your own.
> 
> 
> What shared history?
> 
> I don't see Sudanese trying to claim the Egyptian Civilization because some of it encompassed parts of modern-day Sudan.



Have you ever seen British claiming IVC because they ruled India for 150 years ??
Did you hear claiming it by Arabs ??
If you claim that you are descendants of Arab, then you were not there in IVC, and if you claim that you people converted out of love for Sufism (Although Sufism is not Islam, it predates Islam) then you can not claim to rule India for 1000 years. It's as simple as 2+2 = 4. No rocket science.

Your whining and crying will not serve any purpose. The Indus civilization was spread for beyond Pakistan. It was not like Egyptian civilizational extension to Sudan. There is more kilometre square area of Indus civilization out side of Pakistan than inside it.

That's why I call it a shared history.

Regards.


----------



## Joe Shearer

@Talwar e Pakistan 

Sir, I had the misfortune of inadvertently reading some other comments.

Please do me a favour; please DO NOT combine an answer to me or to something that I might have written with other answers. 

I do not entirely agree with your post, but do not entirely disagree either. Let me post my response separately.

Regards,
'Joe'


----------



## LeGenD

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Alexander was extremely ruthless and brutal to all his conquests that he made---.
> 
> In old warfare as in modern warfare---not all the army was concentrated in one place---. Smaller armies were sent out to search and conquer in the name of the King---.
> 
> https://historum.com/threads/alexanders-chest-wound.130984/
> 
> https://thesecondachilles.com/2013/11/01/alexanders-injuries-part-2/


Alexander have his episodes of brutality but he wasn't a barbarian. He was creating a new Empire in the wake of his conquest spree and he needed governors (satraps) to manage its affairs in distant lands and established borders, and he understood the importance of cultivating ties with foreign nobilities. For instance, Alexander did not mistreat family members (women) of Darius III, rather married his daughter to cement his ties with Persian nobility. Persians were a great source for supply of manpower, funds and equipment to facilitate his conquest spree further.

Alexander appointed numerous Persian satraps to manage his Empire across the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan; most notable being Oxydates and Atrophates, and the latter was really powerful. Scholarly study in this regard: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ja..._JAH&etcc_med=STC_CC_ATTR_VALUE_SOCIAL&print=

Therefore, it is not a big deal that Alexander considered Porus for governorship (satrap) after defeating him due to his regional popularity, courage and character. Unfortunately, one of the finest Alexander's general Eudemus executed Porus at a later stage, and he himself fell victim to Antigonus afterwards. These (internal) trajedies paved way for Mauryans to advance into the region in the aftermath.

As I have reiterated earlier, people should study history properly and not try to propagate falsehood.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Indus Pakistan said:


> And fuckin-
> 
> 
> Pashto, Punjabi [asides the Indian Punjab], Sindhi, Baloch are intelligible with 99% of India?
> The Dravidian language of India is more distant then English and German [both are Anglo-Saxon share]
> Irish can't understand English. Dutch can't understand german. Poles can't understand Slovakian etc?
> And I ask again are you Indian or of Indian extraction?
> 
> I know you have a hard on for India but Pakistani's are also related to Iranians, Afghans etc.


 

First, Gujaratis, Rajasthanis, Haryanvis, and people from Himachal, Uttarakhand, the UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh can understand Punjabi spoken by a city-dwelling Punjabi with a slight effort. I say this from personal experience, having worked there twice for several years at a time, and I'm not even from one of these named areas.
Except for Irishmen and women from remote rural areas, most of the Irish can understand English.
The Dutch comfortably take to German; we're talking simple conversational exchanges.
The Poles can certainly understand Slovak, also quite a bit of Russian. I daresay they can make a stab at getting other Slav languages as well, for instance, Ukranian, Byelorussian, and perhaps some of the south Slav languages as well. I don't know about Bulgarian; that may be off the radar for the Poles.
It boils down to the differences between Pakistanis and their neighbours, and the differences among Pakistanis. It does seem that the differences between them and their neighbours, whether to the east or the west, are similar; considering the diversity of their own population, the differences among them are also significant.

Is this similar to diversity in India? Yes, as far as the Indo-European languages are concerned. No, when it comes to the eastern languages and to the southern languages, Bengali, Odiya and Assamese, and the languages of the tribes of Assam, or the Dravidian languages, Telugu, Kannada, Tulu, Tamizh and Malayalam (I've left out one or two arcane tongues).



LeGenD said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I do not let the choice of terminologies get in the way of my judgement because this is not wise; your sensitivity in this regard is duly noted but this will hamper your judgement process in the long term. Forces coming from the West recognized inhabitants of now modern era Pakistan as "people of the Indus," and the word *India* is derived from this _perception_ in ancient and modern writings. Just concentrate on the contents, and not on terminologies. You are free to apply (and utilize) the title Pakistan in your personal writings wherever you deem fit but the course of events should be correctly highlighted.
> 
> B/W this is an important discovery: https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2016/08/pakistan-unearths-city-defeated-by.html (Archaeological evidence of the *Siege of Aornos* in Swat finally)
> 
> Alexander fought many battles in Pakistan, and but his fight with Porus is relatively well-known.



WRT your last sentence only (I am heartily in agreement with the rest): Hydaspes was one of Alexander's four set-piece battles, besides Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela. That is why it is remembered.



Republic said:


> Have you ever seen British claiming IVC because they ruled India for 150 years ??
> Did you hear claiming it by Arabs ??
> If you claim that you are descendants of Arab, then you were not there in IVC, and if you claim that you people converted out of love for Sufism (Although Sufism is not Islam, it predates Islam) then you can not claim to rule India for 1000 years. It's as simple as 2+2 = 4. No rocket science.
> 
> Your whining and crying will not serve any purpose. The Indus civilization was spread for beyond Pakistan. It was not like Egyptian civilizational extension to Sudan. There is more kilometre square area of Indus civilization out side of Pakistan than inside it.
> 
> That's why I call it a shared history.
> 
> Regards.



Not very well known. Some of the settlements elsewhere are on the same scale as the two exemplary ones, Mohenjodaro and Harappa, but since these two were excavated first, there is a tendency to consider them without taking any of the others into account.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Republic said:


> Did you hear claiming it by Arabs ??
> If you claim that you are descendants of Arab, then you were not there in IVC, and if you claim that you people converted out of love for Sufism (Although Sufism is not Islam, it predates Islam) then you can not claim to rule India for 1000 years. It's as simple as 2+2 = 4. No rocket science.


Where did I claim to have Arab ancestry nor did I ever claim that we ruled India for 1000 years, when Pakistanis say that, they say it as Muslims.

We also did not convert out of "love for Sufism" or whatever you meant by that. Majority of our ancestors converted through missionaries, many of whom are associated with Sufis. Most villages for example have a shrine dedicated to the "saint" or missionary that was responsible for converting the tribe/clan/village.

If you think that Sufism is not Islam, then you are very wrong and it showcases the extent of your knowledge in this regard. 

Again, I am kindly asking you to worry about your own issues instead of trying to lecture us.



Republic said:


> Your whining and crying will not serve any purpose.


No one is whining or crying, the only thing close to that is your little rant. 



Republic said:


> The Indus civilization was spread for beyond Pakistan. It was not like Egyptian civilizational extension to Sudan.


It can easily be mirrored to the Nile Civilization's extension into Sudan and other regions. The Indus Valley Civilization was centered in the Indus Region (modern-day Pakistan), It encompassed around 80-90% or more of Modern-day Pakistan.

Even Afghanistan had more territory under IVC influence, proportion wise than India did; yet I do not see Afghanis trying to claim the Indus Valley Civilization. 

Of-course IVC had influence over meager parts of territory that encompass modern-day India, though they make up only a minuscule 5% (sometimes more or less throughout history) of modern-day India. I have no probably with Western Rajasthanis/Gujaratis or Indian Punjabis claiming IVC, but I do get irked by some Pajheet Kumar living a 1,000 miles away from the Indus in Patna or Calcutta claiming that his ancestors were from the Indus Valley Civilization. 




Republic said:


> There is more kilometre square area of Indus civilization out side of Pakistan than inside it.


That is a blatant lie.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Republic

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> *Where did I claim to have Arab ancestry nor did I ever claim that we ruled India for 1000 years, *when Pakistanis say that, they say it as Muslims.
> *
> We also did not convert out of "love for Sufism" or whatever you meant by that.* Majority of our ancestors converted through missionaries, many of whom are associated with Sufis. _Most villages for example have a shrine dedicated to the "saint" or missionary that was responsible for converting the tribe/clan/village_.
> 
> If you think that Sufism is not Islam, then you are very wrong and it showcases the extent of your knowledge in this regard.
> 
> Again, I am kindly asking you to worry about your own issues instead of trying to lecture us.



Regarding the bold parts, thanks a lot for doing me this great favour. I am saving your post as link and screen shot both; to reply those Arabian Pakistanis. And it's people, not religion who always rule over others, religion is a non-living thing, an idea, it can not rule or be ruled.

Regarding the italicized part, you people are wrong in interpretation. It means only that your ancestors of that particular village loved and respected that peer/aulia. It doesn't necessarily implies that he might have converted them. Infact most of them never tried to convert any body. That's why their followers increased many fold. In India also we have Dargah and shrine where both Hindu and Muslims visit.
To be precise, my own family peer is some unknown Saiyad Baba, every child of our family has to be shaved first time on his Dargah, and my family is a strict vegetarian Hindu family.

Regarding underlined part,
If @Zarvan declare this statement as fact here on this thread, I will accept it as a fact once for all. And do you accept the fact that Sufism predates Islam or not ??

Lastly, I have every right to resist if you try to claim any shared thing as your own. It's my right full business.



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Where did I claim to have Arab ancestry nor did I ever claim that we ruled India for 1000 years, when Pakistanis say that, they say it as Muslims.
> 
> We also did not convert out of "love for Sufism" or whatever you meant by that. Majority of our ancestors converted through missionaries, many of whom are associated with Sufis. Most villages for example have a shrine dedicated to the "saint" or missionary that was responsible for converting the tribe/clan/village.
> 
> If you think that Sufism is not Islam, then you are very wrong and it showcases the extent of your knowledge in this regard.
> 
> Again, I am kindly asking you to worry about your own issues instead of trying to lecture us.
> 
> 
> No one is whining or crying, the only thing close to that is your little rant.
> 
> 
> It can easily be mirrored to the Nile Civilization's extension into Sudan and other regions. The Indus Valley Civilization was centered in the Indus Region (modern-day Pakistan), It encompassed around 80-90% or more of Modern-day Pakistan.
> 
> Even Afghanistan had more territory under IVC influence, proportion wise than India did; yet I do not see Afghanis trying to claim the Indus Valley Civilization.
> 
> Of-course IVC had influence over meager parts of territory that encompass modern-day India, though they make up only a minuscule 5% (sometimes more or less throughout history) of modern-day India. I have no probably with Western Rajasthanis/Gujaratis or Indian Punjabis claiming IVC, but I do get irked by some Pajheet Kumar living a 1,000 miles away from the Indus in Patna or Calcutta claiming that his ancestors were from the Indus Valley Civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a blatant lie.



Five percent area ? See for yourself and calculate the area. Now let others decide who is lying blatantly.


----------



## Zarvan

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Where did I claim to have Arab ancestry nor did I ever claim that we ruled India for 1000 years, when Pakistanis say that, they say it as Muslims.
> 
> We also did not convert out of "love for Sufism" or whatever you meant by that. Majority of our ancestors converted through missionaries, many of whom are associated with Sufis. Most villages for example have a shrine dedicated to the "saint" or missionary that was responsible for converting the tribe/clan/village.
> 
> If you think that Sufism is not Islam, then you are very wrong and it showcases the extent of your knowledge in this regard.
> 
> Again, I am kindly asking you to worry about your own issues instead of trying to lecture us.
> 
> 
> No one is whining or crying, the only thing close to that is your little rant.
> 
> 
> It can easily be mirrored to the Nile Civilization's extension into Sudan and other regions. The Indus Valley Civilization was centered in the Indus Region (modern-day Pakistan), It encompassed around 80-90% or more of Modern-day Pakistan.
> 
> Even Afghanistan had more territory under IVC influence, proportion wise than India did; yet I do not see Afghanis trying to claim the Indus Valley Civilization.
> 
> Of-course IVC had influence over meager parts of territory that encompass modern-day India, though they make up only a minuscule 5% (sometimes more or less throughout history) of modern-day India. I have no probably with Western Rajasthanis/Gujaratis or Indian Punjabis claiming IVC, but I do get irked by some Pajheet Kumar living a 1,000 miles away from the Indus in Patna or Calcutta claiming that his ancestors were from the Indus Valley Civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a blatant lie.


I was born in family which believes in Sufis and sorry to many things to sufis are in direct contradiction to teachings of ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Zarvan said:


> I was born in family which believes in Sufis and sorry to many things to sufis are in direct contradiction to teachings of ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW


There is no clear definition of Sufi Islam, many Sufis do things that contradict teachings of Allah and Prophet Muhammad (SAW) but that can be said for all other sects and sub-sects as well. 

The "Sufism" you see in rural Pakistan is not real Sufism.



Republic said:


> Five percent area ? See for yourself and calculate the area. Now let others decide who is lying blatantly.


Cherry-picking maps will not help your silly claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Republic

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> There is no clear definition of Sufi Islam, many Sufis do things that contradict teachings of Allah and Prophet Muhammad (SAW) but that can be said for all other sects and sub-sects as well.
> 
> The "Sufism" you see in rural Pakistan is not real Sufism.



The most objectionable thing is they don't consider Prophet Mohammed Saw last prophet.
And they were precticing their beliefs before Prophet Muhammad saw.
Besides many more things.
They call their God Allah because it was called Allah in Arebia before Prophet Muhammad saw, and not because Prophet Muhammad saw called the God Allah.
Please correct me @Zarvan Maulana Sahab if I am wrong.
Although our ideology is pole apart, I always consider your version authentic when it comes to Islam.

Regards,


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Republic said:


> The most objectionable thing is they don't consider Prophet Mohammed Saw last prophet.
> And they were precticing their beliefs before Prophet Muhammad saw.
> Besides many more things.
> They call their God Allah because it was called Allah in Arebia before Prophet Muhammad saw, and not because Prophet Muhammad saw called the God Allah.
> Please correct me @Zarvan Maulana Sahab if I am wrong.
> Although our ideology is pole apart, I always consider your version authentic when it comes to Islam.
> 
> Regards,


Everything you said is completely wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Republic

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Cherry-picking maps will not help your silly claim.



Prey tell me which site shown in the map is wrong ???
As I said, let others decide whose claim is silly.

Regards.



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Everything you said is completely wrong.



Let @Zarvan tell me this, I Will accept as gospel truth.
Although I can give proof about Sufism older than Islam.


----------



## khanmubashir

Agnihotra said:


> Mauryans were real deal, i am personally a fanboy of Chandragupta the great and Chanakya who were badass in their timeline, not only they took ragtag nomads and tribals of North and West India and built an Army of their own but also defeated India's largest Empire at that time but also forged a new dynasty that united all of Bharatvarsh under their rule.
> 
> later when one of the best general of Alexander who ruled Persia, Turkey, Levent, Central Asia and Afghanistan attacked their Empire to fulfill the goal of India under greek rule, not only they kicked Selucid back to Iran but also took Afghanistan and astern Iran as a price and his own daughter Helena as a trophy wife to add insult to injury.
> 
> this same helena gave birth to the 2nd Mauryan Emperor "Bindusara" who conquered Rajasthan, Gujarat and Most of Deccan for Mauryan Empire.
> 
> they were mightiest Emperors of India,from original Kshatriya Bloodline.
> 
> Mauryan empire under Chandragupta,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empire under his son Bindusara
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the emblem of Mauryan Empire (lion) and Dynasty(Moreya/peacock)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @padamchen @Nilgiri @ranjeet


And this mighty empire barley lasted 150 years and even shorter in lands of present day Pakistan
and thus the subcontinent remained divided until entry of central Asian again from the west
As for Punjabi or perhaps yr myopic racist description of Indus people
And even ancestry of chunder is of Indus not Ganges
maryan and after 2500 years marhata for some time were fluke of history otherwise its always the Punjabi Sindhi Pashto's all indus people that dominated u
even today north Indian which dominates rest of u r basically product of Indus yr Sikh the tip of yr spear r Punjabi Sonny

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HariSinghNalwa

Good old pakistani identity crisis

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## khanmubashir

The Indus river and Ganges river systems created two separate ecosystems which in north were divided in the north by mountains and In South by deserts the lands in between had sporadic kingdoms protected by there geographic isolation through most of ancient times 

only with advent of modern communication network like Early GT road by sher shah and road / train . network and irrigation sys by British could these lands be properly ruled under one administration for a considerable time period

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

LeGenD said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I do not let the choice of terminologies get in the way of my judgement because this is not wise; your sensitivity in this regard is duly noted but this will hamper your judgement process in the long term. Forces coming from the West recognized inhabitants of now modern era Pakistan as "people of the Indus," and the word *India* is derived from this _perception_ in ancient and modern writings. Just concentrate on the contents, and not on terminologies. You are free to apply (and utilize) the title Pakistan in your personal writings wherever you deem fit but the course of events should be correctly highlighted.
> 
> B/W this is an important discovery: https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2016/08/pakistan-unearths-city-defeated-by.html (Archaeological evidence of the *Siege of Aornos* in Swat finally)
> 
> Alexander fought many battles in Pakistan, and but his fight with Porus is relatively well-known.


Brilliant find...Thank you

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Agnihotra said:


> Lol as if your ragtag Punjabi "Kingdoms" had any chance to fight against Mauryans, they did what Punjabis are doing since eternity.
> 
> Spread their cheeks to their Conquerors like Porus and Ambhi, both Mauryans and Greeks used those as tissue papers and kicked them around when they forgot their Aukaat.
> 
> We all know what Ashoka did to people in Punjab when they revolted beforehe became Buddhist.
> 
> Helenas marriagewas pre arranged lol.
> 
> Instead of trying to re write history like a retarded idiot learn to accept that you were just a doormat of big empires and do tunuk tunuk run dance.


You (are) immature, retard, misinformed, and lacking in manners as well (despicable). Instead of embracing facts and coming to terms with the _chain of events_ which facilitated advances of Mauryans into regions encompassing modern-era Pakistan and Afghanistan, you have cultivated an _inflated_ perception of Chandragupta's prowess in your mind (grandeur of delusions).

As I have pointed out earlier, Alexander softened several kingdoms across Pakistan and Afghanistan with his attacks by destroying their forts, reducing their manpower, and taking many prisoners in the process. After his untimely death, his own followers turned on each other and weakened his Empire in the process. Chandragupta (being a powerful _but_ *SMART* ruler) saw an opening in this situation and capitalized on it.

Some details in this post: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/alex...-graeco-bactrians.601039/page-8#post-11162977

With greatest regional commanders such as Porus and Alexander's former general Eudemus out of the picture (assassinated; internal strife), Seleukos Nikator stood no chance against the formidable Mauryans on his own. Chandragupta was undeniably powerful and an able commander in his own right; he defeated Seleukos in the battlefield _*but*_ realized that the war with Macedonians could drag for years and chose the path of diplomacy to settle his dispute with them. 

_"Later, Chandragupta Maurya married Seleucus’ daughter Helena as part of his diplomacy and entered into an alliance with Seleucus."_ From: https://www.culturalindia.net/indian-history/ancient-india/chandragupta-maurya.html

Chandragupta was in contact with Helena prior to the war and she was reciprocating his feelings (Indian accounts); Helena convinced her father for marriage with Chandragupta and the latter rewarded Seleukos handsomely in return for lasting peace. Chandragupta even supplied 500 elephants to Seleukos to facilitate his exploits in the Persian sector.

FYI:

_Television history is usually a soap-opera; mostly far from reality; spiced up to feed the audience with intriguing storylines; and keep them engaged.

Now; the real story is sometimes even stranger than fiction. According to the academic narrative; there was definitely a war between Chandragupta Maurya and Seleucus Nicator; one of the Diadochi (Alexander’s friends, family and generals etc).

Some narratives mention that there was a romantic affair between Chandragupta Maurya and Helena; both of them becoming infatuated with each other. However; Seleucus Nicator did not approve of the “heathen”; but Chandragupta Maurya wanted the mleccha’s daughter; so he fought a battle and eventually won.

Chandragupta Maurya took up Jainism in present-day Karnataka according to the most popular story; and Helena by most accounts was an ideal foreigner in India; loving the land and its people; learning Sanskrit and Indian classical music.

The name of Bindusara’s mother was Durdhara; who according to some sources was Macedonian. Also; most historians suggest that there were cordial relations between the Indians and the Greeks; Nicator was more interested in the brutal slashing/game of thrones happening amongst the Macedonians/Greeks after Alexander’s death; and cementing his own position.

So; in all probability; the story depicted in Chakravartin Ashok Samrat is TV masala._

Source: http://sunil-kumar.co.in/helena-actually-conspire-father-destroy-bindusara/

One can continue to hold Chandragupta in high regard at personal capacity without adhering to revisionist nonsense and/or inflated perceptions of his prowess. 

Alexander was the real deal; his untimely death led to destabilization of his Empire, and its Eastern flank was exposed after assassinations of Porus and Eudemus. Chandragupta capitalized on this situation to his advantage.

Above all, kingdoms in Pakistan and Afghanistan at the time were not a bunch of cowards; many resisted advances of Alexander to the best of their abilities but they were eventually outmatched. Only an idiot (like you) would argue otherwise.

You talk big from the safety of your home, but you are a spineless moron in reality. Idiots like you would have fared no better back in the time; probably being polishing boots of a Macedonian somewhere. So spare me your silly attitude.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## saiyan0321

This thread has generated some great debate yet much of it is offtopic. 

The study of history has underwent a catastrophic change as many states study it with the modern lenses of today's nation state and nation boundaries which are slave to modern international concepts based on Westphalia and other notable treaties.. This change and lense has created a toxic atmosphere where each is competing over the other for something somebody did a thousand years ago with which he claims relation based on geographical entities that didn't even exist a century prior.... The story of pakistan is even more complicated as the state is a union of areas which have straddled the edges of civilizations, been home to some and have been center of events that changed the very formation of history. Its borders are formed in such a way encompassing areas which claim parts of great civilizations and have been home to one as well. On top of it all the relative recent events in the sense of Islamic events ( relative in the sense that most Islamic events happened after the 10th century and the civilizations are bronze period) have also allowed the people to create a sense of bond with other brethren bcz that is what the religion is. A brotherhood where all are equal. 

I personally feel that our entire focus has been greatly on our Islamic roots highlighting Islamic achievement and we have ironed it into our history but our focus has been extremely less on our preislamic history.. Thus today we see efforts rising up in learning our historical place thousands of years ago..... 



This is a very touchy subject... Very touchy which is why I would implore that we, rather than make it a Indus vs Ganges battle or Pakistan vs India battle, simply learn from history as it is and gain knowledge to learn what happened thousands of years ago on the area were we wall today? What historical events took place where our cities stand today? What battles happened and how it effected our ancestors... 

Our entire object right now should be to focus entirely on teaching ourselves our history which we have criminally ignored and investing in its knowledge to the populace.. 

This history will become ours the day, not the posters of this forum, but the 210 million people become as much aware of it as much as we are of our Islamic roots. The question is has our govt taken any positive step to include the Indus history into our syllabus enmasse? The answer is no. 

@Indus Pakistan I appreciate your efforts to bring awareness to people about the glory of the Indus civilization but it won't work unless its taught in our books in droves chapter to chapter rather than some mention of it in a page... Neither tourism nor threads will make the difference ( in my view) but a full govr policy to include Indus civilization study into our curriculum. The last change in curriculum I heard was addition of Islamic history in our curriculum a few days ago. So you tell me.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Indus Pakistan

saiyan0321 said:


> So you tell me.


Tell you what?


----------



## Republic

LeGenD said:


> You (are) immature, retard, misinformed, and lacking in manners as well (despicable). Instead of embracing facts and coming to terms with the _chain of events_ which facilitated advances of Mauryans into regions encompassing modern-era Pakistan and Afghanistan, you have cultivated an _inflated_ perception of Chandragupta's prowess in your mind (grandeur of delusions).
> 
> As I have pointed out earlier, Alexander softened several kingdoms across Pakistan and Afghanistan with his attacks by destroying their forts, reducing their manpower, and taking many prisoners in the process. After his untimely death, his own followers turned on each other and weakened his Empire in the process. Chandragupta (being a powerful _but_ *SMART* ruler) saw an opening in this situation and capitalized on it.
> 
> Some details in this post: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/alex...-graeco-bactrians.601039/page-8#post-11162977
> 
> With greatest regional commanders such as Porus and Alexander's former general Eudemus out of the picture (assassinated; internal strife), Seleukos Nikator stood no chance against the formidable Mauryans on his own. Chandragupta was undeniably powerful and an able commander in his own right; he defeated Seleukos in the battlefield _*but*_ realized that the war with Macedonians could drag for years and chose the path of diplomacy to settle his dispute with them.
> 
> _"Later, Chandragupta Maurya married Seleucus’ daughter Helena as part of his diplomacy and entered into an alliance with Seleucus."_ From: https://www.culturalindia.net/indian-history/ancient-india/chandragupta-maurya.html
> 
> Chandragupta was in contact with Helena prior to the war and she was reciprocating his feelings (Indian accounts); Helena convinced her father for marriage with Chandragupta and the latter rewarded Seleukos handsomely in return for lasting peace. Chandragupta even supplied 500 elephants to Seleukos to facilitate his exploits in the Persian sector.
> 
> FYI:
> 
> _Television history is usually a soap-opera; mostly far from reality; spiced up to feed the audience with intriguing storylines; and keep them engaged.
> 
> Now; the real story is sometimes even stranger than fiction. According to the academic narrative; there was definitely a war between Chandragupta Maurya and Seleucus Nicator; one of the Diadochi (Alexander’s friends, family and generals etc).
> 
> Some narratives mention that there was a romantic affair between Chandragupta Maurya and Helena; both of them becoming infatuated with each other. However; Seleucus Nicator did not approve of the “heathen”; but Chandragupta Maurya wanted the mleccha’s daughter; so he fought a battle and eventually won.
> 
> Chandragupta Maurya took up Jainism in present-day Karnataka according to the most popular story; and Helena by most accounts was an ideal foreigner in India; loving the land and its people; learning Sanskrit and Indian classical music.
> 
> The name of Bindusara’s mother was Durdhara; who according to some sources was Macedonian. Also; most historians suggest that there were cordial relations between the Indians and the Greeks; Nicator was more interested in the brutal slashing/game of thrones happening amongst the Macedonians/Greeks after Alexander’s death; and cementing his own position.
> 
> So; in all probability; the story depicted in Chakravartin Ashok Samrat is TV masala._
> 
> Source: http://sunil-kumar.co.in/helena-actually-conspire-father-destroy-bindusara/
> 
> One can continue to hold Chandragupta in high regard at personal capacity without adhering to revisionist nonsense and/or inflated perceptions of his prowess.
> 
> Alexander was the real deal; his untimely death led to destabilization of his Empire, and its Eastern flank was exposed after assassinations of Porus and Eudemus. Chandragupta capitalized on this situation to his advantage.
> 
> Above all, kingdoms in Pakistan and Afghanistan at the time were not a bunch of cowards; many resisted advances of Alexander to the best of their abilities but they were eventually outmatched. Only an idiot (like you) would argue otherwise.
> 
> You talk big from the safety of your home, but you are a spineless moron in reality. Idiots like you would have fared no better back in the time; probably being polishing boots of a Macedonian somewhere. So spare me your silly attitude.



Thanks for sharing an amazing story.

I have some doubts though....

1. The links you quoted are not credible enough. Mr. Sunil Kumar has narrated the story with out naming any source.
Same can be said about other link.
2. Indian historian have narrated Mauryan history on the basis of some literary books and not historical accounts that too have been written after several centuries.
They have deliberately overlooked some facts and concocted/misinterpreted some others to peddle their narrative.
For example, It has now been proven that there was no person like Chanakya.
Arthashastra was not written by Chanakya. It is a collection of several writers compiled by a person named Chanaka, not chanakya or kautilya.

There was no Sanskrit in Mauryan era, so why Helena was learning it and from whom ? ( Because no written evidence has been found of Sanskrit before second CE while Pali, Prakrit and Aramaic are found in plenty)
It can not be possible that all other languages has been recorded and Sanskrit was left out. Just not possible.
This theory is peddled to prove that Sanskrit is older than Pali and Vedas are oldest literature and were written in India.
3. What is the source of romantic love story of Chandragupta and Helena, I am eager to know it.

Regards,
Republic.


----------



## saiyan0321

Indus Pakistan said:


> Tell you what?



How will a change and awareness of preislamic history come without govt making it an active policy to teach the subject at school? 

I knew about the Indus valley civilization in passing due to harrapa and a 6th class oxford book at beacon but I found more about it in a single paper in MA history titles ancient India paper 1 part 1... 

Yet when I was giving matric exam I knew about salahuddin about general tariq who invaded Spain even the Islamic name of Spain al andalus. I knew about all Islamic kingdoms of the region from qasim to zafar to tipu yet I didn't know that 400km from my city over 2500 years ago that a great king if a region had put up such a fight against "sikandar e azam" that his army was devastated... 


Without it becoming an active govt policy to teach Indus civilization in our schools, I am afraid its learning will only be limited to threads and self study. 

My murghi wala will know who sher shah suri was but wouldn't know that he stands on a land that was the cradle of one of the greatest bronze civilization on the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

This is how I see it. The British arrived in_ South Asia*_ and over the period of 300 years by using military force defeated myriad peoples of this region and imposed a unity under the Union Jack and then named that administrative region 'British India'. It's important to note that British India [that so many here worship implicitly] was integrated by force. non of our peoples jumped, joined or elected for it. Indeed most fought not to be 'British Indian'. If somebody can cite me one example where natives of South Asia craved to be 'British Indian's' and seized that opportunity with joy I would be grateful.

However by early 20th century we knew the British would leave sooner or later. That began the rush for who was going to inherit the Raj ~ a gift built over 300 years on the piles of dead natives who had fought to avoid being integrated and British soldiers who had died fighting to make 'British India'. And boy was it not a gift. from the borders of Khyber Pass to Irrawady, from Karakorums to Tamil Nadu the Raj covered a region as large as Europe, twice the population and three times the diversity.

The jewel in the crown was [unfortunately] disintegrated by Muslim League in 1947. Jinnah partly un-made what the British had made over 300 years. Those who hope to inherit this British gift have never forgiven Jinnah and have refused to accept his creation. They act like a spoilt child who wanted all the cake but had to share it.

How is this relevant to what we are discussing? Well, Indians can do nothing to negate the physical existence of Pakistan. But that refusal to accept 1947 [like a spoilt child wanting the entire British gift] is played out today in many levels. One is refusing to accept Pakistan has it's own unique history ~ instead thrusting their blunt sub-continental narrative on us. This is where the genesis of Indus versus Ganges plays out. Indians will not accept that Indus has it's own story.

Before I build on this I want people to think of Europe which is analogous to South Asia. Although Europe has smaller population, it is lesss diverse and more homogenous. It is far more uniform then South Asia in genetics, history, religion etc. In fact I would argue that Pakistan has about as much diversity as Europe leave alone all of South Asia. I must add I here I have travelled far and wide in Europe. By air and road. I probably know Europe better then most of South Asia.

In Europe every peoples, every country have their own history and are proud of it. However all also accept that each of their unique histories do converge and overlap over the time continuum. This map below describes the continent and country histories. Each country having it's own [circles] but overlapping within the bigger continent [box].

I have never seen Germans fighting the British by saying their DNA is same as them. Or the Poles trying to undo the Slovaks by saying they are 'mutually intelligible'.







The problem we have as I alluded to earlier is in South Asia Indians refuse to accept 1947. They regard [like spoilt children] that somehow the Raj that was built by British, given boundaries by British should have been gifted to them. That they only got a truncated part of the British colony is something most refuse to accept.

Whilst nothing can be done about Pakistan as physical reality and therefore cannnot take ownership of the land of indus they take ownership of our heritage. Anything east of Durand becomes 'Indian'. That is the root cause of the problems we see. And my push for Indus versus Ganges.

If this one story, one narrative that Indians insist on being applied across South Asia or the region that was the British Raj was applied on Europe this [below] is what you would get. One story being stamped on all of Europe erasing the *dozens* of narratives that are jealously guarded by Europeans countries.






This impulse by Indians appears to be a rooting for the British Raj but with one big differance. Instead of Gorah Sahibs running it and owning it. It is the present days Indians who own it. That is why you get Indians almost as matter of fact taking ownership over anything that is in Pakistan. Some sharp minds might ask is if the Indians root for a British Raj ruled by Hindutwas why do they not bother with Bangladesh?

Well, call me prejudiced but the answer is simple. The land of Indus Valley Pakistan is *motherlode* of history. Anything good in South Asia most of the time will be traced to the lands of the Indus Valley. Sans Indus region South Asia is barren wasteland that was home of aboriginals of South Asia ~ whose pure versions can still be found in South and East India.

Indus Valley is the mother of civilization in South Asia and that is exactly why Indians are motivated to go for the one narrative fits all because it enables them to take pride ride by saying "we wuz civilized" to use @OsmanAli98 expression.

This is what we should be going for in South Asia. Each country with it's own unique history but overlapping *only* where there was convergence. Replication of the European model.







This model [below] represents what those who think the British Raj is still around and they [Indians] own it and Pakistan while a physical reality can be scrubbed from their glorious heritage. It's like 1947 never happened. Viceroy is still rulling from New Delhi only his name is Sri Ram Modi. Just one story. India.








saiyan0321 said:


> How will a change


I don't have time but I will address your valid point later.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## saiyan0321

Indus Pakistan said:


> This is how I see it. The British arrived in_ South Asia*_ and over the period of 300 years by using military force defeated myriad peoples of this region and imposed a unity under the Union Jack and then named that administrative region 'British India'. It's important to note that British India [that so many here worship implicitly] was integrated by force. non of our peoples jumped, joined or elected for it. Indeed most fought not to be 'British Indian'. If somebody can cite me one example where natives of South Asia craved to be 'British Indian's' and seized that opportunity with joy I would be grateful.
> 
> However by early 20th century we knew the British would leave sooner or later. That began the rush for who was going to inherit the Raj ~ a gift built over 300 years on the piles of dead natives who had fought to avoid being integrated and British soldiers who had died fighting to make 'British India'. And boy was it not a gift. from the borders of Khyber Pass to Irrawady, from Karakorums to Tamil Nadu the Raj covered a region as large as Europe, twice the population and three times the diversity.
> 
> The jewel in the crown was [unfortunately] disintegrated by Muslim League in 1947. Jinnah partly un-made what the British had made over 300 years. Those who hope to inherit this British gift have never forgiven Jinnah and have refused to accept his creation. They act like a spoilt child who wanted all the cake but had to share it.
> 
> How is this relevant to what we are discussing? Well, Indians can do nothing to negate the physical existence of Pakistan. But that refusal to accept 1947 [like a spoilt child wanting the entire British gift] is played out today in many levels. One is refusing to accept Pakistan has it's own unique history ~ instead thrusting their blunt sub-continental narrative on us. This is where the genesis of Indus versus Ganges plays out. Indians will not accept that Indus has it's own story.
> 
> Before I build on this I want people to think of Europe which is analogous to South Asia. Although Europe has smaller population, it is lesss diverse and more homogenous. It is far more uniform then South Asia in genetics, history, religion etc. In fact I would argue that Pakistan has about as much diversity as Europe leave alone all of South Asia. I must add I here I have travelled far and wide in Europe. By air and road. I probably know Europe better then most of South Asia.
> 
> In Europe every peoples, every country have their own history and are proud of it. However all also accept that each of their unique histories do converge and overlap over the time continuum. This map below describes the continent and country histories. Each country having it's own [circles] but overlapping within the bigger continent [box].
> 
> I have never seen Germans fighting the British by saying their DNA is same as them. Or the Poles trying to undo the Slovaks by saying they are 'mutually intelligible'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem we have as I alluded to earlier is in South Asia Indians refuse to accept 1947. They regard [like spoilt children] that somehow the Raj that was built by British, given boundaries by British should have been gifted to them. That they only got a truncated part of the British colony is something most refuse to accept.
> 
> Whilst nothing can be done about Pakistan as physical reality and therefore cannnot take ownership of the land of indus they take ownership of our heritage. Anything east of Durand becomes 'Indian'. That is the root cause of the problems we see. And my push for Indus versus Ganges.
> 
> If this one story, one narrative that Indians insist on being applied across South Asia or the region that was the British Raj was applied on Europe this [below] is what you would get. One story being stamped on all of Europe erasing the *dozens* of narratives that are jealously guarded by Europeans countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This impulse by Indians appears to be a rooting for the British Raj but with one big differance. Instead of Gorah Sahibs running it and owning it. It is the present days Indians who own it. That is why you get Indians almost as matter of fact taking ownership over anything that is in Pakistan. Some sharp minds might ask is if the Indians root for a British Raj ruled by Hindutwas why do they not bother with Bangladesh?
> 
> Well, call me prejudiced but the answer is simple. The land of Indus Valley Pakistan is *motherlode* of history. Anything good in South Asia most of the time will be traced to the lands of the Indus Valley. Sans Indus region South Asia is barren wasteland that was home of aboriginals of South Asia ~ whose pure versions can still be found in South and East India.
> 
> Indus Valley is the mother of civilization in South Asia and that is exactly why Indians are motivated to go for the one narrative fits all because it enables them to take pride ride by saying "we wuz civilized" to use @OsmanAli98 expression.



Hmm

There three undeniable facts... 


 That the republic of india is a union of nations that have their own history like pakistan is a Union of nations that have their own history. Cultures brought together by the efforts of a single empire that waged wars like the mughals and khiljis and mauryans and united it into a large colony under its own control where it exerted both direct control through colonial laws and indirect control through princely states and treaties. This is historically well covered and just like the previous empire this empire that created such a landmass also struggled to control it but the difference between the previous empires and this one was that it was in a world governed by concepts of core nationalisms and westphalian states of boundary states which are iron fixed. Due to extensive political efforts of Muslim league the British left two parts of the empire with the option stated that there could be not one, not two but several states like the natural existence of the subcontinent had been for eons ( unless some empire conquered It for a hundred years or so) which did not happen due to the aggressive policies of the some leaders like sardar Patel and historically he is given credit for this... Each nation and culture despite holding cultural similarities which all neighbour cultures do are home to unique cultures and nations which have distinct identity. This identity is neither morphed into any other greater identity nor it is sub to any. Geographical union based on the events of modern history does not mean that such a union was the natural outcome and its disunion was the unatural outcome lasting thousands of years... This is true for both.. 
That pakistan is indeed inheritor of a great civilization but history is not slave to modern borders. I highlighted a long time ago that Pakistan should also make efforts to claim history west of the Indus as well since many afghan related historical event happened on modern day Pakistan. Its geographical position and ideological existence is such that it can claim part of many and home to some as well. 
That pre Islamic history is not taught at the level that it should be taught in Pakistan and this lack of taught is the major reason why when somebody thinks of Indus civilizations they click india and automatically associate it with republic of India. This is bcz the state of Pakistan has shunned such an important aspect of this country and its criminal that it has done so and even now no concrete step is being taken to teach It. When 210 million people become more aware of the idusIndus civilization then the history will automatically be claimed since such knowledge taught in schools will generate research and interests and will help pave the way for archeological programs and papers and books which will in turn teach greater history. On that day our history will come to us. 



Indus Pakistan said:


> I don't have time but I will address your valid point later.



Take your time.. Looking forward to hearing it. I myself will be busy in coming days

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Does anybody know the exact number of years that Mauryans held sway over coterminous Pakistan? I count just over 100. That seems blip over 5,000 years of our history but some here do make it sound as if it ruled this region for far longer.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Yankee-stani

Indus Pakistan said:


> This is how I see it. The British arrived in_ South Asia*_ and over the period of 300 years by using military force defeated myriad peoples of this region and imposed a unity under the Union Jack and then named that administrative region 'British India'. It's important to note that British India [that so many here worship implicitly] was integrated by force. non of our peoples jumped, joined or elected for it. Indeed most fought not to be 'British Indian'. If somebody can cite me one example where natives of South Asia craved to be 'British Indian's' and seized that opportunity with joy I would be grateful.
> 
> However by early 20th century we knew the British would leave sooner or later. That began the rush for who was going to inherit the Raj ~ a gift built over 300 years on the piles of dead natives who had fought to avoid being integrated and British soldiers who had died fighting to make 'British India'. And boy was it not a gift. from the borders of Khyber Pass to Irrawady, from Karakorums to Tamil Nadu the Raj covered a region as large as Europe, twice the population and three times the diversity.
> 
> The jewel in the crown was [unfortunately] disintegrated by Muslim League in 1947. Jinnah partly un-made what the British had made over 300 years. Those who hope to inherit this British gift have never forgiven Jinnah and have refused to accept his creation. They act like a spoilt child who wanted all the cake but had to share it.
> 
> How is this relevant to what we are discussing? Well, Indians can do nothing to negate the physical existence of Pakistan. But that refusal to accept 1947 [like a spoilt child wanting the entire British gift] is played out today in many levels. One is refusing to accept Pakistan has it's own unique history ~ instead thrusting their blunt sub-continental narrative on us. This is where the genesis of Indus versus Ganges plays out. Indians will not accept that Indus has it's own story.
> 
> Before I build on this I want people to think of Europe which is analogous to South Asia. Although Europe has smaller population, it is lesss diverse and more homogenous. It is far more uniform then South Asia in genetics, history, religion etc. In fact I would argue that Pakistan has about as much diversity as Europe leave alone all of South Asia. I must add I here I have travelled far and wide in Europe. By air and road. I probably know Europe better then most of South Asia.
> 
> In Europe every peoples, every country have their own history and are proud of it. However all also accept that each of their unique histories do converge and overlap over the time continuum. This map below describes the continent and country histories. Each country having it's own [circles] but overlapping within the bigger continent [box].
> 
> I have never seen Germans fighting the British by saying their DNA is same as them. Or the Poles trying to undo the Slovaks by saying they are 'mutually intelligible'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem we have as I alluded to earlier is in South Asia Indians refuse to accept 1947. They regard [like spoilt children] that somehow the Raj that was built by British, given boundaries by British should have been gifted to them. That they only got a truncated part of the British colony is something most refuse to accept.
> 
> Whilst nothing can be done about Pakistan as physical reality and therefore cannnot take ownership of the land of indus they take ownership of our heritage. Anything east of Durand becomes 'Indian'. That is the root cause of the problems we see. And my push for Indus versus Ganges.
> 
> If this one story, one narrative that Indians insist on being applied across South Asia or the region that was the British Raj was applied on Europe this [below] is what you would get. One story being stamped on all of Europe erasing the *dozens* of narratives that are jealously guarded by Europeans countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This impulse by Indians appears to be a rooting for the British Raj but with one big differance. Instead of Gorah Sahibs running it and owning it. It is the present days Indians who own it. That is why you get Indians almost as matter of fact taking ownership over anything that is in Pakistan. Some sharp minds might ask is if the Indians root for a British Raj ruled by Hindutwas why do they not bother with Bangladesh?
> 
> Well, call me prejudiced but the answer is simple. The land of Indus Valley Pakistan is *motherlode* of history. Anything good in South Asia most of the time will be traced to the lands of the Indus Valley. Sans Indus region South Asia is barren wasteland that was home of aboriginals of South Asia ~ whose pure versions can still be found in South and East India.
> 
> Indus Valley is the mother of civilization in South Asia and that is exactly why Indians are motivated to go for the one narrative fits all because it enables them to take pride ride by saying "we wuz civilized" to use @OsmanAli98 expression.
> 
> This is what we should be going for in South Asia. Each country with it's own unique history but overlapping *only* where there was convergence. Replication of the European model.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This model [below] represents what those who think the British Raj is still around and they [Indians] own it and Pakistan while a physical reality can be scrubbed from their glorious heritage. It's like 1947 never happened. Viceroy is still rulling from New Delhi only his name is Sri Ram Modi. Just one story. India.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time but I will address your valid point later.




This really disproves the Akhand Bharat folks and the much despised Shahshi Tharoor bootlickers who claim partition was a 'British Invention" anyways You make strides in using Europe yes it's very homogeneous yet each folk there pushes their own narrative Poles are still butthurt over the German and Russian partition of Poland The Balkans despite being same all are united in hating or loveing the Turks.The Indus Narative is ours same with the Mughals yet are stolen and called "Desi" or "Indian"



Indus Pakistan said:


> Does anybody know the exact number of years that Mauryans held sway over coterminous Pakistan? I count just over 100. That seems blip over 5,000 years of our history but some here do make it sound as if it ruled this region for far longer.




Ganga we ruled for 1000 oggaapgga ancient india


years we wuz real you fake porki

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

Republic said:


> 1. The links you quoted are not credible enough. Mr. Sunil Kumar has narrated the story with out naming any source.
> Same can be said about other link.


They are Indian accounts; not mine. I posted those links to get some points across, to the relevant member.

There is CONSENSUS in relation to following developments:

1. Alexander's Empire deteriorated after his untimely death, and prominent Macedonians turned on each other (the *Wars* of the *Diadochi*). *Prior* to Mauryans making inroads into regions encompassing modern-era Pakistan and Afghanistan, two brilliant Macedonian satraps Porus and Eudemus were dead (Eudemus executed Porus and Antigonus executed Eudemus; sad but true) and the Eastern flank of Macedonian Empire was exposed. Chandragupta saw an opening and exploited it to his advantage.

2. Mauryans (under Chandragupta) and Macedonians (under Seleucus) fought a war but the belligerents eventually settled for *concessions* on either side. Marriage of Chandragupta and Seleucus's daughter Helena ARRANGED, and Chandragupta dispatched important supplies including many elephants to Seleucus to facilitate his efforts to curb rebellions in the Middle East. Additionally, Chandragupta retained control of Pakistan, but Seleucus retained control of Afghanistan.



Republic said:


> 2. Indian historian have narrated Mauryan history on the basis of some literary books and not historical accounts that too have been written after several centuries.
> They have deliberately overlooked some facts and concocted/misinterpreted some others to peddle their narrative.
> For example, It has now been proven that there was no person like Chanakya.
> Arthashastra was not written by Chanakya. It is a collection of several writers compiled by a person named Chanaka, not chanakya or kautilya.


Just like Hollywood and Bollywood take creative liberties with their portrayals of ancient events, ancient poets and narrators also took creative liberties in their disclosures of earlier events.

Chanakya might or might not be a real person (some argue that he was real) but numerous accounts suggest that Chandragupta and Helena were in contact with each other prior to their marriage. Infact, some argue that Helena was actually Diadora and how she died is not clear. My point is that certain developments are clear (well-documented), but numerous poets and narrators have taken creative liberties with their disclosures of past events throughout the ages.



Republic said:


> There was no Sanskrit in Mauryan era, so why Helena was learning it and from whom ? ( Because no written evidence has been found of Sanskrit before second CE while Pali, Prakrit and Aramaic are found in plenty)
> It can not be possible that all other languages has been recorded and Sanskrit was left out. Just not possible.
> This theory is peddled to prove that Sanskrit is older than Pali and Vedas are oldest literature and were written in India.


Did *I* claim that she was learning Sanskrit in particular? You need to posit this question to the author of the relevant source instead.

I just understand that Pakistan wasn't a backward region back in the days of Alexander. Surely the kingdoms throughout the subcontinent had well-established methods of communications (languages), and because the Macedonians invaded Pakistan, it is rather logical to assume that they were interested in understanding languages prevalent in this sector. Governance in this part of the world would not be possible otherwise.



Republic said:


> 3. What is the source of romantic love story of Chandragupta and Helena, I am eager to know it.


Helena herself maybe?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Pakistan

LeGenD said:


> retained control of Pakistan


This is what we need. We need to 'own' Pkistan. Nobody else will. If we are shy of using it then nobody else will. Many will croak "there was no Pakistan'. True but neither was any country on the UN list 2000, 3000 years ago. Most did not even exist 500 years ago. 

When you get ancient sources mentioning 'Hendush, Hindosh, Indika, Hind, Sindh, Gedrosia, Gandhara etc' it is open to translation as how you render them today. Carthage? How do you render it today? Africa, North Afrixa, Tunisia etc Roman Empire. Italy, Rome, Romania, Europe??

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Republic said:


> Nobody is claiming your history. It is a shared history. You have shunned your history for so many years and started your pages of history books from Muhammad bin Kasim. Your after independence history books are filled with literature which vehemently dissociate you people from your roots and associates with Arabs. Every Pakistani house hold keep a self written SIZRA (family history) which proudly associates it with some ancient Arab family. Then how can you claim your history before Bin Kasim ???
> 
> You can't set your foot on two boats. Either proudly claim that you are the Sion of IVC or shout in arrogance that you people ruled us for 1000 years. You can't claim both. First you decide what you are (doesn't matter true or false) then write your all literature putting forth that particular narrative.
> 
> Regards.



Your state propaganda is furthering lies about Pakistan and Pakistanis. We can’t be expected to correct all the disinformation being peddled by your priests, politicians, and educators.

You are claiming an origin from a civilization 1,372 km away from the focus of your civilization.

You can claim origin from Aryans, that is part of your history and religion due to migration into your region, but IVC has nothing to do with India.

We share more in common with Afghanistan than we ever will with India as we have united together for most of history.

Only a few Pakistani families have Arab patrilineal origin, many have Turk, Kurd, Persian, Afghan, and local (Aryan/Irani) origins too.

You ask an Arab, Persian, Turk to disassociate from his Pre-Islamic history and you will get only blank stares. Pakistan is the sum of all its parts.

As detailed here in this thread, Greek and Buddhist history had a lasting effect on our culture and society. It also set the stage for the Buddhist-Hindu (Brahmanism) civil war which eventually led to our Islamization.



Indus Pakistan said:


> Does anybody know the exact number of years that Mauryans held sway over coterminous Pakistan? I count just over 100. That seems blip over 5,000 years of our history but some here do make it sound as if it ruled this region for far longer.



From around 300 BC to 200 BC. The Mauryan footprint on Pakistan was temporary.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Mauryan rule, however, *did not last long*. *Pakistan's ties with India were severed barely a hundred years later in about 200 BC* when the *Greek King Demetrius**,* already in control of the areas beyond Hindu Kush with his capital at Bactria (*Balkh* in northern Afghanistan), pounced upon Pakistan at the very first opportunity. Within a few years (190-180 BC) Demetrius took over a considerable portion of the Indus basin. This ushered in the golden period of *Graeco-Bactrians who had their capital in Taxila*.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> You ask an Arab, Persian, Turk to disassociate from his Pre-Islamic history and you will get only blank stares. Pakistan is the* sum* of all its *parts.*


Wow. 10/10



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> You are claiming an origin from a civilization 1,372 km away from the focus of your civilization.


These maps say it all ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yankee-stani

You ask an Arab, Persian, Turk to disassociate from his Pre-Islamic history and you will get only blank stares. Pakistan is the sum of all its parts.

[/QUOTE]

or ask any of the Balkan states or CARs that broke away from Yugoslavia and the USSR in the early 1990s the same thing as well

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indus Pakistan said:


> These maps say it all ...



Indus river basin has a total area of 1.12 million sq km distributed between Pakistan, India, China, and Afghanistan.

In Pakistan, the Indus river basin covers around 520,000 sq km.
In India, it covers approximately 440,000 sq km
In China, it covers 88,000 sq km
In Afghanistan, it covers 72,000 sq km

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yaseen1

I think current Boundaries of punjab never existed in past it was made by british that is why lahore and delhi have almost same weather and environment and landscape


----------



## M. Sarmad

Joe Shearer said:


> No, no; good Heavens, did I phrase it so badly? There has been progress in figuring out how it was written; let me find and attach the *famous paper by Asko Parpola.* Where did I read it again after years? On PDF itself?
> 
> I will print URL and inform you. You will find it fascinating, but be warned! The language is lucid and clear, but the concepts are demanding.



Special Lecture: Study of the Indus Script by Asko PARPOLA

@Sher Shah Awan

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

OsmanAli98 said:


> You ask an Arab, Persian, Turk to disassociate from his Pre-Islamic history and you will get only blank stares. Pakistan is the sum of all its parts.
> 
> or ask any of the Balkan states or CARs that broke away from Yugoslavia and the USSR in the early 1990s the same thing as well



Instead of worrying about our 24/7 ignited neighbors’ sentiments or Western historians, we should do what is best for Pakistan and our people.

All of this history needs to be taught and expounded, we can use all that to further our tourism industry and bring it back from the brink.

Our economy can use the boast and I am glad PTI is starting to build more tourist hotspots in places like KPK and North Punjab.

There is literally no disadvantage for Pakistan for furthering the understanding of our pre-Islamic history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> I draw a rightful distinction between the historical Indus region and modern-day India. This includes historical and genetic factors which is supported by solid evidence.



What was the extent of the Historical Indus Region, according to you?

If the outermost sites are joined by lines, the area enclosed will be 1,300,000 square km — almost twice the size of present-day Pakistan — and if, as is generally inferred, this cultural uniformity coincided with some sort of political and administrative unity, the size of the resulting “empire” is truly vast.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Yaseen1 said:


> I think current Boundaries of punjab never existed in past it was made by british that is why lahore and delhi have almost same weather and environment and landscape



Another topic, but Pakistan originally included all of East Punjab as well.

Rajastan, also, was the subject of Ghandi’s own ghar wapsi (which at that time sent alarm bells off in the Muslim League,) and now it is a BJP extremist base due to years of Hindutva propaganda.

That land (East Punjab) was stolen from us. Partition violence made that border permanent. Quaid e Azam wanted it to be part of Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chhatrapati

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> It also set the stage for the Buddhist-Hindu (Brahmanism) civil war


Please cite your source for such a claim for this alternative history.

AFAIK, there was no such civil war that eventually led to mass conversion, Buddhist and Hindus generally co-existed throughout the history without much trouble, the decline in Buddhism across the subcontinent are as a result of defeat faced by the Monks when debating with Adi Sankara, while Buddhism being popular in Urban regions Hinduism was popular among the rural and the urban centers like Taxila, Nalanda all were subjected to constant invasion, to top it off the invasion from West and Central Asia that led to conversions to Abrahamic faith and other animistic beliefs eventually led to the decline of Buddhism.


----------



## Pakistani E

Joe Shearer said:


> No, no; good Heavens, did I phrase it so badly? There has been progress in figuring out how it was written; let me find and attach the famous paper by Asko Parpola. Where did I read it again after years? On PDF itself?
> 
> I will print URL and inform you. You will find it fascinating, but be warned! The language is lucid and clear, but the concepts are demanding.



Look forward to it. Cheers.



M. Sarmad said:


> Special Lecture: Study of the Indus Script by Asko PARPOLA
> 
> @Sher Shah Awan



Thank you, will read it when I have more free time and clarity of mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> Indus river basin has a total area of 1.12 million sq km distributed between Pakistan, India, China, and Afghanistan.
> 
> In Pakistan, the Indus river basin covers around 520,000 sq km.
> In India, it covers approximately 440,000 sq km
> In China, it covers 88,000 sq km
> In Afghanistan, it covers 72,000 sq km


Yes? Ever checked the stats for Nile Basin? It's shared between Egypt, Sudan, Ethopia, Uganda etc. Tigris/Euphrates are shared by Turkey, Syria, Iraq.

More to the point -


Indus cover over* 65%* of Pakistan and about* 95%* of the population. Yes,* 95%* of Pakistan live on the Indus basin and many adjacent to River Indus itself. Only portion of sparsely populated area of Balochistan falls outside of the basin. The most populous provinces ~ K-Pk, Punjab, Sindh fall wholly within the basin covering 95%, yes *95%* of Pakistani's. This means for bulk of Pakistan Indus is a reality.
Only 14% of India falls within Indus Basin, big chunk of which comes in Kashmir. Only about 7% of Indian people live on the Indus Basin. On the contrary over 50% live on the Ganga Basin. 

At 11% Afghanistan is only slightly behind India in being on the Indus Basin although I don;t see them hurling themselves on the Indus.
1% of China falls within the Indus Basin.
Over* 93%* of the River Indus flows through Pakistan
As we can see Indus is Pakistan and Pakistan is Indus. It dominates Pakistan and feeds her people via the Indus irrigation system. Much like Indus gave life to IVC today Indus gives life to Pakistan.







_Ps. Can you change your flags to India please._

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indus Pakistan said:


> Yes? Ever checked the stats for Nile Basin? It's shared between Egypt, Sudan, Ethopia, Uganda etc. Tigris/Euphrates are shared by Turkey, Syria, Iraq.
> 
> More to the point -
> 
> 
> Indus cover over* 65%* of Pakistan and about* 95%* of the population. Yes,* 95%* of Pakistan live on the Indus basin and many adjacent to River Indus itself. Only portion of sparsely populated area of Balochistan falls outside of the basin. The most populous provinces ~ K-Pk, Punjab, Sindh fall wholly within the basin covering 95%, yes *95%* of Pakistani's. This means for bulk of Pakistan Indus is a reality.
> Only 14% of India falls within Indus Basin, big chunk of which comes in Kashmir. Only about 7% of Indian people live on the Indus Basin. On the contrary over 50% live on the Ganga Basin.
> 
> At 11% Afghanistan is only slightly behind India in being on the Indus Basin although I don;t see them hurling themselves on the Indus.
> 1% of China falls within the Indus Basin.
> Over* 93%* of the River Indus flows through Pakistan
> As we can see Indus is Pakistan and Pakistan is Indus. It dominates Pakistan and feeds her people via the Indus irrigation system. Much like Indus gave life to IVC today Indus gives life to Pakistan.




Let me make it simple for you, Indus:

145 million Pakistanis and 83 million Indians live in the Indus Basin Area.

Your Neo-Indus nationalism is flawed insofar as it completely ignores those 83 million people (and a land area comprising hundreds of thousands sq km)

Go for Indus Muslim Nationalism instead if you want to be taken seriously.



Indus Pakistan said:


> _Ps. Can you change your flags to India please._



Dear Englishman, I am more Pakistani than you
Just because I do not agree with you on certain things doesn't mean that I am an Indian.
Kindly stop issuing such _Fatwas. _

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> Let me make it simple for you, Indus:


Oh really?


M. Sarmad said:


> 145 million Pakistanis and 83 million Indians live in the Indus Basin Area.


Okay let's test out your facts. Provinces of Pakistan falling within Indus Basin and their populations - refer to simplified map of Indus Basin below with Pak provinces marked.

K-Pk ~ 35 million
Punjab ~ 112 million
Sindh ~ 47 million
AJK/GB ~ 5 million
Total ~ *200 million

*Balochistan ~ Only province in Pakistan that partly falls out of the Indus Basin. However the population of Balochistan is only 12 million, part of which falls in Indus Basin. However for sake of argumant even if we exclude entire population of Balochistan as outside of Indus Basin then ~ 12/212 million [total pop. Pak] we end up with 10%. That still means* 90%* of Pakistani population lives on Indus Basin. And if I was to give part of Baloch population over to Indus - please see map below then I would end up with the figure quoted warlier *95%.*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Census_of_Pakistan
*



*

You are either ignorant of these facts [which I doubt] or you are peddling delusional Indian agenda [which I suspect]. If this discussion is going to go anywhere can you please provide solid facts instead of posting clear rubbish.

And barely 8% of India lives on the indus Basin. I suspect more % of Afghans live in the Kabul Basin which falls within the Indus catchment then Indians do on the indus.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indus Pakistan said:


> If this discussion is going to go anywhere can you please provide solid facts instead of posting clear rubbish.




*2 The Indus basin*
*2.1 General*

The Indus basin is located in 4 countries, of which the largest part in Pakistan, and substantial upstream parts in India, China and Afghanistan (Fig. 1). More than 40 % is located at an elevation higher than 2000ma.s.l. The total hydrographic basin – as deﬁned by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) – has an area of 1 137819km2. Other authors(Babel and Wahid, 2008; Eastham et al., 2010; Harrington et al., 2009; Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2011; Jain et al., 2009)indicate an area range from 1080 000 to 1 218 500 km2. *Of a total population of about 237million (Fig. 1), Pakistan accounts for 61 % (145 million) and India for 35% (83 million)*. Another 4% (9 million) live in the Afghani part of the basin, and the Chinese population is very little due to the rough Himalayan landscape character of this part of the basin. Of the irrigated area (228694km2, 21 % of basin area) about60.9% is located in Pakistan, 37.2 % in India, 1.9% in Afghanistan and 0% in China.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...MeeNJ2tri-BCPBbmy2idAIeK_q8SX3y3L-EMdCR5Ockgo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

M. Sarmad said:


> Special Lecture: Study of the Indus Script by Asko PARPOLA
> 
> @Sher Shah Awan



I remember posting this in this forum a long while back too.



M. Sarmad said:


> Let me make it simple for you, Indus:
> 
> 145 million Pakistanis and 83 million Indians live in the Indus Basin Area.
> 
> Your Neo-Indus nationalism is flawed insofar as it completely ignores those 83 million people (and a land area comprising hundreds of thousands sq km)
> 
> Go for Indus Muslim Nationalism instead if you want to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Englishman, I am more Pakistani than you
> Just because I do not agree with you on certain things doesn't mean that I am an Indian.
> Kindly stop issuing such _Fatwas. _



After all Jinnah clearly objected to being called an "Indian" for majority of his life. He preferred "Indus nationalist" before the better word Pakistan could be formed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Your state propaganda is furthering lies about Pakistan and Pakistanis. We can’t be expected to correct all the disinformation being peddled by your priests, politicians, and educators.



We keep reading this; who and where did this state propaganda originate? Can you show us an example? Don't correct ALL the disinformation being peddled; correct some, and show it first. 

This is a classic straw-man defence; set up an imaginary situation just in order to knock it down and crow over that as a victory. NOBODY is interested in depriving Pakistan of its legitimate pre-Islamic history; the difficulty lies with you, and those like you who claim that the IVC and the Pakistan of today were peculiarly inter-related and nothing of the rest of India has had any connection with this extinct culture.

Manifestly false; we have already seen where the excavated trail goes, and what we know about the probable escape trajectory of the survivors of the fallen cities. That is for the IVC itself and for its survivors; as for the other half of this two-in-one concept set up by wild fantasy, the Pakistani people were partly descended from the IVC survivors (try following the pottery trail within the soil of present-day Pakistan itself, and see the results for yourself) and partly from what @Talwar e Pakistan describes as the resumption of the interrupted migrations, and the constant invasions from the Greeks onwards: the Indo-Aryans, the Persians, the Greeks, the Bactrian Greeks, the Scythian-Parthians, the Kushana, the Ephthalites, and, after a hiatus of a few centuries, the Arabs and the Turks.



> You are claiming an origin from a civilization 1,372 km away from the focus of your civilization.



Both ends of your argument are wrong; nobody is claiming an origin from this civilisation, and the focus of our civilisation, that was once your civilisation as well, and still is, is not 1,372 kms. away.

First, there has been no clear cultural legacy of the ruined cities of the IVC. 'We' (whoever that reference is intended for) are not claiming it; if 'you' are claiming it, you are mistaken, as your origins are elsewhere. The people currently living in the Indus Valley may have descended (in part) from the survivors; their culture certainly didn't, and is one that was built up through the following centuries, with a great deal of inter-relationship. 



> You can claim origin from Aryans, that is part of your history and religion due to migration into your region, but IVC has nothing to do with India.



'Aryan' is not a race, as everybody except a few half-lettered amateur propagandists recognise; 'we' did not descend from the Aryans, we speak, in northern India, languages that belong to the Indo-European family of languages, and 'Aryan' is a term used in two of them, in Sanskrit and in the languages descended from Prakrit, as well as in Iranian.

'We' do not claim origin from 'Aryans', as you seem to think; our origin differs with each of the nine river valleys that form our culture. The Indus also formed our culture; that 'we' do not live there is an accident of politics. The people from the east of our country have a heavy admixture of Tibetan blood.



> We share more in common with Afghanistan than we ever will with India as we have united together for most of history.



Here we go again!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Nilgiri

I do not understand why the over fuss and bother over revisionists here.

It will just go in circles and circles....revisionism comes from another place altogether that cannot be worded out.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Another topic, but Pakistan originally included all of East Punjab as well.
> 
> Rajastan, also, was the subject of Ghandi’s own ghar wapsi (which at that time sent alarm bells off in the Muslim League,) and now it is a BJP extremist base due to years of Hindutva propaganda.
> 
> That land (East Punjab) was stolen from us. Partition violence made that border permanent. Quaid e Azam wanted it to be part of Pakistan.



What on earth are you talking about? What was Radcliffe doing then? Running an anthropology project?

Both Bengal and Punjab were partitioned on religious lines so that the Dominion of Pakistan could be a Muslim majority state. Pakistan never included East Punjab; please read the India Independence Act. Your reference to Rajasthan is baffling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> *2 The Indus basin*
> *2.1 General*
> 
> The Indus basin is located in 4 countries, of which the largest part in Pakistan, and substantial upstream parts in India, China and Afghanistan (Fig. 1). More than 40 % is located at an elevation higher than 2000ma.s.l. The total hydrographic basin – as deﬁned by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) – has an area of 1 137819km2. Other authors(Babel and Wahid, 2008; Eastham et al., 2010; Harrington et al., 2009; Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2011; Jain et al., 2009)indicate an area range from 1080 000 to 1 218 500 km2. *Of a total population of about 237million (Fig. 1), Pakistan accounts for 61 % (145 million) and India for 35% (83 million)*. Another 4% (9 million) live in the Afghani part of the basin, and the Chinese population is very little due to the rough Himalayan landscape character of this part of the basin. Of the irrigated area (228694km2, 21 % of basin area) about60.9% is located in Pakistan, 37.2 % in India, 1.9% in Afghanistan and 0% in China.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/public...MeeNJ2tri-BCPBbmy2idAIeK_q8SX3y3L-EMdCR5Ockgo


These figures are flawed. Even this articles notes that K-Pk, Punjab, Sindh and part of Balochistan occupy Indus Basin. Below is link to census 2017 with provincial populations. 95% of Pakistan lives on the Indus. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Census_of_Pakistan

Even your link places most of Pakistan on the Indus and 95% of the populated regions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

Out of interest @Indus Pakistan , what are your thoughts on the three major river basins of China (Yellow, Yangtse and Pearl)?


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indus Pakistan said:


> These figures are flawed. Even this articles notes that K-Pk, Punjab, Sindh and part of Balochistan occupy Indus Basin. Below is link to census 2017 with provincial populations. 95% of Pakistan lives on the Indus.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Census_of_Pakistan
> 
> Even your link places most of Pakistan on the Indus and 95% of the populated regions.



Karachi and other Southernmost districts of Sindh (Thatta, Badin, Tharparkar etc.) do not fall within the basin.

Those figures are not flawed. However, they are from 2012. You can adjust that to _90 million Indians and 160 million Pakistanis_ in 2018.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Nilgiri said:


> Out of interest @Indus Pakistan , what are your thoughts on the three major river basins of China (Yellow, Yangtse and Pearl)?


I know that Huang He [Yellow River] has played a crucial role in Chinese history but beyond that my knowledge is limited. And @M.Sarmad your stupidiy has me defeated. I can't reason with person with no reason.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Republic

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> *Only a few Pakistani families have Arab patrilineal origin*, many have Turk, Kurd, Persian, Afghan, and local (Aryan/Irani) origins too.
> As detailed here in this thread, Greek and Buddhist history had a lasting effect on our culture and society. It also set the stage for the Buddhist-Hindu (Brahmanism) civil war which eventually led to our Islamization.



Although my opinion differs on most of the points, but we are agree on the bold point. So this matter is settled once for all that Pakistanis are not Arabs, hence they have not ruled India for thousand years.
I am saving the screen shot of your post.
Islamic invasion has nothing to do with Buddhist Brahmanical war. (It was not civil war, because Buddhist were local and Brahmins were invaders.) It was finished at the start of Gupta period.
After that, wars were fought between Brahmins and converted Buddhists only.
That too was settled well before Islamic invasion.

Population was majority Buddhist but almost all rulers were Brahmins/Aryans.

There is no defined Indian version of History. We give space to all ideologys and agree to disagree. Other wise I would have never been able to read that material what I am writing here. This is the basic difference between our sources of knowledge.
Yes, we have been ruled by Aryans, Huns, Kushans, Shakas, Arabs, Turks, Afgans, British for many years, but we don't run away from it like you people. Nobody can run away from his past. We accept it as our history and try to preserve it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Republic said:


> Although my opinion differs on most of the points, but we are agree on the bold point. So this matter is settled once for all that Pakistanis are not Arabs, hence they have not ruled India for thousand years.
> I am saving the screen shot of your post.



It’s common knowledge in Pakistan and not extraordinary in the least. Arains, Sayyids, and other Pakistanis of Arab patrilineal descent do not make up the majority of Pakistanis, but a portion of the population only.

It is the Turks, mostly, who ruled Hindustan for almost a thousand years, not Arabs.

We don’t want to get into the nitty gritty of Indian history, we are only concerned with our own.



Republic said:


> After that, wars were fought between Brahmins and converted Buddhists only.
> That too was settled well before Islamic invasion.



It was mass conversion from Buddhism to Islam, which began after Muhammad bin Qasim and the advent of Sufi scholars like Ali Hajweri (Data ji,) which led to Islamization.

In cities like Multan, there are accounts of Buddhist priests who had visions of Prophet Muhammad saws and they pushed their populations to Islam.

If our ancestors (of Pakistan and Afghanistan) had not embraced Buddhism, we would not be Muslims today. It is very much intertwined in our historical narrative.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Republic said:


> but we don't run away from it like you people. Nobody can run away from his past. We accept it as our history and try to preserve it.


Who told you we run from it? Is this another of those "Make India" observations like the one where you think we think we are Arabs or of Arab origin?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Republic

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Your state propaganda is furthering lies about Pakistan and Pakistanis. We can’t be expected to correct all the disinformation being peddled by your priests, politicians, and educators.
> 
> You are claiming an origin from a civilization 1,372 km away from the focus of your civilization.
> 
> You can claim origin from Aryans, that is part of your history and religion due to migration into your region, but IVC has nothing to do with India.
> 
> We share more in common with Afghanistan than we ever will with India as we have united together for most of history.
> 
> Only a few Pakistani families have Arab patrilineal origin, many have Turk, Kurd, Persian, Afghan, and local (Aryan/Irani) origins too.
> 
> You ask an Arab, Persian, Turk to disassociate from his Pre-Islamic history and you will get only blank stares. Pakistan is the sum of all its parts.
> 
> As detailed here in this thread, Greek and Buddhist history had a lasting effect on our culture and society. It also set the stage for the Buddhist-Hindu (Brahmanism) civil war which eventually led to our Islamization.
> 
> From around 300 BC to 200 BC. The Mauryan footprint on Pakistan was temporary.



Unlike your state, ours is a secular one. Rulers of different ideology are constantly been changed, and fight and get corrected whenever state tries to change it wrongly. Sadly, you people don't have such liberty.
That's why our version of history is anytime truer than yours.

1372 kilometers ????
If a Russian 2000 kilometers away from Moscow claims that he is a Russian, will you deny his legacy ??? Yes some of us are adjacent to it some are away, but we are same people, same nation.
Regarding lineage, we don't claim like Pakistanis that we are pure Arabian blood, we accept our mixed ancestry, we can't change it. But the matter of the fact is that we are all Indian, and IVC area is spread in India also, not 5%, but a good chunk of it (see the map I posted), so we can proudly claim claim it's legacy.
Regards.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Republic said:


> converted Buddhists only


I am curious are not all Buddhists or followers of other faiths 'converted; at some point. Or are some baked in the oven, hot and prepared?

Most Indians are of dominant Ancestral South Indian stock [aboriginal hunter gatheres] and were prevailed on or conquered by people from Indus Region thus introducing the foundation of Hindusim. Majority of India is the aborginal underclass that become prevailed upon by people from our region. You will find most of your elite [Brahmin etc] display significant genetic influence from western parts of the sub-continent. And as you move east or south into India the AASi influence gets stronger with some of the tribes you have in east and south India as vivid reminder of that.



Republic said:


> pure Arabian blood


Boy you sure masturbate over this 'Arab' thing don't you. It's like clod of grass being masticated by a holy cow. Must be satisfying for you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Republic

Indus Pakistan said:


> Who told you we run from it? Is this another of those "Make India" observations like the one where you think we think we are Arabs or of Arab origin?



Thousands of Pakistani shouting on this forum day and night. Should I post all those comments here ????


----------



## Indus Pakistan

And before I go yes we do have Iranian/Central Asian influence [not Arab] and I for one take* extreme *pride in that. Even our forefathers in the IVC were mix of Iranian stock from Zagros who migrated to Indus laying the seeds of IVC.

Maybe I am a closet Hindoo but I kind of see why the minority higher order [Indians with greater Iranian/Central Asian genetic heritage] have the caste system. I mean I would also pronounce 30% of Aboriginal India as fit for being Untouchables given that they are walking exposition of primitive aboriginals. But given that Jinnah gave us perfect caste division via the Durand Line which effectively keeps the ocean sealed off from us - I am apt to even do a puja in sarrow to the doomed Indian upper orders. A drop of milk in a ocean of shyte. I pray that Hindusism holds true to it's division of peoples. 

Do I sound like a Hindoo??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Republic

Indus Pakistan said:


> I am curious are not all Buddhists or followers of other faiths 'converted; at some point. Or are some baked in the oven, hot and prepared?
> 
> Most Indians are of dominant Ancestral South Indian stock [aboriginal hunter gatheres] and were prevailed on or conquered by people from Indus Region thus introducing the foundation of Hindusim. Majority of India is the aborginal underclass that become prevailed upon by people from our region. You will find most of your elite [Brahmin etc] display significant genetic influence from western parts of the sub-continent. And as you move east or south into India the AASi influence gets stronger with some of the tribes you have in east and south India as vivid reminder of that.
> 
> Boy you sure masturbate over this 'Arab' thing don't you. It's like clod of grass being masticated by a holy cow. Must be satisfying for you.



The people you quoted were never been in Indus civilization at that time. It was the *aboriginal underclass *you stated present there. DNA analysis of Rakhigadhi skeletons (only available skeletons of IVC era) proved it. This debate is settled every where in the world once for all three months ago.
I am not masturbating, thousands of Pakistani masturbating day and night on this forum, tell them if you can.
And don't use uncivilised language with me, I am not a boy. You can very well ignore me if you want but maintain civility if you want to converse.
Regards.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Here take a grab on this. And find out how a few invaders from west made majority of Indians into subserviant lower varna orders. Then smoked them into Hinduism. The greatest collective act of servitude in human history.

https://scroll.in/article/874102/ar...o-know-about-the-new-study-on-indian-genetics

And lest you delude yourself chew on this map below. The green diamond is us [yeh your nemesis] and that saffron heart is yee converted aboriginal AASI stock collectively placed into servitude gratis Hinduism from our region. Respect to our Brahmin blood brothers ...

Ta ta. Off to offer a puja now ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Republic said:


> Unlike your state, ours is a secular one.



Ok, then why are you here trying to convince us of anything if you decided we are not worth it.

Go talk to your secular Indians and leave us alone.

We are proud of our faith and it binds us to many people outside our region. When an Albanian or Nigerian and a Pakistani can sit at a table and be brothers, that is more than many other faiths can give.



Republic said:


> Regarding lineage, we don't claim like Pakistanis that we are pure Arabian blood, we accept our mixed ancestry, we can't change it.



No Pakistani will ever claim that. You are ill-informed.

Your Hindu priests, politicians, and society regularly claim this though when deriding us as foreign.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

Indus Pakistan said:


> I know that Huang He [Yellow River] has played a crucial role in Chinese history but beyond that my knowledge is limited. And @M.Sarmad your stupidiy has me defeated. I can't reason with person with no reason.



Ah ok buddy. Its actually quite interesting (history of China). At times they were united politically (under local or foreign dynasty), but other times they did split among the river basin areas like your hypothesis as well.

This is for example why Cantonese (pearl river area) is very different and mutually unintelligble with mandarin. Shanghainese and other yangste dialects are often quite different from yellow river (Beijing etc) chinese language (spoken form).

It is interesting to actually think what the history of what we call China would have looked like if there was no Qin emperor (who's namesake is given to the word "China") that (forcefully early on) standardised the written form everywhere. Likely some more similarity with subcontinent area would have arisen. But it is quite a nuanced complicated subject overall.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Republic

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Ok, then why are you here trying to convince us of anything if you decided we are not worth it.
> 
> Go talk to your secular Indians and leave us alone.



1. I am not trying to convince you of any thing. I am trying to put forth my view in a subject of common interest. I just says that we, in India can access many sources of information having quite different views and can make balanced approach while in Pakistan it is difficult for you people.
2. I am here to converse with like minded people of different nationalities. You can very well ignore me if you don't like my views. I will close my account the day I feel that nobody on this forum likes me.



> ] We are proud of our faith and it binds us to many people outside our region. When an Albanian or Nigerian and a Pakistani can sit at a table and be brothers, that is more than many other faiths can give.


What is the fuss?? I am not disparaging any religion or nationality. I respect them all. I just said that due to secularism we, in India have easier access to many sources of information having different points of view and can infer a more balanced view as well as express it on open forums with out any fear in comparison to Pakistani people. That's all. Now you can differ with it.



> =No Pakistani will ever claim that. You are ill-informed.



I found many Pakistanis claiming that on this forum. Should I start tagging you on all those comments ????



> Your Hindu priests, politicians, and society regularly claim this though when deriding us as foreign.



Fuuk all those Hindu priests etc etc...


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Republic said:


> 1. I am not trying to convince you of any thing. I am trying to put forth my view in a subject of common interest. I just says that we, in India can access many sources of information having quite different views and can make balanced approach while in Pakistan it is difficult for you people.



Nothing that you have posted shows that, actually it shows the opposite.

You are commenting about matters of which you have no knowledge.



Republic said:


> 2. I am here to converse with like minded people of different nationalities. You can very well ignore me if you don't like my views. I will close my account the day I feel that nobody on this forum likes me.



You are not going to find many Pakistanis who are going to support you in your assertion that we are all Arab and foreign.



Republic said:


> I found many Pakistanis claiming that on this forum. Should I start tagging you on all those comments ????



I would like to see that. Tag them please.


----------



## Republic

Indus Pakistan said:


> Here take a grab on this. And find out how a few invaders from west made majority of Indians into subserviant lower varna orders. Then smoked them into Hinduism. The greatest collective act of servitude in human history.
> 
> https://scroll.in/article/874102/ar...o-know-about-the-new-study-on-indian-genetics
> 
> And lest you delude yourself chew on this map below. The green diamond is us [yeh your nemesis] and that saffron heart is yee converted aboriginal AASI stock collectively placed into servitude gratis Hinduism from our region. Respect to our Brahmin blood brothers ...
> 
> Ta ta. Off to offer a puja now ...



Why are you getting excited unnecessarily.
Do you even read other's comments properly or start commenting after reading first two lines ???

Have you read that whole paper properly and kept your self updated about most important finding of which that link is talking ???

Yes...
The DNA analysis of Rakhigadhi skeletons is out three months back and the point is settled once for all.
IVC people were not Aryans or Persians.
They were aboriginals in your language.
And for God sake, they were not hunter gatherers, as your link claims because we all know how advanced were IVC people.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.econ...-invasion-theory/amp_articleshow/64565413.cms

Lastly, Please don't acquire your knowledge of history by studying blogs, Facebook, Twitter, whattsupp etc.
At least read original books or translations or third person information given by renowned scholars.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Nothing that you have posted shows that, actually it shows the opposite.



Show me and I will say sorry.



> You are commenting about matters of which you have no knowledge.



Then leave it. Don't waste your time with me.



> I would like to see that. Tag them please.


Be ready then....


----------



## LeGenD

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> It’s common knowledge in Pakistan and not extraordinary in the least. Arains, Sayyids, and other Pakistanis of Arab patrilineal descent do not make up the majority of Pakistanis, but a portion of the population only.
> 
> It is the Turks, mostly, who ruled Hindustan for almost a thousand years, not Arabs.


Turko-Mongols to be precise.

A large number of Afghans and Pakistani are Turko-Mongolish. Babur (who founded the Mughal Empire) in the subcontinent was a direct descendant of Turko-Mongol Taimur Khan who also toppled the powerful Tughlaq dynasty in the subcontinent in his lifetime.

Mongolish history is fascinating to be honest; shock and awe. These super-humans never admitted defeat. Although Alau-ud-din Khilji prevented Mongolian conquest of India in his lifetime, he was only delaying the inevitable.

My paternal side also have Mongolian connection.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Nilgiri said:


> Ah ok buddy. Its actually quite interesting (history of China). At times they were united politically (under local or foreign dynasty), but other times they did split among the river basin areas like your hypothesis as well.
> 
> This is for example why Cantonese (pearl river area) is very different and mutually unintelligble with mandarin. Shanghainese and other yangste dialects are often quite different from yellow river (Beijing etc) chinese language (spoken form).


Many people think rivers divide, the truth is more often then not river basi unite and act as crucible for nations/civilizations. In South Asian context often Indus is used by many [driven with agenda] to divide. 

Thames River, River Seine have been traditionally the fulcrum of English/French power. London and Paris both sit on both sides of rivers. Ancient Egypt and Mesopotomamia took around around river basins, ditto IVC and Indus River and of course China as you mentioned. The Ganga Valley has been centre of Indian culture and history for millenia.

Today Indus plays a role bigger then it ever did in the past. 95% Pakistan depends on Indus for water, food and life. The Indus River system along with the canal system [one of the largest in the world] is like the human circulatory system. Pakistan would die within days if it was blocked. If in the past we had Indus Valley Civilization today we have Indus Valley Country.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kamikaze Pilot

Indus Pakistan said:


> I don't think you have been exposed to this species. They will reconfigure everything. Artificial straight hair, skin lightening, nose re-engineering. Just look at Micheal Jackson before and after pictures.


One single example 'Michael Jackson'. How many other such blacks do you know?


----------



## M. Sarmad

Indus Pakistan said:


> @M.Sarmad your stupidiy has me defeated. I can't reason with person with no reason.


----------



## Pakistani E

Republic said:


> Yes...
> The DNA analysis of Rakhigadhi skeletons is out three months back and the point is settled once for all.
> IVC people were not Aryans or Persians.
> They were aboriginals in your language.
> And for God sake, they were not hunte





Republic said:


> The people you quoted were never been in Indus civilization at that time. It was the *aboriginal underclass *you stated present there. DNA analysis of Rakhigadhi skeletons (only available skeletons of IVC era) proved it. This debate is settled every where in the world once for all three months ago.



Isn't it slightly disingenuous of you to assert here that the DNA analysis only showed "aboriginal" DNA? Didn't it also show a minor "Iranian" contribution? It doesn't really settle anything at all. The DNA of most Pakistanis is also made up of atleast ~20%(lowest) "Aboriginal" DNA, layered together with the so called Iranian admixture, and with Central Asian one.

If DNA results from a couple of individuals can be used to conclusively prove anything, then it's that the fusion of indigenous people of Indus Valley Basin, with migrants from South West Asia, gave birth to the Indus Valley Civilization.



M. Sarmad said:


> Special Lecture: Study of the Indus Script by Asko PARPOLA
> 
> @Sher Shah Awan



Thank you, it's an interesting read for sure. I am not a linguist per say, although I do have a great interest in languages. I feel as though I am not qualified enough to critically evaluate the author's 'educated speculation', although they are indeed plausible. Interesting ideas nonetheless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Republic

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Isn't it slightly disingenuous of you to assert here that the DNA analysis only showed "aboriginal" DNA? Didn't it also show a minor "Iranian" contribution? It doesn't really settle anything at all. The DNA of most Pakistanis is also made up of atleast ~20%(lowest) "Aboriginal" DNA, layered together with the so called Iranian admixture, and with Central Asian one.



The question is, can Irani/Pakistani claim that their forefathers established IVC with that minor(tiny) DNA contribution, where as so called aboriginals can not call even with major contribution ???
Think logically.



> If DNA results from a couple of individuals can be used to conclusively prove anything, then it's that the fusion of indigenous people of Indus Valley Basin, with migrants from South West Asia, gave birth to the Indus Valley Civilization.


But, where is the fusion ???
That minor contribution can not be called fusion.
Migration didn't take place in IVC time, it happened much much later.
You know, why Indian Sanghi and Pakistani Mulla historians fight and disagree over everything but are unanimous on this point with out even any single proof ???
Because their survival in modern day depends upon this. If they accept it, they are finished.
PS: linguistics is a very interesting subject. Sometimes It can also open secret doors of history.
For example: in Rigveda, word for elephant is HASTIN MRIG (हस्तिनमृग) means "animal with hand". Now what does it infer ??
It means RigVedic people had never seen elephants, so when they came in India, they started calling it "animal with hand" in amazement. That means Indian Sanghi claim of Aryans being local is false.
Regards.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Isn't it slightly disingenuous of you to assert here that the DNA analysis only showed "aboriginal" DNA? Didn't it also show a minor "Iranian" contribution? It doesn't really settle anything at all. The DNA of most Pakistanis is also made up of atleast ~20%(lowest) "Aboriginal" DNA, layered together with the so called Iranian admixture, and with Central Asian one.
> 
> If DNA results from a couple of individuals can be used to conclusively prove anything, then it's that the fusion of indigenous people of Indus Valley Basin, with migrants from South West Asia, gave birth to the Indus Valley Civilization.



That ancient history proves that those migrations from South West Asia and Central Asia were a constant stream through most of our ancient history.

The IVC had strong trade links to ancient Babylon and nomads in and around that region.

Just like China faced countless migrations from Mongolia and Central Asia, we also faced such migrations as well.

Does that deny our links to our ancestors? No, it does not.

Pakistan’s society have been absorbing countless different people since prehistory, and the same can be said for all ancient cultures.

Look at ancient Egyptians compared to today’s Egyptians. They look vastly different, but no one denies their ethnic origin. Same can be said for Greece.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Agnihotra

Republic said:


> The question is, can Irani/Pakistani claim that their forefathers established IVC with that minor(tiny) DNA contribution, where as so called aboriginals can not call even with major contribution ???
> Think logically.
> 
> 
> But, where is the fusion ???
> That minor contribution can not be called fusion.
> Migration didn't take place in IVC time, it happened much much later.
> You know, why Indian Sanghi and Pakistani Mulla historians fight and disagree over everything but are unanimous on this point with out even any single proof ???
> Because their survival in modern day depends upon this. If they accept it, they are finished.
> PS: linguistics is a very interesting subject. Sometimes It can also open secret doors of history.
> For example: in Rigveda, word for elephant is HASTIN MRIG (हस्तिनमृग) means "animal with hand". Now what does it infer ??
> It means RigVedic people had never seen elephants, so when they came in India, they started calling it "animal with hand" in amazement. That means Indian Sanghi claim of Aryans being local is false.
> Regards.



Tobe fair Elephants were living in Central Asia and Even snowbowl of Siberian when Aryans were in CentralAsia.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...ists-reveal-plan-restore-Siberia-Ice-Age.html



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> That ancient history proves that those migrations from South West Asia and Central Asia were a constant stream through most of our ancient history.
> 
> The IVC had strong trade links to ancient Babylon and nomads in and around that region.
> 
> Just like China faced countless migrations from Mongolia and Central Asia, we also faced such migrations as well.
> 
> Does that deny our links to our ancestors? No, it does not.
> 
> Pakistan’s society have been absorbing countless different people since prehistory, and the same can be said for all ancient cultures.
> 
> Look at ancient Egyptians compared to today’s Egyptians. They look vastly different, but no one denies their ethnic origin. Same can be said for Greece.



I disagree, Egyptians looks same as their forefathers.

Ancient Egyptwas not Nordic or Subsaharan country, whole of North Africa and Middle East was and still today is a Semitic land.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Republic

Agnihotra said:


> Tobe fair Elephants were living in Central Asia and Even snowbowl of Siberian when Aryans were in CentralAsia.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...ists-reveal-plan-restore-Siberia-Ice-Age.html



Please don't throw a random link. Most of us have gone through these news. If you had taken care to read that link, you would have known the chronology of that animal. At least you would have observed the time when they got extinct.

Regards,


----------



## Agnihotra

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Many a people don't realize that the greek / *macedonian army ran out of the punjab arena as if its tail was on fire---and chose the water route to escape---which was the SAFEST ROUTE and the fastest route for a defeated military-*--. As if they had suffered a catastrophic loss---and that loss was of the death of Alexander after his defeat at the hands of Porus---.
> 
> The thing is---any invading force coming from north and conquering Punjab had only flat lands in front of it to conquer where all the booty---loot and plunder was---.
> 
> So---why did this greek / *macedonian army literally ran out of the arena*---because its leader was dead and they had been defeated at Jhelum---.



according to historical sources, greeks under Alexander smashed their way from Khyber pass to Arabian sea by destroying and killing punjabis and sindhis.

https://www.themaparchive.com/the-empire-of-alexander-the-great-336323-bce.html

if they were scared of Punjabis, why they attacked and conquered all of punjab after battle with porus instead of simply going back to Khyber pass ?



Indus Pakistan said:


> I am curious are not all Buddhists or followers of other faiths 'converted; at some point. Or are some baked in the oven, hot and prepared?
> 
> Most Indians are of dominant Ancestral South Indian stock [aboriginal hunter gatheres] and were prevailed on or conquered by people from Indus Region thus introducing the foundation of Hindusim. *Majority of India is the aborginal underclass that become prevailed upon by people from our region. *



example ? 



> You will find most of your elite [*Brahmin *etc] display significant genetic influence from *western parts of the sub-continent.*



lol nope. *Central Asia* and *Levant/Neolithic homeland *


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Agnihotra said:


> I disagree, Egyptians looks same as their forefathers.
> 
> Ancient Egyptwas not Nordic or Subsaharan country, whole of North Africa and Middle East was and still today is a Semitic land.



I take it you don’t know very many Egyptians. Roman, Arab, and Turkish rule have definitely changed the phenotype and culture of Egyptian people.


----------



## Agnihotra

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> I take it you don’t know very many Egyptians. Roman, Arab, and Turkish rule have definitely changed the phenotype and culture of Egyptian people.


Yes but I believe their basic genes are still same. Something like 70-30 split.

Even before arabization local peopleof Egypt for thousandsof years were Caucasoids with brown skin like most of Middle East such as Arabia, Iran and Levent.

It seems every black guy in US claims that Ancient Egypt was a black civilization untill whites and Arabs migrated and destroyed it, few nutjobs even claim to be true Jews, Greeks, Dravidians and Brahmins.

I can be wrong though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

Republic said:


> The question is, can Irani/Pakistani claim that their forefathers established IVC with that minor(tiny) DNA contribution, where as so called aboriginals can not call even with major contribution ???
> Think logically.
> 
> 
> But, where is the fusion ???
> That minor contribution can not be called fusion.
> Migration didn't take place in IVC time, it happened much much later.
> You know, why Indian Sanghi and Pakistani Mulla historians fight and disagree over everything but are unanimous on this point with out even any single proof ???
> Because their survival in modern day depends upon this. If they accept it, they are finished.
> PS: linguistics is a very interesting subject. Sometimes It can also open secret doors of history.
> For example: in Rigveda, word for elephant is HASTIN MRIG (हस्तिनमृग) means "animal with hand". Now what does it infer ??
> It means RigVedic people had never seen elephants, so when they came in India, they started calling it "animal with hand" in amazement. That means Indian Sanghi claim of Aryans being local is false.
> Regards.



Maybe you should read some of the links to the studies further about the South West Asian migrations in to the subcontinent.

Also, just because they had what is being called "aboriginal" DNA, it doesn't necessarily mean that someone hundreds of miles away is going to be a direct descendant. It's more likely that someone from this area is directly descendant from the earlier inhabitants, rather than someone who just happens to share similar ancestors.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Indus Pakistan said:


> Does anybody know the exact number of years that Mauryans held sway over coterminous Pakistan? I count just over 100. That seems blip over 5,000 years of our history but some here do make it sound as if it ruled this region for far longer.




from 305 BC till the invasion of the Graeco Bactrians at around 185 BC------120 years 

and Mohyal Brahmins held Kabul for around 50 years from 850 AD to 900 AD

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Agnihotra

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> from 305 BC till the invasion of the Graeco Bactrians at around 185 BC------120 years
> 
> and Mohyal Brahmins held Kabul for around 50 years from 850 AD to 900 AD


What Happ after 900 ?


----------



## MastanKhan

Agnihotra said:


> according to historical sources, greeks under Alexander smashed their way from Khyber pass to Arabian sea by destroying and killing punjabis and sindhis.
> 
> https://www.themaparchive.com/the-empire-of-alexander-the-great-336323-bce.html
> 
> if they were scared of Punjabis, why they attacked and conquered all of punjab after battle with porus instead of simply going back to Khyber pass ?
> 
> 
> 
> example ?
> 
> 
> 
> lol nope. *Central Asia* and *Levant/Neolithic homeland *



Hi,

If you had read history---you would find that over the centuries---receding militaries have destroyed and wreaked havoc over the locals on their exit from the arena---.

you have answered you comment yourself---by referencing " historical sources "---all these historical sources are greek---why would they belittle Alexander---.

The bottom line here is---if Alexander was victorious at Jhelum---then there was nothing left in his way to further his conquest to the rich fertile plains for the ultimate loot and plunder---.

His military's abrupt departure clearly indicates that---first he was defeated at Jhelum---and second---he was either killed at Tulamba / Multan or fatally wounded---.

Killed is more appropriate---.

Marcus covered for a few battles for Julius ceasar when Ceasar would be having SEIZURES---. Marcus would wear Julius's attire and his face mask and enter the battle surrounded by Ceasar's faithful body guards---and the army or the enemy did not know if it was Ceasar or if it was Marcus leading the troops---.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

MastanKhan said:


> The bottom line here is---if Alexander was victorious at Jhelum---then there was nothing left in his way to further his conquest to the rich fertile plains for the ultimate loot and plunder---.


 Tell me?


Was there going to be some point where his troops would get tired or go on forever until they hit the South China Sea/Pacific Ocean?
Is it possible the Greeks were only interested in the 'known world' which was marked on the east by the Persian satrapies Gandhara/Hendush [coterminous Pakistan]?
If he [Alexander] lost why did the Greeks not hightail out by heading back to their [conquered] rout that they had come along?
Why launch on a major thrust along the entire Indus River and then tyracing back along the terrible coast of Balochistan?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Agnihotra said:


> What Happ after 900 ?


 Saffarids kicked them out of Kabul and they (Hindu Shahis) were limited to modern day Punjab and NWFP...and they would even lose these holdings because of the Ghaznavid invasions of 1000 AD

http://pro.geo.univie.ac.at/projects/khm/showcases?language=en


----------



## Chhatrapati

Republic said:


> linguistics is a very interesting subject. Sometimes It can also open secret doors of history.


Yep indeed.



Republic said:


> For example: in Rigveda, word for elephant is HASTIN MRIG (हस्तिनमृग) means "animal with hand". Now what does it infer ??


The thing about Sanskrit is, it can mean a lot than what's simply read and translated. That's why you see a lot of different interpretations for vedas, which changes with who translated it.
Elephants are first mentioned in Rig Veda as Vaarana, then it's mentioned as Hastinamriga which may simply relates to the trunk, and correction, when in Sanskrit, हस्तिनमृग is Hastina-mriga. Not the Hindi Hastin Mrig. Lord Ganapati is also mentioned as Hastimugha means Elephant headed and not "Hand headed" if I go by your translation. So, I don't think it's a great idea to draw conclusions by picking apart a word.

@Nilgiri I rarely find Sanskrit to Tamil or vise versa adoptions. Maybe it's my poor Tamil Vocabulary. Vaaranam means elephant in Tamil too right?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Indus Pakistan said:


> Tell me?
> 
> 
> Was there going to be some point where his troops would get tired or go on forever until they hit the South China Sea/Pacific Ocean?
> Is it possible the Greeks were only interested in the 'known world' which was marked on the east by the Persian satrapies Gandhara/Hendush [coterminous Pakistan]
> 
> If he [Alexander] lost why did the Greeks not hightail out by heading back to their [conquered] rout that they had come along?
> Why launch on a major thrust along the entire Indus River and then tyracing back along the terrible coast of Balochistan?



There is an answer to this.

If we look at 'maps' of the world dating from these times, they show Oceanus directly to the east of the Persian Empire, at the end of the Ganges, that is seen to have flowed due east and flowed straight into the all-surrounding Ocean. 

Aristotle had an obsession with reaching the Ocean; it is possible - this is just a speculation - that his old teacher inspired Alexander to try to reach the surrounding Ocean. That is why he wanted to go straight east, on until he reached that confluence of river and Ocean.

On another note, there is no question of having his having lost; the pattern of events before, during and after the battle does not support that at all. It is quite another thing that the battle itself may have been very hard-fought, and much closer to a narrow squeak than the historians would have liked to portray.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Agnihotra said:


> if they were scared of Punjabis, why they attacked and conquered all of punjab after battle with porus instead of simply going back to Khyber pass ?



After fighting Porus, they did go back. However, they decided to take a route going through what is now Multan. During this battle, Alexander was struck by an archer.

Alexander's campaign in the Indus was not an easy one, his troops faced bitter resistance and suffered many casualties. He himself was struck by an arrow, his beloved horse Bucephalus died, and his soldiers almost launched a mutiny.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nilgiri

Chhatrapati said:


> Yep indeed.
> 
> 
> The thing about Sanskrit is, it can mean a lot than what's simply read and translated. That's why you see a lot of different interpretations for vedas, which changes with who translated it.
> Elephants are first mentioned in Rig Veda as Vaarana, then it's mentioned as Hastinamriga which may simply relates to the trunk, and correction, when in Sanskrit, हस्तिनमृग is Hastina-mriga. Not the Hindi Hastin Mrig. Lord Ganapati is also mentioned as Hastimugha means Elephant headed and not "Hand headed" if I go by your translation. So, I don't think it's a great idea to draw conclusions by picking apart a word.
> 
> @Nilgiri I rarely find Sanskrit to Tamil or vise versa adoptions. Maybe it's my poor Tamil Vocabulary. Vaaranam means elephant in Tamil too right?



Yes Vaaranam is old word for elephant....not much in use in regular parlance today though. It would be one of those considered as too "Sanskrit" by "politically correct/pure" dravidian movements. "Gaja"-based words are found in other south indian languages as well...but rare in Tamil use (though would be understood).

"Yaanai" is the word I grew up with....and anyone that knows Tamil would instantly recognise.

There are actually many words for elephant in Tamil....most come from cognates describing their various attributes/colours etc. 

Vaaranam however I would say is of equivalent official status to Yaanai....just has fallen out of use mostly.

"Vezham" is for the rare white elephant. 

BTW, another use of hastina as elephant is Hastinapur (in Mahabharat)...city of elephants.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Taimur Khurram said:


> After fighting Porus, they did go back. However, they decided to take a route going through what is now Multan. During this battle, Alexander was struck by an archer.
> 
> Alexander's campaign in the Indus was not an easy one, his troops faced bitter resistance and suffered many casualties. He himself was struck by an arrow, his beloved horse Bucephalus died, and his soldiers almost launched a mutiny.



It seems that Punjab too, just like Afghanistan, can be coined as the graveyard of empires.

We either made or broke empires throughout history.



Agnihotra said:


> Yes but I believe their basic genes are still same. Something like 70-30 split.
> 
> Even before arabization local peopleof Egypt for thousandsof years were Caucasoids with brown skin like most of Middle East such as Arabia, Iran and Levent.
> 
> It seems every black guy in US claims that Ancient Egypt was a black civilization untill whites and Arabs migrated and destroyed it, few nutjobs even claim to be true Jews, Greeks, Dravidians and Brahmins.
> 
> I can be wrong though.



You are getting away from my main point. Even if they have foreign DNA and have mixed with invaders and migrants and even adopted a completely new language (Arabic,) they are still just as Egyptian as their ancestors.

In the same vein, Pakistanis are just as native to this land as the people of the IVC.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> It seems that Punjab too, just like Afghanistan, can be coined as the graveyard of empires.



The term cannot apply to either region. However, it can be said for both that there exists a strong tradition of militarism. Punjabi individuals like Porus, Abdullah Bhatti, Ahmad Khan Karral, Mukarrab Khan, Ilm Uddin, Sarang Khan, Shahbaz Khan Kamboh and Shabbir Sharif are examples of this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Republic

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Maybe you should read some of the links to the studies further about the South West Asian migrations in to the subcontinent.
> 
> Also, just because they had what is being called "aboriginal" DNA, it doesn't necessarily mean that someone hundreds of miles away is going to be a direct descendant. It's more likely that someone from this area is directly descendant from the earlier inhabitants, rather than someone who just happens to share similar ancestors.



Understand it in the following context...

During partition many people migrated from Amritsar to Lahore and from Lahore to Amritsar. Suppose all population would have changed the cities. Only 1% of other religion's population remained in the both cities.

Now, After 70 years can people of Amritsar and Lahore say that 100 years back their forefathers used to reside in the area ??
Exactly same thing has happened in that area. Due to constant attacks original people kept moving towards east and then south, invaders kept taking their place. In the meantime. Some forced marriage, some forced conversion, some love marriage, some conversion out of love kept going. Original people kept shifting towards east and south and new population kept taking their place.

Look at how population of pakistan has changed in just 70 years, and imagine about those days.

Now the population of coterminous Pakistan and India is as original as their DNA profile tells. Simple math and simple logic.



Chhatrapati said:


> *Elephants are first mentioned in Rig Veda as Vaarana,* then it's mentioned as Hastinamriga which may simply relates to the trunk, and correction, when in Sanskrit, हस्तिनमृग is Hastina-mriga. Not the Hindi Hastin Mrig. *Lord Ganapati is also mentioned as Hastimugha means* Elephant headed and not "Hand headed"



Can you please quote those verses or mention the Mandala and number where they are written ?
A screen shot would be sufficient for my further study.

Regards.


----------



## Pakistani E

Republic said:


> Understand it in the following context...
> 
> During partition many people migrated from Amritsar to Lahore and from Lahore to Amritsar. Suppose all population would have changed the cities. Only 1% of other religion's population remained in the both cities.
> 
> Now, After 70 years can people of Amritsar and Lahore say that 100 years back their forefathers used to reside in the area ??
> Exactly same thing has happened in that area. Due to constant attacks original people kept moving towards east and then south, invaders kept taking their place. In the meantime. Some forced marriage, some forced conversion, some love marriage, some conversion out of love kept going. Original people kept shifting towards east and south and new population kept taking their place.
> 
> Look at how population of pakistan has changed in just 70 years, and imagine about those days.
> 
> Now the population of coterminous Pakistan and India is as original as their DNA profile tells. Simple math and simple logic.



Wrong analogy. People of Lahore and Amritsar are not very different. Same people, just different religions.

Second point, re-read what I wrote. Unless you're saying that the whole population east of the IVB is descended from a small number people leaving this area. The likelihood of someone from Chittagong of people descended from IVC people is nearly 0, whilst the locals here are more likely to be.

Everywhere you look for example of culture changing migrations, the founding groups are always small. Pakistani population is just layered with each migratory group. With "aboriginal" component making up a plurality for the vast majority of Pakistanis.

My gripe has always been with people like you, who seek to deny Pakistanis of their heritage. I wouldn't have had a problem with your post if you had stated that most Pakistanis and a lot of North-western Indians shared a lot of history etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

Sher Shah Awan said:


> My gripe has always been with people like you, who seek to deny Pakistanis of their heritage.



Yes heritage is something to be shared to fullest extent afforded by the long histories of the regions.....rather than divvied up and partitioned "clean cut" as well. These lines drawn in sand did not eternally exist in such fashion like they do today....and who really knows how they will exist in the future. 

History is one of the most humbling fields of study if you truly go into it with open mind....I put it 2nd place to Astronomy (thus outranking even Philosophy which I put 3rd)....that is pretty darn high up in the ladder.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Republic

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Sher Shah Awan said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of this history belongs to all Pakistanis. And those pesky no bodies who constantly steal other peoples histories to feel good about themselves should have some shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:
> 
> 
> 
> An Alien culture has no right to usurp our history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are learning from the history inside our borders and the historical experiences of our blood ancestors.
> 
> We don’t claim any of India’s ancient sites, they should not do likewise to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not Indian (in today’s context.) We have ancestors who were from IVC, Iranis, Huns, Mongols, Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Turks, and Afghans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> These are your comments. Now tell me where have you talked about shared History ???
> You categorically said that IVC belong to Pakistan only and India has nothing to do about it.
Click to expand...




Sher Shah Awan said:


> Wrong analogy. People of Lahore and Amritsar are not very different. Same people, just different religions.
> 
> Second point, re-read what I wrote. Unless you're saying that the whole population east of the IVB is descended from a small number people leaving this area. The likelihood of someone from Chittagong of people descended from IVC people is nearly 0, whilst the locals here are more likely to be.
> 
> Everywhere you look for example of culture changing migrations, the founding groups are always small. Pakistani population is just layered with each migratory group. With "aboriginal" component making up a plurality for the vast majority of Pakistanis.
> 
> My gripe has always been with people like you, who seek to deny Pakistanis of their heritage. I wouldn't have had a problem with your post if you had stated that most Pakistanis and a lot of North-western Indians shared a lot of history etc.



Look at your posts and of Pan Islamic Pakistan. It is you people who were saying that it is not shared but only Pakistan''s history.
It is me who said in my first comment that it is shared.
When you arrogantly refused my comments, then I showed you people the mirror with DNA evidence of Rakhigadhi skeletons.


----------



## Cobra Arbok

Oh boy... another thread where insecure Pakistanis show their identity crisis by trying to show how different they are from Indians while bashing India in every post. Lots of garbage posted here, hopefully I can address it all. Buckle up, this is going to be a long one.


Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Persia and the Greek states had far more impact on Pakistan and its history at this time than the Ganges-related state (Mauryans.) Plus, Chandragupta Maurya was a Punjabi, so actually he was one of us (part of Indus civilization) as well. Asoka became Buddhist and revolted against Brahmanism. Later Mauryans were also heavily influenced by Greeks, which led to the blossoming of Graeco-Buddhist culture.
> 
> It is popular tactic by the West and Indian historians to refer to IVC and Greek-Buddhist capitals of Taxilla, Gandara as "ancient India," but not factual.
> 
> The difference becomes even more apparent later with the arrival of more Iranic nomads from Central Asia and the Tarim basin. That will be the topic next time.


Lol Chandragupta Maurya was not a Punjabi, he was a Bihari. Maurya is a caste of peacock tamers native throughout Northern India. For a nation that supposedly has such an ancient history, you sure love to shamelessly steal Indian history. Ashoka never revolted against "Brahmanism" he simply adopted Buddhism because he became disillusioned after the brutal war with Kalinga. And although Mauryan rule over Pakistan was relatively short, the Mauryans arguably had a greater impact on Pakistan than any other civilization at the time. It was the Mauryans who introduced Buddhism, a religion created in Bihar, to modern-day Pakistan. It was also the Mauryans under Ashoka who created a major urbanized civilization in modern Pakistan for the first time since the IVC. The only city in Pakistan that comes anywhere near as close as the cities of the Gangetic Plains is Peshawar, and that only became a major urban center during the rule of Ashoka. Of course, we all know how hard it is for Indus Nationalists to admit that most of their "great civilization" was actually imported from the Ganga


Indus Pakistan said:


> This is how I see it. The British arrived in_ South Asia*_ and over the period of 300 years by using military force defeated myriad peoples of this region and imposed a unity under the Union Jack and then named that administrative region 'British India'. It's important to note that British India [that so many here worship implicitly] was integrated by force. non of our peoples jumped, joined or elected for it. Indeed most fought not to be 'British Indian'. If somebody can cite me one example where natives of South Asia craved to be 'British Indian's' and seized that opportunity with joy I would be grateful.
> 
> However by early 20th century we knew the British would leave sooner or later. That began the rush for who was going to inherit the Raj ~ a gift built over 300 years on the piles of dead natives who had fought to avoid being integrated and British soldiers who had died fighting to make 'British India'. And boy was it not a gift. from the borders of Khyber Pass to Irrawady, from Karakorums to Tamil Nadu the Raj covered a region as large as Europe, twice the population and three times the diversity.
> 
> The jewel in the crown was [unfortunately] disintegrated by Muslim League in 1947. Jinnah partly un-made what the British had made over 300 years. Those who hope to inherit this British gift have never forgiven Jinnah and have refused to accept his creation. They act like a spoilt child who wanted all the cake but had to share it.
> 
> How is this relevant to what we are discussing? Well, Indians can do nothing to negate the physical existence of Pakistan. But that refusal to accept 1947 [like a spoilt child wanting the entire British gift] is played out today in many levels. One is refusing to accept Pakistan has it's own unique history ~ instead thrusting their blunt sub-continental narrative on us. This is where the genesis of Indus versus Ganges plays out. Indians will not accept that Indus has it's own story.
> 
> Before I build on this I want people to think of Europe which is analogous to South Asia. Although Europe has smaller population, it is lesss diverse and more homogenous. It is far more uniform then South Asia in genetics, history, religion etc. In fact I would argue that Pakistan has about as much diversity as Europe leave alone all of South Asia. I must add I here I have travelled far and wide in Europe. By air and road. I probably know Europe better then most of South Asia.
> 
> In Europe every peoples, every country have their own history and are proud of it. However all also accept that each of their unique histories do converge and overlap over the time continuum. This map below describes the continent and country histories. Each country having it's own [circles] but overlapping within the bigger continent [box].
> 
> I have never seen Germans fighting the British by saying their DNA is same as them. Or the Poles trying to undo the Slovaks by saying they are 'mutually intelligible'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem we have as I alluded to earlier is in South Asia Indians refuse to accept 1947. They regard [like spoilt children] that somehow the Raj that was built by British, given boundaries by British should have been gifted to them. That they only got a truncated part of the British colony is something most refuse to accept.
> 
> Whilst nothing can be done about Pakistan as physical reality and therefore cannnot take ownership of the land of indus they take ownership of our heritage. Anything east of Durand becomes 'Indian'. That is the root cause of the problems we see. And my push for Indus versus Ganges.
> 
> If this one story, one narrative that Indians insist on being applied across South Asia or the region that was the British Raj was applied on Europe this [below] is what you would get. One story being stamped on all of Europe erasing the *dozens* of narratives that are jealously guarded by Europeans countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This impulse by Indians appears to be a rooting for the British Raj but with one big differance. Instead of Gorah Sahibs running it and owning it. It is the present days Indians who own it. That is why you get Indians almost as matter of fact taking ownership over anything that is in Pakistan. Some sharp minds might ask is if the Indians root for a British Raj ruled by Hindutwas why do they not bother with Bangladesh?
> 
> Well, call me prejudiced but the answer is simple. The land of Indus Valley Pakistan is *motherlode* of history. Anything good in South Asia most of the time will be traced to the lands of the Indus Valley. Sans Indus region South Asia is barren wasteland that was home of aboriginals of South Asia ~ whose pure versions can still be found in South and East India.
> 
> Indus Valley is the mother of civilization in South Asia and that is exactly why Indians are motivated to go for the one narrative fits all because it enables them to take pride ride by saying "we wuz civilized" to use @OsmanAli98 expression.
> 
> This is what we should be going for in South Asia. Each country with it's own unique history but overlapping *only* where there was convergence. Replication of the European model.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This model [below] represents what those who think the British Raj is still around and they [Indians] own it and Pakistan while a physical reality can be scrubbed from their glorious heritage. It's like 1947 never happened. Viceroy is still rulling from New Delhi only his name is Sri Ram Modi. Just one story. India.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time but I will address your valid point later.


@Indus Pakistan I respect your vast historical knowledge and agree with you on many points, but posts like that do nothing to advance your cause. You claimed that everything good from South Asia comes from Indus Pakistan. I disagree. If anything it is the other way around. Let's look at it objectively. What are South Asia's contributions?

Buddhism- Buddhism was created in Bodh Gaya Bihar, and the first Buddhist sermon was delivered in Varanasi. Buddhism was spread to Southeast Asia through the scholars at 'Nalanda University, where it is still the dominant religion today. In fact, Buddhism was only introduced to Pakistan because it was conquered by Ashoka. a Bihari. obviously the Ganga wins here.

Mathematics- The decimal system, as well as the numerical and place value system we use today, were invented by Aryabhata, a mathematician born in Pataliputra. And although there is still some debate on the origin of the zero, it was Brahmagupta who first discovered its rules, including the basic rule that subtracting a number from itself results in zero. Brahmagupta was born in India and worked under the Gupta Empire. Brahmagupta was also the first to describe the quadratic equation among other things. All these accomplishments go to the Ganges region.

Medicine- The first surgeries were performed in Varanasi by Sushruta. The first Rhinoplasty operations were also perfomed in modern India, and India was the first place where anesthesia was used during surgeries.

Art, Culture, architecture- modern India is the only place in South Asia that is home to ancient works of indigenous architecture. Can you name any place in Pakistan as old and famous as the Ajanta caves, the Konark Sun Temple, or the ancient Chola temples?

literature- Two of the world's longest and most complex works of epic literature, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, were written in India. India is also home to the Brahmi script, which is the mother of most modern scripts in Southern and Southeast Asian countries today. Pakistan meanwhile is home to the Kharosthi script, which is extinct. It is pretty obvious which one is superior. India is also home to Tamil, which is the oldest language still spoken today.

And aside from the IVC sites in India, ancient sites have also been unearthed in places such as Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, and Bengal, some of which are potentially as old and as large as the most famous IVC sites.

Oh, and chess and yoga were also invented in modern-day India.


Indus Pakistan said:


> I am curious are not all Buddhists or followers of other faiths 'converted; at some point. Or are some baked in the oven, hot and prepared?
> 
> Most Indians are of dominant Ancestral South Indian stock [aboriginal hunter gatheres] and were prevailed on or conquered by people from Indus Region thus introducing the foundation of Hindusim. Majority of India is the aborginal underclass that become prevailed upon by people from our region. You will find most of your elite [Brahmin etc] display significant genetic influence from western parts of the sub-continent. And as you move east or south into India the AASi influence gets stronger with some of the tribes you have in east and south India as vivid reminder of that.
> 
> Boy you sure masturbate over this 'Arab' thing don't you. It's like clod of grass being masticated by a holy cow. Must be satisfying for you.


You are aware that historically, no Empire native to the Indus ruled the Ganges or the Deccan? Rather it was the other way around. For most of history, the Indus could barely rule itself considering its relatively harsh landscape did not allow for easy consolidation of power and the creation of a strong, centralized state like what happened in the Gangetic Plains. As a result, the Indus region was historically ruled by small kingdoms and city states that were easily ruled by foreign powers such as the Scythians, Gandharans, Huns, Mauryans, etc. That is why Alexander was eventually able to defeat King Porus, but he was forced to turn back after mere rumors of the strength and power of the Gangetic based Nanda Empire.


Indus Pakistan said:


> Here take a grab on this. And find out how a few invaders from west made majority of Indians into subserviant lower varna orders. Then smoked them into Hinduism. The greatest collective act of servitude in human history.
> 
> https://scroll.in/article/874102/ar...o-know-about-the-new-study-on-indian-genetics
> 
> And lest you delude yourself chew on this map below. The green diamond is us [yeh your nemesis] and that saffron heart is yee converted aboriginal AASI stock collectively placed into servitude gratis Hinduism from our region. Respect to our Brahmin blood brothers ...
> 
> Ta ta. Off to offer a puja now ...


Your map only shows that the Ancestral North Indian population invaded Pakistan first before they invaded India. Which means they subjugated you guys first before they subjugated us. Don't see how that is something to e proud of. According to the Aryan Invasion theory, the ancestor of the population that would become the Ancestral North Indians originated somewhere between Ukraine and the Caucuses, and your map seems to show that. I am also curious to know what is so good about Central Asians and Iranians. If your civilization was so advanced, why are you proud of having foreign ancestry? There are plenty of ethnic groups in modern India that have that ancestry, but they do not obsess over it as much as you. Instead, they are proud of their own culture and achievements. This includes the brahmins that you supposedly admire. Oh well, to each their own. Although, if you think that Central Asian ancestry makes you racially distinct from most Indians, I am afraid you are off. The difference in the ratio of "aboriginal to Aryan" as you put it between most Indians and Pakistanis is not large enough to create a striking gap in phenotypes.

Anyway, I personally do not see much of a difference in terms of civilization between the aboriginal hunter gathers of Central and Southeastern India and the nomadic goat f**king desert tribes of KP and Punjab. But that could just be my own bias showing.

@Nilgiri @Joe Shearer @VCheng @Jackdaws

Best regards sir.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## Jackdaws

Cobra Arbok said:


> Oh boy... another thread where insecure Pakistanis show their identity crisis by trying to show how different they are from Indians while bashing India in every post. Lots of garbage posted here, hopefully I can address it all. Buckle up, this is going to be a long one.
> 
> Lol Chandragupta Maurya was not a Punjabi, he was a Bihari. Maurya is a caste of peacock tamers native throughout Northern India. For a nation that supposedly has such an ancient history, you sure love to shamelessly steal Indian history. Ashoka never revolted against "Brahmanism" he simply adopted Buddhism because he became disillusioned after the brutal war with Kalinga. And although Mauryan rule over Pakistan was relatively short, the Mauryans arguably had a greater impact on Pakistan than any other civilization at the time. It was the Mauryans who introduced Buddhism, a religion created in Bihar, to modern-day Pakistan. It was also the Mauryans under Ashoka who created a major urbanized civilization in modern Pakistan for the first time since the IVC. The only city in Pakistan that comes anywhere near as close as the cities of the Gangetic Plains is Peshawar, and that only became a major urban center during the rule of Ashoka. Of course, we all know how hard it is for Indus Nationalists to admit that most of their "great civilization" was actually imported from the Ganga
> 
> @Indus Pakistan I respect your vast historical knowledge and agree with you on many points, but posts like that do nothing to advance your cause. You claimed that everything good from South Asia comes from Indus Pakistan. I disagree. If anything it is the other way around. Let's look at it objectively. What are South Asia's contributions?
> 
> Buddhism- Buddhism was created in Bodh Gaya Bihar, and the first Buddhist sermon was delivered in Varanasi. Buddhism was spread to Southeast Asia through the scholars at 'Nalanda University, where it is still the dominant religion today. In fact, Buddhism was only introduced to Pakistan because it was conquered by Ashoka. a Bihari. obviously the Ganga wins here.
> 
> Mathematics- The decimal system, as well as the numerical and place value system we use today, were invented by Aryabhata, a mathematician born in Pataliputra. And although there is still some debate on the origin of the zero, it was Brahmagupta who first discovered its rules, including the basic rule that subtracting a number from itself results in zero. Brahmagupta was born in India and worked under the Gupta Empire. Brahmagupta was also the first to describe the quadratic equation among other things. All these accomplishments go to the Ganges region.
> 
> Medicine- The first surgeries were performed in Varanasi by Sushruta. The first Rhinoplasty operations were also perfomed in modern India, and India was the first place where anesthesia was used during surgeries.
> 
> Art, Culture, architecture- modern India is the only place in South Asia that is home to ancient works of indigenous architecture. Can you name any place in Pakistan as old and famous as the Ajanta caves, the Konark Sun Temple, or the ancient Chola temples?
> 
> literature- Two of the world's longest and most complex works of epic literature, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, were written in India. India is also home to the Brahmi script, which is the mother of most modern scripts in Southern and Southeast Asian countries today. Pakistan meanwhile is home to the Kharosthi script, which is extinct. It is pretty obvious which one is superior. India is also home to Tamil, which is the oldest language still spoken today.
> 
> And aside from the IVC sites in India, ancient sites have also been unearthed in places such as Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, and Bengal, some of which are potentially as old and as large as the most famous IVC sites.
> 
> Oh, and chess and yoga were also invented in modern-day India.
> 
> You are aware that historically, no Empire native to the Indus ruled the Ganges or the Deccan? Rather it was the other way around. For most of history, the Indus could barely rule itself considering its relatively harsh landscape did not allow for easy consolidation of power and the creation of a strong, centralized state like what happened in the Gangetic Plains. As a result, the Indus region was historically ruled by small kingdoms and city states that were easily ruled by foreign powers such as the Scythians, Gandharans, Huns, Mauryans, etc. That is why Alexander was eventually able to defeat King Porus, but he was forced to turn back after mere rumors of the strength and power of the Gangetic based Nanda Empire.
> 
> Your map only shows that the Ancestral North Indian population invaded Pakistan first before they invaded India. Which means they subjugated you guys first before they subjugated us. Don't see how that is something to e proud of. According to the Aryan Invasion theory, the ancestor of the population that would become the Ancestral North Indians originated somewhere between Ukraine and the Caucuses, and your map seems to show that. I am also curious to know what is so good about Central Asians and Iranians. If your civilization was so advanced, why are you proud of having foreign ancestry? There are plenty of ethnic groups in modern India that have that ancestry, but they do not obsess over it as much as you. Instead, they are proud of their own culture and achievements. This includes the brahmins that you supposedly admire. Oh well, to each their own. Although, if you think that Central Asian ancestry makes you racially distinct from most Indians, I am afraid you are off. The difference in the ratio of "aboriginal to Aryan" as you put it between most Indians and Pakistanis is not large enough to create a striking gap in phenotypes.
> 
> Anyway, I personally do not see much of a difference in terms of civilization between the aboriginal hunter gathers of Central and Southeastern India and the nomadic goat f**king desert tribes of KP and Punjab. But that could just be my own bias showing.
> 
> @Nilgiri @Joe Shearer @VCheng @Jackdaws
> 
> Best regards sir.


You think it matters to them?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Cobra Arbok said:


> Buddhism



Kanishka, one of the greatest Buddhist rulers in history, was from Peshawar. Some of the oldest manuscripts of Buddhist texts also come from Pakistan, as do some of Buddhisms greatest pieces of architecture (cough cough Gandharan architecture). Taxila itself was a major centre of Buddhism. 



Cobra Arbok said:


> Mathematics



The Bakhshali zero comes from KPK, and Taxila itself was a very prominent centre of learning (as we all know). 



Cobra Arbok said:


> Medicine



Some of the earliest forms of Dentistry come from Mergarh. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/440755a



Cobra Arbok said:


> Art, Culture, architecture



Again, we have Gandhara, as well as beautiful Masajid such as Badhshahi Masjid, Wazir Khan Masjid, Faisal Masjid, etc. In terms of culture, our diversity is what makes it so strong. 



Cobra Arbok said:


> literature



Panini came from (what is now) Pakistan, as did Masud Saad Salman, Allama Iqbal, Fairduddin Masud, Khushal Khan Khattak, and Faiz Ahmad Faiz among many others. 



Cobra Arbok said:


> And aside from the IVC sites in India, ancient sites have also been unearthed in places such as Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, and Bengal, some of which are potentially as old and as large as the most famous IVC sites.





Cobra Arbok said:


> Oh, and chess and yoga were also invented in modern-day India.



Ok and? 



Cobra Arbok said:


> You are aware that historically, no Empire native to the Indus ruled the Ganges or the Deccan?



Rofl what? Kanishka was from Peshawar, Mihirakula was from Sialkot (then known as Sagala), Akbar was from Umerkot, Shah Jahan was from Lahore, the Muslim Mysoreans originally came from the Punjab, etc.

And geography doesn't determine ethnicity/ancestry. There have been numerous Pashtuns (don't forget that Pakistan has the world's largest Pashtun population) that ruled over India, as well as plenty of Rajputs (another major community in Pakistan) among others that did the same. 



Cobra Arbok said:


> That is why Alexander was eventually able to defeat King Porus, but he was forced to turn back after mere rumors of the strength and power of the Gangetic based Nanda Empire.



It would be fairer to say that his bad luck in the Indus is what made his army start crapping bricks at the mere thought of fighting a much larger, unified army. You still have to thank Porus for striking terror into the hearts of Alexander's army. 



Cobra Arbok said:


> Which means they subjugated you guys first before they subjugated us.



The Indo-Aryans synthesised with the people of the Indus to form early Vedic culture. It was afterwards that they spread:








Cobra Arbok said:


> Anyway, I personally do not see much of a difference in terms of civilization between the aboriginal veggie-boy dot-head monkeys of Central and Southeastern India



Fixed it for you.


----------



## Cobra Arbok

Taimur Khurram said:


> Kanishka, one of the greatest Buddhist rulers in history, was from Peshawar. Some of the oldest manuscripts of Buddhist texts also come from Pakistan, as do some of Buddhisms greatest pieces of architecture (cough cough Gandharan architecture). Taxila itself was a major centre of Buddhism.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bakhshali zero comes from KPK, and Taxila itself was a very prominent centre of learning (as we all know).
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the earliest forms of Dentistry come from Mergarh.
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/440755a
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we have Gandhara, as well as beautiful Masajid such as Badhshahi Masjid, Wazir Khan Masjid, Faisal Masjid, etc. In terms of culture, our diversity is what makes it so strong.
> 
> 
> 
> Panini came from (what is now) Pakistan, as did Masud Saad Salman, Allama Iqbal, Fairduddin Masud, Khushal Khan Khattak, and Faiz Ahmad Faiz among many others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok and?
> 
> 
> 
> Rofl what? Kanishka was from Peshawar, Mihirakula was from Sialkot (then known as Sagala), Akbar was from Umerkot, Shah Jahan was from Lahore, the Muslim Mysoreans originally came from the Punjab, etc.
> 
> And geography doesn't determine ethnicity/ancestry. There have been numerous Pashtuns (don't forget that Pakistan has the world's largest Pashtun population) that ruled over India, as well as plenty of Rajputs (another major community in Pakistan) among others that did the same.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be fairer to say that his bad luck in the Indus is what made his army start crapping bricks at the mere thought of fighting a much larger, unified army. You still have to thank Porus for striking terror into the hearts of Alexander's army.
> 
> 
> 
> The Indo-Aryans synthesised with the people of the Indus to form early Vedic culture. It was afterwards that they spread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed it for you.


Please understand the context of my post. I never said Pakistan has no civilization, I just countered that member's post about Pakistan supposedly being the center of civilization, which is untrue. Yes I know that last part was a bit harsh, but it simply matched the tone of the poster to whom I was replying. 

Yes, I know about Kansika, but that does not change the fact buddhism was created in Bihar and spread to Pakistan by Ashoka after the Mauryans conquered Pakistan. And I said no empire NATIVE to the Indus ruled large parts of the Ganges. The Mughals were not NATIVE to Pakistan. Tipu Sultan was a native of the Deccan, even if he had some Punjabi ancestry. And yes, some Pushtoon empires may have ruled parts of India for short amounts of time, but those areas were mostly limited to the North-west(Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat) that constitute the Indus Region, not the Ganges region. And for the most part, no foreign empire ruled large parts of the Gangetic Plains for long periods of time with the exception of the Kushans and Scythians, who were not native to Pakistan. Neither of those Empires lasted long in North India anyway.

Yes Bakshali is important, but as I said it was Brahmagupta who discovered the rules and properties of zero. And as for art, literature, and architecture, I should have specified that while Pakistan does have some impressive stuff from the Mughal era, there is not much that comes before. Also Pakistan's(and India's) Mughal architecture is inspired from Persian and Central Asian architecture. By indigenous I mean Hindu and Buddhist architecture. Are there any famous Buddhist and Hindu temples in Pakistan built prior to 1000 CE? India has the Ajanta caves, the Chola Temples, and the Konark sun temple among others.

As for literature, when most people think of ancient South Asian literature, they think of the Mahabharat and Ramayana. And Chess and Yoga are some of the most widespread inventions to come from South Asia, so I included them. Both have definitely boosted India's soft power and image in the world.

And yes, I definitely respect Porus for the David vs Goliath type fight he put up against Alexander the tyrant. considering he was outnumbered and his forces lacked Alexander's discipline and organization, what he did was amazing. But then again, organization is the most important part of warfare. Chandragupta Maurya showed that in his subsequent war with Selucious Nikator. I think we can agree that Alexander definitely made a mistake in invading South Asia. His bloody and expensive South Asia campaign likely facilitated the fall of his empire, similar to Aurangzeb's war against the Marathas much later.

Oh, and spread, assimilated, whatever you call it... the fact is, according to the AIT, the Aryan people from the Caucuses at one point successfully invaded and subjacated the peoples of South Asia. Obviously Pakistan, being the Northwesternmost part of the subcontinent, got invaded first.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Cobra Arbok said:


> And I said no empire NATIVE to the Indus ruled large parts of the Ganges. The Mughals were not NATIVE to Pakistan. Tipu Sultan was a native of the Deccan, even if he had some Punjabi ancestry.



Your concept of "native" is a strange one. I named people born and raised in what is now Pakistan, but that did not suffice for you since their lineages did not originate from Pakistan (but by that logic, many Pakistanis aren't real Pakistanis either since so many of our lineages came from outside of the region in the past 1000 years). But when I named people whose lineages came from Pakistan, that did not suffice because they were not born in what is now Pakistan.

And I don't know why empires from what is now the Republic of India should make us sore, since as per you we are pretty similar (I agree to some extent, see my thread on this surge of Indus nationalism) as well as the fact that we have so many migrants from India from partition.



Cobra Arbok said:


> Yes Bakshali is important



Then we do not need to discuss the topic further.



Cobra Arbok said:


> I should have specified that while Pakistan does have some impressive stuff from the Mughal era, there is not much that comes before.



Umm, Gandhara? IVC?



Cobra Arbok said:


> By indigenous I mean Hindu and Buddhist architecture.



AKA not Muslim. Which is rather silly since we are a Muslim country. Do you expect to find much else besides Masajid?



Cobra Arbok said:


> Are there any famous Buddhist and Hindu temples in Pakistan built prior to 1000 CE?



There are a few IIRC, but we destroyed most of them when we embraced Islam and joined the Muslim lashkars (or came with them, depending on one's family origins).



Cobra Arbok said:


> As for literature, when most people think of ancient South Asian literature,



What most people think is irrelevant to the facts.



Cobra Arbok said:


> His bloody and expensive South Asia campaign likely facilitated the fall of his empire



No, his empire fell because he did not effectively designate a successor.



Cobra Arbok said:


> Oh, and spread, assimilated, whatever you call it... the fact is, according to the AIT, the Aryan people from the Caucuses at one point successfully invaded and subjacated the peoples of South Asia. Obviously Pakistan, being the Northwesternmost part of the subcontinent, got invaded first.



It was a mix of migration/war. Those that assimilated nicely joined the higher castes, those that didn't were designated to form the lower castes.

The same thing happened with subsequent invaders/migrants to the region, e.g the Jats became peasants because they didn't find the varna system agreeable to their ethics.


----------



## Cobra Arbok

Taimur Khurram said:


> Your concept of "native" is a strange one. I named people born and raised in what is now Pakistan, but that did not suffice for you since their lineages did not originate from Pakistan (but by that logic, many Pakistanis aren't real Pakistanis either since so many of our lineages came from outside of the region in the past 1000 years). But when I named people whose lineages came from Pakistan, that did not suffice because they were not born in what is now Pakistan.
> 
> And I don't know why empires from what is now the Republic of India should make us sore, since as per you we are pretty similar (I agree to some extent, see my thread on this surge of Indus nationalism) as well as the fact that we have so many migrants from India from partition.
> 
> 
> 
> Then we do not need to discuss the topic further.
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, Gandhara? IVC?
> 
> 
> 
> AKA not Muslim. Which is rather silly since we are a Muslim country. Do you expect to find much else besides Masajid?
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few IIRC, but we destroyed most of them when we embraced Islam and joined the Muslim lashkars (or came with them, depending on one's family origins).
> 
> 
> 
> What most people think is irrelevant to the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> No, his empire fell because he did not effectively designate a successor.


the Mughal Empire was started by an Uzbek. There were Mughal Emperors born in both India and Pakistan. Aurangzeb was born in India for example.



Taimur Khurram said:


> Your concept of "native" is a strange one. I named people born and raised in what is now Pakistan, but that did not suffice for you since their lineages did not originate from Pakistan (but by that logic, many Pakistanis aren't real Pakistanis either since so many of our lineages came from outside of the region in the past 1000 years). But when I named people whose lineages came from Pakistan, that did not suffice because they were not born in what is now Pakistan.
> 
> And I don't know why empires from what is now the Republic of India should make us sore, since as per you we are pretty similar (I agree to some extent, see my thread on this surge of Indus nationalism) as well as the fact that we have so many migrants from India from partition.
> 
> 
> 
> Then we do not need to discuss the topic further.
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, Gandhara? IVC?
> 
> 
> 
> AKA not Muslim. Which is rather silly since we are a Muslim country. Do you expect to find much else besides Masajid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few IIRC, but we destroyed most of them when we embraced Islam and joined the Muslim lashkars (or came with them, depending on one's family origins).
> 
> 
> 
> What most people think is irrelevant to the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> No, his empire fell because he did not effectively designate a successor.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a mix of migration/war. Those that assimilated nicely joined the higher castes, those that didn't were designated to form the lower castes.
> 
> The same thing happened with subsequent invaders/migrants to the region, e.g the Jats became peasants because they didn't find the varna system agreeable to their ethics.


When did I say empires from India should make you sore? And I never said we are the same. I just simply think it is funny how some Pakistanis think they are fair and lovely compared to Indians. Obviously, people are not similar because they look the same. Looks are literally the most superficial characteristics of a people.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Cobra Arbok said:


> the Mughal Empire was started by an Uzbek.



Whose successors were FAR from Uzbek. Just look at Akbar, does he look like an Uzbek to you?


----------



## Cobra Arbok

Taimur Khurram said:


> Whose successors were FAR from Uzbek. Just look at Akbar, does he look like an Uzbek to you?


Akbar got assimilated into Pakistan just like Tipu Sultan got assimilated into Karnataka. The difference is the Mughal empire cannot exclusively be claimed by Pakistan as there were Mughal emperors born in India such as Aurangzeb, whereas Mysore was entirely contained within India.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Cobra Arbok said:


> When did I say empires from India should make you sore?



You seem to imply that they should. 



Cobra Arbok said:


> And I never said we are the same



No, you said we are similar. 



Cobra Arbok said:


> Akbar got assimilated into Pakistan just like Tipu Sultan got assimilated into Karnataka.



So then why doesn't Akbar count as an individual from the Indus who ruled over the Ganges?



Cobra Arbok said:


> The difference is the Mughal empire cannot exclusively be claimed by Pakistan as there were Mughal emperors born in India such as Aurangzeb,



Pakistan itself is the literal successor state to the Muslim dynasties that ruled over the geographical unit of British India. We have pretty strong grounds to claim them as our heritage.


----------



## Cobra Arbok

Taimur Khurram said:


> You seem to imply that they should.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you said we are similar.
> 
> 
> 
> So then why doesn't Akbar count as an individual from the Indus who ruled over the Ganges?
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan itself is the literal successor state to the Muslim dynasties that ruled over the geographical unit of British India. We have pretty strong grounds to claim them as our heritage.


I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. And yes we are similar, but we are also different, and it is pretty obvious our differences outweigh our similarities. And of course both India and Pakistan have different ethnicities. For example a paukhtoon and a Tamil have about as much in common ethnically as a Turk and a Sweed, so it is important not to generalize when comparing India and Pakistan. But overall, the Indo-Aryan populations which constitute the majority of both countries do share some similarities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Cobra Arbok said:


> Oh boy... another thread where insecure Pakistanis show their identity crisis by trying to show how different they are from Indians while bashing India in every post. Lots of garbage posted here, hopefully I can address it all. Buckle up, this is going to be a long one.
> 
> Lol Chandragupta Maurya was not a Punjabi, he was a Bihari. Maurya is a caste of peacock tamers native throughout Northern India. For a nation that supposedly has such an ancient history, you sure love to shamelessly steal Indian history.



@Cobra Arbok

_It seems that you are owed an apology. You have the right to ask why the questions that you have raised have not been raised before, why these obvious holes in the narrative have not been pointed out, corrected and the narrative itself strengthened by such action. _

_The most self-exculpatory reason would be that there was an intense fear of being guilty of what has been called Les Trahison des Clercs, by Julien Benda in his short book of that name. In that book, he pointed to the treachery of both French and German intellectuals in abandoning the true quest of the intellectual, des Clercs, as he termed them, the quest of a search for the objective truth independent of national spirit. We now know that such an objectivity is impossible; that the observer, in a social situation, is a part of the observation, that even the partial distancing possible in the physical sciences is not possible. But that is all clear and visible in the light of hindsight, in its perfect placement of events and personalities as they should have been placed at the time of any event. _

_At that time, it seemed that all of us should put aside national and nationalistic fervour and seek the truth. Stupid mistake; putting aside the distortion due to national fervour is possible, at the cost of a compensatory effort that pushes the observer in the opposite direction._

_Speaking in general, one of the most difficult things for any of the young and uninformed acolytes of our own @Indus Pakistan to understand is the very different nature of religious conflict in India before the arrival of the Abrahamic religions. But let us go step at a time._

Volumes have been written about the ancestry of the Mauryas, and none of the references even hint at a Punjabi origin. How on earth did our pocket propagandist come to that conclusion? Quite simply,



> Ashoka never revolted against "Brahmanism" he simply adopted Buddhism because he became disillusioned after the brutal war with Kalinga.



One of the most common mistakes made by Pakistani revisionists of history is to assume that there was a clash of religions in 600 BC. It is also assumed that what happened elsewhere in the world when Abrahamic religions collided was repeated in the sub-continent when Indic religions 'collided' (an extremely violent verb for a philosophical and social confrontation that never took to prosecuting the followers of the other). 



> And although Mauryan rule over Pakistan was relatively short, the Mauryans arguably had a greater impact on Pakistan than any other civilization at the time. It was the Mauryans who introduced Buddhism, a religion created in Bihar, to modern-day Pakistan. It was also the Mauryans under Ashoka who created a major urbanized civilization in modern Pakistan for the first time since the IVC. The only city in Pakistan that comes anywhere near as close as the cities of the Gangetic Plains is Peshawar, and that only became a major urban center during the rule of Ashoka. Of course, we all know how hard it is for Indus Nationalists to admit that most of their "great civilization" was actually imported from the Ganga

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Cobra Arbok said:


> But overall, the Indo-Aryan populations which constitute the majority of both countries do share some similarities.


Tell me where in the world can you find two countries [neighbours] with no similarities ~ with exception of migrant nations? This mantra that is brought up all the time has no meaning. It is stating the obvious. 

All human beings are actually 99.99999 the same. And that includes a Bantu Negro, a Eskimo, a Nordic Swede, a Pygmy Austro-Aboriginal from India or a Mongol.

But while India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Myanmar share similiarities but they do have differance. Each has a diferant recipe for it's national gene pool. Leaving the Dravidian, Austro-Aboriginals of India strongly dominating south and east of that country who have minimal presence in Pakistan even the Indo-Aryans in both countries have degree of differance. Primarily the IA of India have a higher degree and frequency of Ancestral South Indian inheritence then in Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Joe Shearer said:


> Volumes have been written about the ancestry of the Mauryas, and none of the references even hint at a Punjabi origin. How on earth did our pocket propagandist come to that conclusion?



I'm pretty sure he either just got confused over the fact that Chandragupta Maurya studied in Taxila, or mistyped what he meant.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Taimur Khurram said:


> I'm pretty sure he either just got confused over the fact that Chandragupta Maurya studied in Taxila, or mistyped what he meant.



I see. Yes, it is a possibility, but why doesn't he say so himself? The mistyping is improbable; the remark was in a context where the Punjabi antecedents of the emperor were aligned to many other aspects of Maurya rule, but perhaps there was an impression that Chandragupta's earlier presence there pointed to his origins there. Again, if he was in Taxila, how did that make him a Punjabi?


----------



## Pakistani E

Republic said:


> Look at your posts and of Pan Islamic Pakistan. It is you people who were saying that it is not shared but only Pakistan''s history.
> It is me who said in my first comment that it is shared.
> When you arrogantly refused my comments, then I showed you people the mirror with DNA evidence of Rakhigadhi skeletons.



Pakistanis have every right to say that. This is a Pakistani forum after all. Indians wander around claiming everything anyway. No harm with Pakistanis taking pride in their history. 

You didn't show me any mirror. You need to read more in to Rakhigarhi DNA results further, it doesn't prove the point you're trying to make.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

Cobra Arbok said:


> nomadic goat f**king



Man, why are you so obsessed with goat f*king? Second post I've seen within 20 minutes from you about this. What's going on?


----------



## Cobra Arbok

Indus Pakistan said:


> Tell me where in the world can you find two countries [neighbours] with no similarities ~ with exception of migrant nations? This mantra that is brought up all the time has no meaning. It is stating the obvious.
> 
> All human beings are actually 99.99999 the same. And that includes a Bantu Negro, a Eskimo, a Nordic Swede, a Pygmy Austro-Aboriginal from India or a Mongol.
> 
> But while India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Myanmar share similiarities but they do have differance. Each has a diferant recipe for it's national gene pool. Leaving the Dravidian, Austro-Aboriginals of India strongly dominating south and east of that country who have minimal presence in Pakistan even the Indo-Aryans in both countries have degree of differance. Primarily the IA of India have a higher degree and frequency of Ancestral South Indian inheritence then in Pakistan.


I believe that is what I said. My position is a moderate one, between India and Paksitan have nothing in common and India and Pakistan are completely different. With that being said, I differ from you in my belief that although the Indo-Iranian populations of Paksitan(pashtos and Balochis) are completely different from all the populations of India, most of Pakistans Indo Aryan Populations(mainly Punjabis and sindhis) are not too different from most Indo-Aryan populations of India, except maybe those on the far East. Like I said, although there may be the genetic differences


Sher Shah Awan said:


> Man, why are you so obsessed with goat f*king? Second post I've seen within 20 minutes from you about this. What's going on?


that was in response to his aboriginal comment. But you are right, such language is inapropriate. I will avoid using it from now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

