# The number zero was invented in Ancient Pakistan



## roadrunner

A lot of the Indians on here seem to be trying to leech Pakistani history by claiming references that say the number zero was invented in India, refer to modern day India. 

This somehow justifies the leeching of Pakistani inventions like the number zero. So, to put this straight 

_So you can see that when no beads have been moved, you need a symbol to represent &#8220;0". This symbol is very important, in order to show that this is the number 15730 and not the much smaller number 1573. *It was probably in using an abacus that the Hindus of the Indus valley in today&#8217;s Pakistan first invented zero*._
From Zero to Hero - MSN Encarta 

I would also like to point out some other Mathematical concepts our leechy friends try to steal by claiming that since their country today is called India, these inventions occurred within modern day India, when in fact they occurred in modern day Pakistan. 

_________________________________________________________________________
*Pingala's Binary numeral system* - usage of Pascal's Triangle and Fibonnacci numbers - Discovered 300 BC in Ancient Pakistan. 
_________________________________________________________________________
*Panini's transformations and recursions* - - Discovered 500 BC in the Indus Valley 
_________________________________________________________________________
*Negative numbers* - used for the first time in Ancient Pakistan 
_________________________________________________________________________

Many more things too. The name confusion caused at partition is nicely summarized: 

_"The first mathematics which we shall describe in this article developed in the Indus valley. The earliest known urban Indian culture was first identified in 1921 at Harappa in the Punjab and then, one year later, at Mohenjo-daro, near the Indus River in the Sindh. Both these sites are now in Pakistan but this is still covered by our term "Indian mathematics" which, in this article, refers to mathematics developed in the Indian subcontinent." _ 
Indian mathematics

Reactions: Like Like:
39


----------



## Flintlock

History of the Zero: 

What is certain is that by around 650AD the use of zero as a number came into Indian mathematics. The Indians also used a place-value system and zero was used to denote an empty place. In fact there is evidence of an empty place holder in positional numbers from as early as 200AD in India but some historians dismiss these as later forgeries. Let us examine this latter use first since it continues the development described above.

In around *500AD Aryabhata* devised a number system which has no zero yet was a positional system. He used the word "kha" for position and it would be used later as the name for zero. There is evidence that a dot had been used in earlier Indian manuscripts to denote an empty place in positional notation. It is interesting that the same documents sometimes also used a dot to denote an unknown where we might use x. Later Indian mathematicians had names for zero in positional numbers yet had no symbol for it. The first record of the Indian use of zero which is dated and agreed by all to be genuine was written in 876.

We have an *inscription on a stone tablet* which contains a date which translates to 876. The inscription concerns the town of* Gwalior, 400 km south of Delhi*, where they planted a garden 187 by 270 hastas which would produce enough flowers to allow 50 garlands per day to be given to the local temple. Both of the numbers 270 and 50 are denoted almost as they appear today although the 0 is smaller and slightly raised.
*
We now come to considering the first appearance of zero as a number.* Let us first note that it is not in any sense a natural candidate for a number. From early times numbers are words which refer to collections of objects. Certainly the idea of number became more and more abstract and this abstraction then makes possible the consideration of zero and negative numbers which do not arise as properties of collections of objects. Of course the problem which arises when one tries to consider zero and negatives as numbers is how they interact in regard to the operations of arithmetic, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.* In three important books the Indian mathematicians Brahmagupta, Mahavira and Bhaskara tried to answer these questions.*

*Brahmagupta *attempted to give the rules for arithmetic involving zero and negative numbers in the seventh century. He explained that given a number then if you subtract it from itself you obtain zero. He gave the following rules for addition which involve zero:-

The sum of zero and a negative number is negative, the sum of a positive number and zero is positive, the sum of zero and zero is zero. 

Subtraction is a little harder:-

A negative number subtracted from zero is positive, a positive number subtracted from zero is negative, zero subtracted from a negative number is negative, zero subtracted from a positive number is positive, zero subtracted from zero is zero. 

Brahmagupta then says that any number when multiplied by zero is zero but struggles when it comes to division:-

A positive or negative number when divided by zero is a fraction with the zero as denominator. Zero divided by a negative or positive number is either zero or is expressed as a fraction with zero as numerator and the finite quantity as denominator. Zero divided by zero is zero. 

Really Brahmagupta is saying very little when he suggests that n divided by zero is n/0. Clearly he is struggling here. He is certainly wrong when he then claims that zero divided by zero is zero. However it is a brilliant attempt from the first person that we know who tried to extend arithmetic to negative numbers and zero.

In 830, around 200 years after Brahmagupta wrote his masterpiece, *Mahavira *wrote Ganita Sara Samgraha which was designed as an updating of Brahmagupta's book. He correctly states that:-

... a number multiplied by zero is zero, and a number remains the same when zero is subtracted from it. 

However his attempts to improve on Brahmagupta's statements on dividing by zero seem to lead him into error. He writes:-

A number remains unchanged when divided by zero. 

Since this is clearly incorrect my use of the words "seem to lead him into error" might be seen as confusing. The reason for this phrase is that some commentators on Mahavira have tried to find excuses for his incorrect statement.

Bhaskara wrote over 500 years after Brahmagupta. Despite the passage of time he is still struggling to explain division by zero. He writes:-

A quantity divided by zero becomes a fraction the denominator of which is zero. This fraction is termed an infinite quantity. In this quantity consisting of that which has zero for its divisor, there is no alteration, though many may be inserted or extracted; as no change takes place in the infinite and immutable God when worlds are created or destroyed, though numerous orders of beings are absorbed or put forth. 

So Bhaskara tried to solve the problem by writing n/0 = &#8734;. At first sight we might be tempted to believe that Bhaskara has it correct, but of course he does not. If this were true then 0 times &#8734; must be equal to every number n, so all numbers are equal. The Indian mathematicians could not bring themselves to the point of admitting that one could not divide by zero. Bhaskara did correctly state other properties of zero, however, such as 02 = 0, and &#8730;0 = 0. 

______________________________

Who was Brahmagupta? 

Where was he from? 

Ujjain, now in Uttar Pradesh, India.


Bhinmal, Rajasthan. OR Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Sources:

Plofker, Kim (2007). pp. 418&#8211;419. "The Paitamahasiddhanta also directly inspired another major siddhanta, written by a contemporary of Bhaskara: The Brahmasphutasiddhanta (Corrected Treatise of Brahma) completed by Brahmagupta in 628. This astronomer was born in 598 and apparently worked in Bhillamal (identified with modern Bhinmal in Rajasthan), during the reign (and possibly under the patronage) of King Vyaghramukha.

Brahmagupta biography

Brahmagupta the mathematician

Brahmagupta: Biography from Answers.com

Brahmagupta (print-only)

Reactions: Like Like:
34


----------



## acer

^^^^^Sir I think "pai" is also defined by Aryabhata.. right?


----------



## shrivatsa

another genius Madhava

Although born in Cochin on the Keralese coast before the previous four scholars I have chosen to save my discussion of Madhava of Sangamagramma (c. 1340 - 1425) till last, as I consider him to be the greatest mathematician-astronomer of medieval India. Sadly all of his mathematical works are currently lost, although it is possible extant work may yet be 'unearthed'. It is vaguely possible that he may have written Karana Paddhati a work written sometime between 1375 and 1475, but this is only speculative. All we know of Madhava comes from works of later scholars, primarily Nilakantha and Jyesthadeva. G Joseph also mentions surviving astronomical texts, but there is no mention of them in any other text I have consulted.

His most significant contribution was in moving on from the finite procedures of ancient mathematics to 'treat their limit passage to infinity', which is considered to be the essence of modern classical analysis. Although there is not complete certainty it is thought Madhava was responsible for the discovery of all of the following results:

1) = tan - (tan3 )/3 + (tan5)/5 - ... , equivalent to Gregory series.

2) r= {r(rsin)/1(rcos)}-{r(rsin)3/3(rcos)3}+{r(rsin)5/5(rcos)5}- ...

3) sin = - 3/3! + 5/5! - ..., Madhava-Newton power series.

4) cos = 1 - 2/2! + 4/4! - ..., Madhava-Newton power series.
Remembering that Indian sin = rsin, and Indian cos = rcos. Both the above results are occasionally attributed to Maclaurin.

5) p/4 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - ... 1/n (-fi(n+1)), i = 1,2,3, and where f1 = n/2, f2 = (n/2)/(n2 + 1) and f3 = ((n/2)2 + 1)/((n/2)(n2 + 4 + 1))2 (a power series for p, attributed to Leibniz)

6) p/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ... 1/n {-f(n+1)}, Euler's series.

A particular case of the above series when t =1/3 gives the expression:
7) p = 12 (1 - {1/(3 3)} + {1/(5 32)} - {1/(7 33)} + ...}

In generalisation of the expressions for f2 and f3 as continued fractions, the scholar D Whiteside has shown that the correcting function f(n) which makes 'Euler's' series (of course it is not in fact Euler's series) exact can be represented as an infinite continued fraction. There was no European parallel of this until W Brouncker's celebrated reworking in 1645 of J Wallis's related continued product.

A further expression involving p:
8) pd 2d + 4d/(22 - 1) - 4d/(42 - 1) + ... 4d/(n2 + 1) etc, this resulted in improved approximations of p, a further term was added to the above expression, allowing Madhava to calculate p to 13 decimal places. The value p = 3.14159265359 is unique to Kerala and is not found in any other mathematical literature. A value correct to 17 decimal places (3.14155265358979324) is found in the work Sadratnamala. R Gupta attributes calculation of this value to Madhava, (so perhaps he wrote this work, although this is pure conjecture).

Of great interest is the following result:
9) tan -1x = x - x3/3 + x5/5 - ..., Madhava-Gregory series, power series for inverse tangent, still frequently attributed to Gregory and Leibniz.

It is also expressed in the following way:
10) rarctan(y/x) = ry/x - ry3/3x3 + ry5/5x5 - ..., where y/x 1

The following results are also attributed to Madhava of Sangamagramma:
11) sin(x + h) sin x + (h/r)cos x - (h2/2r2)sin x

12) cos(x + h) cos x - (h/r)sin x - (h2/2r2)cos x

Both the approximations for sine and cosine functions to the second order of small quantities, (see over page) are special cases of Taylor series, (which are attributed to B Taylor).

Finally, of significant interest is a further 'Taylor' series approximation of sine: 
13) sin(x + h) sin x + (h/r)cos x - (h2/2r2)sin x + (h3/6r3)cos x. 
Third order series approximation of the sine function usually attributed to Gregory.

With regards to this development R Gupta comments:

...It is interesting that a four-term approximation formula for the sine function so close to the Taylor series approximation was known in India more than two centuries before the Taylor series expansion was discovered by Gregory about 1668. [RG5, P 289]


Although these results all appear in later works, including the Tantrasangraha of Nilakantha and the Yukti-bhasa of Jyesthadeva it is generally accepted that all the above results originated from the work of Madhava. Several of the results are expressly attributed to him, for example Nilakantha quotes an alternate version of the sine series expansion as the work of Madhava. Further to these incredible contributions to mathematics, Madhava also extended some results found in earlier works, including those of Bhaskaracarya.

The work of Madhava is truly remarkable and hopefully in time full credit will be rewarded to his work, as C Rajagopal and M Rangachari note:

...Even if he be credited with only the discoveries of the series (sine and cosine expansions, see above, 3) and 4)) at so unexpectedly early a date, assuredly merits a permanent place among the great mathematicians of the world. [CR /MR1, P 101]

Similarly G Joseph states:

...We may consider Madhava to have been the founder of mathematical analysis. Some of his discoveries in this field show him to have possessed extraordinary intuition. [GJ, P 293]

With regards to Keralese contributions as a whole, M Baron writes (in D Almeida, J John and A Zadorozhnyy):

...Some of the results achieved in connection with numerical integration by means of infinite series anticipate developments in Western Europe by several centuries. [DA/JJ/AZ1, P 79]

There remains a final Kerala work worthy of a brief mention, Sadrhana-Mala an astronomical treatise written by Sankara Varman serves as a summary of most of the results of the Kerala School. What is of most interest is that it was composed in the early 19th century and the author stands as the last notable name in Keralese mathematics.

In recent histories of mathematics there is acknowledgement that some of Madhava's remarkable results were indeed first discovered in India. This is clearly a positive step in redressing the imbalance but it seems unlikely that full 'credit' will be given for some time, as that will possibly require the re-naming of various series, which seems unlikely to happen!

Still in many quarters Keralese contributions go unnoticed, D Almeida, J John and A Zadorozhnyy note that a well known historian of mathematics makes:

...No acknowledgement of the work of the Keralese school. [DA/JJ/AZ1, P 78]
(Despite several Western publications of Keralese work.)
9 III. Madhava of Sangamagramma

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Vinod2070

Zero is attributed to Aryabhatta. Aryabhatta was born in Pataliputra, Magadha (modern day Bihar). He probably never even saw the North Western parts of India.

How is zero in any way related to "ancient Pakistan"!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## third eye

Wow !

Thats a lot of inputs on zero's & negative numbers !!


----------



## slugger

roadrunner said:


> A lot of the Indians on here seem to be trying to leech Pakistani history by claiming references that say the number zero was invented in India, refer to modern day India.
> 
> This somehow justifies the leeching of Pakistani inventions like the number zero.



Care to draw out the boundaries of Pakistan dynasty and existence of Pakistan pre-August 14 1947

Also do ennumerate how the present-day *Pakistan and demography*, whose existence was made possible under the rationale of providing *Muslims with a land of their own*, contributed to *a civilization that has nothing to do with Islam*

The fact of the matter is that *the origin of the Indus Valley civilization was based on on Hinduism and Jainism and not Islam for which Pakistan stands*

The origins of *Hinduism and Jainism emerge out of present day India* and the spread of Hinduism and Jainism of which the Indus Valley Civilization was a part is simply an indication of the progress and geographical reach of *Civilizations and Dynasties that conducted its governance and state policies using the frameworks of religion that had nothing to do with Islam*

Also when an Indian talks about India's contribution and progress by giving references to ancient Indian dynasties and works of people like Aryabhatta and others, he is doing so as counter to *claim made by Pakistanis who try are hell-bent on proving that Arabic and Persian mathmaticians accomplished things that clearly finds mentions and practice in the works under Dynasties that did not practice Islam*

So instead of blaming Indians, who are simply *defending accomplishment of the Indian sub-continent* you should try talking some sense in to *Pakistanis who derieve pleasure in taking away the acievements made in the geographical area of the Indian sub-continent and associating them with Arabs and Persians*, who contributed nothing to the spread of the empirs and civilizations with roots in prsent day India


The fact is *Islam is the history, present and future of Pakistan*

Any Pakistani accomplishment must be claimed by refering to the following timeline

An analysis of the timeline of Pakistan

History of Pakistan -> *14th August 1947 - 7th February 2009*

Present Day Pakistan -> *8th February 2009*

Future of Pakistan -> *9th February 2009 - infinity*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Flintlock

acer said:


> ^^^^^Sir I think "pai" is also defined by Aryabhata.. right?



No, definitons of pi have existed for a long time before in other civilizations, but Aryabhata gave a very precise measurement to 3 decimal places (more precise than those before him). 

Yajnavalkya gave an approximation upto 2 decimal places in 9th century BC

Later, Nilakantha Somayaji from Kerala discovered that pi is "incalculable" , i.e. an irrational number.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Vinod2070

*Mathematics

[edit] Place Value system and zero
*
The number place-value system, first seen in the 3rd century Bakhshali Manuscript was clearly in place in his work.[4] ; he certainly did not use the symbol, but the French mathematician Georges Ifrah argues that knowledge of zero was implicit in Aryabhata's place-value system as a place holder for the powers of ten with null coefficients[5]

However, Aryabhata did not use the brahmi numerals; continuing the Sanskritic tradition from Vedic times, he used letters of the alphabet to denote numbers, expressing quantities (such as the table of sines) in a mnemonic form[6].

*[edit] Pi as Irrational*

Aryabhata worked on the approximation for Pi (&#960, and may have realized that &#960; is irrational. In the second part of the Aryabhatiyam (ga&#7751;itap&#257;da 10), he writes:

chaturadhikam &#347;atama&#347;&#7789;agu&#7751;am dv&#257;&#347;a&#347;&#7789;istath&#257; sahasr&#257;&#7751;&#257;m
Ayutadvayavi&#347;kambhasy&#257;sanno vr&#238;ttapari&#7751;aha&#7717;.
"Add four to 100, multiply by eight and then add 62,000. By this rule the circumference of a circle of diameter 20,000 can be approached."

Aryabhata used the word &#257;sanna (approaching), appearing just before the last word, as saying that not only that is this an approximation, but that the value is incommensurable (or irrational). If this is correct, it is quite a sophisticated insight, for the irrationality of pi was proved in Europe only in 1761 by Lambert)[7].

After Aryabhatiya was translated into Arabic (ca. 820 CE) this approximation was mentioned in Al-Khwarizmi's book on algebra[1].

Aryabhata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> _So you can see that when no beads have been moved, you need a symbol to represent &#8220;0". This symbol is very important, in order to show that this is the number 15730 and not the much smaller number 1573. *It was probably in using an abacus that the Hindus of the Indus valley in today&#8217;s Pakistan first invented zero*._
> From Zero to Hero - MSN Encarta



The modern concept of the zero was given by Brahmagupta in the 5th century AD.

Before him Aryabhata had already given an incomplete definition of zero, which was later improved by Brahmagupta and others.

This article is regarding the concept of zero as it_ could have developed _by those who used an abacus (it might not, we do not know)

The the author does not provide any sources for his claim. Unless you provide a source, the article does not prove anything. Infact, its his _personal opinion_ that the zero _"was probably invented by those who used an abacus"_ There are no ancient texts to prove his claim. Its his own theory.


----------



## roadrunner

Let's not get carried away now. 

I'll answer some of your fictitious points now. 



Vinod2070 said:


> The modern concept of the zero was given by Brahmagupta in the 5th century AD.



Brahmagupta invented the rules governing the usage of the number zero. 

Brahmagupta was born in Multan, and he is part of Ancient Pakistai history. 


_Né en 598 au nord-ouest de lInde, à Multan, aujourdhui au Pakistan, Brahmagupta passera une grande partie de sa vie dans la ville de Bhîlmal sous la protection du souverain Gurjara._ 
Brahmagupta

Rough translation: Brahamgupta was born in 598 in Northwest India, Multan, in today's Pakistan, Brahmagupta spent a great deal of his life in the town of Bhilmal under the protection of the Gurjara 



_The great mathematician of India Brahmagupta (Born in *Multan* and lived during 598-660 A.D) wrote on nature of Zero in his book Bramhagupta Siddhanth _History Of Zero 



Vinod2070 said:


> Zero is attributed to Aryabhatta. Aryabhatta was born in Pataliputra, Magadha (modern day Bihar). He probably never even saw the North Western parts of India.



False. 

Aryabhata only used the number zero in the 4th century AD. The number zero was invented long before this, in around 400 BC or even before. 

Knowing the evolution of Sanskrit in Ancient Pakistan, and the term given to zero in early Sanskrit, one can conclude that the number zero (Shunya) evolved in Ancient Pakistan on the Indus. This is confirmed by the MSNEncarta reference - a neutral reference.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## slugger

A few more posts here and this thread should be eligibile for a change in title to



> *Achievements of ancient Indian Empires and Civilizations*


----------



## Flintlock

* Earliest Documented evidence for the use of Zero in the place value system:*

The *oldest known text to use a decimal place-value system, including a zero, is the Jain text from India entitled the Lokavibh&#226;ga, dated 458 AD.* This text uses Sanskrit numeral words for the digits, with words such as the Sanskrit word for void for zero .[19] *The first known use of special glyphs for the decimal digits that includes the indubitable appearance of a symbol for the digit zero, a small circle, appears on a stone inscription found at the Chaturbhuja Temple at Gwalior in India, dated 876 CE.*[20][21] There are many documents on copper plates, with the same small o in them, dated back as far as the sixth century AD, but their authenticity may be doubted.[6]

Sources:

Ifrah, Georges (2000), p. 416.
Ifrah, Georges (2000), p. 400.
Feature Column from the AMS

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

roadrunner said:


> Brahmagupta invented the rules governing the usage of the number zero.
> 
> Brahmagupta was born in Multan, and he is part of Ancient Pakistai history.



Brahmagupta was a Hindu born and worked in Ujjain. Absolutely nothing to do with North West India of the time. Flintoff has given the reference already: 



> Brahmagupta, whose father was Jisnugupta, wrote important works on mathematics and astronomy. In particular he wrote Brahmasphutasiddhanta (The Opening of the Universe), in 628. The work was written in 25 chapters and Brahmagupta tells us in the text that he wrote it at Bhillamala which today is the city of Bhinmal. This was the capital of the lands ruled by the Gurjara dynasty.
> 
> Brahmagupta became the head of the astronomical observatory at Ujjain which was the foremost mathematical centre of ancient India at this time. Outstanding mathematicians such as Varahamihira had worked there and built up a strong school of mathematical astronomy.



Brahmagupta biography

When did Ujjain in *Central India* become a part of "ancient Pakistan"! 



> Aryabhata only used the number zero in the 4th century AD. The number zero was invented long before this, in around 400 BC or even before.
> 
> Knowing the evolution of Sanskrit in Ancient Pakistan, and the term given to zero in early Sanskrit, one can conclude that the number zero (Shunya) evolved in Ancient Pakistan on the Indus. This is confirmed by the MSNEncarta reference - a neutral reference.



The reference is indeed neutral but it says this:



> It was probably in using an abacus that the Hindus of the Indus valley in todays Pakistan first invented zero.



Too inconclusive! Do we have any evidence that abacus was in use in Indus valley? The only part that is correct is that Hindu mathematicians discovered zero.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

slugger said:


> Care to draw out the boundaries of Pakistan dynasty and existence of Pakistan pre-August 14 1947
> 
> Also do ennumerate how the present-day *Pakistan and demography*, whose existence was made possible under the rationale of providing *Muslims with a land of their own*, contributed to *a civilization that has nothing to do with Islam*
> 
> The fact of the matter is that *the origin of the Indus Valley civilization was based on on Hinduism and Jainism and not Islam for which Pakistan stands*
> 
> The origins of *Hinduism and Jainism emerge out of present day India* and the spread of Hinduism and Jainism of which the Indus Valley Civilization was a part is simply an indication of the progress and geographical reach of *Civilizations and Dynasties that conducted its governance and state policies using the frameworks of religion that had nothing to do with Islam*
> 
> 
> The fact is *Islam is the history, present and future of Pakistan*
> 
> Any Pakistani accomplishment must be claimed by refering to the following timeline
> 
> An analysis of the timeline of Pakistan
> 
> History of Pakistan -> *14th August 1947 - 7th February 2009*
> 
> Present Day Pakistan -> *8th February 2009*
> 
> Future of Pakistan -> *9th February 2009 - infinity*


This particular debate has been going on on another thread for a while now, and many of these arguments have been addressed there.

The history of a people does not change with the faith they adopt, if that were the case, the Greeks, primarily orthodox Christians now, woudl have no claim to their marvelous history intertwined with Greek mythology.

Pakistan's current demography and existence as a Muslim/Islamic state similarly has no effect on the non-Islamic history of our people - it is still Pakistani history.

The IVC did not practice Hinduism, again, these arguments have been gone over multiple times, but even if it did. that does not make that history any less Pakistani.

As to your time line, its absurd. The people inhabiting the lands of Pakistan did not shoot out of nowhere in 1947. They have millenium of history behind them, and that history is theirs, and therefore that of the State of Pakistan.

I would also like to point out that a similar time line can also be made for India

History of India -> *15th August 1947 - 7th February 2009*

Present Day India -> *8th February 2009*

Future of India -> *9th February 2009 - infinity*

Lets stay away from the general arguments such as those made in your post on this thread - these arguments have been made multiple times and responded to and refuted on at least two other threads in the history section. Reading through those long threads would be a good idea to avoid repeating the same arguments time and time again.

Limit this thread to the arguments over the number Zero.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

*Stick to the topic folks. 

Post deletion will follow if this starts becoming another ancient history thread.*


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Brahmagupta invented the rules governing the usage of the number zero.
> 
> Brahmagupta was born in Multan, and he is part of Ancient Pakistai history.



*Some more clarification on Brahmagupta:*

Brahmagupta, whose father was Jisnugupta, wrote important works on mathematics and astronomy. In particular he wrote Brahmasphutasiddhanta (The Opening of the Universe), in 628. The work was written in 25 chapters and *Brahmagupta tells us in the text that he wrote it at Bhillamala which today is the city of Bhinmal*. *This was the capital of the lands ruled by the Gurjara dynasty.
*
*Brahmagupta became the head of the astronomical observatory at Ujjain which was the foremost mathematical centre of ancient India at this time.* Outstanding mathematicians such as Varahamihira had worked there and built up a strong school of mathematical astronomy. 

Brahmagupta biography

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Vinod2070

*Please stop leeching ancient Indian achievements!*

On the one hand many of you guys are happy disparaging all the achievements before Islam and attributing all scientific progress to Islam, trying to claim credit and reflected glory for what Arabs achieved at a certain period based on same faith.

Then you start claiming the achievements of Pre-Islamic Hindu scholars on the basis of current geography! Some hypocrisy this!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

I've made amends to my previous posts providing solid links to Brahmagupta being born in Multan, today's Pakistan, thereby making him part of Ancient Pakistan's heritage. 

You'll just have to stop posting nonsense, I can't answer all of you at once.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> _N&#233; en 598 au nord-ouest de l&#8217;Inde, &#224; Multan, aujourd&#8217;hui au Pakistan, Brahmagupta passera une grande partie de sa vie dans la ville de Bh&#238;lmal sous la protection du souverain Gurjara._
> Brahmagupta
> 
> Rough translation: Brahamgupta was born in 598 in Northwest India, Multan, in today's Pakistan, Brahmagupta spent a great deal of his life in the town of Bhilmal under the protection of the Gurjara
> 
> _The great mathematician of India Brahmagupta (Born in *Multan* and lived during 598-660 A.D) wrote on nature of Zero in his book &#8220;Bramhagupta Siddhanth&#8221; _History Of Zero



You have ONE source in French language (not that I have anything against the French), another "source" from "Blogspot.com". 

Aren't you ashamed to call these things sources?

And even if, by the smallest chance, he was born in Multan, the number zero was STILL invented in India because he studied and wrote his findings in India.

And apart from all of that, Brahmagupta was a Hindu, and therfore part of the Ancient Indian Civilization, so he is still an Indian.


----------



## kenchabhai

roadrunner said:


> _Né en 598 au nord-ouest de lInde, à Multan, aujourdhui au Pakistan, Brahmagupta passera une grande partie de sa vie dans la ville de Bhîlmal sous la protection du souverain Gurjara._
> Brahmagupta





Even as per your source
"Born in 598 in the *north-west India*"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

Repeating as you seem to have missed the post.



> *Brahmagupta, whose father was Jisnugupta, wrote important works on mathematics and astronomy. In particular he wrote Brahmasphutasiddhanta (The Opening of the Universe), in 628. The work was written in 25 chapters and Brahmagupta tells us in the text that he wrote it at Bhillamala which today is the city of Bhinmal. This was the capital of the lands ruled by the Gurjara dynasty.
> 
> Brahmagupta became the head of the astronomical observatory at Ujjain which was the foremost mathematical centre of ancient India at this time.*



*That makes him 100&#37; Indian and of course he was a Hindu.*


----------



## UnitedPak

kenchabhai said:


> Even as per your source
> "Born in 598 in the *north-west India*"



Same old agenda of cramming the term "India" into everything Pakistan with an intent of misleading people, discrediting Pakistanis, and promoting India.
He was born in Multan, Indus Valley, Why use a colonial era term for the region?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> Same old agenda of cramming the term "India" into everything Pakistan with an intent of misleading people, discrediting Pakistanis, and promoting India.
> He was born in Multan, Indus Valley, Why use a colonial era term for the region?



With all due respect sir, are you blind? Didn't you see the numerous and highly credible sources citing that he either wrote the book in India and/or was born in India? 

Do you simply pretend that those sources do not exist, or do you have some supernatural source of information that we do not know of.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## slugger

A source mentioned by a Think Tank member hosted on blogspot containing only 1 post and has *Kiss Guru* to give the claim company on that blog - do such sources merit any importance



> Brahmagupta was born in Gujarat in the city of Bhinmal which is currently situated in the North West Rajasthan.






> Brahmagupta was born c. 598, in Bhillamala, which was located in Northwestern India.






> Brahmagupta was born at Bhillamala (Bhinmal), in Gujarat, in 598 A.D.



Absolute Astronomy


> Life and work Brahmagupta was born in 598 CE in Bhinmal city in the state of Rajasthan of northwest India.


----------



## Flintlock

The reason, presumably, why he is somtimes (and very, very rarely) cited to have been born in Multan, is because his mathematical work was translated by the Persian scholar Alberuni who was employed at the court of Mehmud of Ghazni, who in turn had conquered Multan.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Vinod2070 said:


> *Please stop leeching ancient Indian achievements!*
> 
> On the one hand many of you guys are happy disparaging all the achievements before Islam and attributing all scientific progress to Islam, trying to claim credit and reflected glory for what Arabs achieved at a certain period based on same faith.
> 
> Then you start claiming the achievements of Pre-Islamic Hindu scholars on the basis of current geography! Some hypocrisy this!



No one is leeching anythign from India - ancient India was a region, not a nation, and as a region, the lands and peoples inhabiting Pakistan were part of it. 

We are only trying to ensure that just becasue 'Hindustan' chose the official name 'India', the history of the peoples and lands comprising Pakistan is not usurped by India under the guise of 'ancient India'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karnivore

It is funny how the perception of history changes from thread to thread. In one thread (IVC) history is being claimed on the basis of geographical location ignoring cultural heritage or legacy. In another thread (Tipu Sultan), history is being claimed purely on the basis of legacy, a religious one at that, ignoring geography. Here, history is being claimed on some basis, which is still not clear, but it is neither on geography nor on legacy.

Its like heads I win, tails you loose.

Other than that, pretty informative thread.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

karnivore said:


> It is funny how the perception of history changes from thread to thread. In one thread (IVC) history is being claimed on the basis of geographical location ignoring cultural heritage or legacy. In another thread (Tipu Sultan), history is being claimed purely on the basis of legacy, a religious one at that, ignoring geography. Here, history is being claimed on some basis, which is still not clear, but it is neither on geography nor on legacy.
> 
> Its like heads I win, tails you loose.
> 
> Other than that, pretty informative thread.



I can't speak for the others, but unless it occurred on the lands comprising Pakistan, I have no interest in 'claiming it'. I believe the attempt on this thread as well is to stake a claim to the 'discovery' of the Zero by trying to determine whether the discovery took place on lands comprising Pakistan or India.

My own knowledge about this is extremely limited which is why I am largely staying on the sidelines, and hoping to learn more by reading the arguments from both sides.

Generalization such as yours are useless and wrong. If you feel a particular member has made arguments/comments or taken positions that are contradictory, make your case to that particular member, don't lump everyone else in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

karnivore said:


> It is funny how the perception of history changes from thread to thread. In one thread (IVC) history is being claimed on the basis of geographical location ignoring cultural heritage or legacy. In another thread (Tipu Sultan), history is being claimed purely on the basis of legacy, a religious one at that, ignoring geography. Here, history is being claimed on some basis, which is still not clear, but it is neither on geography nor on legacy.
> 
> Its like heads I win, tails you loose.
> 
> Other than that, pretty informative thread.



IVC is being claimed on the basis of Pakistanis being* native to Indus Valley *and the civilisation is part of the Pakistani identity and history.
Very little is known about IVC culture, language or religion, but its ignorant to claim that Buddhism and Hinduism didnt change the culture of Indus Valley people in the same way Islam changed their culture around 8th century AD.

As for Tipu Sultan, nobody claimed he was a Pakistani ancestor.

There is more to Pakistani identity than just 'geographical location'. If you have to make such mindless claims please also explain how Pakistanis are not native to the Indus Valley.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## karnivore

UnitedPak said:


> IVC is being claimed on the basis of Pakistanis being native to Indus Valley and the civilisation is part of the Pakistani identity and history.
> Very little is known about IVC culture, language or religion, but its ignorant to claim that Buddhism and Hinduism didnt change the culture of Indus Valley people in the same way Islam changed their culture around 8th century AD.
> 
> As for Tipu Sultan, nobody claimed he was a Pakistani ancestor.
> 
> There is more to Pakistani identity than just 'geographical location'. If you have to make such mindless claims please *also explain how Pakistanis are not native to the Indus Valley.*


No, I did not claim, that "Pakistanis are not native to the Indus Valley". But the only argument in favour of Pakistanis, being exclusive descendants of IVC, seems to be the fact, that the ruins of IVC are mostly in Pakistan. The question is not if Pakistanis are direct descendants of IVC, the question is if they are the ONLY descendants. 

It would appear, that cultural acculturation and hereditary lineage have a magical tendency of stopping abruptly at the boarder of a non-existing political boundary between countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

The concept of the "Shunya" from which zero comes from is credited to Panini, the Ancient Pakistani grammarian, and the Mahayana texts of Ancient Pakistan. Panini of course lived in 400 BC

_To this the early Mahayanists added the post-Paranirvana development of shunya, that can be traced in Panini&#8217;s fourth-century BCE use of it, as an emptiness that is pregnant due to its situation in relation to another concept, like the potential of a term to have a suffix, even when it doesn&#8217;t have one. Which was followed slightly-later, *by the mathematicians adoption of this same shunya as the zero, place holder, in their creation of the decimal system.* _ 
Lecture 8 

We have now firmly established where the "Shunya" arose, and indeed that the zero was used as a placeholder by Panini, the Ancient Pakistani. 

Onto the use of the number zero itself - perhaps a little more controversial, but it would seem Pingala, the Ancient Pakistani mathematician, clearly recorded it in his studies on *Maatraa meru *. His work is surmized as 

"Sequence of numbers starting from zero, one and then every number is a sum of the previous two numbers", clear usage of the number zero. 

However, Brahmagupta, the Ancient Pakistani mathematician also made significant progress in describing the usage of the "shunya", an Ancient Pakistani concept. 

Other works of Pingala, the Ancient Pakistani mathematician, 

_Study of Prosody*

Mathematical concepts for describing prosody

First known description of a binary numeral system

Basic idea of the Fibonacci Number** (Maatrameru)


*Prosody is the study of rhythm, intonation, stress and related attributes in speech

**Sequence of numbers starting from zero, one and then every number is a sum of the previous two numbers_ 
Pingala Scientists of India 


These neutral articles clearly reinforce the assertions of the eminent mathematician who wrote the *MSNEncarta* article from a neutral viewpoint.. 

"_So you can see that when no beads have been moved, you need a symbol to represent &#8220;0". This symbol is very important, in order to show that this is the number 15730 and not the much smaller number 1573. *It was probably in using an abacus that the Hindus of the Indus valley in today&#8217;s Pakistan first invented zero*._
From Zero to Hero - MSN Encarta


----------



## roadrunner

We should of course state clearly that both Panini and Pingala were mathematicians from the land area known today as Pakistan, not India. 

Indeed, I have provided solid (academic) evidence that Brahmagupta was from Multan, "today's Pakistan", also.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> *Some more clarification on Brahmagupta:*
> 
> Brahmagupta, whose father was Jisnugupta, wrote important works on mathematics and astronomy. In particular he wrote Brahmasphutasiddhanta (The Opening of the Universe), in 628. The work was written in 25 chapters and *Brahmagupta tells us in the text that he wrote it at Bhillamala which today is the city of Bhinmal*. *This was the capital of the lands ruled by the Gurjara dynasty.
> *
> *Brahmagupta became the head of the astronomical observatory at Ujjain which was the foremost mathematical centre of ancient India at this time.* Outstanding mathematicians such as Varahamihira had worked there and built up a strong school of mathematical astronomy.
> 
> Brahmagupta biography



This is a fine reference. I'll credit it since it's from a neutral academic institution, as my French reference is (Strasbourg university). 

However, how do they contradict each other? 

My academic reference says Brahmagupta was born in *Multan, Pakistan* (clearly the Strasbourg University researchers have found a solid reference to this), your St Andrew's University reference only says where he worked for a period of time (even my Strasbourg University reference says that Brahmagupta worked for a period of time under the Gurjarras). 

Let's take the example of Abdus Salam. An atomic physics genius, born in Pakistan achieved much of his work in the US. Everyone I think would say that Abdus Salam's achievements are part of the history of the Pakistani people, because he was a citizen of Pakistan. Much like Brahmagupta was born and raised in Multan, today's Pakistan, but only worked on the border area for a period of time. So it becomes a Multani that is credited for the Brahmaputra, and Multan as we all know is in today's *Pakistan*. 

It is almost conclusive that Brahmagupta was born in Ancient Pakistan, aside from Indian scholarly thinking. 

A Wisconsin University reference to Brahmagupta of *Multan* - published also 
"&#8220;_Exponentiation and Euler measure,&#8221; is reminiscent of an interesting &#8220;mistake&#8221; made by Brahmagupta of *Multan* in his 6th century treatise Brahmasphutasiddantha._" 
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0203/0203289v2.pdf


----------



## Flintlock

Haha, if you want to discuss the historical development of the concept of the zero, they you'll need to go even further into ancient Egypt, Greece and Babylon. 

We however are discussing the invention of the modern zero as a numerical digit in the decimal system. That was done by Brahmagupta.

Now, regarding his birth, your vailant assertions mean next to nothing. There are around 3 or 4 sources on the internet which say he was born in Multan, and only one of them is an article dedicated to the biography of Brahmagupta. The rest simply mention his name in passing. 

The rest 99&#37; of sources (university sites, encyclopaedias, books on google books etc) all describe him as having been born in one of the two locations (Ujjain/Bhinmal). However, if you want to cling on to your precious french source, like the "Kalava", then please do so. Nobody can stop you from doing that. 
*
However, here is my case:*

Alberuni, the Persian writer, who translated his work into Persian and trasmitted it to the Muslim world, writes in his book:
_
*"Brahmagupta, son of Jishnu, from the town of Bhillamala between Multan and Anhilwara..."*
_
The name of the book is *Alberuni's India. (Ta'rikh al-Hind)*

Here is the source: Alberuni's India: An Account of the ... - Google Book Search

Oh and his own work clearly states that he wrote it at Bhillamala. 

So, I guess, unless you can come up with an *original, historical source* which clearly states that his place of birth is NOT Bhillamala, but Multan itself, this debate is over.

This would also explain why a few sources prefer to name Multan instead of Bhillamala, because Multan is the bigger, and hence more recognizable town.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Ok - enough with the canard of 'Pakistan was established for Muslims and therefore has no claim to its non-Muslim history.

Faith can change, however, the history of people does not. Our ancestors remain the same, they don't change becasue down the line someone converted to Islam. 

Stick to the topic please.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

karnivore said:


> No, I did not claim, that "Pakistanis are not native to the Indus Valley". But the only argument in favour of Pakistanis, being exclusive descendants of IVC, seems to be the fact, that the ruins of IVC are mostly in Pakistan. The question is not if Pakistanis are direct descendants of IVC, the question is if they are the ONLY descendants.
> 
> It would appear, that cultural acculturation and hereditary lineage have a magical tendency of stopping abruptly at the boarder of a non-existing political boundary between countries.



Oh indeed, and per the human theory of migration, since we are all descended from a tribe in Africa anyway, why on earth should any nation or people delineate history based on their contemporary identity?


----------



## srijeesh

zero was invented in bharata khand. which has been divided into india, afghanistan, pakistan, nepal and BD in modern times.

india is considered commonly as the representative of the old bharat and its culture since it still thrives in india only unlike other countries of this region.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

srijeesh said:


> zero was invented in bharata khand. which has been divided into india, afghanistan, pakistan, nepal and BD in modern times.
> 
> india is considered commonly as the representative of the old bharat and its culture since it still thrives in india only unlike other countries of this region.



Wow - when do we start including the rest of Asia and Europe in this ever expanding mythical Bharata Khand?

Do Hindutva apologists have nothing better to do than dream up ever larger swathes of the world being part of this mythical entity?


----------



## srijeesh

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Wow - when do we start including the rest of Asia and Europe in this ever expanding mythical Bharata Khand?
> 
> Do Hindutva apologists have nothing better to do than dream up ever larger swathes of the world being part of this mythical entity?



bharata khand is modern indian sub-continent. when did I include europe? or were you just exaggerating?

jambu dweep means asia, and bharata khand means sub-continent. that is how it is referred to in the ancient time whose heritage you are trying to claim.
it wasnt mythical either, it is historical. 
it is very clear from your post that you have no sympathy with the views of those ancients except some of their INVENTIONS.
hindutva huh!


----------



## Flintlock

Wrap it up guys, the debate is over. 

Al Beruni himself confirms that Brahmagupta was born in Bhinmal. What more do we need?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

srijeesh said:


> bharata khand is modern indian sub-continent. when did I include europe? or were you just exaggerating?
> 
> jambu dweep means asia, and bharata khand means sub-continent. that is how it is referred to in the ancient time whose heritage you are trying to claim.
> it wasnt mythical either, it is historical.
> it is very clear from your post that you have no sympathy with the views of those ancients except some of their INVENTIONS.
> hindutva huh!



Did the IVC people call themselves Bharata Khand? If not, then its not the view of those ancients is it.

A bit too close to Akhand Bharat and all of its expansionist connotations for me, but any way, this is off topic as well.


----------



## roadrunner

Al Beruni lived in the 10th century, Brahmagupta lived in the 6th century. So again this is not the ultimate reference. It's one reference however, and it does not say where he was born - we've established this was in Multan, he only worked in Bhillamala, which we know may have been somewhere between Multan and another place. It's not important, he was born and raised in Multan. 

Now, the references by Strasbourg University and Wisconsin University are clear in that he was born in Multan. 

However Brahmagupta was not the discoverer of the number zero - that would have to go to the Mahayanists and Panini/Pingula, who were residents of the Indus Valley, Ancient Pakistan, not India. 

Brahmagupta, the Ancient Pakistani from Multan (as per academic references), did not discover the number zero, he just formulated some rules that extended the work of Pingala, the Ancient Pakistani mathematician, regarding the number zero. 

This is then summed up in our highly credible MSNEncarta reference 

"_So you can see that when no beads have been moved, you need a symbol to represent &#8220;0". This symbol is very important, in order to show that this is the number 15730 and not the much smaller number 1573. *It was probably in using an abacus that the Hindus of the Indus valley in today&#8217;s Pakistan first invented zero*._
From Zero to Hero - MSN Encarta


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flintlock said:


> Wrap it up guys, the debate is over.
> 
> Al Beruni himself confirms that Brahmagupta was born in Bhinmal. What more do we need?



Depends upon if the debate shoudl be limited to "discussing the invention of the modern zero as a numerical digit in the decimal system. "

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## srijeesh

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Did the IVC people call themselves Bharata Khand? If not, then its not the view of those ancients is it.
> 
> A bit too close to Akhand Bharat and all of its expansionist connotations for me, but any way, this is off topic as well.



slight correction bharat khand is just a geographical name while akhand bharat is an ideology/dream. just because you confuse the two doesnt mean it is.

as far as, I know the IVC ppl's lang is not yet deciphered. but the symbols etc were close to the vedic religion(modern hindu religion), and in vedic religion, this region is referred as bharata khand.

it is off-topic but just to set the record straight.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Al Beruni lived in the 10th century, Brahmagupta lived in the 6th century. So again this is not the ultimate reference. It's one reference however, and it does not say where he was born - we've established this was in Multan, he only worked in Bhillamala, which we know may have been somewhere between Multan and another place. It's not important, he was born and raised in Multan.
> 
> Now, the references by Strasbourg University and Wisconsin University are clear in that he was born in Multan.
> 
> However Brahmagupta was not the discoverer of the number zero - that would have to go to the Mahayanists and Panini/Pingula.



Are you kidding me? Its the oldest reference after his own work, and unless you've got something better, that reference supercedes all the university websites in the world.

Even then, most universities state that he was born in Bhinmal, barring a couple which you have quoted.

Really, unless you've got something better for us, its time to accept defeat.


----------



## roadrunner

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> Depends upon if the debate shoudl be limited to "discussing the invention of the modern zero as a numerical digit in the decimal system. "



This then would undoubtedly be an Ancient Pakistani discovery, since this would have been well into the age of Panini, Pingala and the Mahayanists.


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> Even then, most universities state that he was born in Bhinmal, barring a couple which you have quoted.



This is not true. And it can be seen in the posts so far, excluding Hindutva influenced Indian universities of course.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> This is then summed up in our highly credible MSNEncarta reference
> 
> "_So you can see that when no beads have been moved, you need a symbol to represent &#8220;0". This symbol is very important, in order to show that this is the number 15730 and not the much smaller number 1573. *It was probably in using an abacus that the Hindus of the Indus valley in today&#8217;s Pakistan first invented zero*._
> From Zero to Hero - MSN Encarta



Your saying its "highly credible" does not make it highly credible, and infact, its not. If I had use that reference, you would have never accepted it. 

I remember that you accused the BBC of supporting "Hindutva groups". After that episode, you have absolutely no right to use ANY reference other than a strictly academic one, or an original ancient document.

and as far as the history of zero is concerned, I have already explained it. here is it:



Flintlock said:


> History of the Zero:
> 
> What is certain is that by around 650AD the use of zero as a number came into Indian mathematics. The Indians also used a place-value system and zero was used to denote an empty place. In fact there is evidence of an empty place holder in positional numbers from as early as 200AD in India but some historians dismiss these as later forgeries. Let us examine this latter use first since it continues the development described above.
> 
> In around *500AD Aryabhata* devised a number system which has no zero yet was a positional system. He used the word "kha" for position and it would be used later as the name for zero. There is evidence that a dot had been used in earlier Indian manuscripts to denote an empty place in positional notation. It is interesting that the same documents sometimes also used a dot to denote an unknown where we might use x. Later Indian mathematicians had names for zero in positional numbers yet had no symbol for it. The first record of the Indian use of zero which is dated and agreed by all to be genuine was written in 876.
> 
> We have an *inscription on a stone tablet* which contains a date which translates to 876. The inscription concerns the town of* Gwalior, 400 km south of Delhi*, where they planted a garden 187 by 270 hastas which would produce enough flowers to allow 50 garlands per day to be given to the local temple. Both of the numbers 270 and 50 are denoted almost as they appear today although the 0 is smaller and slightly raised.
> *
> We now come to considering the first appearance of zero as a number.* Let us first note that it is not in any sense a natural candidate for a number. From early times numbers are words which refer to collections of objects. Certainly the idea of number became more and more abstract and this abstraction then makes possible the consideration of zero and negative numbers which do not arise as properties of collections of objects. Of course the problem which arises when one tries to consider zero and negatives as numbers is how they interact in regard to the operations of arithmetic, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.* In three important books the Indian mathematicians Brahmagupta, Mahavira and Bhaskara tried to answer these questions.*
> 
> *Brahmagupta *attempted to give the rules for arithmetic involving zero and negative numbers in the seventh century. He explained that given a number then if you subtract it from itself you obtain zero. He gave the following rules for addition which involve zero:-
> 
> The sum of zero and a negative number is negative, the sum of a positive number and zero is positive, the sum of zero and zero is zero.
> 
> Subtraction is a little harder:-
> 
> A negative number subtracted from zero is positive, a positive number subtracted from zero is negative, zero subtracted from a negative number is negative, zero subtracted from a positive number is positive, zero subtracted from zero is zero.
> 
> Brahmagupta then says that any number when multiplied by zero is zero but struggles when it comes to division:-
> 
> A positive or negative number when divided by zero is a fraction with the zero as denominator. Zero divided by a negative or positive number is either zero or is expressed as a fraction with zero as numerator and the finite quantity as denominator. Zero divided by zero is zero.
> 
> Really Brahmagupta is saying very little when he suggests that n divided by zero is n/0. Clearly he is struggling here. He is certainly wrong when he then claims that zero divided by zero is zero. However it is a brilliant attempt from the first person that we know who tried to extend arithmetic to negative numbers and zero.
> 
> In 830, around 200 years after Brahmagupta wrote his masterpiece, *Mahavira *wrote Ganita Sara Samgraha which was designed as an updating of Brahmagupta's book. He correctly states that:-
> 
> ... a number multiplied by zero is zero, and a number remains the same when zero is subtracted from it.
> 
> However his attempts to improve on Brahmagupta's statements on dividing by zero seem to lead him into error. He writes:-
> 
> A number remains unchanged when divided by zero.
> 
> Since this is clearly incorrect my use of the words "seem to lead him into error" might be seen as confusing. The reason for this phrase is that some commentators on Mahavira have tried to find excuses for his incorrect statement.
> 
> Bhaskara wrote over 500 years after Brahmagupta. Despite the passage of time he is still struggling to explain division by zero. He writes:-
> 
> A quantity divided by zero becomes a fraction the denominator of which is zero. This fraction is termed an infinite quantity. In this quantity consisting of that which has zero for its divisor, there is no alteration, though many may be inserted or extracted; as no change takes place in the infinite and immutable God when worlds are created or destroyed, though numerous orders of beings are absorbed or put forth.
> 
> So Bhaskara tried to solve the problem by writing n/0 = &#8734;. At first sight we might be tempted to believe that Bhaskara has it correct, but of course he does not. If this were true then 0 times &#8734; must be equal to every number n, so all numbers are equal. The Indian mathematicians could not bring themselves to the point of admitting that one could not divide by zero. Bhaskara did correctly state other properties of zero, however, such as 02 = 0, and &#8730;0 = 0.
> 
> ______________________________


http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Brahmagupta.html


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> This is not true. And it can be seen in the posts so far, excluding Hindutva influenced Indian universities of course.



What's wrong with you? Do you want me to pile up a stack of university references for your pleasure? I'm not going to do that. Google it yourself, compare the number of references. 

In any case, his place of birth has been established. Now lets move on to the next chaper where you try to minimise his achievements and maximise Pingala's and Paninis, and later claim that the zero was actually invented by the Harappans. 
MOD EDIT: Read forum rules as to why this would be unacceptable


----------



## roadrunner

You've not listed a single neutral university that says Brahmagupta was born outside of Multan. 

The only one you've listed, St Andrew's University says he was *possibly* born in Ujjain (sindh?). Well, possibly is of no merit versus my Strasbourg and Wisconsin references. 

And I don't know where you got the idea I accused the BBC of being part of the Hindutva group. You must be confused, a little like your knowledge of history of the number zero! 

The St Andrew's link is alright, but it doesn't go back far enough. Take this University of Iowa link, clearly linking the concept of zero to the Mahayans of the Indus Valley, or Ancient Pakistan, where Panini, the Ancient Pakistani grammarian lived. 

_To this the early Mahayanists added the post-Paranirvana development of *shunya*, that *can be traced in Panini&#8217;s fourth-century BCE use of it*, as an emptiness that is pregnant due to its situation in relation to another concept, like the potential of a term to have a suffix, even when it doesn&#8217;t have one. Which was followed slightly-later, *by the mathematicians adoption of this same shunya as the zero, place holder, in their creation of the decimal system.* _ 
Lecture 8 

Now Pingala, the Ancient Pakistani further used the word Shunya to represent zero in his treatizes, and Brahmagupta, the Ancient Pakistani, came along and formulated some rules for the number zero.


----------



## Flintlock

Ujjain is in Madhya Pradesh, not Sindh.

Again, unless you can produce a historical document which disproves the one written by Alberuni, that debate is over.

Stop obfuscating, and take the debate forward. Don't act like an stubborn kid.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

calm down ya'll - There is a strong difference in opinions here.


----------



## Flintlock

RR, if you want to debate seriously, then read my posts and refute the points that have been made in them. 
*
Simply ignoring the portions of posts which you cannot reply to, and refuting a peripheral point rather than the main one, is a rather old internet trick which everybody can see through.*


----------



## Vinod2070

P&#257;&#7751;ini (IAST: P&#257;&#7751;ini, D&#275;van&#257;gar&#299;: &#2346;&#2366;&#2339;&#2367;&#2344;&#2367;; a patronymic meaning "descendant of Pa&#7751;i") was an Ancient Indian Sanskrit grammarian from Pushkalavati, Gandhara (fl. 4th century BCE[1][2]).

He is known for his Sanskrit grammar, particularly for his formulation of the 3,959 rules[2] of Sanskrit morphology in the grammar known as Ashtadhyayi (meaning "eight chapters"), the foundational text of the grammatical branch of the Vedanga, the auxiliary scholarly disciplines of Vedic religion.

The Ashtadhyayi is one of the earliest known grammars of Sanskrit, although he refers to previous texts like the Unadisutra, Dhatupatha, and Ganapatha.[2] It is the earliest known work on descriptive linguistics, generative linguistics, and together with the work of his immediate predecessors (Nirukta, Nighantu, Pratishakyas) stands at the beginning of the history of linguistics itself.

P&#257;&#7751;ini's comprehensive and scientific theory of grammar is conventionally taken to mark the end of the period of Vedic Sanskrit, by definition introducing Classical Sanskrit.

*On Monday, August 30, 2004, the Department of Posts of the Government of India, released a Rs. 5 postage stamp to honor P&#257;&#7751;ini.*

*That makes him an 100&#37; certified Indian.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

> Pushkalavati is an ancient site situated in Peshawar valley in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. It is located on the banks of Swat River, near its junction with Kabul River, now it is known as Charsadda. Pushkalavati meaning Lotus City was the capital of ancient kingdom Gandhara from the 6th century BC to 2nd century AD.


*
I think this makes him 100 % Certified Pakistani.*


----------



## Flintlock

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> *
> I think this makes him 100 &#37; Certified Pakistani.*



*Wrong. It make him 100% Ancient Indian.*

And that's the fact, unless you give a few amateur Pakistani websites more credit than they deserve.


----------



## roadrunner

Now I shall present my *third* academic research paper confirming that Brahmagupta was born in Multan, and was belonging to the Multan area of Ancient Pakistan. 

From an Italian academic this time of the ABQ Project: 

_Indians became adept mathematicians around 3000BC, but only the usage of zero became well known around the 6th century when *Brahmagupta of Multan *formulated rules of operation usig it. For 400 years from the 6th century, India was foremost in maths, and zero began its journey around the world. With the rise of trade among Arabs, Greeks and Indians, caravans carried more than goods to China, Arabia and Greece._ 
http://www.ooffouro.org/ita/RESEARCH/ABQ/OOFFOURO_ABQ - ResearchArea.pdf 

Three strong references so far confirming that Brahmagupta was an Ancient Pakistani. 

Zero, (how ironic), references confirming Brahmagupta was born in India or of of modern day India, aside from one hazy reference to Al Beruni, a noted hater of Brahamgupta, and someone who lived 5 centuries after Brahmagupta had died! Something sounds fishy about the Al Beruni reference, I'd like to see the original, I feel the translation may be Hindutva influenced, since all three credible, neutral academic references have stated clearly that Brahmagupta was born in Multan, and of Multan, Ancient Pakistan. 

It's also very clear Panini was an Ancient Pakistani. Thanks Vinod2070 for proving this.


----------



## roadrunner

_"The eminent *Multan-born *Indian mathematician Brahmagupta (598 A.D. - 660A.D.) went on to give the rules of operation of zero in his treatise Brahmasphutasiddhanta as though zero were any other number. Today, his rules may sound trivial, but imagine their significance when zero was nothing in the rest of the world." _
http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/numeracy.pdf 

Clearly another reference, though not as strong as the neutral scholarly references I presented before. 

It's fairly safe to conclude Brahmagupta had strong ties with Multan, Ancient Pakistan.


----------



## UnitedPak

Flintlock said:


> *Wrong. It make him 100&#37; Ancient Indian.*
> 
> And that's the fact, unless you give a few amateur Pakistani websites more credit than they deserve.



If we look at real facts, *It makes him 100% Gandharan. Which is Ancient Pakistani.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

RR, unless you prove Alberuni's work as incorrect, the debate is over. Stop clinging on to Kalavas.


----------



## Flintlock

UnitedPak said:


> If we look at real facts, *It makes him 100% Gandharan. Which is Ancient Pakistani.*



Nope, which is Ancient Indian because Pakistan was part of Ancient India.


----------



## DarkStar

The real Ancient India, is the modern day Pakistan. The current REpublic of India, is the ancient, Doab Gangetic plains, Deccan, Bengal, and southern regions, etc.


----------



## Flintlock

DarkStar said:


> The real Ancient India, is the modern day Pakistan. The current REpublic of India, is the ancient, Doab Gangetic plains, Deccan, Bengal, and southern regions, etc.



Nope, the real Ancient India is the Indian Subcontinent, and certain parts of Afghanistan.


----------



## srijeesh

Flintlock said:


> Nope, the real *Ancient India* is the Indian Subcontinent, and certain parts of Afghanistan.



the right word is bharata khand that has no relation with indus or sindhu as claimed or imagined.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vinod2070

"*The eminent Multan-born Indian mathematician Brahmagupta *(598 A.D. - 660A.D.) went on to give the rules of operation of zero in his treatise Brahmasphutasiddhanta as though zero were any other number. Today, his rules may sound trivial, but imagine their significance when zero was &#8216;nothing&#8217; in the rest of the world."
http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/numeracy.pdf

Clearly another reference, though not as strong as the neutral scholarly references I presented before.

It's fairly safe to conclude Brahmagupta had strong ties with Multan, Ancient Pakistan.

Just corrected the highlighting.


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> RR, unless you prove Alberuni's work as incorrect, the debate is over. Stop clinging on to Kalavas.



4 scholarly references of the highest academic credentials, and more to come, is enough to prove such. 

You however, have not proved that the translation of Al Beruni's work is correct, nor that it is Hindutva influenced. 

What sort of idiot would write, "Born in Town X located between Town Y and Town Z?" Let's not kid ourselves. Your Al-Beruni reference of the place where Brahmagupta was considered a "native" of (which could mean anything even that he only worked there, or be translated incorrectly), is very poor. 

I have provided solid academically stamped credentials of Brahmagupta's place of birth in Multan. 

This is simple leeching. I shall present further later.


----------



## roadrunner

Vinod2070 said:


> "*The eminent Multan-born Indian mathematician Brahmagupta *(598 A.D. - 660A.D.) went on to give the rules of operation of zero in his treatise Brahmasphutasiddhanta as though zero were any other number. Today, his rules may sound trivial, but imagine their significance when zero was nothing in the rest of the world."
> http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/numeracy.pdf
> 
> Clearly another reference, though not as strong as the neutral scholarly references I presented before.
> 
> It's fairly safe to conclude Brahmagupta had strong ties with Multan, Ancient Pakistan.
> 
> Just corrected the highlighting.




Dear Vinod, Multan is in Pakistan. Therefore Brahmagupta would be an Ancient Pakistani.


----------



## DarkStar

You're right. Bharat varsha/ akhand is not the same as India, which was based around the river Indus.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> 4 scholarly references of the highest academic credentials, and more to come, is enough to prove such.



Not sure about the "highest academic credentials". I want proof about who the author is and what his credentials are.

I'm sure he's a Pakistani sympathizer.



> You however, have not proved that the translation of Al Beruni's work is correct, nor that it is Hindutva influenced.



My reference is for all to see. You have to prove that it is Hindutva influenced.



> What sort of idiot would write, "Born in Town X located between Town Y and Town Z?" Let's not kid ourselves. Your Al-Beruni reference of the place where Brahmagupta was considered a "native" of (which could mean anything even that he only worked there, or be translated incorrectly), is very poor.



Its a standard translation of Alberuni's work. Provide me a translation which was interpreted differently and not Pakistani influenced.

"native" means that he was born there. Simple.



> I have provided solid academically stamped credentials of Brahmagupta's place of birth in Multan.



I have provided eqally solid academically stamped sources that Brahmagupta was born in Bhinmal. Its your job to prove that your academic sources are more credible than mine.


----------



## Flintlock

DarkStar said:


> You're right. Bharat varsha/ akhand is not the same as India, which was based around the river Indus.



Nonsense. Bharat and India are the same thing. Bharat is the indegenous name, India is the name given by foreigners.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## srijeesh

DarkStar said:


> You're right. Bharat varsha/ akhand is not the same as India, which was based around the river Indus.



you misunderstood me. bharat varsha is the name and that name was not based in any way on indus/sindu. sindu is just another river in bharata varsha just like ganga or godavari. sindu has no special importance.


----------



## DarkStar

Flint, first sort this problem out amongst yourselves. debate with srijeesh, and tell us which is correct.

When Bharatias themselves are not of one view concerning what constitutes India, then how can you lecture us?


----------



## srijeesh

Flintlock said:


> Nonsense. Bharat and India are the same thing. Bharat is the indegenous name, India is the name given by foreigners.



yes, but india was much bigger at that time extending till gandhar(afghanistan).


----------



## srijeesh

DarkStar said:


> Flint, first sort this problem out amongst yourselves. debate with srijeesh, and tell us which is correct.
> 
> When Bharatias themselves are not of one view concerning what constitutes India, then how can you lecture us?



I dont see any conflict in my views and flint's. if you see, plz show.


----------



## DarkStar

I can see you're bactracking now srijeesh. Peer pressure makes one change views instantly, I guess.

Thell me, Where did the mahabharat take place, whence the name bharat is derived in literature?


----------



## Flintlock

DarkStar said:


> Flint, first sort this problem out amongst yourselves. debate with srijeesh, and tell us which is correct.
> 
> When Bharatias themselves are not of one view concerning what constitutes India, then how can you lecture us?



The same thing can be said about Pakistanis. Resolve your own debate first.

Was Pakistan Ancient India or Ancient Pakistan?


----------



## srijeesh

DarkStar said:


> I can see you're bactracking now srijeesh. Peer pressure makes one change views instantly, I guess.
> 
> Thell me, Where did the mahabharat take place, whence the name bharat is derived in literature?



mahabarat war took place in kurukshetra, near modern delhi. hastinapur was situated on the bank of ganga. 
the war was fought among the indian kings from various states. from gandhar(afghanistan) to nagaland, and kashmir to tamilnadu, the kings participated on two sides.

backtrack from wat?


----------



## DarkStar

Its not about labelling, but about substance. We're talking geography here. 

Maybe you can answer the question i put to srijeesh.


----------



## Flintlock

DarkStar said:


> Its not about labelling, but about substance. We're talking geography here.
> 
> Maybe you can answer the question i put to srijeesh.



What is that question again? AFAIK I've answered your question already.


----------



## karnivore

roadrunner said:


> Dear Vinod, Multan is in Pakistan. Therefore Brahmagupta would be an Ancient Pakistani.


Would that mean Manmohan Singh is a pakistani.

Anyway, Johnny Ball (of MSN) is a mathematician and a showman. James Propp (of University of Wisconsin) is also a mathematician. None of them are historian. They were simply referencing someone else's work. Therefore they don't count. Can't say about the french site, can't read french.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DarkStar

you got it wrong. kurkushetra is in Haryana, not near delhi. it is 160 km away from delhi. while hastinapur is closer to delhi.

It is basically teh region of doab and Bharat, derived from the name of the ancient king Bharata.


Even ancient Magadh, Pataliputra, is in Doab. 

The kings (if you chose to call them that) were almost all small rulers of principalities from the ganga jamuna doab region.


----------



## srijeesh

DarkStar said:


> you got it wrong. kurkushetra is in Haryana, not near delhi. it is 160 km away from delhi. while hastinapur is closer to delhi.
> 
> It is basically teh region of doab and Bharat, derived from the ancient king Bharata.
> 
> 
> Even ancient Magadh, Pataliputra, is in Doab.
> 
> The kings (if you chose to call them that) were almost all small rulers of principalities from the ganga jamuna doab region.



I know about king bharata, I was just giving you approximate locations, I dont know the exact locations myself. 


anyway, wats the point for asking that question?


----------



## DarkStar

Pakistanis had previously been followers of Budhism, Jainism, Sanatan Dharm, Popular HIndu Bhaktism, Brahmanism and Vedic/Aryan religion.


----------



## Vinod2070

roadrunner said:


> Dear Vinod, Multan is in Pakistan. Therefore Brahmagupta would be an Ancient Pakistani.



But your most eminent source didn't know that it seems.

Or are you missing something that he knows?


----------



## rubyjackass

srijeesh said:


> mahabarat war took place in kurukshetra, near modern delhi. hastinapur was situated on the bank of ganga.
> the war was fought among the indian kings from various states. from gandhar(afghanistan) to nagaland, and kashmir to tamilnadu, the kings participated on two sides.
> 
> backtrack from wat?


Kurukshetra War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Pandava army
> A manuscript illustration of the Battle of Kurukshetra, fought between the Kauravas and the Pandavas, recorded in the Mah&#257;bh&#257;rata.
> 
> Seeing that there was now no hope for peace, Yudhisthira, the eldest of the Pandavas, asked his brothers to organize their army. The Pandavas accumilated seven Akshauhini army with the help of their allies.Each of these Akshohinis or divisions were led by Drupada, Virata, Dhristadyumna, Shikhandi, Satyaki, Chekitana and Bhima. After consulting his commanders, the Pandavas appointed Dhristadyumna as the supreme commander of the Pandava army. Mah&#257;bh&#257;rata says that kingdoms from all over ancient India supplied troops or provided logistic support on the Pandava side. Some of these were: Kekaya, Pandya, Cholas, Keralas, Magadha, and many more.
> 
> [edit] Kaurava army
> 
> The Kaurava army was consisted of eleven Akshauhinis or divisions. Duryodhana requested Bhishma to command the Kaurava army. Bhishma accepted on the condition that, while he would fight the battle sincerely, he would not harm the five Pandava brothers. In addition, Bhishma said that he would not fight alongside Karna. It is believed by many that Bhishma's decision not to let Karna fight under his command was due to his affection towards the Pandavas - the Kauravas would be overwhelmingly powerful if both he and Karna appeared in battle simultaneously. However the excuse he used to prevent their simultaneous fighting was that his guru (Parshurama) was insulted by Karna. But the real fact was that Bhisma knew that Karna was a Kaunteya(Son of Kunti) from the day he met him in Ranakshetra when Karna offered Arjuna to fight against him. Regardless, Duryodhana agreed to Bhishma's conditions and made him the supreme commander of the Kaurava army, while Karna was debarred from fighting. . Apart from the one hundred Kaurava brothers, headed by Duryodhana himself and his brother Dushasana, the second eldest son of Dhritarashtra, the Kauravas were assisted on the battlefield by Drona and his son Ashwathama, the Kaurava's brother-in-law Jayadratha, the brahmin Kripa, Kritavarma, Shalya, Sudakshina, Bhurisravas, Bahlika, the evil Shakuni, and many more who were bound by their loyalty towards either Hastinapura or Dhritarashtra.
> 
> Neutral parties
> 
> The kingdom of Vidarbha, with its King Rukmi, and Balarama were the only neutrals in this war. [4]








Only some of the kingdoms that participated are mentioned here.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Enough of the Pakistanis are Muslim and so can only claim Muslim history. 
Faith can change, if Pakistan turns into a Christian nation in the future does that mean that now Pakistanis have to forget everything about both their Pre-Islamic and Islamic history? Of course not.

Absurd logic by some people here. 

Pakistanis are descendants of the IVC people and the Aryans and other migrant peoples who came into the region and settled and intermarried. The accomplishments, civilizations, cultures and peoples in the land mass comprising Pakistan are therefore the history of Pakistanis.

Back to topic please - as I pointed out elsewhere, this discussion is already occurring on another thread. Keep it there.


----------



## DarkStar

The main war was between the Kaurav and Pandav Princes. Both these families were based in the ganga jamuna doab region.

If other people, from different parts of the subcontinent came and helped some, that is neither here nor there.

Most of the people involved were local princes and chieftains who chose one side or other.

Of course this is all hypothetical, since the historicity of the war is a matter of debate among historians.

This does show, the extent of Bharat VArsha, though. Which is why it was called the Mahabharata.


----------



## bernard

UnitedPak said:


> Same old agenda of cramming the term "India" into everything Pakistan with an intent of misleading people, discrediting Pakistanis, and promoting India.
> He was born in Multan, Indus Valley, Why use a colonial era term for the region?



indus valley pakistan was an area considered to create west pakistan
if it was created as one bigger pakistan on eastern side of India ,no one could have started this thread claiming about 60yr old pakistan inventing 1000 yr + old *zero*

name India was given by greeks referring to hindu civilization(etnicity) living east of indus continued to the extent of their lands,even name hindu was given henceforth,because India was divided into many states whose bordes always kept changing,somewhere in that anciet India those mathematicians were born

no one tries to defame or discredit pakistan, why dont u understand man

*there was no pakistan when zero was invented*,


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

bernard said:


> *there was no pakistan when zero was invented*,



There was no modern nation state of Pakistan, just as there was no contemporary nation of India - India is in fact a day younger than Pakistan.

However, the ancestors of the people of Pakistan did indeed exist then.


----------



## srijeesh

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> There was no modern nation state of Pakistan, just as there was no contemporary nation of India - India is in fact a day younger than Pakistan.
> 
> *However, the ancestors of the people of Pakistan did indeed exist then.*



this arguement is flawed since there were large scale migrations of the hindus(to india) who were most likely the successors of those ancients . many pakistanis do claim foreign ancestory.


----------



## DarkStar

srijeesh said:


> this arguement is flawed since there were large scale migrations of the hindus(to india) who were most likely the successors of those ancients . many pakistanis do claim foreign ancestory.



Yes, as individuals those HIndus and Sikhs can also claim this heritage, but not the Republic of India as a whole.

You can, on the ohter hand, claim the history of Doab, Deccan, gangetic plains, the cholas, etc.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

srijeesh said:


> this arguement is flawed since there were large scale migrations of the hindus(to india) who were most likely the successors of those ancients . many pakistanis do claim foreign ancestory.



The migrants at the time of partition were an extremely small percentage of the total population of Pakistan.


----------



## bernard

AgNoStIc MuSliM said:


> There was no modern nation state of Pakistan, just as there was no contemporary nation of India - India is in fact a day younger than Pakistan.
> 
> *However, the ancestors of the people of Pakistan did indeed exist then*.


 
thats what was my point, those ancestors were called Indians,because this region was called so,
you cant say that newton laws were invented in britain, but not in europe
61 yrs of border separation cant separate roots

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DarkStar

bernard said:


> thats what was my point, those ancestors were called Indians,because this region was called so,
> you cant say that newton laws were invented in britain, but not in europe
> 61 yrs of border separation cant separate roots



Yes, now you're getting the gist of it. Ancient India is like Europe. Not a country, but a whole bunch of countries.

Just as Europe's borders and kingdoms have changed over the centuries, so has the Subcontinent's.

What a correct analogy you have used!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

bernard said:


> thats what was my point, those ancestors were called Indians,because this region was called so,
> you cant say that newton laws were invented in britain, but not in europe
> 61 yrs of border separation cant separate roots



Roots extend in all directions with Iran, Afghanistan, Burma, Sri Lanka ... but the nucleus of cultures and civilizations was centered around a particular location.


----------



## Vinod2070

Please come out of the denial.

Don't you see the absurdity of it all! India was like Europe: yeah sure!

Ever thought why it is only the Muslim converts who feel the compulsive need to deny their own history, try to become fake Arabs or at least try to claim that they had some exclusive history which they want to do nothing more with than put in museums or earn some tourist dollars!

Many of you guys are proving every day what I read in "Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey" by VS Naipaul (Sir Vidia  ). Please do read and see how it describes exactly the actions in Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia etc.

A highly recommended read!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

I now present my 4th (fourth) *neutral academic *reference proving the number zero was invented and further used in calculation in Ancient Pakistan. 

Oh yes... the Bakhshali Manuscript, dated to around 200 AD. 

What is the Bakhshali Manuscript? 
_The Bakhshali Manuscript is the name given to the mathematical work written on birch bark and found in the summer of 1881 near the village Bakhshali (or Bakhshalai) of the Yusufzai subdivision of the Peshawar district (now in *Pakistan*). *The village is in Mardan tahsil and is situated 50 miles from the city of Peshawar*. _
Bakhshali manuscript 

And of calculations involving zero? 
_Equations are given with a large dot representing the unknown (shunya). A confusing aspect of Indian mathematics is that this notation was also often used to denote zero, and sometimes this same notation for both zero and the unknown are used in the same document. _ 
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Bakhshali_manuscript.html 

Half way down the page you can see an example of how "a dot + 1 = 1".


----------



## roadrunner

To summarize so far, whuddowehave? 

An excellent reference from a top website by a well known western, neutral mathematician quoting: 

*"So you can see that when no beads have been moved, you need a symbol to represent &#8220;0". This symbol is very important, in order to show that this is the number 15730 and not the much smaller number 1573. It was probably in using an abacus that the Hindus of the Indus valley in today&#8217;s Pakistan first invented zero."* 
From Zero to Hero - MSN Encarta 

We have the Bakhshali Manuscript, proving that "zero" was used in Ancient Pakistan first. 

Bakhshali manuscript 

We have Pingala's usage of the number zero in his treatizes which though in Binary, count up using the number zero to reset the count system after 9. Another Ancient Pakistani

We have Panini's early usage, before Pingali, and the Bakhshali's, of the shunya in his works - another Ancient Pakistani

*To this the early Mahayanists added the post-Paranirvana development of shunya, that can be traced in Panini&#8217;s fourth-century BCE use of it, as an emptiness that is pregnant due to its situation in relation to another concept, like the potential of a term to have a suffix, even when it doesn&#8217;t have one. Which was followed slightly-later, by the mathematicians adoption of this same shunya as the zero, place holder, in their creation of the decimal system. *
___________________________________

On Brahamgupta's Multan origins from Ancient Pakistan - he created the rules governing zero's usage

A very good neutral academic reference from Strasbourg University quoting Brahmagupta as from Multan 
"*N&#233; en 598 au nord-ouest de l&#8217;Inde, &#224; Multan, aujourd&#8217;hui au Pakistan, Brahmagupta passera une grande partie de sa vie dans la ville de Bh&#238;lmal sous la protection du souverain Gurjara. *" 
Brahmagupta

Another academic reference from an Italian researcher quoting Brahmagupta as from Multan
"*Indians became adept mathematicians around 3000BC, but only the usage of zero became well known around the 6th century when Brahmagupta of Multan formulated rules of operation usig it. For 400 years from the 6th century, India was foremost in maths, and zero began its journey around the world. With the rise of trade among Arabs, Greeks and Indians, caravans carried more than goods to China, Arabia and Greece.*" 
http://www.ooffouro.org/ita/RESEARCH/ABQ/OOFFOURO_ABQ&#37;20- ResearchArea.pdf 

Yet another academic reference, this time from the University of Wisconsin, quoting Brahamgupta as from Multan, Pakistan 

*&#8220;Exponentiation and Euler measure,&#8221; is reminiscent of an interesting
&#8220;mistake&#8221; made by Brahmagupta of Multan in his 6th century treatise
Brahmasphutasiddantha." *
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0203/0203289v2.pdf 

What's that.. And ANOTHER reference to Brahmagupta as being Multan-born!! Can it be true??!! 

*"The eminent Multan-born Indian mathematician Brahmagupta (598 A.D. - 660A.D.) went on to give the rules of operation of zero in his treatise Brahmasphutasiddhanta as though zero were any other number. Today, his rules may sound trivial, but imagine their significance when zero was &#8216;nothing&#8217; in the rest of the world." *
http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/numeracy.pdf 

I may have missed a couple there's so many........................

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karnivore

roadrunner said:


> To summarize so far, whuddowehave?
> 
> An excellent reference from a top website by a well known western, neutral mathematician quoting:
> 
> *"So you can see that when no beads have been moved, you need a symbol to represent &#8220;0". This symbol is very important, in order to show that this is the number 15730 and not the much smaller number 1573. It was probably in using an abacus that the Hindus of the Indus valley in today&#8217;s Pakistan first invented zero."*
> From Zero to Hero - MSN Encarta
> 
> We have the Bakhshali Manuscript, proving that "zero" was used in Ancient Pakistan first.
> 
> Bakhshali manuscript
> 
> We have Pingala's usage of the number zero in his treatizes which though in Binary, count up using the number zero to reset the count system after 9. Another Ancient Pakistani
> 
> We have Panini's early usage, before Pingali, and the Bakhshali's, of the shunya in his works - another Ancient Pakistani
> 
> *To this the early Mahayanists added the post-Paranirvana development of shunya, that can be traced in Panini&#8217;s fourth-century BCE use of it, as an emptiness that is pregnant due to its situation in relation to another concept, like the potential of a term to have a suffix, even when it doesn&#8217;t have one. Which was followed slightly-later, by the mathematicians adoption of this same shunya as the zero, place holder, in their creation of the decimal system. *
> ___________________________________
> 
> On Brahamgupta's Multan origins from Ancient Pakistan - he created the rules governing zero's usage
> 
> A very good neutral academic reference from Strasbourg University quoting Brahmagupta as from Multan
> "*N&#233; en 598 au nord-ouest de l&#8217;Inde, &#224; Multan, aujourd&#8217;hui au Pakistan, Brahmagupta passera une grande partie de sa vie dans la ville de Bh&#238;lmal sous la protection du souverain Gurjara. *"
> Brahmagupta
> 
> Another academic reference from an Italian researcher quoting Brahmagupta as from Multan
> "*Indians became adept mathematicians around 3000BC, but only the usage of zero became well known around the 6th century when Brahmagupta of Multan formulated rules of operation usig it. For 400 years from the 6th century, India was foremost in maths, and zero began its journey around the world. With the rise of trade among Arabs, Greeks and Indians, caravans carried more than goods to China, Arabia and Greece.*"
> http://www.ooffouro.org/ita/RESEARCH/ABQ/OOFFOURO_ABQ&#37;20- ResearchArea.pdf
> 
> Yet another academic reference, this time from the University of Wisconsin, quoting Brahamgupta as from Multan, Pakistan
> 
> *&#8220;Exponentiation and Euler measure,&#8221; is reminiscent of an interesting
> &#8220;mistake&#8221; made by Brahmagupta of Multan in his 6th century treatise
> Brahmasphutasiddantha." *
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0203/0203289v2.pdf
> 
> What's that.. And ANOTHER reference to Brahmagupta as being Multan-born!! Can it be true??!!
> 
> *"The eminent Multan-born Indian mathematician Brahmagupta (598 A.D. - 660A.D.) went on to give the rules of operation of zero in his treatise Brahmasphutasiddhanta as though zero were any other number. Today, his rules may sound trivial, but imagine their significance when zero was &#8216;nothing&#8217; in the rest of the world." *
> http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/numeracy.pdf
> 
> I may have missed a couple there's so many........................



O'Connor & Robertson article, regarding Bakhshali script, is the only research paper that can be taken with some seriousness. The rest are, well, mere references to Brahmagupta, by non-historians, and therefore wouldn't count.

However, some minor quibbles about that paper by O'Connor & Robertson. The script appears to have been found in an area which is now in Pakistan. It does not prove in any way, that the script was written in that area. Unlike, city ruins, scripts can move around, of course not on their own, but may be through change of hands. Further, to complicate your situation, that script appears to be a copy of an original work.

That paper, only proves, that at some point of time in history, a copy of an original work on Jain Mathematics, was physically present, at that place. It proves nothing more.

The same authors, while writting about the biography of Brahmagupta, note, that his birth place is "possibly" Ujjain, India. [I can't post links yet] They qualify their assertion with "possibly", because, to this day, other than Al Beruni's reference, there is no other direct refernce to his birth place. Although his place of work is more or less attested by different independent references.

You haven't replied to my earlier question. Since, Mr Manmohan Singh was born in Pakistan, does that make him a Pakistani.


----------



## roadrunner

karnivore said:


> O'Connor & Robertson article, regarding Bakhshali script, is the only research paper that can be taken with some seriousness. The rest are, well, mere references to Brahmagupta, by non-historians, and therefore wouldn't count.



One cannot just invent theories and say this is what happened. Like for example suggesting a river miraculously disappeared one day, or an entire population vanished since they decided one day to pack their bags and leave. One needs to look at evidence and piece together the facts. 

The evidence from within the Bakhshali document shows that the its date could not have been later than 200-300 AD. One clinching factor of the Bakhshali is the Western Prakrit it is written in, which is a *Buddhist Sanskritized hybrid* known in some circles as "Gatha" - a common form of writing found in *Gandhara*, but not in modern day India or Bharat. This itself proves it was not Jainic (though Jainism did exist to a degree in Ancient Pakistan). However Gatha became extinct from Gandhara, as mentioned previously, but this shows it was a Gandharan document (nothing to do with modern day India). 

Consider the Anavatapta g&#257;th&#257; which was written in exactly the same language as the Bakhshali, and on the same birch bark tree leaves. These were all common ways of recording thoughts in the real India (aka Pakistan). 



> However, some minor quibbles about that paper by O'Connor & Robertson. The script appears to have been found in an area which is now in Pakistan. It does not prove in any way, that the script was written in that area. Unlike, city ruins, scripts can move around, of course not on their own, but may be through change of hands. Further, to complicate your situation, that script appears to be a copy of an original work.



This has been debunked by all except for the beehives of Hindutva currently swarming the infested state of Bharat. 

The language of the Bakhshali could only be understood by people who could read the Western Prakrit Gatha. This language had gone extinct from the mainstream by 300 AD. Therefore the dating of it is assured, and secondly, since the Northwestern Prakrit was not spoken in Bharat, there's no way it was written in Bharat. 



> That paper, only proves, that at some point of time in history, a copy of an original work on Jain Mathematics, was physically present, at that place. It proves nothing more.



No evidence exists that it has Jain origins. 



> The same authors, while writting about the biography of Brahmagupta, note, that his birth place is "possibly" Ujjain, India. [I can't post links yet] They qualify their assertion with "possibly", because, to this day, other than Al Beruni's reference, there is no other direct refernce to his birth place. Although his place of work is more or less attested by different independent references.



The author who refers to it as possibly Ujjain is clearly not sure!!!! 

The authors who refer to it him as being born in Multan and of Multan are clearly sure. Else they would not have written this. 

There are solid references from universities that prove Brahmagupta was from Multan, though he did move elsewhere to work - Why else does it repeatedly crop up that Brahmagupta, the Ancient Pakistani, was born in Multan? There has to be some strong connection. 



> You haven't replied to my earlier question. Since, Mr Manmohan Singh was born in Pakistan, does that make him a Pakistani.



Manmohan Singh's ancestors are from Pakistan. He has renounced his citizenship of Pakistan, and therefore has become an Indian. 

One could ask similarly is Vitali Klitschko German or American? 

Silly point.


----------



## Flintlock




----------



## roadrunner

^^Doesn't ths just prove the point that modern day India, or Bharat, has stolen mathematics from Ancient Pakistan and claimed it as its own. One can see how everything is lumped into all things "Indian" here without reference to the real India (aka Pakistan).


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> One can see how everything is lumped into all things "Indian" here without reference to the real India (aka Pakistan).



That's because Pakistan had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Flintlock



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Flint,

Could you post summaries or the salient points of the video's along with the links - just so we know what exactly you want us to take away from them.


----------



## karnivore

roadrunner said:


> One cannot just invent theories and say this is what happened. Like for example suggesting a river miraculously disappeared one day, or an entire population vanished since they decided one day to pack their bags and leave. One needs to look at evidence and piece together the facts.
> 
> The evidence from within the Bakhshali document shows that the its date could not have been later than 200-300 AD. One clinching factor of the Bakhshali is the Western Prakrit it is written in, which is a *Buddhist Sanskritized hybrid* known in some circles as "Gatha" - a common form of writing found in *Gandhara*, but not in modern day India or Bharat. This itself proves it was not Jainic (though Jainism did exist to a degree in Ancient Pakistan). However Gatha became extinct from Gandhara, as mentioned previously, but this shows it was a Gandharan document (nothing to do with modern day India).
> 
> Consider the Anavatapta g&#257;th&#257; which was written in exactly the same language as the Bakhshali, and on the same birch bark tree leaves. These were all common ways of recording thoughts in the real India (aka Pakistan).


Strawman argument. Irrelevant.



roadrunner said:


> This has been debunked by all except for the beehives of Hindutva currently swarming the infested state of Bharat.
> 
> The language of the Bakhshali could only be understood by people who could read the Western Prakrit Gatha. This language had gone extinct from the mainstream by 300 AD. Therefore the dating of it is assured, and secondly, since the Northwestern Prakrit was not spoken in Bharat, there's no way it was written in Bharat.



Non-sequitor. First, you have ignored the fact, that this script is a possible copy of some original work. No one can say that the original work was not in some language popular in "Bharat". Second, the dating is not on the basis of language, but on the basis of content of the script with respect to our knowledge and understanding of the history of mathematics of that era. Third, even if we consider that the language was "not spoken in Bharat", it still doesn't mean that it can't be copied in "Bharat".

Once again, the presence of a script at a place only proves that it was present there at some point of time in history. It does not prove that it was written there. The language indicates the people for which it was intended, and also the fact that the person who wrote it, was at least aware of it. It still does not prevent him from writing it somewhere outside the region where this language is generally spoken. I am sure you can go to eskimoland and still write in english.



roadrunner said:


> No evidence exists that it has Jain origins.


True. There is no direct evidence. The evidence is circumstantial.




roadrunner said:


> The author who refers to it as possibly Ujjain is clearly not sure!!!!
> 
> The authors who refer to it him as being born in Multan and of Multan are clearly sure. Else they would not have written this.
> 
> There are solid references from universities that prove Brahmagupta was from Multan, though he did move elsewhere to work - Why else does it repeatedly crop up that Brahmagupta, the Ancient Pakistani, was born in Multan? There has to be some strong connection.


The authors, you have referred to, are historians of mathematics. So is Kim Plofker, whose work has also been cited earlier. The MSN and University of Wisconsin writers are not historians. They are simple mathematicians. They were merely referencing someone else, and unfortunately, did not cite, who they were referring to. Whether these non-historians were sure of it, is irrelevant, because their opinion on history of mathematics does not really matter. (Truth be told, they were not providing any scholarly paper on history)

The so called "solid" references do not mention any ancient text from where they arrived at their conclusion. Once again irrelevant.




roadrunner said:


> Manmohan Singh's ancestors are from Pakistan. He has renounced his citizenship of Pakistan, and therefore has become an Indian.
> 
> One could ask similarly is Vitali Klitschko German or American?
> 
> Silly point.


So you agree that nationality and/or citizenship is a mere modality of modern geo-politics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

karnivore said:


> Strawman argument. Irrelevant.



Lol. In other words, ignore the bits that are difficult. 



> Non-sequitor. First, you have ignored the fact, that this script is a possible copy of some original work. No one can say that the original work was not in some language popular in "Bharat". Second, the dating is not on the basis of language, but on the basis of content of the script with respect to our knowledge and understanding of the history of mathematics of that era. Third, even if we consider that the language was "not spoken in Bharat", it still doesn't mean that it can't be copied in "Bharat".
> 
> Once again, the presence of a script at a place only proves that it was present there at some point of time in history. It does not prove that it was written there. The language indicates the people for which it was intended, and also the fact that the person who wrote it, was at least aware of it. It still does not prevent him from writing it somewhere outside the region where this language is generally spoken. I am sure you can go to eskimoland and still write in english.



But the point is you have no evidence for any of this!!!! 

The evidence is a Manuscript found in Mardan, Pakistan and dated to 200 AD, in a language of Buddhist Sanskrit hybrid of the Gatha dialect. Since this dialect was not spoken in Bharat, it wasn't someone from there who wrote it!! 

Extending this with your eskimo example. I go to Alaska and write in English,and my Manuscript is discovered at a later date. This would suggest someone whose first language was English had wrote the Manuscript. Similarly, the person who wrote the Bakhshali Manuscript had a first language is Gatha, which was not spoken in Bharat, it was a Ghandarian dialect. 

The logic is very clear if you think about it, the evidence, even if it is a copy of an earlier work (of which no evidence exists just like none exists of rivers disappearing!) suggests that it is the earliest recorded manuscript of the number zero's usage in calculation. 



> The authors, you have referred to, are historians of mathematics. So is Kim Plofker, whose work has also been cited earlier. The MSN and University of Wisconsin writers are not historians. They are simple mathematicians. They were merely referencing someone else, and unfortunately, did not cite, who they were referring to. Whether these non-historians were sure of it, is irrelevant, because their opinion on history of mathematics does not really matter. (Truth be told, they were not providing any scholarly paper on history)
> 
> The so called "solid" references do not mention any ancient text from where they arrived at their conclusion. Once again irrelevant.



They look very relevant to me. I've shown at least 4 authors refer to him as a Multani. Did they all just happen to stumble across a map and throw darts at it to decide he was from Multan?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## karnivore

roadrunner said:


> Lol. In other words, ignore the bits that are difficult.


Vanishing river or vanishing population has got nothing to do with what we are discussing. Therfore irrelevant. 

Since, I have said nothing about the language of the script, and curiously enough, neither have O'connor and Robertson, your explanation of the language in an attempt to stake your claim, was, therefore, strawman argument.

But I can see, thats how you like to debate.



roadrunner said:


> But the point is you have no evidence for any of this!!!!
> 
> The evidence is a Manuscript found in Mardan, Pakistan and dated to 200 AD, in a language of Buddhist Sanskrit hybrid of the Gatha dialect. Since this dialect was not spoken in Bharat, it wasn't someone from there who wrote it!!
> 
> Extending this with your eskimo example. I go to Alaska and write in English,and my Manuscript is discovered at a later date. This would suggest someone whose first language was English had wrote the Manuscript. Similarly, the person who wrote the Bakhshali Manuscript had a first language is Gatha, which was not spoken in Bharat, it was a Ghandarian dialect.
> 
> The logic is very clear if you think about it, the evidence, even if it is a copy of an earlier work (of which no evidence exists just like none exists of rivers disappearing!) suggests that it is the earliest recorded manuscript of the number zero's usage in calculation.


You finally get my point and yet, somehow, don't. Lack of proof is one point you do get. But the fact that it cuts both ways, is something you don't get. 

Your first argument was that since it was found in Pakistan, therefore, the script was written in Pakistan. (That is, if highlighting the relevant portion, that speaks of the script being found in Pakistan, can be called an argument). I argued, that a script can easily change hands and find its place anywhere in the world. Location of a script does not indicate the place of writing. 

You then fell back on the language argument. (Thats why I called it a strawman argument). Your argument was that since it is in a language, not popular in "Bharat", therefore it was written in an area where the language was popular. My eskimo example was to prove that it can very well be otherwise. 

Since we do not know where it was written, we should leave it at that, and not draw any conclusion on it. (O'connor and Robertson do not. In fact no historian, that i have so far been able to reference on the net, has.) Any argument on its place of writing can be successfully deconstructed, simply because there is no evidence.

Arguments that are good for ruins, are not applicable for scripts or people or any other artifacts that can move around or capable of being moved around. Getting an accurate fix on their place of origin can be extremely tricky.



roadrunner said:


> They look very relevant to me. I've shown at least 4 authors refer to him as a Multani. Did they all just happen to stumble across a map and throw darts at it to decide he was from Multan?


Of course they are relevant to you. You are seeing, what you want to see. The inconvenience of the fact that they are not historians, the fact that they don't give any clue as to how they arrived at their decision, shouldn't weigh you down.

I am sure they had their own logic for calling Brahmagupta, a Multani. But unless you come up with the original source, something like Al Beruni's writing, that unequivocally establishes that Brahmagupta was born in Multan, his birthplace would continue to be at Ujjain, India. 

Well, even if he was born in Multan, it still wouldn't matter though.

And you have probably missed this:


karnivore said:


> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Manmohan Singh's ancestors are from Pakistan. He has renounced his citizenship of Pakistan, and therefore has become an Indian.
> 
> One could ask similarly is Vitali Klitschko German or American?
> 
> Silly point.
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that nationality and/or citizenship is a mere modality of modern geo-politics.
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

karnivore said:


> Well, even if he was born in Multan, it still wouldn't matter though.



Of course it would. He is an ancestor of the Saraiki people i.e a Pakistani ancestor.


----------



## Flintlock




----------



## karnivore

UnitedPak said:


> Of course it would. He is an ancestor of the Saraiki people i.e a Pakistani ancestor.


In other words, anybody born in an area, which, due to an unfortunate twist of politics, is in modern Pakistan, becomes a Pakistani by default. 

Nationality, as much as I understand, is one's identity with respect to a nation, by reason of birth or naturalization (not to be confused with citizenship as one member seems to have). Nation, on the other hand, is a political identity of a group of people, residing in a specific geographical area. 

So tell me, does nationality come before the beginning of existence of a nation, or only after a nation comes into existence, that nationality can be claimed.

If, Brahmagupta was indeed born in Multan, then the best that you can claim is, that modern Pakistanis (the saraiki people) are descendants of the same ethnic group to which he belonged. It still won't make HIM a national of a modern 60 odd years old state.


----------



## Flintlock

In any case, the argument is pointless because the only historical source available to us clearly states that he was born in Bhinmal, Rajasthan, between Multan and Anhilwara (Modern Patan, Gujarat)

The odd Multan reference is because of Bhinmal's relative obscurity and proximity to the ancient urban center which was Multan. 





karnivore said:


> In other words, anybody born in an area, which, due to an unfortunate twist of politics, is in modern Pakistan, becomes a Pakistani by default.
> 
> Nationality, as much as I understand, is one's identity with respect to a nation, by reason of birth or naturalization (not to be confused with citizenship as one member seems to have). Nation, on the other hand, is a political identity of a group of people, residing in a specific geographical area.
> 
> So tell me, does nationality come before the beginning of existence of a nation, or only after a nation comes into existence, that nationality can be claimed.
> 
> If, Brahmagupta was indeed born in Multan, then the best that you can claim is, that modern Pakistanis (the saraiki people) are descendants of the same ethnic group to which he belonged. It still won't make HIM a national of a modern 60 odd years old state.


----------



## karnivore

^^ Correct.


----------



## Flintlock

*Extract from:*
*
A History of Sanskrit Literature*
By A. Berriedale Keith
Published by Oxford University Press, 1961
Original from the University of California
Digitized 31 Aug 2007
575 pages*

"...Brahmagupta, born AD 598 son of Jishu of Bhillamala near Multan..."*

A History of Sanskrit Literature - Google Book Search

This is the source of the confusion.

Alberuni's work mentions Bhillamala as between Multan and Anhilwara. Later authors interpreted it as Bhillamala near Multan, and some authors simply wrote Multan for convenience sake. 

Any book or paper on Brahmagupta himself (and not a mathematical work with a passing reference to Brahmagupta) refers to his birthplace as Bhillamala.

____________________________________________________

*
Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society*
By Pakistan Historical Society
Published by Pakistan Historical Society., 1953
Item notes: v.1-2 (1953-54)
Original from the University of California
Digitized 24 Jul 2007
*
"...Brahmagupta, son of Jisnu from the town of Bhillamala between Multan and Anhilwara, 16 yojanas from the latter place..."*

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...rahmagupta+multan&lr=&client=firefox-a&pgis=1

Another clear reference to Bhillamala.

______________________________________________________________

Proceedings.
edited by J.E. Parkinson, R. H. Whitehouse
Published by Printed at the Mufid-i-'Am Press, 1927
Original from the University of Michigan
Digitized 18 Nov 2008
718 pages
*
"Brahmagupta, born in Bhillamala near Multan in in AD 598..."*


http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...rahmagupta+multan&lr=&client=firefox-a&pgis=1
__________________________________________________________________

Hope this clears up the confusion. And RR, kindly admit defeat and stop clutching at Kalavas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> *Extract from:*
> *
> A History of Sanskrit Literature*
> By A. Berriedale Keith
> Published by Oxford University Press, 1961
> Original from the University of California
> Digitized 31 Aug 2007
> 575 pages*
> 
> "...Brahmagupta, born AD 598 son of Jishu of Bhillamala near Multan..."*
> 
> A History of Sanskrit Literature - Google Book Search
> 
> This is the source of the confusion.
> 
> Alberuni's work mentions Bhillamala as between Multan and Anhilwara. Later authors interpreted it as Bhillamala near Multan, and some authors simply wrote Multan for convenience sake.
> 
> Any book or paper on Brahmagupta himself (and not a mathematical work with a passing reference to Brahmagupta) refers to his birthplace as Bhillamala.
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> 
> *
> Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society*
> By Pakistan Historical Society
> Published by Pakistan Historical Society., 1953
> Item notes: v.1-2 (1953-54)
> Original from the University of California
> Digitized 24 Jul 2007
> *
> "...Brahmagupta, son of Jisnu from the town of Bhillamala between Multan and Anhilwara, 16 yojanas from the latter place..."*
> 
> Journal of the Pakistan Historical ... - Google Book Search
> 
> Another clear reference to Bhillamala.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 
> Proceedings.
> edited by J.E. Parkinson, R. H. Whitehouse
> Published by Printed at the Mufid-i-'Am Press, 1927
> Original from the University of Michigan
> Digitized 18 Nov 2008
> 718 pages
> *
> "Brahmagupta, born in Bhillamala near Multan in in AD 598..."*
> 
> 
> Proceedings. - Google Book Search
> __________________________________________________________________
> 
> Hope this clears up the confusion. And RR, kindly admit defeat and stop clutching at Kalavas.




I think this is missing the point of the previous pages. 

First Brahamagupta did not invent the zero, and is a smaller part of the puzzle, but a significant one. 

Second, there's a reference to Al-Beruni, the Arab, which you quote often, and these references here (which are fine, I have no problem with them), are sourced to that Al-Beruni quote. 

My problem with the Al-Beruni quote is that it does not say where he was born, and the reference of yours saying that he was born in Bhillimala is based on an inaccurate translation of Al-Beruni. 

Al-Beruni, the Arab whose word you live on, suggests that Brahmagupta was a teacher at Bhillamala - this is something which is not denied by any of my quotes. My quotes even suggest he worked in Bhillamala and was known as "the teacher". However, Al-Beruni does not suggest where Brahmagupta was born. 

Here is another reference to it, this time from Montreal University. It's very clear about Brahmagupta's relationship to Bhillamala, Multan, and Ujjain. 

*"BRAHMAGUPTA, un des mathématiciens indiens les plus connus, est né dans le nord-ouest de l'Inde en 598 à Multan, aujourdhui située au Pakistan (1). Il a passé la plupart de sa vie dans la ville de Bhillamala (actuellement Bhinmal, au Rajasthan) sous la protection du souverain Gurjara. Il dirigeait l'observatoire astronomique d'Ujjain, grand centre de recherche en mathématiques au VIIe siècle." *
http://www.dms.umontreal.ca/~belbah...E9matiques%20indiennes%20et%20Brahmagupta.doc

"BRAHMAGUPTA, one of the most famous Indian mathematicians, was born in the northwest of India in 598 in Multan, today located in Pakistan (1). He spent the most part of his life in the city of Bhillamala (nowadays Bhinmal, in Rajasthan) under the protection of the sovereign Gurjara. He worked in the astronomic observatory of Ujjain, a big research centre in mathematics in the VIIth century." 
http://www.dms.umontreal.ca/~belbah...E9matiques%20indiennes%20et%20Brahmagupta.doc 

Now compare your quotes to this 

Your quote is "_Brahmagupta, son of Jisnu from the town of Bhillamala between Multan and Anhilwara, 16 yojanas from the latter place..." _

When it says Brahamagupta was from the town of Bhillamala it's clearly referring to the fact that he lived there. It doesn't say he was born there. Therefore this quote and my ones are not really at odds. 

I think you'll find Al-Beruni's quote to not be referring to the place where he was born, but the place where he worked. 

With 5 scholarly references showing that Brahmagupta was born in Multan, spent the majority of his life in Bhillamala, and worked in Ujjain, and perhaps two academic references stating he was born in Bhillamala I'd still say the evidence points to him being born in Multan - However, I'm sure that your two academic references to him being born in Bhillamala are a mistranslation of Al-Beruni, who does not mention anything of where Brahmagupta was born - only where he lived.


----------



## Flintlock

In that case, please establish a source for the French website's claim of him being born in Multan. It should be either a published research paper that deals directly with the question of Brahmagupta's birth, OR it should be a book written on the history of mathematics.

Clearly, someone would have done research on the subject and come across a historical reference which proves his birth. If so, please produce that original document.
Until then, your source is no more acceptable than any other online academic source which describes his birthplace as Bhillamala.

tNow, regarding Alberuni's work, you cannot simply claim a mistranslation without providing an alternative translation that clearly specifies hat his birthplace was not Bhillamala. 

Clearly, my sources, which are published works, hold far more authority than the sources provided by you, which are either papers dealing with subjects other than Brahmagupta's birth and only mention his name in passing, or, simply online documents that are not published or reviewed by peers in the field.


----------



## roadrunner

karnivore said:


> Vanishing river or vanishing population has got nothing to do with what we are discussing. Therfore irrelevant.
> 
> Since, I have said nothing about the language of the script, and curiously enough, neither have O'connor and Robertson, your explanation of the language in an attempt to stake your claim, was, therefore, strawman argument.
> 
> But I can see, thats how you like to debate.



It's not a strawman argument. It's a valid point which you glossed over. The language of the Manuscript is only convenient if you happen to be trying to ignore certain facts. 



> You finally get my point and yet, somehow, don't. Lack of proof is one point you do get. But the fact that it cuts both ways, is something you don't get.
> 
> Your first argument was that since it was found in Pakistan, therefore, the script was written in Pakistan. (That is, if highlighting the relevant portion, that speaks of the script being found in Pakistan, can be called an argument). I argued, that a script can easily change hands and find its place anywhere in the world. Location of a script does not indicate the place of writing.



This isn't the most important part of my argument. 



> You then fell back on the language argument. (Thats why I called it a strawman argument). Your argument was that since it is in a language, not popular in "Bharat", therefore it was written in an area where the language was popular. My eskimo example was to prove that it can very well be otherwise.



You're avoiding the language issue because you cannot understand how it fits in. The Gatha in the Manuscript was not spoke in Bharat. It was spoken in Gandhara. Therefore, the evidence points to it being written by someone from Gandhara, not Bharat - why would it have been written from somewhere in "India" aka Bharat, when this dialect was not spoken in "India" aka Bharat? 

Surely this confirms my point that my English written Manuscript found in Eskimo land would suggest someone from an English speaking country had written it, just as a Gatha written Manuscript would suggest someone from the Gandaran country had written the Bakhshali Manuscript. Isn't this the point? 



> Since we do not know where it was written, we should leave it at that, and not draw any conclusion on it. (O'connor and Robertson do not. In fact no historian, that i have so far been able to reference on the net, has.) Any argument on its place of writing can be successfully deconstructed, simply because there is no evidence.



There's plenty of evidence. I've given it. You're in denial of it. 

Gatha was not spoken in "India" aka Bharat. It was spoken in Gandara, clearly indicative that the Manuscript was written by a Gandaran and not a Bharati. 



> Arguments that are good for ruins, are not applicable for scripts or people or any other artifacts that can move around or capable of being moved around. Getting an accurate fix on their place of origin can be extremely tricky.



Irrelevant. 



> Of course they are relevant to you. You are seeing, what you want to see. The inconvenience of the fact that they are not historians, the fact that they don't give any clue as to how they arrived at their decision, shouldn't weigh you down.



Ummm. It was written in the Gatha dialect. You're in denial of this it would seem. 



> I am sure they had their own logic for calling Brahmagupta, a Multani. But unless you come up with the original source, something like Al Beruni's writing, that unequivocally establishes that Brahmagupta was born in Multan, his birthplace would continue to be at Ujjain, India.
> 
> Well, even if he was born in Multan, it still wouldn't matter though.
> 
> And you have probably missed this:



lol, Ujjain in India is not cited by anyone. One source says it's possibly Ujjain, India where Brahamgupta was born, but most of the other ones say Multan and some say Bhillamala. 

Personally I don't know why you don't just read Al-Beruni's quote - it doesn't say anything about him being born anywhere, just about where he lived. In fact, Al Beruni didn't even live till 5 centuries after Brahmagupta. 

Brahmagupta was born in Multan, lived in Bhillamala. That seems to be where most of the evidence points to.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> With 5 scholarly references showing that Brahmagupta was born in Multan, spent the majority of his life in Bhillamala, and worked in Ujjain, and perhaps two academic references stating he was born in Bhillamala I'd still say the evidence points to him being born in Multan - However, I'm sure that your two academic references to him being born in Bhillamala are a mistranslation of Al-Beruni, who does not mention anything of where Brahmagupta was born - only where he lived.



Alright, here are more academic sources for your viewing pleasure:


History of Indian Science

Indian Mathemtics

The combinatorics of tastes and humours in classical Indian medicine and mathematics

I'll get more


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> Clearly, my sources, which are published works, hold far more authority than the sources provided by you, which are either papers dealing with subjects other than Brahmagupta's birth and only mention his name in passing, or, simply online documents that are not published or reviewed by peers in the field.



Your sources are not from peer reviewed journals. 

They're from some meeting (perhaps in India) that took place in 1927. 

The original of that meeting is held at the University of California. 

It is not a statement by the University of California. 

My articles *are* from peer reviewed journals of the modern day 

Two examples of my articles from peer-reviewed journals of today: 

*&#8220;Exponentiation and Euler measure,&#8221; is reminiscent of an interesting &#8220;mistake&#8221; made  by Brahmagupta of Multan in his 6th century treatise Brahmasphutasiddantha." *
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0203/0203289v2.pdf 

*As we know the concept of zero, was originated in Ancient India. It was indicated by a dot and was termed Pujyam. The word zero comes from the Arabic sifr, meaning &#8220;empty or vacant&#8221;, a literal translation of the Indian Sanskrit shunya meaning &#8220;void or empty&#8221;. Indians became adept mathematicians around 3000BC, but only the usage of zero became well known around the 6th century when Brahmagupta of Multan formulated rules of operation usig it. For 400 years from the 6th century, India was foremost in maths, and zero began its journey around the world. With the rise of trade among Arabs, Greeks and Indians, caravans carried more than goods to China, Arabia and Greece.*
http://www.ooffouro.org/ita/RESEARCH/ABQ/OOFFOURO_ABQ&#37;20- ResearchArea.pdf 


The other 3 references of mine are from some of the top univerity websites around the world. 



> Flintlock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, here are more academic sources for your viewing pleasure:
> 
> 
> History of Indian Science
> 
> Indian Mathemtics
> 
> The combinatorics of tastes and humours in classical Indian medicine and mathematics
> 
> I'll get more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do get more.
> 
> History of Indian Science
> 
> Written by "Subhash Kak"
> 
> Indian Mathemtics
> 
> Written by "V S Varadarajan" who can't even spell Mathematics in his title.
> 
> The third one is at least by someone neutral.
> 
> All my articles are written by Europeans suggesting a degree (though not always) of neutrality. You've got one neutral author who wrote an article on medicine that says Brahamgupta was born in Rajasthan. I will credit this one.
Click to expand...


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Your sources are not from peer reviewed journals.
> 
> They're from some meeting (perhaps in India) that took place in 1927.
> 
> The original of that meeting is held at the University of California.
> 
> It is not a statement by the University of California.
> 
> My articles *are* from peer reviewed journals of the modern day
> 
> Two examples of my articles from peer-reviewed journals of today:
> 
> *&#8220;Exponentiation and Euler measure,&#8221; is reminiscent of an interesting &#8220;mistake&#8221; made  by Brahmagupta of Multan in his 6th century treatise Brahmasphutasiddantha." *
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0203/0203289v2.pdf



Its not - which journal was it published in? How many works have cited it? 

My references are from published books, so worth more than these online .doc files.



> *As we know the concept of zero, was originated in Ancient India. It was indicated by a dot and was termed Pujyam. The word zero comes from the Arabic sifr, meaning &#8220;empty or vacant&#8221;, a literal translation of the Indian Sanskrit shunya meaning &#8220;void or empty&#8221;. Indians became adept mathematicians around 3000BC, but only the usage of zero became well known around the 6th century when Brahmagupta of Multan formulated rules of operation usig it. For 400 years from the 6th century, India was foremost in maths, and zero began its journey around the world. With the rise of trade among Arabs, Greeks and Indians, caravans carried more than goods to China, Arabia and Greece.*
> http://www.ooffouro.org/ita/RESEARCH/ABQ/OOFFOURO_ABQ&#37;20- ResearchArea.pdf



It says "Brahmagupta OF Multan", not BORN in Multan. This is clearly a referene to Alberuni's work, which mentions that Bhillamal is situated between Multan and Patan. The author simply mentioned Multan as a matter of convenience, as Multan is the more recognizable town.




> The other 3 references of mine are from some of the top univerity websites around the world.



So are mine.

One is from Lousiana State University, other is from University of California, LA, third one is from University College, London.



> History of Indian Science
> 
> Written by "Subhash Kak"



Its you who is being biased. It doesn't matter what the origin of the writer it, but rather the institution which he belongs to.

In that case, I can point out that your references are from European universities which would make them liable to have Eurocentric attitudes, and hence biased.



> All my articles are written by Europeans suggesting a degree (though not always) of neutrality. You've got one neutral author who wrote an article on medicine that says Brahamgupta was born in Rajasthan. I will credit this one.



You are simply being racist by assuming that European researchers carry more weight than ones with Indian-sounding names.

Also, you have avoided replying to this part of my post:

*
In that case, please establish a source for the French website's claim of him being born in Multan. It should be either a published research paper that deals directly with the question of Brahmagupta's birth, OR it should be a book written on the history of mathematics.

Clearly, someone would have done research on the subject and come across a historical reference which proves his birth. If so, please produce that original document.
Until then, your source is no more acceptable than any other online academic source which describes his birthplace as Bhillamala.

tNow, regarding Alberuni's work, you cannot simply claim a mistranslation without providing an alternative translation that clearly specifies hat his birthplace was not Bhillamala. *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

In addition to my sources from University of California, Lousiana State University, University College London,
My Authentic Historical Source which clearly states that Brahmagupta was born in Multan (which you haven't proved was mistranslated) 
My references to 3 standard published texts which mention his birthplace as Bhinmal,

Here are even more sources:

Bryn Mawr College, Philidelphia:
_
Brahmagupta was born in 598 CE in Bhinmal city in the state of Rajasthan of northwest India. _
http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache...al&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=51&gl=sg&client=firefox-a

This is a research paper which was Published in a journal (Journal of the American Oriental Society) 

The Beginning of Utpala's Commentary on the Kha??akh?dyaka Author(s): David Pingree

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> To summarize so far, whuddowehave?
> 
> On Brahamgupta's Multan origins from Ancient Pakistan - he created the rules governing zero's usage
> 
> A very good neutral academic reference from Strasbourg University quoting Brahmagupta as from Multan
> "*N&#233; en 598 au nord-ouest de l&#8217;Inde, &#224; Multan, aujourd&#8217;hui au Pakistan, Brahmagupta passera une grande partie de sa vie dans la ville de Bh&#238;lmal sous la protection du souverain Gurjara. *"
> Brahmagupta



Ok, that's one source claiming that he was born in Multan.



> Another academic reference from an Italian researcher quoting Brahmagupta as from Multan
> "*Indians became adept mathematicians around 3000BC, but only the usage of zero became well known around the 6th century when Brahmagupta of Multan formulated rules of operation usig it. For 400 years from the 6th century, India was foremost in maths, and zero began its journey around the world. With the rise of trade among Arabs, Greeks and Indians, caravans carried more than goods to China, Arabia and Greece.*"
> http://www.ooffouro.org/ita/RESEARCH/ABQ/OOFFOURO_ABQ&#37;20- ResearchArea.pdf



It says OF Multan, not Born in Multan. If OF means Born, then all my references from Alberuni and all my quotations from books should be interpreted in the same way, if not, then your reference is worthless.



> Yet another academic reference, this time from the University of Wisconsin, quoting Brahamgupta as from Multan, Pakistan
> 
> *&#8220;Exponentiation and Euler measure,&#8221; is reminiscent of an interesting
> &#8220;mistake&#8221; made by Brahmagupta of Multan in his 6th century treatise
> Brahmasphutasiddantha." *
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0203/0203289v2.pdf



Again, OF Multan, not Born in Multan.



> What's that.. And ANOTHER reference to Brahmagupta as being Multan-born!! Can it be true??!!
> 
> *"The eminent Multan-born Indian mathematician Brahmagupta (598 A.D. - 660A.D.) went on to give the rules of operation of zero in his treatise Brahmasphutasiddhanta as though zero were any other number. Today, his rules may sound trivial, but imagine their significance when zero was &#8216;nothing&#8217; in the rest of the world." *
> http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/numeracy.pdf



And this is a Non-Academic website. Neither is it a published work, nor is it a published book.

If that source is valid, then so are all of these:

Brahmagupta Biography,Brahmagupta The Legend,Brahmagupta Interviews,Brahmagupta biography for kids,,Brahmagupta Autobiography, Brahmagupta, Numerical analysis, Chapa dynasty,Bhillamala, Bhinmal,History Biography for children,Life line of Brahmagupta,

Wapedia - Wiki: Brahmagupta

Term Paper on Astronomy. Essays, Research Papers on Brahmagupta

Brahmagupta - Kosmix

our scientists: BRAHMAGUPTA

Vidyapatha ::India's Largest Portal on Educational Information

TripAtlas.com - About Bhinmal

Which all unequivocally state that "Brahmagupta was Born in Bhillamala".

___________________________________________________________________

So basically you have just 2 credible sources one from Montreal University, other from Strasbourg University, which state clearly that "Brahmagupta was born in Multan. "

I have already explained that this is the result of convenience of mentioning a well-known city., as the work which ALL of these sources refer to is Alberuni's Indica, which states that Brahmagupta was born in Bhillamala in Rajasthan , near Multan. 

But for now, lets take those 2 sources at face value. 

Now, in comparison, I have 
*
"...Brahmagupta, born AD 598 son of Jishu of Bhillamala near Multan..."*
(Clearly refering to his Father as being from Bhillamala)
http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...rahmagupta+multan&lr=&client=firefox-a&pgis=1


*
"Brahmagupta, born in Bhillamala near Multan in in AD 598..."*

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...rahmagupta+multan&lr=&client=firefox-a&pgis=1

+

5 sources from UCLA, Lousiana State University, and University College London. Bryn Mawr College Phil., and 

in addition

A research paper by author David Pingree from the Journal of the American Oriental Society.


----------



## Khajur

DarkStar said:


> you got it wrong. kurkushetra is in Haryana, not near delhi. it is 160 km away from delhi. while hastinapur is closer to delhi.
> 
> It is basically teh region of doab and Bharat, derived from the name of the ancient king Bharata.
> 
> 
> Even ancient Magadh, Pataliputra, is in Doab.
> 
> The kings (if you chose to call them that) were almost all small rulers of principalities from the ganga jamuna doab region.



U are quite right that Bharat was the name derived from from the name of the ancient king Bharata who was the great grand father of Kaurav & pandavs of Mahabharat(Great Battle) and was the Emperor of Akhand Bharat whose capital was hastinapur(Delhi).

Now Akhand Bharat refers region which comprise of Gandhar(western pakistan & Afganistan).

One more interesting thing,If u read about the one prime character named 'SAKUNI' in Mahabharat,u would he was the *prince of Gandhar *and his sister princess Gandhari(obviously derived from Gandhar) was married to Dhritarashtra,prince of the Kuru kingdom and became mother of Kauravas .

For Detail about the back fround of Mahabharat, u refer to wikipidia...


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> Its not - which journal was it published in? How many works have cited it?



One of those I quoted was from a Harvard University Mathematics professor writing for Cornell University. 



> My references are from published books, so worth more than these online .doc files.



They're books, but they're not written by those authors. Example of your book : 

Proceedings.
edited by J.E. Parkinson, R. H. Whitehouse
Published by Printed at the Mufid-i-'Am Press, 1927
Original from the University of Michigan
Digitized 18 Nov 2008
718 pages

_"Brahmagupta, born in Bhillamala near Multan in in AD 598..."_

Your book is *edited* by Parkinson and Whitehouse, not written by them. 

It was *published *by the Mufid-i--'Am Press in 1927. 

First, they didn't do peer reviewing like nowadays back in 1927. 

Second, you expect me to take the Mufid-i-'am seriously?  It does not even state the author of that piece. It could have been BJP's Atal Vajpayee for all I know. 


I hate to say this, but your first reference doesn't say what you're suggesting either. 

_"...Brahmagupta, born AD 598 son of Jishu of Bhillamala near Multan..." _ 

That says he was born near Multan. It says that his father was Jishu of Bhillamala. Now that's also possible. But that to me suggests he was from Multan.


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> It says "Brahmagupta OF Multan", not BORN in Multan. This is clearly a referene to Alberuni's work, which mentions that Bhillamal is situated between Multan and Patan. The author simply mentioned Multan as a matter of convenience, as Multan is the more recognizable town.



LOL. 

Why would it say Brahmagupta of Multan, but really mean he was from Bhillamala? 

Please snap out of this denial mode. 

There's clearly very strong connections with Multan. 



> So are mine.
> 
> One is from Lousiana State University, other is from University of California, LA, third one is from University College, London.



Nope. The ones you quoted from universities are not from those universities. 

They are copies held by those universities of ancient books. 

Example, the University of California reference is an obscure reference that could have been written by an Hindu and published in Muhid-i-'am press. 

Since when was Muhid-i-'Am Press a souce of academic excellence? 




> Its you who is being biased. It doesn't matter what the origin of the writer it, but rather the institution which he belongs to.
> 
> In that case, I can point out that your references are from European universities which would make them liable to have Eurocentric attitudes, and hence biased.



European universities may well be Eurocentric, as many European writers. 

That is why they are the best ones for writing about subcontinent literature. 

They don't approach it from a Hindutva mindset. 

Now if it was a European invention I'd want to find non European writers to confirm. 

The nationality of the writer is one of the most critical pieces of evidence when considering a politicially charged piece of work. 



> You are simply being racist by assuming that European researchers carry more weight than ones with Indian-sounding names.



European writers carry more weight when writing on subjects to do with Indian history. 

The Hindutva Indian writers are known forgers and have a known political agenda on subcontinental history, therefore European writers are more neutral. 



> Also, you have avoided replying to this part of my post:
> 
> *
> In that case, please establish a source for the French website's claim of him being born in Multan. It should be either a published research paper that deals directly with the question of Brahmagupta's birth, OR it should be a book written on the history of mathematics.
> 
> Clearly, someone would have done research on the subject and come across a historical reference which proves his birth. If so, please produce that original document.
> Until then, your source is no more acceptable than any other online academic source which describes his birthplace as Bhillamala.
> 
> tNow, regarding Alberuni's work, you cannot simply claim a mistranslation without providing an alternative translation that clearly specifies hat his birthplace was not Bhillamala. *



The source of the Strasbourg reference is the University itself. They are of the opinion that Brahmagupta was from Multan, as are Montreal University. 

5 references show a very strong connection to Multan. They can't all be wrong, being academic institutions. 

You can't ask for more than 5 references. I'd say it was indisputable evidence he was born in Multan, even one of your references says he was born near Multan.


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> In addition to my sources from University of California, Lousiana State University, University College London,
> My Authentic Historical Source which clearly states that Brahmagupta was born in Multan (which you haven't proved was mistranslated)
> My references to 3 standard published texts which mention his birthplace as Bhinmal,
> 
> Here are even more sources:
> 
> Bryn Mawr College, Philidelphia:
> _
> Brahmagupta was born in 598 CE in Bhinmal city in the state of Rajasthan of northwest India. _
> http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache...al&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=51&gl=sg&client=firefox-a



 Flint, that's an MSc student's project  



> This is a research paper which was Published in a journal (Journal of the American Oriental Society)
> 
> The Beginning of Utpala's Commentary on the Kha??akh?dyaka Author(s): David Pingree



That doesn't say where he was born!! It says, and I quote "Brahmagupta of Bhillamala". Well, I never denied he lived in Bhillamala, neither did Strasbourg university, Montreal University, Wisconsin University, a Harvard University Mathematics Professor etc. But he was born in Multan is what those references were suggesting!!


----------



## AliFarooq

srry to break it guys, the number 0 was not used in india it originated from Sumerian culture in Mesopotamia, some 5,000 years ago.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> LOL.
> 
> Why would it say Brahmagupta of Multan, but really mean he was from Bhillamala?
> 
> Please snap out of this denial mode.
> 
> There's clearly very strong connections with Multan.



Because, as I said, Multan is the more prominent town, and Alberuni mentions it as being in the vicinity of Bhillamala. It makes perfect sense if the author is not directly concerned with the birthplace of Brahmagupta.

The Strasbourg and Montreal univs probably took that second hand Multan reference and assumed it to be his birthplace.



> Nope. The ones you quoted from universities are not from those universities.
> 
> They are copies held by those universities of ancient books.



My research papers, not books, are from those universities. Check it out again.




> Example, the University of California reference is an obscure reference that could have been written by an Hindu and published in Muhid-i-'am press.
> 
> Since when was Muhid-i-'Am Press a souce of academic excellence?



Its not - check the author, and sine when was Muhid-i-am press NOT a source of Academic excellence?

You simply scream "HIndu" and "hindutva" when cornered. not cool.




> European universities may well be Eurocentric, as many European writers.
> 
> That is why they are the best ones for writing about subcontinent literature.
> 
> They don't approach it from a Hindutva mindset.



I could claim that only Indian writers are qualified because they know better about their own history.

The fact is that the institution matters not the origin of the person, unless you can Prove that the said authors have right-wing sympathies, your protestations mean nothing.

Both the documents with Indian-sounding authors are from world-renowned universities - one from UCLA and other from Lousiana State Univ., and the third one from University College London, and a fourth one. 

ANd a FIFTH Reference from a Peer-Reviewd Paper from a respectable journal about Oriental Studies. 

All you have is a couple of unpublished documents from French Language Universities.




> Hindutva Indian writers are known forgers and have a known political agenda on subcontinental history, therefore European writers are more neutral.



Wow. Talk about Stereotyping. All Muslims are terrorists. How does that sound? 



> The source of the Strasbourg reference is the University itself. They are of the opinion that Brahmagupta was from Multan, as are Montreal University.



What? ALL our sources are opinions of the academic staff at the universities. The University doesn't hold an "official opinion" on any matter.



> 5 references show a very strong connection to Multan. They can't all be wrong, being academic institutions.



Well, if you are talking about "connections", then Brahmagupta has Far Stronger Connections to India, because way more sources "connect" him with India than with Pakistan.

You have managed to produce only 2 sources which clearly mention his place of birth as Multan. Nothing more.



> You can't ask for more than 5 references. I'd say it was indisputable evidence he was born in Multan, even one of your references says he was born near Multan.



Bullshit. I have 5 University documents, ONE Journal paper, and 3 published works. 
Infact, I can produce many more published works from google books, but it would be redundant. However, if you insist, I can pile on many more published books which clearly state the facts.


----------



## AliFarooq

Robert Kaplan, author of The Nothing That Is: A Natural History of Zero and former professor of mathematics at Harvard University, provides this answer:

The first evidence we have of zero is from the Sumerian culture in Mesopotamia, some 5,000 years ago. There, a slanted double wedge was inserted between cuneiform symbols for numbers, written positionally, to indicate the absence of a number in a place (as we would write 102, the '0' indicating no digit in the tens column).

zero timeline
Image: KRISTEN MCQUILLIN
TIMELINE shows the development of zero throughout the world. The first recorded zero appeared in Mesopotamia around 3 B.C. The Mayans invented it independently circa 4 A.D. It was later devised in India in the mid-fifth century, spread to Cambodia near the end of the seventh century, and into China and the Islamic countries at the end of the eighth. Zero reached western Europe in the 12th century.

Writing Numbers

The Babylonians displayed zero with two angled wedges
The Babylonians displayed zero with two angled wedges (middle).

The Mayans used an eyelike character to denote zero
The Mayans used an eyelike character [top left] to denote zero.

The Chinese started writing the open circle we now use for zero
The Chinese started writing the open circle we now use for zero.

The Hindus depicted zero as a dot
The Hindus depicted zero as a dot.

The symbol changed over time as positional notation (for which zero was crucial), made its way to the Babylonian empire and from there to India, via the Greeks (in whose own culture zero made a late and only occasional appearance; the Romans had no trace of it at all). Arab merchants brought the zero they found in India to the West. After many adventures and much opposition, the symbol we use was accepted and the concept flourished, as zero took on much more than a positional meaning. Since then, it has played avital role in mathematizing the world.

The mathematical zero and the philosophical notion of nothingness are related but are not the same. Nothingness plays a central role very early on in Indian thought (there called sunya), and we find speculation in virtually all cosmogonical myths about what must have preceded the world's creation. So in the Bible's book of Genesis (1:2): "And the earth was without form, and void."

But our inability to conceive of such a void is well captured in the book of Job, who cannot reply when God asks him (Job 38:4): "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding." Our own era's physical theories about the big bang cannot quite reach back to an ultimate beginning from nothing--although in mathematics we can generate all numbers from the empty set. Nothingness as the state out of which alone we can freely make our own natures lies at the heart of existentialism, which flourished in the mid-20th century.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> I hate to say this, but your first reference doesn't say what you're suggesting either.
> 
> _"...Brahmagupta, born AD 598 son of Jishu of Bhillamala near Multan..." _
> 
> That says he was born near Multan. It says that his father was Jishu of Bhillamala. Now that's also possible. But that to me suggests he was from Multan.



It clearly states that his father was Jishnu from Bhillamala, which is situated near Multan. Any other interpretation is wrong.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> The source of the Strasbourg reference is the University itself. They are of the opinion that Brahmagupta was from Multan, as are Montreal University.
> 
> 5 references show a very strong connection to Multan. They can't all be wrong, being academic institutions.
> 
> You can't ask for more than 5 references. I'd say it was indisputable evidence he was born in Multan, even one of your references says he was born near Multan.



You still haven't provided undisputed evidence (Original research papers on his origin OR historical documents. I'll AGAIN repeat my post.

*

In that case, please establish a source for the French website's claim of him being born in Multan. It should be either a published research paper that deals directly with the question of Brahmagupta's birth, OR it should be a book written on the history of mathematics.

Clearly, someone would have done research on the subject and come across a historical reference which proves his birth. If so, please produce that original document.
Until then, your source is no more acceptable than any other online academic source which describes his birthplace as Bhillamala.

tNow, regarding Alberuni's work, you cannot simply claim a mistranslation without providing an alternative translation that clearly specifies hat his birthplace was not Bhillamala. *


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> Its not - check the author, and sine when was Muhid-i-am press NOT a source of Academic excellence?



Who is Muhhid-i-press? Do you know? They have absolutely no academic credentials. 

They are a source of fictional and factual books. They even let loose a copy of the Jungle king on the subcontinent!  

Are you trying to say Muhid-i-'Am press is a source of academic excellence comparable to Montreal and Strasbourg University?


----------



## Flintlock

More Published books that clearly state the facts:

Elementary Number Theory with Applications
By Thomas Koshy
_*
"Brahmagupta, the most prominent Indian Astronomer and Mathematician, was born in Bhillamala..."*_
Elementary Number Theory with ... - Google Book Search

______________________________________________

Comparative Librarianship: Essays in Honour of Professor D. N. Marshall
By D. N. Marshall, N. N. Gidwani
Published by Vikas Pub. House, 1973
Original from the University of California
Digitized 7 Dec 2006
245 pages*

"...he was a native of Bhinmal in Northern Gujarat..."*
Comparative Librarianship: Essays in ... - Google Book Search

_________________________________________________________
*
Proceedings - Indian History Congress*
By Indian History Congress
Published by , 1995
Item notes: 1994
Original from the University of Michigan
Digitized 29 Aug 2008

*
"Alberuni, I, 1 53, says that "Bhillamala, between the town of MULTAN & Anhilwara
, 1 6 yojanas from the latter place", was the birth-place of Brahmagupta who .."*

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...xeTSc79LqOMkQTD67nKCg&client=firefox-a&pgis=1

http://books.google.com.sg/books?oe...brahmagupta+bhillamala+alberuni&sa=N&start=10
___________________________________________________________________



That brings the grand total to 5 University sources, one Journal Paper, and 6 published works. 
All the 6 published works identify his birthplace as Bhinmal.
______________________________________________________________

In Addition, here is a quote from Kim Plofker, Department of History of Mathematics
Brown University:
_
The _Brahmasphutasiddhanta_ mentions a ruler of a dynasty
whose capital was at Bhillamala in modern Rajasthan (and a ninth-century
commentator calls Brahmagupta "the teacher from Bhillamala"); *I don't
understand the author's reference to Multan.*_
http://sunsite.utk.edu/math_archives/.http/hypermail/historia/apr99/0230.html

Clearly, if a professor of the History of Mathematics has no clue where the "Multan" reference came from, then its quite obvious that there ARE NO HISTORICAL SOURCES/DOCUMENTS for that claim.

The only historical sources about Brahmagupta are Brahmagupta's own work (which says it was written in Bhillamala), a ninth century commentator who calls him the "teacher from Bhillamala", Alberuni who refers to him as "Son of Jisnu, from Bhillamala between Multan and Anhilwara", and another source that describes him as the head of the observatory at Ujjain.


----------



## Flintlock

roadrunner said:


> Who is Muhhid-i-press? Do you know? They have absolutely no academic credentials.
> 
> They are a source of fictional and factual books. They even let loose a copy of the Jungle king on the subcontinent!
> 
> Are you trying to say Muhid-i-'Am press is a source of academic excellence comparable to Montreal and Strasbourg University?



How does it matter? Check the author, and unless you can specifically prove that the publishers are deliberately printing fake stuff you don't have any point at all.


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> More Published books that clearly state the facts:
> 
> Elementary Number Theory with Applications
> By Thomas Koshy
> _*
> "Brahmagupta, the most prominent Indian Astronomer and Mathematician, was born in Bhillamala..."*_
> Elementary Number Theory with ... - Google Book Search



This is an acceptable reference, your second one. 



> Comparative Librarianship: Essays in Honour of Professor D. N. Marshall
> By D. N. Marshall, N. N. Gidwani
> Published by Vikas Pub. House, 1973
> Original from the University of California
> Digitized 7 Dec 2006
> 245 pages*
> 
> "...he was a native of Bhinmal in Northern Gujarat..."*
> Comparative Librarianship: Essays in ... - Google Book Search



This is not acceptable, because it says he was a native of Gujerat. I think even my references suggest he lived in Gujerat, but he was born in Multan. 

You have to consider the translation of Al-Beruni's texts also. Another thing to consider is that Al-Beruni lived 5 centuries after Brahmagupta had lived, so his research would not have been so accurate as today's. 



> *
> Proceedings - Indian History Congress*
> By Indian History Congress
> Published by , 1995
> Item notes: 1994
> Original from the University of Michigan
> Digitized 29 Aug 2008
> 
> *
> "Alberuni, I, 1 53, says that "Bhillamala, between the town of MULTAN & Anhilwara
> , 1 6 yojanas from the latter place", was the birth-place of Brahmagupta who .."*
> 
> Proceedings - Indian History Congress - Google Book Search
> 
> brahmagupta bhillamala alberuni - Google Book Search



Ridiculous reference from the Indian History Congress of faked data. 



> That brings the grand total to 5 University sources, one Journal Paper, and 6 published works.
> All the 6 published works identify his birthplace as Bhinmal.



You have 2 references. 

I have explained each one in detail. 

Your "university references" are not university references. They are holdings stored within universities of 1920s, non peer reviewed manuscripts that were published fictional press prints, that do not hold the same prestige as Harvard University professor's papers, Strasbourg University, Montreal University etc. 



> In Addition, here is a quote from Kim Plofker, Department of History of Mathematics
> Brown University:
> _
> The _Brahmasphutasiddhanta_ mentions a ruler of a dynasty
> whose capital was at Bhillamala in modern Rajasthan (and a ninth-century
> commentator calls Brahmagupta "the teacher from Bhillamala"); *I don't
> understand the author's reference to Multan.*_
> Historia Matematica Mailing List Archive: Re: [HM] The Zero Story: a question



He WORKED in Bhillamala. There is no contesting this from my side. The Multan bit comes in because he was BORN IN MULTAN, as per several sources, not least Montreal. 



> Clearly, if a professor of the History of Mathematics has no clue where the "Multan" reference came from, then its quite obvious that there ARE NO HISTORICAL SOURCES/DOCUMENTS for that claim.
> 
> The only historical sources about Brahmagupta are Brahmagupta's own work (which says it was written in Bhillamala), a ninth century commentator who calls him the "teacher from Bhillamala", Alberuni who refers to him as "Son of Jisnu, from Bhillamala between Multan and Anhilwara", and another source that describes him as the head of the observatory at Ujjain.



No it's not the only reference. Clearly there are more references OR Al Beruni's works are translated differently. Example, Al Beruni may have meant by native that he had been living in Bhillamala for so long that he was considered a native. There's many possibilities. More importantly, even Al Beruni mentions Multan. There would be no point in mentioning Multan when Multan would have been a separate kingdom to that of the Gujarras at the time. Of course if he were born in Multan, and then moved to work in Bhillamala this makes perfect sense for mentioning it. 

I'll give you the above non academic source, and you had one credible one from before (though on medicinal mathematics).


----------



## roadrunner

Flintlock said:


> How does it matter? Check the author, and unless you can specifically prove that the publishers are deliberately printing fake stuff you don't have any point at all.



You obviously don't get what you're quoting. 

Proceedings.
edited by J.E. Parkinson, R. H. Whitehouse
Published by Printed at the Mufid-i-'Am Press, 1927
Original from the University of Michigan
Digitized 18 Nov 2008
718 pages

This is a collection of old writings preserved by the University of Michigan. They are not written by Parkinson and Whitehouse, they were written in 1927 and published by "Mufid-i-'Am" Press. The authors could have been anyone. 

University of Michigan did not write that piece, and none of the other universities wrote those pieces either. The University of Michigan only preserved this pieces in a book edited by Parkinsona nd Whitehouse. Nothing more.


----------



## roadrunner

AliFarooq said:


> The first recorded zero appeared in Mesopotamia around 3 B.C. The Mayans invented it independently circa 4 A.D. It was later devised in India in the mid-fifth century, spread to Cambodia near the end of the seventh century, and into China and the Islamic countries at the end of the eighth. Zero reached western Europe in the 12th century.



The first recorded zero was actually a dot used by Panini (5 BC), and later by Pingali in the Gandaran country of Ancient Pakistan.


----------



## roadrunner

To summarize the pov that Brahmagupta was born in Multan, lived in Bhillamala and worked in Ujjain.. 

On Brahamgupta's Multan origins from Ancient Pakistan - he created the rules governing zero's usage

A very good neutral academic reference from Strasbourg University quoting Brahmagupta as from Multan 
"*N&#233; en 598 au nord-ouest de l&#8217;Inde, &#224; Multan, aujourd&#8217;hui au Pakistan, Brahmagupta passera une grande partie de sa vie dans la ville de Bh&#238;lmal sous la protection du souverain Gurjara. *" 
Brahmagupta

The Montreal university reference showing the relationship between Multan, Ujjain, and Bhillamala. 
*"BRAHMAGUPTA, un des math&#233;maticiens indiens les plus connus, est n&#233; dans le nord-ouest de l'Inde en 598 &#224; Multan, aujourd&#8217;hui situ&#233;e au Pakistan (1). Il a pass&#233; la plupart de sa vie dans la ville de Bhillamala (actuellement Bhinmal, au Rajasthan) sous la protection du souverain Gurjara. Il dirigeait l'observatoire astronomique d'Ujjain, grand centre de recherche en math&#233;matiques au VIIe si&#232;cle." *
http://www.dms.umontreal.ca/~belbah...E9matiques%20indiennes%20et%20Brahmagupta.doc

Translated: 
*"BRAHMAGUPTA, one of the most famous Indian mathematicians, was born in the northwest of India in 598 in Multan, today located in Pakistan (1). He spent the most part of his life in the city of Bhillamala (nowadays Bhinmal, in Rajasthan) under the protection of the sovereign Gurjara. He worked in the astronomic observatory of Ujjain, a big research centre in mathematics in the VIIth century."* 
http://www.dms.umontreal.ca/~belbah...E9matiques%20indiennes%20et%20Brahmagupta.doc 


Another academic reference from an Italian researcher quoting Brahmagupta as from Multan
"*Indians became adept mathematicians around 3000BC, but only the usage of zero became well known around the 6th century when Brahmagupta of Multan formulated rules of operation usig it. For 400 years from the 6th century, India was foremost in maths, and zero began its journey around the world. With the rise of trade among Arabs, Greeks and Indians, caravans carried more than goods to China, Arabia and Greece.*" 
http://www.ooffouro.org/ita/RESEARCH/ABQ/OOFFOURO_ABQ - ResearchArea.pdf 

Yet another academic reference, this time from the University of Wisconsin, quoting Brahamgupta as from Multan, Pakistan 

*&#8220;Exponentiation and Euler measure,&#8221; is reminiscent of an interesting
&#8220;mistake&#8221; made by Brahmagupta of Multan in his 6th century treatise
Brahmasphutasiddantha." *
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0203/0203289v2.pdf 

What's that.. And ANOTHER reference to Brahmagupta as being Multan-born!! Can it be true??!! 

*"The eminent Multan-born Indian mathematician Brahmagupta (598 A.D. - 660A.D.) went on to give the rules of operation of zero in his treatise Brahmasphutasiddhanta as though zero were any other number. Today, his rules may sound trivial, but imagine their significance when zero was &#8216;nothing&#8217; in the rest of the world." *
http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/numeracy.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roadrunner

On the first usage of the number zero in Ancient Pakistan we have (to name only the most important) 

An excellent reference from a top website by a well known western, neutral mathematician quoting: 

*"So you can see that when no beads have been moved, you need a symbol to represent 0". This symbol is very important, in order to show that this is the number 15730 and not the much smaller number 1573. It was probably in using an abacus that the Hindus of the Indus valley in todays Pakistan first invented zero."* 
From Zero to Hero - MSN Encarta 

As for Johnny Ball's credentials he has three honorary doctorates from universities, and lectures regularly at universities. 

MSN Encarta is a good website also, and neutrality is a given. 


We have the Bakhshali Manuscript, proving that "zero" was used in Ancient Pakistan first. 

Bakhshali manuscript 

We have Pingala's usage of the number zero in his treatizes which though in Binary, count up using the number zero to reset the count system after 9. Another Ancient Pakistani

We have Panini's early usage, before Pingali, and the Bakhshali's, of the shunya in his works - another Ancient Pakistani

*To this the early Mahayanists added the post-Paranirvana development of shunya, that can be traced in Paninis fourth-century BCE use of it, as an emptiness that is pregnant due to its situation in relation to another concept, like the potential of a term to have a suffix, even when it doesnt have one. Which was followed slightly-later, by the mathematicians adoption of this same shunya as the zero, place holder, in their creation of the decimal system. *


----------



## Captain03

india has looted much from pakistan
historic wise too  lol


----------



## EagleEyes

aussiesikh said:


> btw Pakistan existed only in 1947 before it was India get your facts right.



Pakistan existed before India.

August 14 < August 15.

Get your facts straight.


----------



## roadrunner

my thread's back up. 

And to put the record straight, India was originally Pakistan, then it became a region (not a country) until 1947, when the name was stolen.


----------



## kallu_be

WebMaster said:


> Pakistan existed before India.
> 
> August 14 < August 15.
> 
> Get your facts straight.



I don't want to involve in this stupid conversation but just to get the facts straight, India was the name given by the westerners and the actual name of India was Bharat (Name in Indian languages), as far as i know Bharat was there before Pakistan were created. One thing i didn't able to understand is what point the author want to convey through this thread. Is he having some sort of identity crisis?


----------



## toxic_pus

roadrunner said:


> And to put the record straight, *India was originally Pakistan*, then it became a region (not a country) until 1947, when the name was stolen.


Can you please show a reference to the name "Pakistan", prior to early 1900 AD. Meanwhile, you can read this.



> The originator of the word PAKISTAN, Chowdhry Rehmat Ali wrote of his concepts,
> " 'Pakistan' is both a Persian and an Urdu word. It is composed of letters taken from the names of all our homelands- 'Indian' and 'Asian', that is *P*unjab, *A*fghania (North- West Frontier Province), *K*ashmir, *I*ran, *S*indh (including Kachch and Kathiawar), *T*ukharistan, *A*fghanistan and Baluchista*N*. It means the land of the Paks - the spiritually pure and clean. It symbolizes the religious beliefs and the ethnical stocks of our people; and it stands for all the territorial constituents of our original Fatherland. *It has no other origin and no other meaning; and it does not admit of any other interpretation*."


PAKISTAN: "THE LAND OF THE PURE"


----------



## toxic_pus

roadrunner said:


> Is he having some sort of identity crisis?


What else do you think it is ?


----------



## shukla_swapnil

Bye Bye Kilo. 

Hope you have a long stay in the banned list and also hope We'll never have to read you again.


----------



## third eye

The world & our region has so many pressing probs. The kind that should keep us awake for our very existence as a civilised society as we know it is at stake.

.. and we are debating who invented a zero ?

Does it matter who invented a wheel ?


----------



## DarkStar

thanks for the laughs kilo...now be a good boy, go back to school as the easter holidays have finished, and never come back!


----------



## ARSENAL6

third eye said:


> The world & our region has so many pressing probs. The kind that should keep us awake for our very existence as a civilised society as we know it is at stake.
> 
> .. and we are debating who invented a zero ?
> 
> Does it matter who invented a wheel ?



oK WHY does india goes on about that they invented the zero
Heck its reached here in London !

If i'm correct it was invented by Arabs


----------



## ticktack79

ARSENAL6 said:


> oK WHY does india goes on about that they invented the zero
> Heck its reached here in London !
> 
> If i'm correct it was invented by Arabs



When I went to Egypt, they claimed that zero was invented there ...
Anyways I could not read all the posts... any conclusion till now ???


----------



## third eye

No , there has been no consensus who invented the Zero.

Like the shape of a zero , we are running around in circles & reach the same point each time.


----------



## third eye

Here are a few links for those who wish to research the zero. 


WikiAnswers - Who invented number zero

WikiAnswers - Who invented the number name zero

History of Zero

Who Invented The Zero - Cradle of Civilisations

'Who invented Zero' Science:Top 10 Who invented Zero Kids Science Projects,Invention of Zero Science Notes,Who invented Zero Science Quiz,Who invented Zero Science Articles,Invention of Zero by ,Who invented Zero, History of mankind, Invented in Indi

Arabs Invented Zero!!!! in Modern Marvels in History Channel

Interesting Facts | Invention Of Zero


----------



## roadrunner

third eye said:


> Here are a few links for those who wish to research the zero.
> 
> 
> WikiAnswers - Who invented number zero
> 
> WikiAnswers - Who invented the number name zero
> 
> History of Zero
> 
> Who Invented The Zero - Cradle of Civilisations
> 
> 'Who invented Zero' Science:Top 10 Who invented Zero Kids Science Projects,Invention of Zero Science Notes,Who invented Zero Science Quiz,Who invented Zero Science Articles,Invention of Zero by ,Who invented Zero, History of mankind, Invented in Indi
> 
> Arabs Invented Zero!!!! in Modern Marvels in History Channel
> 
> Interesting Facts | Invention Of Zero



Wiki sites. Great references. Kids channels, and then other uncredible links, which define "India" as the subcontinent, and not modern day India's boundaries. 

The credible links have been given in this thread. I'd say the number zero was a gradual invention over many centuries, within the borders of modern day Pakistan. 

I'm not interested in discussing stupid theories that Pakistan never existed before 1947, as if it miraculously dropped from space one day.


----------



## rubyjackass

The problem arises because some Pakistanis have come to be paranoid of the word India. The word India when used in the context of ancient history includes them also.


----------



## MilesTogo

Here we go again...

To Indian friends - I think there is no need to defend this new trend among Pakistanis to claim their pre-islamic history. Its a welcome change. Pakistani friend's have not realized yet that its a dead end. I gave an example earlier that one of the IVC artifacts has a man depicted in yoga position. Now, I don't think so Pakistani's would want to own such facts. Thats where the problem lies. You can not just pick and choose. Its really difficult these days to manipulate archeology/history to suit your need.

Moreover, if Aryabhatta or Brahmagupta gives Pakistanis motivation and inspiration to excel in mathematics and science, then I welcome it. It will be good for Pakistanis as well as rest of the world.

In the end it does not matter if Einstein was your father or my father, what matters is who can get inspired by him and deliver what he delivered.


----------



## third eye

roadrunner said:


> Wiki sites. Great references. Kids channels, and then other uncredible links, which define "India" as the subcontinent, and not modern day India's boundaries.
> 
> The credible links have been given in this thread. I'd say the number zero was a gradual invention over many centuries, within the borders of modern day Pakistan.
> 
> I'm not interested in discussing stupid theories that Pakistan never existed before 1947, *as if it miraculously dropped from space one day.*



Well actually it very nearly did ( not from space though).

The land mass contained with the truncated boundries of what now is Pak existed before '47 as a part of India . Pak as a nation existed only in the minds before then.

I hasten to add that I do not wish to start a useless debate on a topic that leads no where.

As far as the Zero is concerned, what we discuss here is of no consequence. 

lastly , could you suggest some sources which would be ' credible'?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wtf

Can we conclude this thread by saying that Panini and Pingala were from Kandahar, Afghanistan (Gandhara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and if they invented zero, then zero is an Afghan invention ? 

Apparently Afghanistan at some point spoke Sanskrit - who knew ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## haawk

no point in this thread ...pakistan was formed in 1947. any discovery prior to it cannot be claimed by it. reason-india was split to form pak and bd , so the concept of pakistan is only from 47 hence it does not share the history of india even if it was created from it.

say you own a company and i was a part of it for some time, then i break away and form a new company.... then can i show the products created by your company as creadiblity for other investors to invest in my company just because i was a part of it once ? the answer is- no.


----------



## zombie

So basically a lot of things were invented in Pakistan(or in the region before the political entity called Pakistan) but ever since Muhammad bin Qasim came to the place nothing much has been invented.


----------



## DarkStar

MilesTogo said:


> I gave an example earlier that one of the IVC artifacts has a man depicted in yoga position. Now, I don't think so Pakistani's would want to own such facts. Thats where the problem lies. You can not just pick and choose.




So what? I do yoga, as does my father. What has that got to do with Pakistani identity? Or have you even appropriated yogi exercises into an exclusive Hindu theology? If not, then whats the matter with Ancient Pakistanis and Modern Pakistanis doing yoga?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MilesTogo

DarkStar said:


> So what? I do yoga, as does my father. What has that got to do with Pakistani identity? Or have you even appropriated yogi exercises into an exclusive Hindu theology? If not, then whats the matter with Ancient Pakistanis and Modern Pakistanis doing yoga?



I don't have any problems with it. Your religious authorities are issuing fatwas against it.


----------



## A1Kaid

roadrunner said:


> We should of course state clearly that both Panini and Pingala were mathematicians from the land area known today as Pakistan, not India.
> 
> Indeed, I have provided solid (academic) evidence that Brahmagupta was from Multan, "today's Pakistan", also.




I completely agree with you. Pakistan's historical claim on Brahmagupta is as valid and good as Italy's claim on Galileo.


----------



## A1Kaid

Even Columbia University (one of the best Universities in the US) has in it's library a book by Al Beruni which confirms Brahmagupta was born in modern day Pakistan (Multan area).

Columbia University Libraries: Alberuni's India (Vol. 1)


Modern day "Indian's" are leeching off of ancient Indian history which is modern day Pakistan. This is academic dishonesty and they should be discredited by the academic community.


----------



## A1Kaid

This is why the term "Ancient Pakistan" must be adopted by the historic and academic community because of Hindustans usury of the "Indian" name it's important to distinguish real ancient Indian history which happened in modern day Pakistan. Otherwise Indians will continue to leech of the achievements of the IVC as their own very pathetic I might add.


----------



## Rig Vedic

A1Kaid said:


> I completely agree with you. Pakistan's historical claim on Brahmagupta is as valid and good as Italy's claim on Galileo.





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



Why harp on achievements of a Kaffir like Brahmagupta, who, as per the father of your nation Muhammad A. Jinnah, belonged to a *different civilization, based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.*

In any case, Brahmagupta was born in present-day Rajasthan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmagupta)


----------



## roach

Un.fu*****.believable that a thread on such a ridiculous topic can go on for 12 pages!!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CaptainJackSparrow

roach said:


> Un.fu*****.believable that a thread on such a ridiculous topic can go on for 12 pages!!!!!!



Now I'm indeed convinced that many (not all) Pakistanis suffer from an identity crisis.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SQ8

CaptainJackSparrow said:


> Now I'm indeed convinced that many (not all) Pakistanis suffer from an identity crisis.



I am convinced that Most Indians need to read a lot more..or improve comprehension and analytical skills.. 
I see now why 3 idiots was soo relevant in India.
If anything...its the Indian Muslim that is looking for an identity
Even outpacing everybody in singing Vande mataram..just to fit in.
The genius who decided to bring Jinnah's speech into this topic should first tell his Muslim compatriots to stop trying to be more Indian then him and stick to the indian identity..whatever that is.. if the issue was kaffir or achoot related. 

So please do not drag identity crisis into a historical debate.
the number zero is an invention of the sub continent..
Kaffir or whatever...brahmagupta, Ashoka are as much a part of the history of Pakistan.. as they are of India..
The two nations idea began with the advent of islam...and the gene pool, and teachings it brought with it.. It is Hinduism and Islam that are irreconcilable.. not mathematical concepts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Clarifier

I don't see the fuss :S

Back then, Pakistan was India. 

Now we are different, of course, but we were one country then. 

It is like saying Indian muslims aren't muslim because they are Indian

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Veeru

santro said:


> I am convinced that Most Indians need to read a lot more..or improve comprehension and analytical skills..
> I see now why 3 idiots was soo relevant in India.
> If anything...its the Indian Muslim that is looking for an identity
> Even outpacing everybody in singing Vande mataram..just to fit in.
> The genius who decided to bring Jinnah's speech into this topic should first tell his Muslim compatriots to stop trying to be more Indian then him and stick to the indian identity..whatever that is.. if the issue was kaffir or achoot related.
> 
> So please do not drag identity crisis into a historical debate.
> the number zero is an invention of the sub continent..
> Kaffir or whatever...brahmagupta, Ashoka are as much a part of the history of Pakistan.. as they are of India..
> The two nations idea began with the advent of islam...and the gene pool, and teachings it brought with it.. It is Hinduism and Islam that are irreconcilable.. not mathematical concepts.



1.) Pakistan was created on the hate towards Hindus and others.

2.) Pakistani feel good about invaders of pakistan like gaznavi or gauri.

But they try to steal every good thing done by Indians claiming that they hold the area presently as pakistan so even history belongs to them but its not true at all.

The discovery and achievements of ancient India's part (presently in pakistan) are not your's as you are different people in race, thinking and everything.

*For example: A Indian have purchased and taken over East India Company now we can't say that Britishers have not ruled India for 200 years because East India Company is presently a Indian company so we have ruled our self till 1857. 

The rule of East India company over India till 1857 should be considered as Indian rule over India and not a foreign rule. 

Not only that India have ruled dozen of countries because the countries once ruled by East India Company became Indian ruled countries because we are now the owner of East India company.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## roach

CaptainJackSparrow said:


> Now I'm indeed convinced that many (not all) Pakistanis suffer from an identity crisis.



Don't blame them, really. To be honest, it would be a difficult task to be a Pakistani Historian and still be objective about events.


----------



## Veeru

*Singapore and Hong Kong were established by The East India Company as presently a Indian owned East India company we can claim that India have established Singapore and Hong Kong if we apply the logic of pakistanis.*


----------



## CaptainJackSparrow

roach said:


> Don't blame them, really. To be honest, it would be a difficult task to be a Pakistani Historian and still be objective about events.



Well, that is true for Indian historians as well as for British historians or historians of any country.

The problem is that Pakistanis like to decouple their history from India. Words like 'ancient Pakistan' are only pointers to that deeply ingrained identity crisis that seeks to do away with anything Indian. Pakistan was not founded on this mentality though. Jinnah always wanted to have cordial relations with India after independence. Sadly, after Jinnah's demise, Pakistani rulers defined that to be a Pakistani, one has to be anti-India. Even today you can see how quickly many people in Pakistani media or politics are labeled as 'Indian agents' if they voice one sentence of disagreement with Pakistani policies.

It is this unwillingness on the part of Pakistanis to accept the name of India in its history that is leading to this identity crisis.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Clarifier

Veeru said:


> 1.) Pakistan was created on the hate towards Hindus and others.
> 
> 2.) Pakistani feel good about invaders of pakistan like gaznavi or gauri.



What an idiot.


----------



## Veeru

The Clarifier said:


> What an idiot.



I have nit asked about ur quality you can't be Hippocrate.

On one side you jump up and down and kept your missiles named after invaders of pakistan like gauri, abdali and gaznavi.

At the same time try to steal the credit for something that you have not done.


----------



## UnitedPak

Veeru said:


> The discovery and achievements of ancient India's part (presently in pakistan) are not your's as you are different people in race, thinking and everything.
> 
> *For example: A Indian have purchased and taken over East India Company now we can't say that Britishers have not ruled India for 200 years because East India Company is presently a Indian company so we have ruled our self till 1857.
> 
> The rule of East India company over India till 1857 should be considered as Indian rule over India and not a foreign rule.
> 
> Not only that India have ruled dozen of countries because the countries once ruled by East India Company became Indian ruled countries because we are now the owner of East India company.*



From what I have gathered most Indian members dont agree with your views. The fact that Pakistanis have always lived in the Indus Valley is barely ever questioned. But I doubt any of them would counter you.

Most Pakistanis have always belonged to the Indus Valley, while most modern Indians *do not* originate from the Indus valley. Hence the history belongs to the people of Pakistan. I think we have already established that religion and ideologies mean squat in this context. Ancestry doesn't change because of it.

Your East India example doesnt apply because modern Indians did not originate from the Indus Valley. In fact your example is what we have been saying all along. You use the term India to lay claim on ancestries, ideologies, cultures and languages which dont belong to your people.


----------



## Rig Vedic

santro said:


> The genius who decided to bring Jinnah's speech into this topic should first tell his Muslim compatriots to stop trying to be more Indian then him and stick to the indian identity..whatever that is.. if the issue was kaffir or achoot related.



Actually Jinnah's speech is not relevant to Indian Muslims. It is relevant to those who regard Jinnah as their leader.



santro said:


> So please do not drag identity crisis into a historical debate.
> the number zero is an invention of the sub continent..
> Kaffir or whatever...brahmagupta, Ashoka are as much a part of the history of Pakistan.. as they are of India..
> The two nations idea began with the advent of islam...and the gene pool, and teachings it brought with it.. It is Hinduism and Islam that are irreconcilable.. not mathematical concepts.



That is something you should have told A1Kaid. One notes that you were not disturbed by his post -



A1Kaid said:


> This is why the term "Ancient Pakistan" must be adopted by the historic and academic community because of Hindustans usury of the "Indian" name it's important to distinguish real ancient Indian history which happened in modern day Pakistan. Otherwise Indians will continue to leech of the achievements of the IVC as their own very pathetic I might add.



So I merely pointed out to him that he is trying claim credit for concepts that came from somebody belonging to a "different and conflicting civilization", as per his leader Jinnah.

Anyway, I actually support Pakistanis becoming more cognizant of their pre-Islamic roots. However, problems arise when they do mental acrobatics to construct an identity divorced from the larger Indic identity.


----------



## The Clarifier

Veeru said:


> I have nit asked about ur quality you can't be Hippocrate.
> 
> On one side you jump up and down and kept your missiles named after invaders of pakistan like gauri, abdali and gaznavi.



They are invaders in your eyes. Don't force your perception on us.



> At the same time try to steal the credit for something that you have not done.



Nobody is. If the number zero was invented by greater India then so be it. We Pakistanis have had our achievements, and as Muslims, we have had many remarkable discoveries and inventions.

Cheers


----------



## Veeru

UnitedPak said:


> From what I have gathered most Indian members dont agree with your views. The fact that Pakistanis have always lived in the Indus Valley is barely ever questioned. But I doubt any of them would counter you.
> 
> Most Pakistanis have always belonged to the Indus Valley, while most modern Indians *do not* originate from the Indus valley. Hence the history belongs to the people of Pakistan. I think we have already established that religion and ideologies mean squat in this context. Ancestry doesn't change because of it.
> 
> Your East India example doesnt apply because modern Indians did not originate from the Indus Valley. In fact your example is what we have been saying all along. You use the term India to lay claim on ancestries, ideologies, cultures and languages which dont belong to your people.



You are twisting facts. Indians are separate gene pool but pakistanis are mixed breed as you yourself admit Persian/moughal/Afghan/Turks etc. etc.

1.) The point is that the Indus valley civilization belongs to the Bharat i.e. India both are our legal name according to constitution of India.

We can you any name legally Bharat or India both belongs to us.

2.) The Indus valley civilization was created by a separate gene pool the same of India/Bharat/Hindustan/Aryavarta/Hind. 

3.) *The Indus valley civilization was not a work of any Persian/Moughal/Afghan/Turks etc. etc. or any mix breed gene pool*. 

4.) *The people who have created Indus valley civilization have died hundreds of years ago and those have survived are living in Gujarat & Rajasthan in India.*

5.) *The people of pakistan don't share the blood or genes of the creators of Indus valley civilization at all.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rig Vedic

UnitedPak said:


> modern Indians did not originate from the Indus Valley. In fact your example is what we have been saying all along. You use the term India to lay claim on ancestries, ideologies, cultures and languages which dont belong to your people.



Your languages Punjabi and Sindhi are variants of Prakrit, which comes from Sanskrit (if you take out the Arabic/Persian loan-words, which were inserted later).

Your official language Urdu originated in UP.

Your philosopher Muhammad Iqbal never supported the idea of a separate Pakistan. 

Your leader Jinnah was the grandson of Gokuldas Meghji Poonja, a Gujarati Hindu.

At the time of its creation, Pakistan was a Bengali-majority nation.


----------



## Veeru

The Clarifier said:


> They are invaders in your eyes. Don't force your perception on us.



That's a fact no one is forcing anything on you. If some foreigner, some one who don't belongs to your country and invades your country kills your people, rapes and loots your nation and then what one should call them that you have to decide.




> Nobody is. If the number zero was invented by greater India then so be it. We Pakistanis have had our achievements, and as Muslims, we have had many remarkable discoveries and inventions.
> 
> Cheers




No body is saying anything about pakistan's achievements i.e. after 1947.

And yes, Muslims have remarkable discoveries and inventions there is no doubt about it.


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

Indus valley belong to both india and pakistan..So is zero or anything belong to ancient india is our common history and both can take credit. we had the common culture and later just divided the land for better or for worst...gandhi and jinna were products of same culture..


----------



## UnitedPak

Veeru said:


> You are twisting facts. Indians are separate gene pool but pakistanis are mixed breed as you yourself admit Persian/moughal/Afghan/Turks etc. etc.
> 
> 1.) The point is that the Indus valley civilization belongs to the Bharat i.e. India both are our legal name according to constitution of India.
> 
> We can you any name legally Bharat or India both belongs to us.
> 
> 2.) The Indus valley civilization was created by a separate gene pool the same of India/Bharat/Hindustan/Aryavarta/Hind.
> 
> 3.) *The Indus valley civilization was not a work of any Persian/Moughal/Afghan/Turks etc. etc. or any mix breed gene pool*.
> 
> 4.) *The people who have created Indus valley civilization have died hundreds of years ago and those have survived are living in Gujarat & Rajasthan in India.*
> 
> 5.) *The people of pakistan don't share the blood or genes of the creators of Indus valley civilization at all.*



There are too many non sense claims in your post. I dont know who you are referring to by "you yourself", but you certainly have no problem ignoring and dismissing what Pakistanis say _here_.

Pakistanis are descendants of the people who originally settled in the Indus Valley. Small amounts of invading people mixed over time and this is true for *every region in the world* including India. Your claims that entire civilisations relocated from the Indus Valley to India are baseless as the Indus valley has been continuously inhabited for millennia.

You have very extreme views and I repeat, most Indians in this thread are not arguing the same points as you. Please inform yourself and stop promoting ludicrous theories like "mass migration" and "Pakistanis are Arab invaders". These have been debunked a long time ago.


----------



## UnitedPak

Rig Vedic said:


> Your languages Punjabi and Sindhi are variants of Prakrit, which comes from Sanskrit (if you take out the Arabic/Persian loan-words, which were inserted later).
> 
> Your official language Urdu originated in UP.
> 
> Your philosopher Muhammad Iqbal never supported the idea of a separate Pakistan.
> 
> Your leader Jinnah was the grandson of Gokuldas Meghji Poonja, a Gujarati Hindu.
> 
> At the time of its creation, Pakistan was a Bengali-majority nation.



I have never denied linguistic and cultural similarities. Go back further and European and Asian languages share roots. I am specifically talking about the region called Indus Valley which forms Pakistan. I dont care for your pointless political rants because they dont change the origin of the Pakistani people. *The Indus identity I am referring to belongs to the people of the Indus region, which is home to Pakistanis and always has been*. The majority of Indians have no links to that region. Your definitions of Pakistan and India are irrelevant and so are any colonial era definitions that you insist on digging up.


----------



## Prometheus

Pakistan disowned pre-islamic history...............as far the general perception runs in pakistan........M. BIN QASIM is first pakistani........all others before him were evil bharatis.


----------



## GodlessBastard

Everyone knows that Ancient 'Pakistan' was responsible for all the greatest mathematical discoveries because "Aryabhatta" and "Vishnugupta" are such typically Pakistani names, right?


----------



## VCheng

I have a question for ALL:

Should it not be more important to take possession of the FUTURE rather than claiming the PAST?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## justanobserver

Funny part is that this discovery was made in the Gupta empire 

Now where was the seat of power in the Gupta empire ? (ans: Patliputra or Patna in modren day Bihar, same as the Mauryan empire that preceded it )

Now isnt Pakistan a different civilization? Where is that guy who's gonna recommend me a book ?


----------



## Rafi

The indian contention of owning anything in the Indus Valley Civilisation is zero  in itself, because the vast majority of modern indians have no link what so ever to IVC and the people that lived their. 

And I am glad that science is now acknowledging Ancient Pakistan, thank you (mr Kaid).

Pakicetid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Pakicetus.*

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

When this prehistoric animal was discovered, some nationalist indian intellectuals tried their best, to get india's name on to it, but Pakistani intellectuals successfully argued that since this animal lived on the land mass of Pakistan, it should be named thus.


----------



## Rig Vedic

VCheng said:


> I have a question for ALL:
> 
> Should it not be more important to take possession of the FUTURE rather than claiming the PAST?



True, but misguided notions of the past should not be used to damage the future.


----------



## misterme2

The moment Pakistan was created it took on a whole other dimension. Propaganda to the fullest....Plz Indian members calm down and let them brainwash themselves lol.


----------



## misterme2

UnitedPak said:


> I have never denied linguistic and cultural similarities. Go back further and European and Asian languages share roots. I am specifically talking about the region called Indus Valley which forms Pakistan. I dont care for your pointless political rants because they dont change the origin of the Pakistani people. *The Indus identity I am referring to belongs to the people of the Indus region, which is home to Pakistanis and always has been*. The majority of Indians have no links to that region. Your definitions of Pakistan and India are irrelevant and so are any colonial era definitions that you insist on digging up.



The origin of Pakistani ppl is India whether you like or not. India as it was in Ashoka's day was and still is a melting pot of various ppl. They intermarried and changed faith. The ppl of pakstan are of Indian stock...case closed.


----------



## Rafi

misterme2 said:


> The origin of Pakistani ppl is India whether you like or not. India as it was in Ashoka's day was and still is a melting pot of various ppl. They intermarried and changed faith. The ppl of pakstan are of Indian stock...case closed.



There is no such thing as indian stock, Ancient Pakistan because of its nearness to other Ancient Civilisations, had more interaction with those regions, ancient bharat was based on the Ganges.


----------



## Rafi

*&#8220;India is as much a nation as the Equator&#8221; &#8211; Winston Chuchill*

Modern india is committing cultural terrorism, by trying to appropriate our glorious history.


----------



## VCheng

Rig Vedic said:


> True, but misguided notions of the past should not be used to damage the future.



The future will be determined by the hard work of TODAY, not any notions or perceptions.

_"History is merely the winner's version of events."_


----------



## Rafi

This is our Virsa, and all the achievements and its wonders belong to us


----------



## UnitedPak

Prometheus said:


> Pakistan disowned pre-islamic history...............as far the general perception runs in pakistan........M. BIN QASIM is first pakistani........all others before him were evil bharatis.



There is no such thing as "disowning" history. Neither can you claim history which doesn't belong to your people.



GodlessBastard said:


> Everyone knows that Ancient 'Pakistan' was responsible for all the greatest mathematical discoveries because "Aryabhatta" and "Vishnugupta" are such typically Pakistani names, right?



The ancestors of Pakistanis will remain the same regardless of what their names were. Unless you can provide evidence that ancestry changes by naming someone differently.



misterme2 said:


> The origin of Pakistani ppl is India whether you like or not. India as it was in Ashoka's day was and still is a melting pot of various ppl. They intermarried and changed faith. The ppl of pakstan are of Indian stock...case closed.



British India? There was no India before this, unless you are under the impression that the subcontinent is called India... which it is not.

The origin of Pakistani people is the Indus Valley. Note that this is a geographic term because no nation existed back then. Also, there is no such thing as "Indian stock" or there would be no ethnic groups like Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns etc.


----------



## SpArK

Ancestors of Americans are red Indians..

So the logic applies there too.


----------



## LaBong

Pakistanis have 'ancestors on choice', lucky lot they are. 

No offence meant!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LAKHNAVI

roadrunner said:


> A lot of the Indians on here seem to be trying to leech Pakistani history by claiming references that say the number zero was invented in India, refer to modern day India.
> 
> This somehow justifies the leeching of Pakistani inventions like the number zero. So, to put this straight
> 
> _So you can see that when no beads have been moved, you need a symbol to represent 0". This symbol is very important, in order to show that this is the number 15730 and not the much smaller number 1573. *It was probably in using an abacus that the Hindus of the Indus valley in todays Pakistan first invented zero*._
> From Zero to Hero - MSN Encarta
> 
> I would also like to point out some other Mathematical concepts our leechy friends try to steal by claiming that since their country today is called India, these inventions occurred within modern day India, when in fact they occurred in modern day Pakistan.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________
> *Pingala's Binary numeral system* - usage of Pascal's Triangle and Fibonnacci numbers - Discovered 300 BC in Ancient Pakistan.
> _________________________________________________________________________
> *Panini's transformations and recursions* - - Discovered 500 BC in the Indus Valley
> _________________________________________________________________________
> *Negative numbers* - used for the first time in Ancient Pakistan
> _________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Many more things too. The name confusion caused at partition is nicely summarized:
> 
> _"The first mathematics which we shall describe in this article developed in the Indus valley. The earliest known urban Indian culture was first identified in 1921 at Harappa in the Punjab and then, one year later, at Mohenjo-daro, near the Indus River in the Sindh. Both these sites are now in Pakistan but this is still covered by our term "Indian mathematics" which, in this article, refers to mathematics developed in the Indian subcontinent." _
> Indian mathematics[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> good, now that apart from terrorism you have nothing worthwhile to show since the formation of pakistan you have started claiming inventions and achivments which have been ours. if you people think the same then why did you kept quite when your stooges the taliban were destrying the bemian Buddhas

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

Abir said:


> Pakistanis have 'ancestors on choice', lucky lot they are.
> 
> No offence meant!



True, sometimes its the Aryans sometimes its the Mughals lol anyways what is ancient Pakistan ? Even the term Pakistan wasnt coined before the 1930's.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LaBong

UnitedPak said:


> There is no such thing as "disowning" history. Neither can you claim history which doesn't belong to your people.



Why the history doesn't belong to us? Because Govt of India doesn't rule the land which is now Pakistan? 

This is a parochial way of seeing the history. If we narrow it down more, then only the history of Bengal belongs to me. Let's narrow it even more, the History of West Bengal, or the History of Calcutta. So where does it end? The history of my blood-line? :s 




> The ancestors of Pakistanis will remain the same regardless of what their names were. Unless you can provide evidence that ancestry changes by naming someone differently.



The ancestors of Pakistanis they could be, but that doesn't make it any less ancestor of us. Unless you can prove it scientifically Pakistanis are genetically different than Indians and there's been no migration whatsoever between modern day Pakistan and modern day India, since ancient time. 



> British India? There was no India before this, unless you are under the impression that the subcontinent is called India... which it is not.



What subcontinent was called is not a matter of concern, what subcontinent's people have been since time immemorial, deserve your attention.



> The origin of Pakistani people is the Indus Valley. Note that this is a geographic term because no nation existed back then. Also, there is no such thing as "Indian stock" or there would be no ethnic groups like Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns etc.



They are linguistic groups, not ethnic groups. There's no ethnically different Pakistani exists except Pashtuns. And Pashtun history is not that of India's(India doesn't refer to Republic of India here!) and vice versa.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LAKHNAVI

UnitedPak said:


> There is no such thing as "disowning" history. Neither can you claim history which doesn't belong to your people.
> 
> 
> 
> The ancestors of Pakistanis will remain the same regardless of what their names were. Unless you can provide evidence that ancestry changes by naming someone differently.
> 
> 
> 
> British India? There was no India before this, unless you are under the impression that the subcontinent is called India... which it is not.
> 
> The origin of Pakistani people is the Indus Valley. Note that this is a geographic term because no nation existed back then. Also, there is no such thing as "Indian stock" or there would be no ethnic groups like Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns etc.






if disowning history is not the case then how come all your missiles , ships and tanks are named after the muslim invaders of ''ancient pakistan'' and not on the great people of the so called anscint pakistan.
just as the aryans pushed back read south the dravidiansliving in that region similarly the muslim invaders pushed back the aryans living in the so called ''ancient pakistan''.
had you been really living in the ''ancient pakistan'' , at the time of Alexander's invasion you would have been fimiliar with the word INDICIES the predecessor of the modern day word INDIA.


----------



## Solomon2

Maybe instead of "India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh" the world should re-name these countries "South India, North India, and East India"! There is, after all, a lot of truth in that so much history is shared between them.

In any case you have to admit it would make life a lot simpler for the geographically challenged!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LaBong

> British India? There was no India before this, unless you are under the impression that the subcontinent is called India... which it is not.



A revisit to history class needed here. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indica_(Megasthenes) 

We have more definite information regarding the parts of India Megasthenes visited. He entered the country through the district of the *Pentapotamia*, providing a full account of the rivers there (thought to be the five affluents of the Indus that form the Punjab region), and proceeded from there by the royal road to *Pataliputra. There are accounts of Megasthenes having visited Madurai (then, a bustling city and capital of the Pandya Kingdom)*, but appears not to have visited any other parts of India. At the beginning of his Indica, he refers to the older Indians who know about the prehistoric arrival of Dionysus and Hercules in India. A story very popular amongst the Greeks during the Alexandrian period. Particularly important are his comments on the religions of the Indians. He mentions the devotees of Hercules (Shiva) and Dionysus (Krishna or Indra), but he does not write a word for Buddhists, something that gives ground to the theory that the latter religion was not widely known before the reign of Asoka.[2]
His Indica served as an important source to many later writers such as Strabo and Arrian.* He describes such features as the Himalayas and the island of Sri Lanka*. He also described a caste system entirely different from what exist today, showing that the caste system is fluid and evolves. His description follows:
The first is formed by the collective body of the Philosophers, which in point of number is inferior to the other classes, but in point of dignity preeminent over all. The philosopher who errs in his predictions incurs censure, and then observes silence for the rest of his life.
The second caste consists of the Husbandmen, who appear to be far more numerous than the others. They devote the whole of their time to tillage; nor would an enemy coming upon a husbandman at work on his land do him any harm, for men of this class, being regarded as public benefactors, are protected from all injury.
The third caste consists of the Shepherds and in general of all herdsmen who neither settle in towns nor in villages, but live in tents.
The fourth caste consists of the Artizans. Of these some are armourers, while others make the implements that husbandmen and others find useful in their different callings. This class is not only exempted from paying taxes, but even receives maintenance from the royal exchequer.
The fifth caste is the Military. It is well organized and equipped for war, holds the second place in point of numbers, and gives itself up to idleness and amusement in the times of peace. The entire force--men-at-arms, war-horses, war-elephants, and all--are maintained at the king's expense.
The sixth caste consists of the Overseers. It is their province to inquire into and superintend all that goes on in India, and make report to the king, or, where there is not a king, to the magistrates.
The seventh caste consists of the Councillors and Assessors,--of those who deliberate on public affairs. It is the smallest class, looking to number, but the most respected, on account of the high character and wisdom of its members; for from their ranks the advisers of the king are taken, and the treasurers, of the state, and the arbiters who settle disputes. The generals of the army also, and the chief magistrates, usually belong to this class.


----------



## LaBong

Solomon2 said:


> Maybe instead of "India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh" the world should re-name these countries "South India, North India, and East India"! There is, after all, a lot of truth in that so much history is shared between them.
> 
> In any case you have to admit it would make life a lot simpler for the geographically challenged!



Republic of India has both North and South India parts. Pakistan can be West if they want.


----------



## Rafi

LAKHNAVI said:


> if disowning history is not the case then how come all your missiles , ships and tanks are named after the muslim invaders of ''ancient pakistan'' and not on the great people of the so called anscint pakistan.
> just as the aryans pushed back read south the dravidiansliving in that region similarly the muslim invaders pushed back the aryans living in the so called ''ancient pakistan''.
> had you been really living in the ''ancient pakistan'' , at the time of Alexander's invasion you would have been fimiliar with the word INDICIES the predecessor of the modern day word INDIA.



And who are indians to tell us, what the name of our missiles should be, the height of inferiority complex. 

Academics now consider all the history in the Indus region, to be Ancient Pakistan, and Balochi, Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtoon, Kashmiri etc are ethnicities, what right does a Bengali, or Tamil, or UP person have on the Indus - *NON What So Ever*

Everything within the territorial boundaries is the exclusive cultural component of Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LaBong

Rafi said:


> And who are indians to tell us, what the name of our missiles should be, the height of inferiority complex.
> 
> Academics now consider all the history in the Indus region, to be Ancient Pakistan, and Balochi, Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtoon, Kashmiri etc are ethnicities, what right does a Bengali, or Tamil, or UP person have on the Indus - *NON What So Ever*
> 
> Everything within the territorial boundaries is the exclusive cultural component of Pakistan.



Aren't Indus people Persian?


----------



## Rafi

Abir said:


> Aren't Indus people Persian?



What ever they are, they are definitely not indic


----------



## LaBong

Rafi said:


> What ever they are, they are definitely not indic



Yes yes! they were actually north-east Arabic.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rafi

Abir said:


> Yes yes! they were actually north-east Arabic.



Why such heartache  I'm sure that the Ganges based bharat civilisation, has also some great achievements - which you can rightly claim, and which no Pakistani (inheritors of the IVC and all other cultures based in our country) will have a claim on.

We do not claim bharati civilisation, and you cannot claim the Indus Civilisation. 

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

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


----------



## Jade

There is nothing called "Ancient Pakistan". Whatever happened in Ancient India belongs to all the three parties: India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Pakicetus.

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

*When this prehistoric animal was discovered, some nationalist indian intellectuals tried their best, to get india's name on to it, but Pakistani intellectuals successfully argued that since this animal lived on the land mass of Pakistan, it should be named thus.*


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Why such heartache  I'm sure that the Ganges based bharat civilisation, has also some great achievements - which you can rightly claim, and which no Pakistani (inheritors of the IVC and all other cultures based in our country) will have a claim on.
> 
> We do not claim bharati civilisation, and you cannot claim the Indus Civilisation.
> 
> The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books
> 
> *Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age. It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.*



You have been marketing this book for long..

Why should we believe everything based on a book from a author..

Well i could write one and put it in all my posts and claim its the proof.


----------



## SpArK

http://www.defence.pk/forums/296405-post7.html

This post has everything in it..


----------



## LaBong

Rafi said:


> Why such heartache  I'm sure that the Ganges based bharat civilisation, has also some great achievements - which you can rightly claim, and which no Pakistani (inheritors of the IVC and all other cultures based in our country) will have a claim on.
> 
> We do not claim bharati civilisation, and you cannot claim the Indus Civilisation.
> 
> The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books
> 
> *Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age. It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.*




We are greedy lot. We want to have it all. Why disown Indus civilization just because Islamic Republic of Pakistan rule that land now? Makes no sense, does it? 

As far as great achievements are concerned, some of the greatest empires of ancient India were east-indic. Mouryas, Guptas, Palas, you name it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

It is the indian members here who are insecure about their identity, Pakistanis know who they are :-

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> It is the indian members here who are insecure about their identity, Pakistanis know who they are :-



wow a flying proof.


----------



## Rafi

Abir said:


> We are greedy lot. We want to have it all. Why disown Indus civilization just because Islamic Republic of Pakistan rule that land now? Makes no sense, does it?
> 
> As far as great achievements are concerned, some of the greatest empires of ancient India were east-indic. Mouryas, Guptas, Palas, you name it.



What is bharati - it's yours, and we have no claim on it, likewise the Indus Civilisation is ours. Simple 

Internationally all this history is acknowledged now to be *Ancient Pakistan*


----------



## Rajkumar

"Ancient Pakistan " is as old as "Ideology of Pakistan". I know there are are not many things on which present day Pakistanis can be proud of so it is but natural for them to seek honor and glory where ever they can find and nothing wrong with it.

it good to know that they are reclaiming "their" heritage but do they teach same heritage in their text book and to the young generations of Pakistan so they can also share same feeling. *if so please post a link to any text book of history in pakistan which is taught in national education board.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

BENNY said:


> wow a flying proof.



Gorgeous isn't it. Won a prize in the UK as well, no one batted a eyelid, because they know the civilisation is ours.


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> What is bharati - it's yours, and we have no claim on it, likewise the Indus Civilisation is ours. Simple
> 
> Internationally all this history is acknowledged now to be *Ancient Pakistan*



what if the british decided not to split.. what about the other spots of the same civilisation inside Indian territory.. and where was the boundary of that civilisation..

Civilisation was there in pockets all along the banks of that river.

They chose to settle there for some reason unknown to us.. and they have travelled to other places..

Men dont grow from seed in the soil..


----------



## LaBong

Rafi said:


> What is bharati - it's yours, and we have no claim on it, likewise the Indus Civilisation is ours. Simple
> 
> Internationally all this history is acknowledged now to be *Ancient Pakistan*



Do we look like care what _you _think not ours?


----------



## jayron

Rafi said:


> It is the indian members here who are insecure about their identity, Pakistanis know who they are :-



Rafi.. first decide what you are.. are you an invader who came to the subcontinent to rule or one of the ruled who got converted to avoid prosecution? Either way, you cannot take credit of the culture of the land. So stop your futile attempt of glorifying Pakistan's history by using illogical facts (like that prehistoric creature named after Pakistan and showing a plane's tail).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jade

Rafi said:


> It is the indian members here who are insecure about their identity, Pakistanis know who they are :-



Just putting a paint somewhere doesn't make you the sole legacy of the Indus civilization


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> Gorgeous isn't it. Won a prize in the UK as well, no one batted a eyelid, because they know the civilisation is ours.



Other authors who has won awards and are settled now britain should also be greeted with the "  " smiley.


----------



## GodlessBastard

Rafi said:


> It is the indian members here who are insecure about their identity, Pakistanis know who they are



Why is it that Pakistan names its missiles after Turkic and Central Asian invaders? Do you claim to be them as well? Do you claim the Mughals, even though it was based on the Ganges in 'Bharat'? Why not name your missiles after the ancient Hindu rulers in the Punjab and Sindh regions? They were your ancestors weren't they?

Or maybe you are too secure for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## SpArK

jade1982 said:


> Just putting a paint somewhere doesn't make you the sole legacy of the Indus civilization



Dude at that time Indus originated there and flowed through there only.. it was shifted to far places in recent years.. 

so the whole settlements along the river including that of India is "illegal territory".


----------



## LaBong

Actually I'm more complacent of them calling Indus civilization an 'ancient Pakistani' one than calling it Persian or Semitic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

we are what we are

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## simplelogic

Rafi said:


> Why such heartache  I'm sure that the Ganges based bharat civilisation, has also some great achievements - which you can rightly claim, and which no Pakistani (inheritors of the IVC and all other cultures based in our country) will have a claim on.
> 
> We do not claim bharati civilisation, and you cannot claim the Indus Civilisation.
> 
> The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books
> 
> *Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age. It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.*



With the same enthusiasm please provide link to a book printed before 1930s with the word ancient Pakistan.

*I'm waiting..*

How does that anyone of you think of that..





^^Look at him(picture drawn according to ancient descriptions) ,how does he is related to your culture?


----------



## jayron

All Pakistanis care about is when the "ideology" of Pakistan was formed. And then taking pride in scientific achievements of Arabs and the conquest of the Ottoman kingdom. Why this sudden interest in the pagan past? What worries me is as the interest grows, there might be some talibans take notice of it . wanting to purify the land , they'll go around chopping off heads of figurines branding them unislamic. So its better to keep your new found interest a secret.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SpArK

Rafi said:


> we are what we are



Thats what we were telling you all this time.. .. a Pakistani from 1947 ,which was created in 1947 out of a large geographical area which was lying without any boundaries.

Happy that you finally realised it

Cheers Rafi

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Jade

Rafi said:


> Gorgeous isn't it. Won a prize in the UK as well, no one batted a eyelid, because they know the civilisation is ours.



Do you know that name Hindus was itself derived from the river Indus? Do you know that Vedas that are sacred texts of Hindus were written on the banks of river Indus? Do you know that language spoken in the times of Indus civilization was Dravidian? 

Rhetoric does not change facts


----------



## desiman

Abir said:


> Pakistanis have 'ancestors on choice', lucky lot they are.
> 
> No offence meant!



True, sometimes its the Aryans sometimes its the Mughals lol anyways what is ancient Pakistan ? Even the term Pakistan wasnt coined before the 1930's.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UnitedPak

Indian members in this thread are not even arguing the same thing and in most cases contradicting each other, but there seems to be some mutual pact that they ignore each other and flood the thread with pointless replies:

So far we have had views such as:

Pakistanis dont have ancestors because 1947
Pakistani history starts from MbQ because they disowned non Islamic history
All subcontinent history is shared because Alexander once used the term India
There are no ethnic groups because we are all Indics.
Something about terrorism and 9/11
Pakistanis are Arab/Persian/Turkic invaders
All Indus Valley people moved to modern India...every single one.
India has always existed and is a standard unit of measurement for no particular reason.

etc.

Do you guys see why you are accused of being insecure, emotional and confused about this topic? The fact that you ignore such contradicting garbage from your own members but drown Pakistanis with insults speaks volumes.



Abir said:


> This is a parochial way of seeing the history. If we narrow it down more, then only the history of Bengal belongs to me. Let's narrow it even more, the History of West Bengal, or the History of Calcutta. So where does it end? The history of my blood-line? :s



History of Calcutta belongs to Calcuttans
History of Bengal belongs to Bengalis
History of India belongs to Indians
History of the subcontinent...belongs to Indians.

See what happened there? Of course there is shared history but Indians have a problem with Pakistanis labelling their own history and insist it should all be labelled Indian and absolutely nothing else. And all you have to show for it is some colonial era paperwork or what some Greeks maybe thought.


> The ancestors of Pakistanis they could be, but that doesn't make it any less ancestor of us. Unless you can prove it scientifically Pakistanis are genetically different than Indians and there's been no migration whatsoever between modern day Pakistan and modern day India, since ancient time.


Same amount of migration as anywhere else in the world. But of course there is a difference or there wouldn't be different languages all over the subcontinent. 



> They are linguistic groups, not ethnic groups. There's no ethnically different Pakistani exists except Pashtuns. And Pashtun history is not that of India's(India doesn't refer to Republic of India here!) and vice versa.



I hope you realise that Gandhara (where 0 was invented and Sanskrit was defined) was a proto Pashtun civilisation with its center near Peshawar and Taxila. I am sure you have an elaborate mass migration theory here as well, so I wont bother.

The whole concept of Iranic and Indic is flawed. Nothing is this black and white. There are large ethnic groups in north Pakistan which are culturally and racially a mixture between Punjabis and Pashtuns. 
Indians seem to think of the Indus river as a border between "them" and "others", while we think of Indus as the center of our civilisations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

So far, arguments on this thread (please look at the title) have themselves added up to ZERO!


----------



## foxbat

VCheng said:


> So far, arguments on this thread (please look at the title) have themselves added up to ZERO!





the best comment that I have read today...


----------



## true_indian

^^ I still don't get how Brahma Gupta became a Pakistani? From what I can see is he is a devout Hindu and died as one. If he knew there would be a Pakistan, he would have moved to India and would have been called an Indian. 

After all, Pakistan was formed on an ideology that Muslims and Hindus have a separate culture and cannot live together. Even today, they seem to be happy to get away from Hindu Baniyas (their words). Yet they have no shame in claiming the same Baniyans history as their own.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GodlessBastard

UnitedPak said:


> History of Calcutta belongs to Calcuttans
> History of Bengal belongs to Bengalis
> History of India belongs to Indians
> History of the subcontinent...belongs to Indians.
> 
> See what happened there? Of course there is shared history but Indians have a problem with Pakistanis labelling their own history and insist it should all be labelled Indian and absolutely nothing else. And all you have to show for it is some colonial era paperwork or what some Greeks maybe thought.



You seem like a reasonable Pakistani, so please answer my previous post regarding Rafi's claims:



> Why is it that Pakistan names its missiles after Turkic and Central Asian invaders? Do you claim to be them as well? Do you claim the Mughals, even though it was based on the Ganges in 'Bharat'? Why not name your missiles after the ancient Hindu rulers in the Punjab and Sindh regions? They were your ancestors weren't they?



btw, I think Pakistanis have an equal right to be proud of the IVC, Mauryans, Guptas, etc. as Indians do, because Pakistan was always part of Dharmic civilization. To say that an Indian living in, say, Uttar Pradesh cannot be proud of the IVC is akin to saying a Greek from Thessalonica cannot be proud of the Greek stand at Thermoplyae, since Thessalonica and Macedon fell to the Persians while the Spartans, Athenians, and their allies fought on. But those Thessalonican Greeks *can* be proud of the Greek stand, because they shared much of the same civilizational and cultural values, even though they were not *politically* unified at the time. The same applies to ancient India, Hindustan, Bharat, Aryavarta, or whatever you want to call it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jade

VCheng said:


> So far, arguments on this thread (please look at the title) have themselves added up to ZERO!



But, isn't it also true for all India Vs Pakistan threads


----------



## The Clarifier

Okay, I have an idea.

Sindhi history is Sindhi, not Pakistani
[pre-pakistan]Punjabi history is punjabi, not Pakistani
Pukhtoon history is pukhtoon, not Pakistani
Balochi history is balochi, not Pakistani

etc,etc

Indians happy now?


----------



## GodlessBastard

The Clarifier said:


> Okay, I have an idea.
> 
> Sindhi history is Sindhi, not Pakistani
> [pre-pakistan]Punjabi history is punjabi, not Pakistani
> Pukhtoon history is pukhtoon, not Pakistani
> Balochi history is balochi, not Pakistani
> 
> etc,etc
> 
> Indians happy now?



That would make a lot more sense than creating imaginary titles like 'Ancient Pakistan'.


----------



## Rig Vedic

VCheng said:


> The future will be determined by the hard work of TODAY, not any notions or perceptions.
> 
> _"History is merely the winner's version of events."_



Unfortunately people do many things because of misguided notions. Even blow themselves up or make demands for separate countries.


----------



## UnitedPak

GodlessBastard said:


> You seem like a reasonable Pakistani, so please answer my previous post regarding Rafi's claims:



Why does the naming of a missile dictate our history? Most Pakistanis didnt have say in that matter, but those invaders are a part of our history just as much as the Hindu and Buddhist ancestors.
There was going to be a Gandhara airport (before it was renamed Shaheed Benzir Bhutto airport), but if names are important that should prove that Pakistanis have not disowned their history and are well aware of it.

Yes we consider the Mughal Empire as part of our history because it reflects our culture today *AND* our lands were part of the Mughal empire. But we dont consider the Muslim south Indian kingdoms as part of Pakistani history, despite similar culture and same religion, it belongs to South Indians / Indian Muslims.


----------



## Rig Vedic

UnitedPak said:


> I hope you realise that Gandhara (where 0 was invented and Sanskrit was defined) was a proto Pashtun civilisation with its center near Peshawar and Taxila. I am sure you have an elaborate mass migration theory here as well, so I wont bother.



Firstly, you are fabricating your own facts. Where did you pull this "proto Pashtun" nonsense from. Pashto belongs in a separate category from the Prakrit languages, which are the direct descendants of Sanskrit. Punjabi is much closer to Marathi than it is to Pashto.

And why don't you accept the words of your leader Jinnah who was very clear that the pre-Islamic civilization was separate from and conflicting with his own "civilization".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LaBong

UnitedPak said:


> History of Calcutta belongs to Calcuttans
> History of Bengal belongs to Bengalis
> History of India belongs to Indians
> History of the subcontinent...belongs to Indians.
> 
> See what happened there? Of course there is shared history but Indians have a problem with Pakistanis labelling their own history and insist it should all be labelled Indian and absolutely nothing else. And all you have to show for it is some colonial era paperwork or what some Greeks maybe thought.



A twist there. 

History of Republic of India belongs to Indians. 
History of subcontinent belongs to Indians and Pakistanis alike. But most Pakistanis don't claim them or end up attributing those to foreign races. 



> Same amount of migration as anywhere else in the world. But of course there is a difference or there wouldn't be different languages all over the subcontinent.



All north-_indic _languages are sister languages originated from a common source. Pashtu and Kashmiri aren't north-_indic_. Having different languages only imply having different localized culture. 




> I hope you realise that Gandhara (where 0 was invented and Sanskrit was defined) was a proto Pashtun civilisation with its center near Peshawar and Taxila. I am sure you have an elaborate mass migration theory here as well, so I wont bother.



Yes I have one, of which I was informed by a Pashtun think-tank here. Don't remember the name. 

There's no prove ancient Gandhar being proto-Pashtun. Actually there's no historical citation of Pashtuns before last millennia. 

Last but not the least, Pashtu as an language has no Sanskrit heritage. 


> The whole concept of Iranic and Indic is flawed. Nothing is this black and white. There are large ethnic groups in north Pakistan which are culturally and racially a mixture between Punjabis and Pashtuns.
> Indians seem to think of the Indus river as a border between "them" and "others", while we think of Indus as the center of our civilisations.



Such a mixture of-course possible considering their close proximity. But my shallow knowledge on Pashtuns says they as a society, their language, way of living and everything else are totally distinct from Punjabis or any other _indic _ groups. Same is not the case in any other two or more indic groups living in close proximity. There's a border, more prominent in nature than the one Republic India of India and Islamic Republic of Pakistan has between them. 


*notice the use of word indic which is not same as India.


----------



## VCheng

jade1982 said:


> But, isn't it also true for all India Vs Pakistan threads



And yet we sadly persist in displaying our displaying our fondness for futility by continuing the trend.



Rig Vedic said:


> Unfortunately people do many things because of misguided notions. Even blow themselves up or make demands for separate countries.



Or have premature delusions of grandeur?


----------



## UnitedPak

GodlessBastard said:


> That would make a lot more sense than creating imaginary titles like 'Ancient Pakistan'.



Unless you can prove that the Mauryans and Ashoka called themselves "Indians", that argument is not going to hold. The names represent the land and the people because no nation existed back then.
Besides, Pakistan is also an abbreviation for Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir if that makes more sense to you.



Rig Vedic said:


> Unfortunately people do many things because of misguided notions. Even blow themselves up or make demands for separate countries.


If you dont like the thread, dont post. Getting tired of the terrorism references.


----------



## GodlessBastard

UnitedPak said:


> Why does the naming of a missile dictate our history? Most Pakistanis didnt have say in that matter, but those invaders are a part of our history just as much as the Hindu and Buddhist ancestors.



When a country names their most valuable defence assets after something, it is usually of praise. Why did the Pakistani Army choose to name their most valuable assets after *foreigners*? What other country in the world does that?



> Yes we consider the Mughal Empire as part of our history because it reflects our culture today *AND* our lands were part of the Mughal empire.



But the Mughal rulers originated from central Asia, hence their name. Do you claim descent from Central Asians? Or the original inhabitants of the Indus valley? 



> But we dont consider the Muslim south Indian kingdoms as part of Pakistani history, despite similar culture and same religion, it belongs to South Indians / Indian Muslims.



Really? Then why did the Pakistani Navy name their vessel after Tipu Sultan, who, as you say, has nothing to do with Pakistan!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## GodlessBastard

UnitedPak said:


> Unless you can prove that the Mauryans and Ashoka called themselves "Indians", that argument is not going to hold. The names represent the land and the people because no nation existed back then.



"India" is only a Western name for this land. The native names are _Bharata_ ('descended from Bharat') and _Aryavarta_ ('land of Aryans').

I believe Chanakya called the Mauryan Empire _Aryavarta_ in his book _Arthashastra_.



> Besides, Pakistan is also an abbreviation for Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir if that makes more sense to you.



Yes, I am aware of Pakistan's etymology.


----------



## justanobserver

UnitedPak said:


> Unless you can prove that the Mauryans and Ashoka called themselves "Indians", that argument is not going to hold. The names represent the land and the people because no nation existed back then.



What a ridiculous argument !

let me give you an analogy: do you know that the word 'China; is not actually used by the 'Chinese' ?They use the term 'Middle Kingdom' (in Mandarin). Check the origin of the term
one of the theories suggest that 'China' actually derived from sanskrit !

India is a latin name used by the Greeks/Romans/Meintioned in the Bible/Used by Colombus. The people of this land called it as "Bharat" (as meintioned in the Mahabharat)



(Btw it was in Mauryan times that Megasthenes used the term 'Indika')

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Vajra_Yuddh

Laughs out Loud.. really I did .


----------



## Vajra_Yuddh

> as meintioned in the Mahabharat)



Not to mention the fact that Bharat name was coined after our first ever emperor emperor Bharata; the son of king Dushyanta and queen Shakuntala and ruled entire South and Southeast Asia.

Southeast? Surprised? Here's a hint; the holy city of Ayodhya is not just there in India today; Thailand also has Ayodhya as its ancient capital called 'Ayutthaya' in Thai


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Vajra_Yuddh said:


> Not to mention the fact that Bharat name was coined after our first ever emperor emperor Bharata; the son of king Dushyanta and queen Shakuntala and ruled entire South and Southeast Asia.
> 
> Southeast? Surprised? Here's a hint; the holy city of Ayodhya is not just there in India today; Thailand also has Ayodhya as its ancient capital called 'Ayutthaya' in Thai



I don't think Southeast -Asia part is true.

Hinduism/Indian culture flowed into regions like Thailand after Chola invasions in medieval times.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vajra_Yuddh

Bombensturm said:


> I don't think Southeast -Asia part is true.
> 
> Hinduism/Indian culture flowed into regions like Thailand after Chola invasions in medieval times.


It is true upto Indonesia my friend. Vietnam was the only independent kingdom then. Laos has some of the finest temples built by our kings, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia and even Indonesia. If you notice, a lot of Indonesian names are still Hindu/Buddhist by origin.

I have been to southeast and though not many people liked our present government (in late 90s that is), they have immense respect for our founding principles and still have some of the finest temples of Dharmic origin.


----------



## somebozo

doesnt matter where the zero was invented..even the arabs claim the credit..after all we are having a zero objective argument over zero..absolutely awful!


----------



## DesiGuy

not even worth debating. the whole world knows what the truth is. and i don't care what bunch of Pakistanis think and i am sure neither do the world.  

people who claim that Pakistan ever had ancient history makes them totally idiot and uneducated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ganguly

After comparing status (economic, security, social) of both the nations (Indian & Pakistan), I strongly believe ZERO must have been invented in ancient Pakistan. Period.


----------



## UnitedPak

DesiGuy said:


> not even worth debating. the whole world knows what the truth is. and i don't care what bunch of Pakistanis think and i am sure neither do the world.
> 
> people who claim that Pakistan ever had ancient history makes them totally idiot and uneducated.



If its not worth debating then don't post.

The whole world knows that the Indus Valley* is* the land called Pakistan and Pakistanis recognise *all* of their history. Indian opinion is simply irrelevant. There is absolutely nothing you can do about that. Its rather laughable that Indians try and dictate what portions of Pakistani history "belongs to them" or what Pakistan "can claim". 

But fortunately such narrow minded views don't fly because the Indus Valley is the home of Pakistanis and always has been. Indians have no say in what happens there.


----------



## Nalwa

Indus valley may have started in current day Pakistan but the civilization and the Aryan one that followed it is essentially present all over the subcontinent. It is as much India's as it is Pakistan's. 

On the question of ancient civilizations, I'd like to see what the Pakistani members think about the Hindu kingdoms that followed the IVC. Is the same amount of pride taken in them? Or is it that most Hindu kings in the pre-Islamic period are completely neglected or vilified? Like the supposedly evil Hindu Raja of Sindh who harassed woman and as a result was invaded (quite a conveniently) by bin-Qasim.


----------



## DesiGuy

UnitedPak said:


> If its not worth debating then don't post.
> 
> The whole world knows that the Indus Valley* is* the land called Pakistan and Pakistanis recognise *all* of their history. Indian opinion is simply irrelevant. There is absolutely nothing you can do about that. Its rather laughable that Indians try and dictate what portions of Pakistani history "belongs to them" or what Pakistan "can claim".
> 
> But fortunately such narrow minded views don't fly because the Indus Valley is the home of Pakistanis and always has been. Indians have no say in what happens there.





Prove it to the world and convince them , i say. rather than making stupid claims on online. because world knows history of Pakistan more than what Pakistanis know themselves.


----------



## DesiGuy

"The number zero was invented in Ancient Pakistan"


what a stupid title. the entire world knows who invented zero. anyways, keep it up. the world will move on and while you guys will STILL be struggling in history class.


----------



## UnitedPak

DesiGuy said:


> Prove it to the world and convince them , i say. rather than making stupid claims on online. because world knows history of Pakistan more than what Pakistanis know themselves.



There is nothing to prove. *The place is our home and always has been*. If this thread is any indication, we Pakistanis are well aware of our history and Indian members argue 10 different contradicting version of events.

Burden of proof is on people who invent silly mass migration / vanishing rivers / ancient globalism theories.



DesiGuy said:


> "The number zero was invented in Ancient Pakistan"
> 
> what a stupid title. the entire world knows who invented zero. anyways, keep it up. the world will move on and while you guys will STILL be struggling in history class.



Gandhara. Look it up, its not in India.


----------



## StingRoy

It is not about what region invented zero.... but who did. And we all know that it was Aryabhata. He belonged to &#257;&#347;maka country which is located in present India.



> The only information comes from Bh&#257;skara I, who describes Aryabhata as &#257;&#347;mak&#299;ya, "one belonging to the a&#347;maka country." It is widely attested that, during the Buddha's time, a branch of the A&#347;maka people settled in the region between the Narmada and Godavari rivers in central India, today the South Gujarat&#8211;North Maharashtra region. Aryabhata is believed to have been born there. However, early Buddhist texts describe Ashmaka as being further south, in dakshinapath or the Deccan, while other texts describe the Ashmakas as having fought Alexander, which would put them further north.


----------



## DesiGuy

dezi said:


> It is not about what region invented zero.... but who did. And we all know that it was Aryabhata. He belonged to &#257;&#347;maka country which is located in present India.





you took words right out of my mouth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DesiGuy

UnitedPak said:


> There is nothing to prove. *The place is our home and always has been*. If this thread is any indication, we Pakistanis are well aware of our history and Indian members argue 10 different contradicting version of events.



your home before mugals came into Indian subcontinent was somewhere in middle east. and as u guys grow in size. more and more nations were invaded!!

and it's not just the Indian, it's the entire world who disagree with you on that.


----------



## GUNS-N- ROSES

UnitedPak said:


> There is nothing to prove. *The place is our home and always has been*. If this thread is any indication, we Pakistanis are well aware of our history and Indian members argue 10 different contradicting version of events.
> 
> Burden of proof is on people who invent silly mass migration / vanishing rivers / ancient globalism theories.
> 
> 
> 
> Gandhara. Look it up, its not in India.



the concept of shunya (zero) has been explained in bhagwad geetha and shrimadbhagwat (a religious text). where lord krishna says "i am both shunya and infinity".

i believe that concept of shunya existed much before the dates mentioned in this forum. the exact place in the indus valley civilization where it was invented is not known, but wat is known is that there was nothing called as pakistan state at that time. it was all india.


----------



## DesiGuy

GUNS-N- ROSES said:


> the concept of shunya (zero) has been explained in bhagwad geetha and shrimadbhagwat (a religious text). where lord krishna says "i am both shunya and infinity".
> 
> i believe that concept of shunya existed much before the dates mentioned in this forum. the exact place in the indus valley civilization where it was invented is not known, but wat is known is that there was nothing called as pakistan state at that time. it was all india.




don't give lecture on bhagwad geetha and shrimadbhagwat. these were written long time ago. 

forget him, i don't even know what those books says exactly. 

let's just follow simple plain facts so it would be easy for others to understand.


----------



## GUNS-N- ROSES

DesiGuy said:


> don't give lecture on bhagwad geetha and shrimadbhagwat. these were written long time ago.
> 
> forget him, i don't even know what those books says exactly.
> 
> let's just follow simple plain facts so it would be easy for others to understand.



if u dont read books its u r problem not mine.
i was just stating that concept of shunya existed much before aryabhatta and that time there was nothing known as pakistan.


----------



## DesiGuy

GUNS-N- ROSES said:


> if u dont read books its u r problem not mine.
> i was just stating that concept of shunya existed much before aryabhatta and that time there was nothing known as pakistan.





if they don't believe what the history books says, than what makes you think that they will believe even the tiny amount of info written on those religious books??? 


that was my point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GUNS-N- ROSES

DesiGuy said:


> if they don't believe what the history books says, than what makes you think that they will believe even the tiny amount of info written on those religious books???
> 
> 
> that was my point.



point taken bro.


----------



## Prometheus

!!!!! Having a hard time here...................help me out.
I am not able to find anything about Ancient Pakistan...............every time to try to find it....................."*Pakistan was created in 1947*" pops up


----------



## DesiGuy

Prometheus said:


> !!!!! Having a hard time here...................help me out.
> I am not able to find anything about Ancient Pakistan...............every time to try to find it....................."*Pakistan was created in 1947*" pops up




go through rupee news!!


----------



## misterme2

Flintlock said:


> The modern concept of the zero was given by Brahmagupta in the 5th century AD.
> 
> Before him Aryabhata had already given an incomplete definition of zero, which was later improved by Brahmagupta and others.
> 
> This article is regarding the concept of zero as it_ could have developed _by those who used an abacus (it might not, we do not know)
> 
> The the author does not provide any sources for his claim. Unless you provide a source, the article does not prove anything. Infact, its his _personal opinion_ that the zero _"was probably invented by those who used an abacus"_ There are no ancient texts to prove his claim. Its his own theory.





LOL in today's Pakistan!!!


----------



## LEGENDARY WARRIOR

DesiGuy said:


> your home before mugals came into Indian subcontinent was somewhere in middle east. and as u guys grow in size. more and more nations were invaded!!
> 
> and it's not just the Indian, it's the entire world who disagree with you on that.



Dude, you seriously need to improve your history  , or if you dont know anything about the sub-continent history, dont post plzzzz. 
And I dont know which is this *WORLD* you talk about. The disagreement about history between India and Pakistan is not so serious as you are trying to portray it.



DesiGuy said:


> your home before mugals came into Indian subcontinent was somewhere in middle east.



*WRONG.*
Incase you dont know most of the people living in Pakistan are from Indian families and gradually converted to Islam from the time Muhammad Bin Qasim landed on Sindh.


----------



## misterme2

A1Kaid said:


> This is why the term "Ancient Pakistan" must be adopted by the historic and academic community because of Hindustans usury of the "Indian" name it's important to distinguish real ancient Indian history which happened in modern day Pakistan. Otherwise Indians will continue to leech of the achievements of the IVC as their own very pathetic I might add.



Why do you pose with an Israeli Flag when you are Pakistani?


----------



## misterme2

VCheng said:


> The future will be determined by the hard work of TODAY, not any notions or perceptions.
> 
> _"History is merely the winner's version of events."_






Your quote speaks volumes! India's history has been misconstrue and twisted by every invader who conquered her up till and including the British.....so for every person who quotes a famous author, politician, etc. think about that!


----------



## GUNS-N- ROSES

misterme2 said:


> Your quote speaks volumes! India's history has been misconstrue and twisted by every invader who conquered her up till and including the British.....so for every person who quotes a famous author, politician, etc. think about that!



well said bro.


----------



## rajgoynar

List of Indian inventions and discoveries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hindustani

Does any sane pakistani realize that there wasn't an islamic rep. of pakistan before 1947?


----------



## rajgoynar

List of inventions in medieval Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kinetic

rajgoynar said:


> List of Indian inventions and discoveries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Excellent find!!! lots of info. 

This iron pillar made in the time of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya (375&#8211;413 CE) in Delhi. The 22 feet tall, more than six tonne pillar is 98&#37; pure wrought iron, and is a testament to the high level of skill achieved by ancient Indian blacksmiths. It has attracted the attention of both archaeologists and metallurgists, as it has withstood corrosion for over 1,600 years in the open air. 







Lothal port 2400 BCE!!!!

Lothal's dock&#8212;the world's earliest known..... The findings consist of a mound, a township, a marketplace and the dock. Adjacent to the excavated areas stands the Archaeological Museum, where some of the most prominent collections of Indus-era antiquities in modern India are displayed.

Lothal's people were responsible for the earliest-known portrayals of realism in art and sculpture, telling some of the most well-known fables of today. Its scientists used a shell compass and divided the horizon and sky into 8&#8211;12 whole parts, possibly *pioneering the study of stars and advanced navigation&#8212;**2000 years before the Greeks.* The techniques and tools they pioneered for bead-making and in metallurgy have stood the test of time for over 4000 years.


----------



## Mogombo

YouTube - THE STORY OF INDIA | Excerpt from Episode 4 | PBS


History of Zero and Maths in the subcontinent.


----------



## Beacon

Whatever happened before 1947 is common to both india & pakistan... 

This post will run into infinity as both sides are arguing their points over nothing (0)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUz

Well,Guys nothing is there to fight over '0'.Science is not a 'property' of anyone.Arabs used 0 as 'base' which is more important.( for some people its may not).All martial civilizations like Greek,Islamic Civilization or Early European civilization did contributed to Science alot. The Father of Algebra ,Al-Khwarizmi (some say Diophantus??) had some influence of Indian mathematicians.Europeans had great influence of Arabs/Persians Scientists/Mathematicians. 
The fact is now Indus valley civilization is a part of Pakistan but it wasn't before 1947. Who ever invented zero was *Neither a Pakistani nor Indian*


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

Beacon said:


> Whatever happened before 1947 is common to both india & pakistan...
> 
> This post will run into infinity as both sides are arguing their points over nothing (0)



Well said what ever good and bad happened before 1947 was common to todays india and pakistan..only thing is nobody should pick and choose.


----------



## justanobserver

AUz said:


> The fact is now Indus valley civilization is a part of Pakistan but it wasn't before 1947. Who ever invented zero was Neither a Pakistani nor Indian





1.The Zero was invented in *Gupta empire * , how the hell does Indus valley come in this picture ?

2. The Indus valley civilization was *dead* at that period. Because it's people moved into the Indo Gangetic plains (changing weather patterns) !!


----------



## Kinetic

AUz said:


> The fact is now Indus valley civilization is a part of Pakistan but it wasn't before 1947.



1) There is no Indus valley civilization now than how it is part of Pakistan?!!!! You can say that many of the sites of IVC are in Pakistan now. 



> Who ever invented zero was *Neither a Pakistani nor Indian*


2) Isn't the people of this land was Indian before 1947?? In 1947 India just got *independence*. But India and Indians were there for thousands of years.


----------



## Rafi

Kinetic said:


> 1) There is no Indus valley civilization now than how it is part of Pakistan?!!!! You can say that many of the sites of IVC are in Pakistan now.
> 
> 
> 2) Isn't the people of this land was Indian before 1947?? In 1947 India just got *independence*. But India and Indians were there for thousands of years.



There was no concept of indianess, People were Punjabi, Sindhi, or their religious or caste affiliation were what defined them. 

The Indus based people had little or no contact with bharat - which was based around the ganges. People in Ancient Pakistan, began to convert to Islam, through the efforts of peace Muslim Sufi preachers, it was a gradual process, and was largely complete a few hundred years ago. 

In fact bharati civilisation is something that we Pakistanis have no claim on, it is what the modern state of india is based on. And therefore all the Indus based culture is distinct from modern india.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## justanobserver

Rafi said:


> The Indus based people had little or no contact with bharat - which was based around the ganges. People in Ancient Pakistan, began to convert to Islam, through the efforts of peace Muslim Sufi preachers, it was a gradual process, and was largely complete a few hundred years ago.
> 
> In fact bharati civilisation is something that we Pakistanis have no claim on, it is what the modern state of india is based on. And therefore all the Indus based culture is distinct from modern india.



Nice propaganda you guys feed on.



> Indus Valley Culture (Harappa)
> c.3300 - c.1700 BC
> 
> .........
> 
> c.1800 BC
> 
> 
> In this century the cities slip into terminal decline. No one cause seems responsible, but a combination of climate change, over-cultivation, and changes in the course of the Indus may contribute. The weakening of the monsoon is probably the most important single cause. Scribes in Sumer record that rich shipments suddenly cease at around 1800 BC.
> 
> 
> c.1700 BC
> 
> 
> The Indus culture dies out. *Its people move east into Rajasthan and the Ganges watershed.* Others head south to Gujarat, where the sea port at Lothal continues to flourish for a time before being abandoned too. Its inhabitants merge with the Stone Age tribes of the Deccan Plateau in central India and others in southern India. Squatters take over the abandoned citadels, living in slum dwellings, and village life continues in the countryside. *The urban heritage is passed on to the east and engenders the emergence of cities in the Ganges valley and northern India, and the civilisation's reverence for animals is also passed on.*


Kingdoms of South Asia - Indus Valley Culture


----------



## ARCHON

Rafi said:


> There was no concept of indianess, People were Punjabi, Sindhi, or their religious or caste affiliation were what defined them.



Exactly which part of India is "indian- ness??




> The Indus based people had little or no contact with bharat



Why? Was there any customs on "borders"? or didnt they have passports.. In old times people moved around freely for trade and for hunting. 






> - which was based around the ganges.



What about other rivers in India.. ???



> People in Ancient Pakistan, began to convert to Islam, through the efforts of peace Muslim Sufi preachers, it was a gradual process, and was largely complete a few hundred years ago.



Islam in Pakistan- 711 AD through conquest by Muhammad bin Qasim

Islam in India- 630 AD through traders in Malabar coast of South India.



> In fact bharati civilisation is something that we Pakistanis have no claim on, it is what the modern state of india is based on. And therefore all the Indus based culture is distinct from modern india.




What about Indus sites in Gujarat and present day punjab??/ Are they from Mars??

Stop the BS. Use the head.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## justanobserver

@*ARCHON *

The people of the Indus valley migrated to the Gangetic Plains due to a shift in the monsoons.

Read this



> Indus Valley Culture (Harappa)
> c.3300 - c.1700 BC
> 
> .........
> 
> c.1800 BC
> 
> 
> In this century the cities slip into terminal decline. No one cause seems responsible, but a combination of climate change, over-cultivation, and changes in the course of the Indus may contribute. The weakening of the monsoon is probably the most important single cause. Scribes in Sumer record that rich shipments suddenly cease at around 1800 BC.
> 
> 
> c.1700 BC
> 
> 
> The Indus culture dies out. *Its people move east into Rajasthan and the Ganges watershed.* Others head south to Gujarat, where the sea port at Lothal continues to flourish for a time before being abandoned too. Its inhabitants merge with the Stone Age tribes of the Deccan Plateau in central India and others in southern India. Squatters take over the abandoned citadels, living in slum dwellings, and village life continues in the countryside. *The urban heritage is passed on to the east and engenders the emergence of cities in the Ganges valley and northern India, and the civilisation's reverence for animals is also passed on.*


Kingdoms of South Asia - Indus Valley Culture


----------



## ARCHON

justanobserver said:


> @ARCHON the people of the Indus valley migrated to the Gangetic Plains due to a shift in the monsoons.
> Read this
> 
> 
> Kingdoms of South Asia - Indus Valley Culture



No no.. not possible.. they are immovable.. like statues ,according to few here.. i am not going to believe you.


----------



## LaBong

So Indus valley people were Muslims! That's a good revelation!


----------



## Rafi

Pakicetid

Pakicetus.
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Cetacea
Family:	Pakicetidae
Genera
Pakicetus
Nalacetus
Ichthyolestes

*Pakicetids or Pakicetidae are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya&#8212;40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.[1]*

Scientist acknowledge a creature that lived in Ancient Pakistan, Pakistani scientists were successful in lobbying for the creature thus, and now the world accepts the concept of Ancient Pakistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetids

Wow! Modern science has accepted Ancient Pakistan


----------



## LaBong

Wow! There was an ancient Pakistani dinosaur as well!


----------



## LaBong

Abir said:


> So Indus valley people were Muslims! That's a good revelation!



Come to think of it, this is not a good development at all! Some people in Pakistan surely gonna blame them of committing shirk(them worshipping pashupathi and all!) and will probably send suiciders(sic) to bomb what is left of the old civilization.


----------



## Rafi

The attempt by modern india to try to claim our heritage, which is distinct from theirs, is cultural theft.


----------



## justanobserver

Abir said:


> Wow! There was an ancient Pakistani dinosaur as well!



The guy is a robot. Previously he used to advertise for the Book by some Pakistani author about how Indus (Pakistani?!!) culture is (was) different from the Gangetic culture (this argument has been blown apart )

This will now be followed by quotes from Churchill, the pic on a Pakistani cargo jet more 'Ancient Pakistani' mammals and claims of cultural theft


----------



## Rafi

Abir said:


> Wow! There was an ancient Pakistani dinosaur as well!



Well the world accepts it - because it is on Pakistani soil, big thanks to Pakistani scientific community for getting the recognition for Ancient Pakistan -


----------



## ARCHON

Rafi said:


> Pakicetid
> 
> Pakicetus.
> Scientific classification
> Kingdom:	Animalia
> Phylum:	Chordata
> Class:	Mammalia
> Order:	Cetacea
> Family:	Pakicetidae
> Genera
> Pakicetus
> Nalacetus
> Ichthyolestes
> 
> *Pakicetids or Pakicetidae are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya&#8212;40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.[1]*
> 
> Scientist acknowledge a creature that lived in Ancient Pakistan, Pakistani scientists were successful in lobbying for the creature thus, and now the world accepts the concept of Ancient Pakistan.
> 
> Pakicetid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Are u for real..

Listen dude, that name wasnt given millions of year back.. The names are given on discovery based on the present site..


Even today newer species are named based on location..


I cant believe i am answering to you 

Did that dinosour extincted after 1930 or what ?? 

Pakicetus was named by Gingerich and Russell (1981). 

So if ur nations name was something else.. he would have named it on basis of that..

OMG. some really need some serious spoon feeding all the time.


Everything in ur post is utter BS.. except the cute smileys.. i like it especially the  - ones


----------



## Rafi

ARCHON said:


> Are u for real..
> 
> Listen dude, that name wasnt given millions of year back.. The names are given on discovery based on the present site..
> 
> 
> Even today newer species are named based on location..
> 
> 
> I cant believe i am answering to you
> 
> Did that dinosour extincted after 1930 or what ??



My friend, why the frown, the name was based on the premise that this creature lived in Pakistan millions of years ago 


Pakicetids or Pakicetidae are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya40.4 mya) *in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.[1]*


----------



## ARCHON

Rafi said:


> My friend, why the frown, the name was based on the premise that this creature lived in Pakistan millions of years ago
> 
> 
> Pakicetids or Pakicetidae are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya&#8212;40.4 mya) *in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.[1]*




I thought the name was derived from the states, didnt knew it was from dinosours. 

Wait a minute. Are u a robot or something??


----------



## LaBong

So was it the dinosaur first or the state first?


----------



## Rafi

justanobserver said:


> The guy is a robot. Previously he used to advertise for the Book by some Pakistani author about how Indus (Pakistani?!!) culture is (was) different from the Gangetic culture (this argument has been blown apart )
> 
> This will now be followed by quotes from Churchill, the pic on a Pakistani cargo jet more 'Ancient Pakistani' mammals and claims of cultural theft



The author is right about the Indus, Churchill was right about india, and the cargo jet is actually a P3C Orion MPA. 

*The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan*

*Sindh Sagar Aur Qyam-e-Pakistan*


----------



## Rafi

Abir said:


> So was it the dinosaur first or the state first?



IVC = Ancient Pakistan = Geographic Pakistan = Modern Pakistan


----------



## ARCHON

Rafi said:


> The author is right about the Indus, Churchill was right about india, and the cargo jet is actually a P3C Orion MPA.
> 
> *The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan*
> 
> *Sindh Sagar Aur Qyam-e-Pakistan*



OMG.. same old story.. more smileys..


Better watch cartoon network than this..

Bye friend


----------



## LaBong

Rafi said:


> IVC = Ancient Pakistan = Geographic Pakistan = Modern Pakistan



Modern Pakistan as of today or 1947?


----------



## ARCHON

Abir said:


> Modern Pakistan as of today or 1947?



Leave it.. u are talking to a wall.


----------



## Rafi

*Pakicetids or Pakicetidae are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya&#8212;40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years*

The name was actually given, because scientists acknowledge that (through great lobbying by the Pakistani scientific community) that there is such a thing as ancient Pakistan.


----------



## justanobserver

Rafi said:


> The author is right about the Indus, Churchill was right about india,



I was right about _you_


----------



## Rafi

ARCHON said:


> OMG.. same old story.. more smileys..
> 
> 
> Better watch cartoon network than this..
> 
> Bye friend



Why get upset my friend, petty insults are a sign of a defeated argument, be proud of the contributions of your own ancestors, and we will be proud of ours.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ARCHON

Rafi said:


> *Pakicetids or Pakicetidae are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years*
> 
> The name was actually given, because scientists acknowledge that (through great lobbying by the Pakistani scientific community) that there is such a thing as ancient Pakistan.



Yes there was and those dinosours had google maps to locate it too. 

Cant u understand nowadays animals discovered are named on the basis of the current location.. 

Rafi sir.. its simple common sense and the english i am using it simple too..

If tommorow a new species in discovered in quebec which was previosly in canada it will be named on basis of it and nobody like u can claim there existed a place called quebec in ancient years..

OMG.. its getting irritated to make u understand small facts.

---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 PM ----------




Rafi said:


> Why get upset my friend, petty insults are a sign of a defeated argument, be proud of the contributions of your own ancestors, and we will be proud of ours.



I am not used to spoon feeding "simple" logical factors.. that why.. dont take it as an offence though.


----------



## Rafi

justanobserver said:


> I was right about _you_



And I was right to believe that some indians have a severe inferiority complex, that leads them to try to steal other peoples heritage. 

*India is as much a nation as the Equator  Winston Chuchill"*

Old Winston was totally right, the concept of india is a totally modern one, it has no basis in geography, culture, ethnicity, or in fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ARCHON

Rafi said:


> And I was right to believe that some indians have a severe inferiority complex, that leads them to try to steal other peoples heritage.
> 
> *India is as much a nation as the Equator  Winston Chuchill"*
> 
> Old Winston was totally right, the concept of india is a totally modern one, it has no basis in geography, culture, ethnicity, or in fact.






right right  

whatever that makes u happy ..dear.. 

anyway nice talking to u.. continue repeating of posts and advertising that book and that pic of plane.. someday u will realise the "simple" logical fact.

Bye


----------



## UnitedPak

Abir said:


> So Indus valley people were Muslims! That's a good revelation!





Abir said:


> Come to think of it, this is not a good development at all! Some people in Pakistan surely gonna blame them of committing shirk(them worshipping pashupathi and all!) and will probably send suiciders(sic) to bomb what is left of the old civilization.



aka trolling. The frustration is really shining through. I thought you didnt find this worth discussing? Why are you still here?



Kinetic said:


> 2) Isn't the people of this land was Indian before 1947?? In 1947 India just got *independence*. But India and Indians were there for thousands of years.



Pakistani ancestors were _there_ for 1000s of years. The dispute is only regarding what to call them. Why call them Indian when India didnt exist, they didnt call themselves Indian and they are not the ancestors of modern Indians?
From 1849 - 1947 Pakistan was part of British Indian empire. True. Before and after this the region cannot be called India.

The region has been known by countless of names but the Geographic area is known as Indus Valley (not talking about the IVC here). Everything that happened in this region is Pakistani history because it belongs to the Pakistani people.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

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

This book is recommended reading for all Pakistanis, and indians lol, it outlines the fact that the Indus based peoples and civilisations are distinct. 

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


----------



## LaBong

UnitedPak said:


> aka trolling. The frustration is really shining through. I thought you didnt find this worth discussing? Why are you still here?




I was just having some fun, it's your countryman who's making stupid claims. And when did I say the topic is not worth discussing?


----------



## Rafi

UnitedPak said:


> aka trolling. The frustration is really shining through. I thought you didnt find this worth discussing? Why are you still here?
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistani ancestors were _there_ for 1000s of years. The dispute is only regarding what to call them. Why call them Indian when India didnt exist, they didnt call themselves Indian and they are not the ancestors of modern Indians?
> From 1849 - 1947 Pakistan was part of British Indian empire. True. Before and after this the region cannot be called India.
> 
> The region has been known by countless of names but the Geographic area is known as Indus Valley (not talking about the IVC here). Everything that happened in this region is Pakistani history because it belongs to the Pakistani people.



Wonderful and concise post, my brother = You have in a few eloquent words have succeeded in expressing what I was trying to say, old chap. 

Our history is unique, we are the people who have lived here for millennia, and we are also proud of our Islamic history, and the mix of these newcomers and that is what has made us Pakistanis.  

There must be achievements that the bharati civilisation has made to the world, and we Pakistanis would never dream of claiming, because that is not our heritage or "virsa"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## India Rising

yup......zero is invented by pakistanis..... now let me switch my channel


----------



## Veeru

Rafi said:


> The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books
> 
> This book is recommended reading for all Pakistanis, and indians lol, it outlines the fact that the Indus based peoples and civilisations are distinct.
> 
> *Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India.* *Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age.* It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.



So you want us to believe Pakistani politician that Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan.


----------



## LaBong

> Pakistani ancestors were there for 1000s of years. The dispute is only regarding what to call them. Why call them Indian when India didnt exist, they didnt call themselves Indian and they are not the ancestors of modern Indians?



How do you know they are not ancestors of modern Indians, do you have some-kinda genetic prove or something? 

Even if you do have a prove, the only thing that is propagated through time is culture, language, value system etc. not some-kinda genetic mark. And modern day India is the one who's bearing the legacy of IVC and Gandhara.


----------



## Rafi

Abir said:


> I was just having some fun, it's your countryman who's making stupid claims. And when did I say the topic is not worth discussing?



It's some indians that are totally confused about their identity, they have to disprove old Winston's contention, that the concept of indian nationhood is a total fallacy, it does not even appear until almost the end of the British mandate. 

It was an artificial construct to enable the Brits to have a legacy to trumpet, and lump umpteen ethnicities and peoples into a sort of empire. 

Indus Valley Pakistan 

bharat = modern india


----------



## India Rising

hey indians.... get rid of this thread...let pakistanis enjoy this.....have fun !!!


----------



## Rafi

India Rising said:


> hey indians.... get rid of this thread...let pakistanis enjoy this.....have fun !!!



Thank you, our intention was never to hurt the feelings of our indian friends, but to prove our relationship to our land, and our ancestors. And the worlds growing acceptance of Ancient Pakistan.


----------



## UnitedPak

Abir said:


> How do you know they are not ancestors of modern Indians, do you have some-kinda genetic prove or something?
> 
> Even if you do have a prove, the only thing that is propagated through time is culture, language, value system etc. not some-kinda genetic mark. And modern day India is the one who's bearing the legacy of IVC and Gandhara.



Pakistanis have always lived in the Indus Valley. If you are going to propose a convenient mass migration theory the burden of proof lies on you. You can start by explaining why India was lying empty only 5000 years ago and who repopulated the entire Indus Valley once again.

The culture argument is even more ridiculous. Where do you think the Sindhi, Punjabi, Pashtun cultures, languages, value systems came from? Indian ethnic groups have their own cultures and languages and only Indian Punjab and occupied Kashmir can be said to belong to the Indus Valley.


----------



## Rafi

UnitedPak said:


> Pakistanis have always lived in the Indus Valley. If you are going to propose a convenient mass migration theory the burden of proof lies on you. You can start by explaining why India was lying empty only 5000 years ago and who repopulated the entire Indus Valley once again.
> 
> The culture argument is even more ridiculous. Where do you think the Sindhi, Punjabi, Pashtun cultures, languages, value systems came from? Indian ethnic groups have their own cultures and languages and only Indian Punjab and occupied Kashmir can be said to belong to the Indus Valley.



There whole argument corresponds to cultural theft, india as a state is a total artificial construct, made by the British empire, so that they could rule the country, I say - what does a Punjabi have in common with a Tamil, non what so ever. 

Winston had a point, that is for indians to ponder, that is there country and their culture, and we have us and ours.


----------



## LaBong

UnitedPak said:


> Pakistanis have always lived in the Indus Valley. If you are going to propose a convenient mass migration theory the burden of proof lies on you. You can start by explaining why India was lying empty only 5000 years ago and who repopulated the entire Indus Valley once again.
> 
> 
> The culture argument is even more ridiculous. Where do you think the Sindhi, Punjabi, Pashtun cultures, languages, value systems came from? Indian ethnic groups have their own cultures and languages and only Indian Punjab and occupied Kashmir can be said to belong to the Indus Valley.




That's the racial way of viewing the history. History is not written based on peoples' race, but their deeds. 

Also please do explain how proto-Dravidian language of IVC and Classical Sanskrit of Gandhara has anything to do with Pashto and Balooch?


----------



## LaBong

Rafi said:


> There whole argument corresponds to cultural theft, india as a state is a total artificial construct, made by the British empire, so that they could rule the country, I say - what does a Punjabi have in common with a Tamil, non what so ever.
> 
> Winston had a point, that is for indians to ponder, that is there country and their culture, and we have us and ours.



What does a Punjabi has anything common with Baluch and Pashtun. Stop making the silly argument again and again if you don't want me to question the ideology of Pakistan and the futility of the same in post-Bangladesh era.


----------



## justanobserver

What is up with this "Indus Valley is distinct" "It's our heritage" line ? Surely a book by a Pakistani politician doesn't count

See I can go on robot mode too  :


The people of the Indus valley migrated to the Gangetic Plains due to a shift in the monsoons.


> Indus Valley Culture (Harappa)
> c.3300 - c.1700 BC
> 
> .........
> 
> c.1800 BC
> 
> 
> In this century the cities slip into terminal decline. No one cause seems responsible, but a combination of climate change, over-cultivation, and changes in the course of the Indus may contribute. The weakening of the monsoon is probably the most important single cause. Scribes in Sumer record that rich shipments suddenly cease at around 1800 BC.
> 
> 
> c.1700 BC
> 
> 
> The Indus culture dies out. *Its people move east into Rajasthan and the Ganges watershed.* Others head south to Gujarat, where the sea port at Lothal continues to flourish for a time before being abandoned too. Its inhabitants merge with the Stone Age tribes of the Deccan Plateau in central India and others in southern India. Squatters take over the abandoned citadels, living in slum dwellings, and village life continues in the countryside. *The urban heritage is passed on to the east and engenders the emergence of cities in the Ganges valley and northern India, and the civilisation's reverence for animals is also passed on.*


Kingdoms of South Asia - Indus Valley Culture


----------



## LaBong

This is the IVC map. It tells me, the civilization was based on the arable land of Punjab, Gujrat and Sindh. It had whatsoever no connection with Iranian or Dardic tribes.


----------



## Rafi

Gandh&#257;ra (Sanskrit and Hindi: &#2327;&#2344;&#2381;&#2343;&#2366;&#2352;, Pashto: &#1707;&#1606;&#1583;&#1607;&#1575;&#1585;&#1575;, Urdu: &#1711;&#1606;&#1583;&#1726;&#1575;&#1585;&#1575;, Gand&#7717;&#257;r&#257;; also known as &#1608;&#1740;&#1607;&#1740;&#1606;&#1583; Waihind in Persian)[1] i*s the name of an ancient kingdom (Mahajanapada), located in northern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan.* Gandhara was located mainly in the vale of Peshawar, the Potohar plateau (see Taxila) and on the Kabul River. Its main cities were Purushapura (modern Peshawar), literally meaning City of Man[2] and Takshashila (modern Taxila).[3]

No connection what so ever with india.


----------



## CaptainJackSparrow

MAN! Identity crisis in full swing.


----------



## justanobserver

^^

From the same



> The name of the Gandh&#257;ris is attested in the *Rigveda* (RV 1.126.7[6])


----------



## Veeru

UnitedPak said:


> Pakistanis have always lived in the Indus Valley. If you are going to propose a convenient mass migration theory the burden of proof lies on you. You can start by explaining why India was lying empty only 5000 years ago and who repopulated the entire Indus Valley once again.
> 
> The culture argument is even more ridiculous. Where do you think the Sindhi, Punjabi, Pashtun cultures, languages, value systems came from? Indian ethnic groups have their own cultures and languages and only Indian Punjab and occupied Kashmir can be said to belong to the Indus Valley.



Your Hippocratsy reflects from the point you that you have included whole of pakistan but have left the Baluch out of It. why this discrimination??

And the most important point that you are being ignorant about the fact that *the Indus civilization shares the area and boundary of Gujarat and Rajasthan in India.*


----------



## Rafi

CaptainJackSparrow said:


> MAN! Identity crisis in full swing.



A man (I assume you are male) with a Johnny Depp avatar, accuses others of an identity crisis.


----------



## Hyde

ok relax guys....*I have invented 11*.... I am a Pakistani 

Thats how 11 should be read from today


----------



## Rafi

Veeru said:


> Your Hippocratsy reflects from the point you that you have included whole of pakistan but have left the Baluch out of It. why this discrimination??
> 
> And the most important point that you are being ignorant about the fact that *the Indus civilization shares the area and boundary of Gujarat and Rajasthan in India.*



The most important and main sites are based on the Indus, other settlements are just copies are influenced by the IVC


----------



## CaptainJackSparrow

Rafi said:


> A man (I assume you are male) with a Johnny Depp avatar, accuses others of an identity crisis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

&#8220;India is as much a nation as the Equator&#8221; &#8211; Winston Chuchill"

This is the fact of india as a nation and as a race, we have our civilisation, based upon the Indus Valley and you have bharat based upon the ganges


----------



## UnitedPak

Abir said:


> That's the racial way of viewing the history. History is not written based on people race, but their deeds.


Care to explain what is "racial" about the countless of languages and cultures that exist in the subcontinent? Did you know that the British had to conquer 600 different territories in South Asia? Would you say those territories were somehow united into an unspoken India? If this was the case just 60 years ago, on what basis can you claim that the subcontinent was united 1000s of years ago?


> Also please do explain how proto-Dravidian language of IVC and Classical Sanskrit of Gandhara has anything to do with Pashto and Kashmiri?



IVC was not Dravidian. The language has never been deciphered, so I dont know how you can make that assumption. Likewise the origin of Pasho is not clear. However this does not prove any mass migration theory.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

*Pakicetids or Pakicetidae are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya&#8212;40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.[1]*

Ancient Pakistan is an accepted truth


----------



## India Rising

Rafi said:


> *Pakicetids or Pakicetidae are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya&#8212;40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.[1]*
> 
> Ancient Pakistan is an accepted truth


did you derive the name from them ???


----------



## wali87

shrivatsa said:


> another genius Madhava
> 
> Although born in Cochin on the Keralese coast before the previous four scholars I have chosen to save my discussion of Madhava of Sangamagramma (c. 1340 - 1425) till last, as I consider him to be the greatest mathematician-astronomer of medieval India. Sadly all of his mathematical works are currently lost, although it is possible extant work may yet be 'unearthed'. It is vaguely possible that he may have written Karana Paddhati a work written sometime between 1375 and 1475, but this is only speculative. All we know of Madhava comes from works of later scholars, primarily Nilakantha and Jyesthadeva. G Joseph also mentions surviving astronomical texts, but there is no mention of them in any other text I have consulted.
> 
> His most significant contribution was in moving on from the finite procedures of ancient mathematics to 'treat their limit passage to infinity', which is considered to be the essence of modern classical analysis. Although there is not complete certainty it is thought Madhava was responsible for the discovery of all of the following results:
> 
> 1) = tan - (tan3 )/3 + (tan5)/5 - ... , equivalent to Gregory series.
> 
> 2) r= {r(rsin)/1(rcos)}-{r(rsin)3/3(rcos)3}+{r(rsin)5/5(rcos)5}- ...
> 
> 3) sin = - 3/3! + 5/5! - ..., Madhava-Newton power series.
> 
> 4) cos = 1 - 2/2! + 4/4! - ..., Madhava-Newton power series.
> Remembering that Indian sin = rsin, and Indian cos = rcos. Both the above results are occasionally attributed to Maclaurin.
> 
> 5) p/4 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - ... 1/n (-fi(n+1)), i = 1,2,3, and where f1 = n/2, f2 = (n/2)/(n2 + 1) and f3 = ((n/2)2 + 1)/((n/2)(n2 + 4 + 1))2 (a power series for p, attributed to Leibniz)
> 
> 6) p/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ... 1/n {-f(n+1)}, Euler's series.
> 
> A particular case of the above series when t =1/3 gives the expression:
> 7) p = 12 (1 - {1/(3 3)} + {1/(5 32)} - {1/(7 33)} + ...}
> 
> In generalisation of the expressions for f2 and f3 as continued fractions, the scholar D Whiteside has shown that the correcting function f(n) which makes 'Euler's' series (of course it is not in fact Euler's series) exact can be represented as an infinite continued fraction. There was no European parallel of this until W Brouncker's celebrated reworking in 1645 of J Wallis's related continued product.
> 
> A further expression involving p:
> 8) pd 2d + 4d/(22 - 1) - 4d/(42 - 1) + ... 4d/(n2 + 1) etc, this resulted in improved approximations of p, a further term was added to the above expression, allowing Madhava to calculate p to 13 decimal places. The value p = 3.14159265359 is unique to Kerala and is not found in any other mathematical literature. A value correct to 17 decimal places (3.14155265358979324) is found in the work Sadratnamala. R Gupta attributes calculation of this value to Madhava, (so perhaps he wrote this work, although this is pure conjecture).
> 
> Of great interest is the following result:
> 9) tan -1x = x - x3/3 + x5/5 - ..., Madhava-Gregory series, power series for inverse tangent, still frequently attributed to Gregory and Leibniz.
> 
> It is also expressed in the following way:
> 10) rarctan(y/x) = ry/x - ry3/3x3 + ry5/5x5 - ..., where y/x 1
> 
> The following results are also attributed to Madhava of Sangamagramma:
> 11) sin(x + h) sin x + (h/r)cos x - (h2/2r2)sin x
> 
> 12) cos(x + h) cos x - (h/r)sin x - (h2/2r2)cos x
> 
> Both the approximations for sine and cosine functions to the second order of small quantities, (see over page) are special cases of Taylor series, (which are attributed to B Taylor).
> 
> Finally, of significant interest is a further 'Taylor' series approximation of sine:
> 13) sin(x + h) sin x + (h/r)cos x - (h2/2r2)sin x + (h3/6r3)cos x.
> Third order series approximation of the sine function usually attributed to Gregory.
> 
> With regards to this development R Gupta comments:
> 
> ...It is interesting that a four-term approximation formula for the sine function so close to the Taylor series approximation was known in India more than two centuries before the Taylor series expansion was discovered by Gregory about 1668. [RG5, P 289]
> 
> 
> Although these results all appear in later works, including the Tantrasangraha of Nilakantha and the Yukti-bhasa of Jyesthadeva it is generally accepted that all the above results originated from the work of Madhava. Several of the results are expressly attributed to him, for example Nilakantha quotes an alternate version of the sine series expansion as the work of Madhava. Further to these incredible contributions to mathematics, Madhava also extended some results found in earlier works, including those of Bhaskaracarya.
> 
> The work of Madhava is truly remarkable and hopefully in time full credit will be rewarded to his work, as C Rajagopal and M Rangachari note:
> 
> ...Even if he be credited with only the discoveries of the series (sine and cosine expansions, see above, 3) and 4)) at so unexpectedly early a date, assuredly merits a permanent place among the great mathematicians of the world. [CR /MR1, P 101]
> 
> Similarly G Joseph states:
> 
> ...We may consider Madhava to have been the founder of mathematical analysis. Some of his discoveries in this field show him to have possessed extraordinary intuition. [GJ, P 293]
> 
> With regards to Keralese contributions as a whole, M Baron writes (in D Almeida, J John and A Zadorozhnyy):
> 
> ...Some of the results achieved in connection with numerical integration by means of infinite series anticipate developments in Western Europe by several centuries. [DA/JJ/AZ1, P 79]
> 
> There remains a final Kerala work worthy of a brief mention, Sadrhana-Mala an astronomical treatise written by Sankara Varman serves as a summary of most of the results of the Kerala School. What is of most interest is that it was composed in the early 19th century and the author stands as the last notable name in Keralese mathematics.
> 
> In recent histories of mathematics there is acknowledgement that some of Madhava's remarkable results were indeed first discovered in India. This is clearly a positive step in redressing the imbalance but it seems unlikely that full 'credit' will be given for some time, as that will possibly require the re-naming of various series, which seems unlikely to happen!
> 
> Still in many quarters Keralese contributions go unnoticed, D Almeida, J John and A Zadorozhnyy note that a well known historian of mathematics makes:
> 
> ...No acknowledgement of the work of the Keralese school. [DA/JJ/AZ1, P 78]
> (Despite several Western publications of Keralese work.)
> 9 III. Madhava of Sangamagramma




No offense nor am i being sarcastic but you should seriously consider teaching at some University or College as a professor or work as a scientist or something in Bharat.. Like seriously bro half of the stuff u pasted here doesnt even make sense to most of the members here...

.


----------



## Rafi

UnitedPak said:


> Care to explain what is "racial" about the countless of languages and cultures that exist in the subcontinent? Did you know that the British had to conquer 600 different territories in South Asia? Would you say those territories were somehow united into an unspoken India? If this was the case just 60 years ago, on what basis can you claim that the subcontinent was united 1000s of years ago?
> 
> 
> IVC was not Dravidian. The language has never been deciphered, so I dont know how you can make that assumption. Likewise the origin of Pasho is not clear. However this does not prove any mass migration theory.



Brilliant again bro, we say this not from hatred for india, but for love for our own people, who lived and were productive in this region for 5,000 years, big up the Pakistan navy

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## true_indian

Rafi said:


> Gandh&#257;ra (Sanskrit and Hindi: &#2327;&#2344;&#2381;&#2343;&#2366;&#2352;, Pashto: &#1707;&#1606;&#1583;&#1607;&#1575;&#1585;&#1575;, Urdu: &#1711;&#1606;&#1583;&#1726;&#1575;&#1585;&#1575;, Gand&#7717;&#257;r&#257;; also known as &#1608;&#1740;&#1607;&#1740;&#1606;&#1583; Waihind in Persian)[1] i*s the name of an ancient kingdom (Mahajanapada), located in northern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan.* Gandhara was located mainly in the vale of Peshawar, the Potohar plateau (see Taxila) and on the Kabul River. Its main cities were Purushapura (modern Peshawar), literally meaning City of Man[2] and Takshashila (modern Taxila).[3]
> 
> No connection what so ever with india.



Did you even see the names 'Gandhara', 'Purushapura','Takshashila'? They are more native to India than modern day Pakistan. But being a muslim if you are okay with saying that ancient Hindus were more intelligent and worldly then sure claim it. But I don't think it goes down well with other extremists in your country!

Again, my question is when Pakistanis think Hindus and Muslims cannot live together, even went on to say their cultures were different, yet they have no shame in claiming ancient Hindus culture?


----------



## Rafi

The fact that some indians are totally confused about their origin makes them want to appropriate other peoples heritage, is in fact very sad, for me, surely ancient india, ie bharat has something that they can be proud of and claim 

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------




true_indian said:


> Did you even see the names 'Gandhara', 'Purushapura','Takshashila'? They are more native to India than modern day Pakistan. But being a muslim if you are okay with saying that ancient Hindus were more intelligent and worldly then sure claim it. But I don't think it goes down well with other extremists in your country!
> 
> Again, my question is when Pakistanis think Hindus and Muslims cannot live together, even went on to say their cultures were different, yet they have no shame in claiming ancient Hindus culture?



We claim, everything on our land, and that has nothing to do with you, my friend.


----------



## ARCHON

Rafi said:


> The fact that some indians are totally confused about their origin makes them want to appropriate other peoples heritage, is in fact very sad, for me, surely ancient india, ie bharat has something that they can be proud of and claim
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> We claim, everything on our land, and that has nothing to do with you, my friend.



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

This book is recommended reading for all Pakistanis, and indians lol, it outlines the fact that the Indus based peoples and civilisations are distinct. 

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


----------



## India Rising

....i should have born in pakistan.... such a rich culture !! dammed i got lucky


----------



## ARCHON

India Rising said:


> ....i should have born in pakistan.... such a rich culture !! dammed i got lucky



India is as much a nation as the Equator  Winston Chuchill"

Old Winston was totally right, the concept of india is a totally modern one, it has no basis in geography, culture, ethnicity, or in fact.


----------



## LaBong

UnitedPak said:


> Care to explain what is "racial" about the countless of languages and cultures that exist in the subcontinent? Did you know that the British had to conquer 600 different territories in South Asia? Would you say those territories were somehow united into an unspoken India? If this was the case just 60 years ago, on what basis can you claim that the subcontinent was united 1000s of years ago?



The fact that he country wasn't united doesn't mean, it wasn't a country at all. It simply means there was no centralized force who ruled the whole country. It's the people who constitute a country, not having a centralized force which rules the land. Pakistan is a diverse country as well, having different linguistic and racial groups. 

Please refer to the map of IVC once again. 






So according to your logic, only punjabis, gujratis and sindhis can be called rightful heir of IVC. Well all of them are found plentiful in India. 



> IVC was not Dravidian. The language has never been deciphered, so I dont know how you can make that assumption. Likewise the origin of Pasho is not clear. However this does not prove any mass migration theory.



Number of scholars suggests the language most probably was proto-Dravidian and some suggests proto-Munda, offcourse it can't be ascertain what it was as it's not been deciphered as mentioned by you. 

Origin of Pashto is very clear. It's an Iranian language subgroup. It has whatsoever absolutely no relation with Classical Sanskrit and other Indic languages derived from it. Considering Vedas and Upanishad composed in a span of almost 500 years, it's certain that somekinda proto-pashtuns were not the one who composed it.


----------



## true_indian

Rafi said:


> The fact that some indians are totally confused about their origin makes them want to appropriate other peoples heritage, is in fact very sad, for me, surely ancient india, ie bharat has something that they can be proud of and claim
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> We claim, everything on our land, and that has nothing to do with you, my friend.



Who cares... At least we all know Islam has nothing to do with invention of Zero..Its all ancient Hindus, the civilizations, all the discoveries were made by them.. Lets all praise our ancient Hindu ancestors..By the way, they wrote all their discoveries and their way of life in a number of Hindu literature, would you like to follow them?

Also, why not Pakistan as a country claim that Pakistanis invented Zero? Lets see how the international community reacts! Also lets see how religious leaders in your own country would react to it.


----------



## Pagla Dashu

Rafi said:


> *India is as much a nation as the Equator  Winston Chuchill"*
> 
> Old Winston was totally right, the concept of india is a totally modern one, it has no basis in geography, culture, ethnicity, or in fact.


You do realize, don't you, that Mr Churchill was referring to an India that included Pakistan and Bangladesh as well.


----------



## Kinetic

Rafi said:


> There was no concept of indianess, People were Punjabi, Sindhi, or their religious or caste affiliation were what defined them.



No they were no punjabi, sindhi or anything else. They were all Indians. Read the history. You cannot change it. 



> The Indus based people had little or no contact with bharat - which was based around the ganges. People in Ancient Pakistan, began to convert to Islam, through the efforts of peace Muslim Sufi preachers, it was a gradual process, and was largely complete a few hundred years ago.


The people of Indus has no contact with pakistan they were Indians from the earliest time of history. Many converted to Islam and many remained Hindus. But that doesn't change the thousand years of history of the land. *Because before they were converted for thousand years they were Hindus. *



> In fact bharati civilisation is something that we Pakistanis have no claim on, it is what the modern state of india is based on.



How can you do that??? pakistan was created after partition of Bharat not Bharat created after partition of pakistan!!! Modern state of India is the same history of the India of that of thousand years. 



> And therefore all the Indus based culture is distinct from modern india.



Learn the history! Some of the greatest sites of Indus valley civilization are in India and the IVC is Indian as well. If Russia, China or Japan are partitioned tomorrow doesn't mean their history of thousand of years is changed and became specific to some regions. 

*The guy Rafi, is a perfect example of distortion of history, he talks somethings reverse than that of contemporary knowledge. *


----------



## GodlessBastard

Pakistani trolls still cannot answer the question that I asked them, so they just troll more. Regardless, I will ask it again:



> Why is it that Pakistan names its missiles after Turkic and Central Asian invaders? Do you claim to be them as well? Do you claim the Mughals, even though it was based on the Ganges in 'Bharat'? Why not name your missiles after the ancient Hindu rulers in the Punjab and Sindh regions? They were your ancestors weren't they?


----------



## Developereo

A few points:

- The words India, Hindu, etc. all derive from the word Indus. Strictly speaking, Pakistan has more right to the word India, and India should be called Bharat.

- The fact that Hinduism borrowed from, and refers to, ancient IVC culture is neither here nor there. Modern Pakistanis have as much right to that heritage as modern, Christian Greeks do to ancient Greece, or modern Egyptians to Pharoanic Egypt.

- Th IVC did not vanish into thin air. It faded in relevance and some people moved into the Gangetic plains, but that has absolutely no relevance to the fact that the descendents of the IVC have continuously lived in modern-day Pakistan. Some of their descendents now live in modern-day India and those people have equal right to that heritage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RVS_108

Ancient Pakistani ???
very weird identity though
it sounds like at the partition era Hindus wer leaving their lands and homes in pakistan and later pakistani Muslims"turks" occupies those Hindu's Lands and homes and now they are claiming tht they are a descendents of the hindus who left pakistan just becos those hindus happen to be the inventors/great thinkers who lived once in pakistani region/home




He he he

thnx


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

GodlessBastard said:


> Pakistani trolls still cannot answer the question that I asked them, so they just troll more. Regardless, I will ask it again:



Aren't you convinced now that nobody has an answer to give.


----------



## UnitedPak

bhagathsingh said:


> Aren't you convinced now that nobody has an answer to give.



I already answered his question here:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...invented-ancient-pakistan-17.html#post1290636

Pakistanis claim all of their history. The names of a few missiles by the army does not prove that we are Turkic. Did you even bother to read anything before you posted?



Kinetic said:


> How can you do that??? pakistan was created after partition of Bharat not Bharat created after partition of pakistan!!! Modern state of India is the same history of the India of that of thousand years.
> 
> Learn the history! Some of the greatest sites of Indus valley civilization are in India and the IVC is Indian as well. If Russia, China or Japan are partitioned tomorrow doesn't mean their history of thousand of years is changed and became specific to some regions.



India was also created after partition in 1947. This is a real fact. There is no India of a thousand years ago. India didnt exist before the British rule. I really cant understand these silly arguments where India is as old as the oldest relic found on the subcontinent. You seem to think the Indian subcontinent is your nation. Indians can only claim the history of their people. This does not include the Indus Valley and I think most Indians realise this, hence all the mass migration theories and vague IVC towns in India etc.

Ever heard of the Soviet Union? Do Russians claim ancestors of Tajikistan as their ancestors now?



RVS_108 said:


> Ancient Pakistani ???
> very weird identity though
> it sounds like at the partition era Hindus wer leaving their lands and homes in pakistan and later pakistani Muslims"turks" occupies those Hindu's Lands and homes and now they are claiming tht they are a descendents of the hindus who left pakistan just becos those hindus happen to be the inventors/great thinkers who lived once in pakistani region/home



Welcome to the forum. I can only assume you didnt bother to read anything in this thread.
Ancient Pakistan is a geographic region also known as Indus Valley (land of the Indus river). It is not a political concept.
So now Pakistanis are Turkic, and only the Hindus who left during the partition were the natives? I believe this is a brand new line of thought. Not bad, I will add it to the list of contradicting claims by our Indian members.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## WAR-rior

GodlessBastard said:


> Pakistani trolls still cannot answer the question that I asked them, so they just troll more. Regardless, I will ask it again:



u see its diversionary tactics ! pakistanis direly want to create a mark on international stage. so much attempt and built up theories.....

but facts are facts and the world is sane enough to comprehend. i wonder if pakistanis wud have cared to associate themselves with IVC as it wasnt associated with islam which is actually the basis of their existence (as the name mean PAK-sthan - ie. LAND OF PURE (muslims)) if it wasnt discovered as the most ancient developed civilisation.

CMON guyz..get lyf.

either respect ur so claimed history by naming stuff around them.....or just be genuine to accept that no unislamic thing has any association with u.....

IVC was ancient version of Hinduism.....(as we know hinduism is a form of pagan religion which has taken many forms with evolution. current version of hinduism is preached by krishna in geeta)...... 5000 yrs back IVC guyz used cow as currency. cow was so important that they used it for farming, milk, sacrifice(meat), etc...... but it doesnt mean that it wasnt hinduism as idol worship was even then a part of IVC religion(archeologists found SHIV LINGUMS in harrapa and mohenjodaro proving they were lord shiva worshipers)......

NOTE :- the above post is completely of my education during MBA in sociology class and havent been reffered to any link.....Any pakistani friend want to counter these claims, is most welcome. Thanks.


----------



## Developereo

bhagathsingh said:


> Aren't you convinced now that nobody has an answer to give.



It's a silly question.

By that logic, American missiles shouldn't be named after Greek gods like Poseidon.


----------



## WAR-rior

Developereo said:


> It's a silly question.
> 
> By that logic, American missiles shouldn't be named after Greek gods like Poseidon.



exactly the point. america is christian country who have their links to europe. unlike pakistan americans dont disregard their pre christianity religion, neither roman nor greek.

but same doesnt stand for pakistan as their whole existence is against the concept of paganism or hinduism.

theres no comparision.....

u can compare the same in case of hinduism,buddhism and jainism as they are completely different religion but still associated to each other a lot...... indians wont mind naming things associated to buddhism and jainism.....

the matter of fact remains, pakistanis want to associate a pagan culture to their existing culture and religion which is 180 degree oriented. thats what the point lies.

Thanks.


----------



## Developereo

WAR-rior said:


> pakistan as their whole existence is against the concept of paganism or hinduism.



Please don't make silly generalizations.
It's no way to advance your argument.


----------



## WAR-rior

Developereo said:


> Please don't make silly generalizations.
> It's no way to advance your argument.



CMON yaar, be realistic.....we all know pakistan was a country for mulims as u guyz cant do with india in 1947. ur whole existence is claiming as a fortress of islam. NOW DONT DENY THIS.

islam and hinduism is completely opposite (hope u dont disregard ur qaid e azam.....its his own words)....

so wheres the generalization SILLY.....i just requoted what helped jinnah sir to get pakistan......isnt it?


----------



## KS

It is surprising considering the stated objective for the establishment of Pakistan is as *a homeland of all sub-continental Muslims* and not a region specific or ethinic based entity can now claim the heritage of all the things that took place in ancient Hindu areas of "today's" Pakistan.

Many of those who were the original sons of the soil of ancient areas that now come under Pakistan are in India and the true heritage only belongs to them.

Similarly many who were from ancient times living in today's India are in Pakistan and they too have a share of the heritage on things like Lal Qila,Tah Mahal etc.


----------



## WAR-rior

Karthic Sri said:


> It is surprising considering the stated objective for the establishment of Pakistan is as *a homeland of all sub-continental Muslims* and not a region specific or ethinic based entity can now claim the heritage of all the things that took place in ancient Hindu areas of "today's" Pakistan.
> 
> Many of those who were the original sons of the soil of ancient areas that now come under Pakistan are in India and the true heritage only belongs to them.
> 
> Similarly many who were from ancient times living in today's India are in Pakistan and they too have a share of the heritage on things like Lal Qila,Tah Mahal etc.



*+1*

exactly....all the hindu sindhis, gujratis and punjabis have their right on IVC and similarly, all pakistanis who migrated to pakistan have their right on mughal and tughlaqi civilizations......

but not the other way round.....

Hope this logic is acceptable to pakistani bros.


----------



## Developereo

Pakistan was established as a safe haven for Muslims for fear that they would be second-class citizens in India.

This has no impact on the status of non-Muslims. Jinnah's vision, echoed in the white strip on the Pakistani flag, entitles them to first-class citizenship within Pakistan, alongside Muslims.

I agree that misguided interpretations of Islam have deviated Pakistan from its promise, but that's another story. Many Pakistanis embrace our non-Muslim heritage and diversity.


----------



## Rig Vedic

Developereo said:


> A few points:
> 
> - The words India, Hindu, etc. all derive from the word Indus. Strictly speaking, Pakistan has more right to the word India, and India should be called Bharat.



It is true that the correct name for India is Bharat. But it should be noted that when the ancient Greeks used the word India, they meant the entire Indian subcontinent, with capital at Patna.



> - The fact that Hinduism borrowed from, and refers to, ancient IVC culture is neither here nor there.



In fact, the Dharmic / Sanskritic civilization originated in the Gangetic valley, and expanded westward towards Indus and northwards to Afghanistan. See http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2009/01/great-book-about-great-book.html



> Modern Pakistanis have as much right to that heritage as modern, Christian Greeks do to ancient Greece, or modern Egyptians to Pharoanic Egypt.



I don't know what you mean by "having right to". The founder of Pakistan was very clear that the pre-Islamic civilization was different from and in conflict with his own "civilization".


----------



## Rig Vedic

*Linguistics of the Indian subcontinent - some elementary facts:*

The direct descendants of Sanskrit are the *Prakrit* languages. These include Sindhi, Punjabi, Nepali, Assamese, Bengali, Odiya, Marathi, Gujarati, Marwadi, Khadi Boli, Maithili, Braj Bhasha, Bhojpuri etc.

Modern Hindi is essentially the same as Khadi Boli, which was the variant of Prakrit spoken in the Delhi and western UP area. Urdu is what you get when you insert Persian and Arabic loan-words into Khadi Boli.

Pashto, Kashmiri, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam and Tamil are not Prakrit languages. However they may have a large number of Sanskrit loan words. For example, Malayalam is about 80&#37; Sanskrit.


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

Pakistanis and indians have equal right on IVC but the thing is pakistanis are not proud of their hindu ancestors or freedom fighters like bhagathsingh,bose,rajguru, sukhdev, etc...
or they are not sympathetic towards ancient kings who fought the muslim invaders they are happy supporting them because they were muslims.. 
i believe it's the religion you people accepted not the muslim kings who attacked you(us). i may be wrong feel free to correct me.


----------



## KS

Developereo said:


> I agree that misguided interpretations of Islam have deviated Pakistan from its promise, but that's another story. *Many Pakistanis embrace our non-Muslim heritage and diversity.*



How can migrated Biharis or others who came from other places of the Indian sub-continent like Deccan to make up today's Pakistan claim the heritage of those who had been there for centuries ? 

This is what you guys want to do as suggested from this thread.

And why should not the migrated Sindhis,Punjabis from Sindh,KP,Punjab to modern day India claim what is rightfully theirs ??


----------



## Kambojaric

Developereo said:


> Pakistan was established as a safe haven for Muslims for fear that they would be second-class citizens in India.
> 
> This has no impact on the status of non-Muslims. Jinnah's vision, echoed in the white strip on the Pakistani flag, entitles them to first-class citizenship within Pakistan, alongside Muslims.
> 
> I agree that misguided interpretations of Islam have deviated Pakistan from its promise, but that's another story. Many Pakistanis embrace our non-Muslim heritage and diversity.



I second this. Tired of Indians wild generalization that Pakistanis have no respect for the Pre-Muslim Pakistan. As said Pakistan was created as a safe haven for those muslims who feared persecution on the basis of their religion. Thats why Jinnah even at one point was going to go with an Indian Federation where muslim rights were guaranteed in the North West. You should see how proud Pakistani Rajputs, Jatts, Arain are on being Rajput, Jatt and Arain. And yes these people know that their ancestors were Hindus. People claiming outside ancestry is very small. Dont form your opinion of Pakistanis based on an internet forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UnitedPak

Karthic Sri said:


> How can migrated Biharis or others who came from other places of the Indian sub-continent like Deccan to make up today's Pakistan claim the heritage of those who had been there for centuries ?
> 
> This is what you guys want to do as suggested from this thread.
> 
> And why should not the migrated Sindhis,Punjabis from Sindh,KP,Punjab to modern day India claim what is rightfully theirs ??



Why dont you read up on what we are saying instead of making false assumptions? Around 95&#37; of modern Pakistanis are native and they are the natives of Indus Valley. Partition history is another shared chapter in the subcontinent and nobody is denying this. Indian Sindhis and Punjabis from the Indus region have every right to claim Indus Valley origin and history. But the remaining 97% of Indians have nothing to do with the Indus region. 

We are not using modern borders to define Indus Valley, but the provinces and people who have always lived off the Indus rivers. Ancient Pakistan is just another word for this region because it is based on this region and its people.



bhagathsingh said:


> Pakistanis and indians have equal right on IVC but the thing is *pakistanis are not proud of their hindu ancestors or freedom fighters* like bhagathsingh,bose,rajguru, sukhdev, etc...
> or they are not sympathetic towards ancient kings who fought the muslim invaders they are happy supporting them because they were muslims..
> i believe it's the religion you people accepted not the muslim kings who attacked you(us). i may be wrong feel free to correct me.



What do you think this thread is about?

Please stop bringing Islam into this. We respect our minorities and our pre-Islamic history. I am tired of the ideology argument. It doesnt change the origins of people even if true. The matter is political and doesnt belong in this debate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LaBong

UnitedPak said:


> Why dont you read up on what we are saying instead of making false assumptions? Around 95&#37; of modern Pakistanis are native and they are the natives of Indus Valley. Partition history is another shared chapter in the subcontinent and nobody is denying this. Indian Sindhis and Punjabis from the Indus region have every right to claim Indus Valley origin and history. But the remaining 97% of Indians have nothing to do with the Indus region.
> 
> We are not using modern borders to define Indus Valley, but the provinces and people who have always lived off the Indus rivers. Ancient Pakistan is just another word for this region because it is based on this region and its people.



So why calling them ancient Pakistani? Call them ancient Punjabi or ancient Sindhi or ancient Gujarati. 

Like rest of India don't have a claim on IVC(although whole north India is a continuation of IVC), rest of Pakistanis have no claims at all. Come to think of it, rest of North Indians have more claim on IVC than rest of Pakistanis!


----------



## LaBong

People seem to forget that there was an east part of Pakistan as well. Pakistan was/is an idea, not a specific geographic region.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KS

UnitedPak said:


> Why dont you read up on what we are saying instead of making false assumptions? Around 95&#37; of modern Pakistanis are native and they are the natives of Indus Valley. Partition history is another shared chapter in the subcontinent and nobody is denying this. Indian Sindhis and Punjabis from the Indus region have every right to claim Indus Valley origin and history. But the remaining 97% of Indians have nothing to do with the Indus region.



And where did you hit upon the magic number of 97 %...How do you know the previous posters were not included in the 3% and how can you guarentee me that all the Pakistani posters here are native to that land and not migrated form India during partition or before that.

C'mon.....how long can you go back in history ? 



UnitedPak said:


> We are not using modern borders to define Indus Valley, but the provinces and people who have always lived off the Indus rivers. *Ancient Pakistan* is just another word for this region because it is based on this region and its people.



Sorry to burts your bubble - there is nothing called Ancient Pakistan.Pakistan as an entity came into being on 14 th August 1947.

These arguments are just as specious as white Australians claiming every achievement of the native aborigines just because today they happen to inhabit their land.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pagla Dashu

UnitedPak said:


> India was also created after partition in 1947. This is a real fact.


Just a minor correction. It was Pakistan that was __created__ through partition. The Republic of India _inherited_ the British India. That is why Pakistan had to apply afresh for its UN membership while India got the seat that British India held and accordingly continues to be considered as the founder member of UN, even though Republic of India didn't exist when UN was created. Now, go figure.



> There is no India of a thousand years ago. India didnt exist before the British rule. I really cant understand these silly arguments where India is as old as the oldest relic found on the subcontinent. You seem to think the Indian subcontinent is your nation.


Forget Indian subcontinent, even the Republic of India is not a nation in classical sense. So no need to paint that herring red. But yes, India has existed even couple of thousand years ago - not as a homogeneous _political_ entity but as a geographical entity which later assumed this geo-political identity that it is today. That the region east of Indus had a distinctive geographical identity is attested by several foreign scholars who visited this region during those times, as part of any conquest or on purely scholarly pursuit. This geographical identity, 'India', was latter borrowed to create a political identity once the foreign invaders decided to set shop in this region.

Its not rocket science you see. All you have to do is pick up a few books on history and flip through the pages. When I say 'books on history' I mean books of history not some work of fiction masquerading as history 



> Indians can only claim the history of their people. This does not include the Indus Valley and I think most Indians realise this, hence all the mass migration theories and vague IVC towns in India etc.


If you are saying it, it must be true.



> Ancient Pakistan is a geographic region also known as Indus Valley (land of the Indus river). It is not a political concept.


Au contraire, Pakistan is an out and out political concept and the geography that Pakistan occupies has a very distinctive geographical identity and it begins with the letter 'I'. Pakistan _never_ existed as a concept prior to early part of 20th Century and certainly not physically prior to 14 August, (or is it 15 August?) 1947. 

There was no 'ancient' Pakistan. There was only ancient India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

Abir said:


> So why calling them ancient Pakistani? Call them ancient Punjabi or ancient Sindhi or ancient Gujarati.
> 
> Like rest of India don't have a claim on IVC(although whole north India is a continuation of IVC), rest of Pakistanis have no claims at all. Come to think of it, rest of North Indians have more claim on IVC than rest of Pakistanis!



I have said this a million times before. There is no evidence of a mass migration from the Indus Valley to North India. This is purely an Indian belief. Who were the original north Indians if this mass migration took place?



Abir said:


> People seem to forget that there was an east part of Pakistan as well. Pakistan was/is an idea, not a specific geographic region.



Why derail an argument? We are talking about the Indus region and the fact that Pakistanis are native to this region. Bengalis are another matter.



Karthic Sri said:


> And where did you hit upon the magic number of 97 &#37;...How do you know the previous posters were not included in the 3% and how can you guarentee me that all the Pakistani posters here are native to that land and not migrated form India during partition or before that.



30 million Punjabis in India + a few million Sindhis. Or has this number grown? Give or take a few percent then. We are dealing with majorities as there will always be exceptions when Indians can only bring the partition argument to the table.



> Sorry to burts your bubble - there is nothing called Ancient Pakistan.Pakistan as an entity came into being on 14 th August 1947.
> 
> These arguments are just as specious as white Australians claiming every achievement of the native aborigines just because today they happen to inhabit their land.



Back to square one. It has been said more than a million times that we are talking about the geographic region and not the political one. Call it Indus Valley if you have a problem with Ancient Pakistan.

Australia is another bad example which proves you are completely clueless. Pakistanis are the natives of Indus Valley. I cant help if you think we are Turkic or Arabs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KS

UnitedPak said:


> Back to square one. It has been said more than a million times that we are talking about the geographic region and not the political one. Call it Indus Valley if you have a problem with Ancient Pakistan.
> 
> Australia is another bad example which proves you are completely clueless.* Pakistanis are the natives of Indus Valley.* I cant help if you think we are Turkic or Arabs.



You cant prove it.....There are more than enough historical evidence to prove IVC was infact a proto-Dravidian civilization and guess where Dravidians live today - South India.

So in absence of absolute,irrefutable proof this just becomes a shared civilization.

*PS: *By your same logic how can Pashtuns,Balochis etc can lay claim to the IVC ...? At the most it can be Sindhis and Punjabis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pagla Dashu

UnitedPak said:


> I have said this a million times before. There is no evidence of a mass migration from the Indus Valley to North India. *This is purely an Indian belief*. Who were the original north Indians if this mass migration took place?


Asko Parpola, Gregory L. Possehl, Michael Witzel, Steve Farmar, Frits Staal , G.F.Dales, just to name a few, are probably not Indians.


----------



## UnitedPak

Karthic Sri said:


> You cant prove it.....There are more than enough historical evidence to prove IVC was infact a proto-Dravidian civilization and guess where Dravidians live today - South India.
> 
> So in absence of absolute,irrefutable proof this just becomes a shared civilization.
> 
> *PS: *By your same logic how can Pashtuns,Balochis etc can lay claim to the IVC ...? At the most it can be Sindhis and Punjabis.



Pashtuns live around the north Indus rivers and have lived there for thousands of years. Gandhara encompassed all of North Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan in what are Pashtun majority lands. Gandhara grave culture emerged around the same time as the IVC died in the same area nonetheless.

The Dravidian theory is baseless as IVC language has never been deciphered.



Pagla Dashu said:


> Asko Parpola, Gregory L. Possehl, Michael Witzel, Steve Farmar, Frits Staal , G.F.Dales, just to name a few, are probably not Indians.



The guy above you claims they were South Indian. The others are claiming North Indian. Which one is it? I said there is no evidence because the IVC language has never been deciphered, but that doesnt stop them from proving a Dravidian link. Impressive.


----------



## Jade

UnitedPak said:


> I have said this a million times before. There is no evidence of a mass migration from the Indus Valley to North India. This is purely an Indian belief. Who were the original north Indians if this mass migration took place?



Let me quote from the UCLA website about the Aryans pushing Indus Valley people down south of India. Now don't say UCLA is trash 

*Indus Valley Civilization*​
The earliest traces of civilization in the Indian subcontinent are to be found in places along, or close, to the Indus river. Excavations first conducted in 1921-22, in the ancient cities of Harappa and Mohenjodaro, both now in Pakistan, pointed to a highly complex civilization that first developed some 4,500-5,000 years ago, and subsequent archaeological and historical research has now furnished us with a more detailed picture of the Indus Valley Civilization and its inhabitants. *The Indus Valley people were most likely Dravidians, who may have been pushed down into south India when the Aryans, with their more advanced military technology, commenced their migrations to India around 2,000 BCE*. Though the Indus Valley script remains undeciphered down to the present day, the numerous seals discovered during the excavations, as well as statuary and pottery, not to mention the ruins of numerous Indus Valley cities, have enabled scholars to construct a reasonably plausible account of the Indus Valley Civilization. 

The full article can be found by on this link

Manas: History and Politics, Indus Valley

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## justanobserver

deleted....


----------



## WAR-rior

my only question is why is nonmuslim population around 5 % and why is hindu population around 1.5 %...when after partition it was around 20%...... ?????

now dont say hindus were impressed by islam and converted.....if that was da case then even 800 yrs of muslim rule in indian subcontinent had 80% of hindu population whereas latin america was COMPLETELY converted to christianity......

there is some reason for this sudden decrease of %......


----------



## Jade

*More evidence of Indus valley people being Dravidian* from Thapar, Romila.A History of India, vol I. England: Penguin, 1966 and Kosambi, D. D. The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965

*The twin cities of Harappa and Mohenjadaro, which are the two most famous of the Indian Valley civilization sites, are now in Pakistan*; both seem to have been built fully planned, and have identical layouts. Neither changed till near the end of the period. Though there was a long period of gradual decay towards 1750 B.C., the actual end was sudden, and remains unexplained though the evidence suggests that the Indus may have changed its course and floods might have followed. Some cataclysmic event, in any case, appears to have struck Harappa, and the cities and town were emptied of their inhabitants. *At Mohenjadaro, the city was burnt and the inhabitants killed, and people who were far less advanced than the inhabitants of the Indus Valley seem to have taken possession of the towns. Thus it is possible to argue that the way was paved for the Aryans by the victory of barbarism over an older and more advanced urban culture. 
*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jade

*Some more evidence on mass migration of Aryans to Ganges River valley after destroying Indus civilization * from Indus River Valley Civilizations

Between about 1500 and 1000 B.C., as the great cities of the Indus region crumbled into ruins, nomadic Aryan invaders from central Asia moved into the fertile Indus plains and pushed into the Ganges River valleys to the east. It took these unruly, warlike peoples many centuries to build a civilization that rivaled that of the Harappans. The Aryans concentrated on assaulting Harappan settlements and different Aryan tribal groups. As peoples who depended primarily on great herds of cattle to provide their subsistence, they had little use for the great irrigation works and advanced agricultural technology of the Indus valley peoples. *Though they conserved some Harappan beliefs and symbols*, *the Aryan invaders did little to restore or replace the great cities and engineering systems of the peoples they had supplanted.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KS

@UnitedPak

My friend jade has done the honors of providing you the links.PLease go through them. I dont have anything else to add.


----------



## Yeti

Four-part series about the history of mathematics, presented by Oxford professor Marcus du Sautoy.

When ancient Greece fell into decline, mathematical progress stagnated as Europe entered the Dark Ages, but in the East mathematics reached new heights.

Du Sautoy visits China and explores how maths helped build imperial China and was at the heart of such amazing feats of engineering as the Great Wall.

*In India, he discovers how the symbol for the number zero was invented and Indian mathematicians' understanding of the new concepts of infinity and negative numbers.*In the Middle East, he looks at the invention of the new language of algebra and the spread of Eastern knowledge to the West through mathematicians such as Leonardo Fibonacci, creator of the Fibonacci Sequence.



BBC - BBC Four Programmes - The Story of Maths, The Genius of the East

.


----------



## RVS_108

The pakistanis claims tht the todays pakistanis are the descendants of Ancient Indians of pakistani region. anyways,we cud have accepted tht Pakistanis are descendants of Ancient Indian just like how we Indians are ,but the problem is Historicaly speaking the pakistanis region are mostly attacked/effected and invaded by foreigners but if it was purely political then also we cud hav accepted the pakistani claims but again there is a problem coz It was not just a Islamic invasion of Sindh,multan,Kandahar,etc but there was also something called Islamic Genocide of Indians "Hindu/buddhists/Jains " in Sindh,multan,kandahar,hinduKush,Lahore,kashmir etc 

proof: search "persecution of hindus" in wikipedia 
search hinduholocaust in google 

Hence,descendents of Ancient Indians of Islamic Pakistan literally mostly are either dead or some of them migrated to regions of other Indian kingdoms or todays pakistani hindus (whose ancestors wer so rich tht they cud hav paid huge taxes to remain alive as hindu) or low caste pakistani moslem who has sanskritized names/surnames .
well still Ancient Pakistani is purely a myth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LaBong

UnitedPak said:


> I have said this a million times before. There is no evidence of a mass migration from the Indus Valley to North India. This is purely an Indian belief. Who were the original north Indians if this mass migration took place?



Silly argument. There's no prove of today's Pakistani populace being the successor of IVC as well. The only proof is that of linguistic/cultural/religious heritage, and North India certainly fits the bill. 

Why do you think there's no original north Indians? Just because there's no discontinuation of civilization like that of IVC? 



> Why derail an argument? We are talking about the Indus region and the fact that Pakistanis are native to this region. Bengalis are another matter.



It's not derailment. The only reason of claiming them ancient Pakistani or whatever, is to detach them from India. Once again the bogey of India is in effect here. There's a heaven and hell difference between ancient Pakistani and ancient Gujratis/Punjabis/Sindhish. 

Pakistan was an idea which tried to unite Punjabis to Pashtuns to Bangladeshis/East Pakistanis, by narrowing down the definition, you're only invalidating the very idea which gave you a separate nation.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Developereo

Rig Vedic said:


> It is true that the correct name for India is Bharat. But it should be noted that when the ancient Greeks used the word India, they meant the entire Indian subcontinent, with capital at Patna.



*Precisely!*
And the practice continues to this day where the adjective 'Indian' is used to describe everything south Asian, from Pakistan to Bangladesh, and Nepal to Sri Lanka.

It doesn't make the adjective true or appropriate; all it does is show the ignorance or laziness of the user. To many outsiders, its easy to lump everything together as 'Indian'.

*This is why the Indians' use of foreign sources, ancient or modern, to prove their claim is flawed.* The Westerners don't bother distinguishing between the different regions of south Asia, even ignoring modern political reality.



WAR-rior said:


> my only question is why is nonmuslim population around 5 &#37; and why is hindu population around 1.5 %...when after partition it was around 20%...... ?????



This has been answered over and over. The vast majority of Pakistani Hindus were in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) where they still form a big chunk of the population.

West Pakistan had a population of 31 million at partition. Partition migration is estimated at 6 million Muslms to Pakistan so, assuming that half of them, i.e. 3 million, came to West Pakistan as opposed to East Pakistan, we can say that about 90% of current Pakistanis have native ancestral lineage.



Abir said:


> The only reason of claiming them ancient Pakistani or whatever, is to detach them from India. Once again the bogey of India is in effect here. There's a heaven and hell difference between ancient Pakistani and ancient Gujratis/Punjabis/Sindhish.



Irrelevant.

As has been said, there is a world of difference between modern Greeks and ancient Greece, or modern Egyptians and ancient Egypt. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with geographical heritage. You guys are hung up on the word ancient 'Pakistani'. As others have pointed out, pick another word, call them ancient IVC or whatever, to soothe the knee-jerk aversion to the word 'Pakistani'.

And, like I said, people of Gujarat also have right to that heritage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jade

Developereo said:


> *Precisely!*
> 
> As has been said, there is a world of difference between modern Greeks and ancient Greece, or modern Egyptians and ancient Egypt. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with geographical heritage. You guys are hung up on the word ancient 'Pakistani'. As others have pointed out, pick another word, call them ancient IVC or whatever, to soothe the knee-jerk aversion to the word 'Pakistani'.
> 
> And, like I said, people of Gujarat also have right to that heritage.



I think no amount of evidence would do... Please refer to the posts #384, #387, #388. 

So either Pakistanis are Dravidian or they have no claim to IVC

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

jade1982 said:


> I think no amount of evidence would do... Please refer to the posts #384, #387, #388.
> 
> So either Pakistanis are Dravidian or they have no claim to IVC



The only way IVC and Gandhara can be divorced from modern-day Pakistan is if there was a massive right-shift of populations. The people of these civilizations all moved to India, and were completely replaced by migration from the west.

Does anybody seriously believe that?

The only other alternative is that the descendents of those civilizations continue to live in the same geographical locations, i.e. modern-day Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pagla Dashu

Developereo said:


> *Precisely!*
> And the practice continues to this day where the adjective 'Indian' is used to describe everything south Asian, from Pakistan to Bangladesh, and Nepal to Sri Lanka.
> 
> It doesn't make the adjective true or appropriate; all it does is show the ignorance or laziness of the user. To many outsiders, its easy to lump everything together as 'Indian'.
> 
> *This is why the Indians' use of foreign sources, ancient or modern, to prove their claim is flawed.* The Westerners don't bother distinguishing between the different regions of south Asia, even ignoring modern political reality.


What has 'modern political reality' got to do with identity of man/community/culture/region etc. that is more than a couple of thousand years old. Isn't it what _we_ are arguing for (and _you_ are arguing against) - that past can't be identified in terms of modern political identity.

At a more micro level the Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Nepalis or Sri Lankans are more similar than they are different. We all come from a common stock. Which means, when ancient foreign travelers arrived in this region, more than 2000 years ago, the __current_ _diversity didn't exist and was relatively virgin. That is not to say that the population was not diverse, but that diversity was much less in degree and extent and was of the hue that was appropriate and relevant for that time. Using today's diversity as a basis to identify an ancient culture, community or even a region is a ridiculous proposition.

The Westerners, i.e western historians, do bother and to go to great lengths to make the distinction of the current regions so that it is easier for lazy readers such as you and me to get an idea of the region they are talking about. But whenever they have to refer to the ancient region that is currently occupied by Pakistan, they invariably use the term 'ancient India which is currently Pakistan', or words to that effect, and not 'ancient Pakistan'. That term is bad history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jade

Developereo said:


> The only way IVC and Gandhara can be divorced from modern-day Pakistan is if there was a massive right-shift of populations. The people of these civilizations all moved to India, and were completely replaced by migration from the west.
> 
> Does anybody seriously believe that?
> 
> The only other alternative is that the descendents of those civilizations continue to live in the same geographical locations, i.e. modern-day Pakistan.



Sadly logic wont work in Historyevidence do. The seals discovered during the excavations, statuary and pottery, ruins of numerous Indus Valley cities, clearly points towards Aryan invasion theory. This has lead the indigenous IVC people to migrate south.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pagla Dashu

jade1982 said:


> I think no amount of evidence would do... Please refer to the posts #384, #387, #388.
> 
> So either Pakistanis are Dravidian or they have no claim to IVC


IVC is a shared history of South Asia. Indians, Pakistanis, Nepalis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans all have claims to it. No body has exclusive claim to IVC.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jade

Pagla Dashu said:


> IVC is a shared history of South Asia. Indians, Pakistanis, Nepalis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans all have claims to it. No body has exclusive claim to IVC.



As far as the evidence goes, shared history yes but shared inheritances no. IVC inhabitants are certainly not Aryans, and there is enough evidence to prove the Aryan invasion theory. The evidence points towards two possibilities, either IVC inhabitants are extinct or they moved down south...why do you think the Indus Valley script remains undeciphered down to the present day is because there is a lack of continuity from IVC inhabitants to present day


----------



## Pagla Dashu

jade1982 said:


> As far as the evidence goes, IVC is not the shared history of South Asia. IVC inhabitants are certainly not Aryans, and there is enough evidence to prove the Aryan invasion theory. The evidence points towards two possibilities, either IVC inhabitants are extinct or they moved down south...why do you think the Indus Valley script remains undeciphered down to the present day is because there is a lack of continuity from IVC inhabitants to present day


If we do consider that IVC residents were direct ancestors of the Dravidians, then where does it leave all other Indians, forget Pakistanis. 

Perhaps history is not that linear.


----------



## Developereo

Pagla Dashu said:


> What has 'modern political reality' got to do with identity of man/community/culture/region etc. that is more than a couple of thousand years old. Isn't it what _we_ are arguing for (and _you_ are arguing against) - that past can't be identified in terms of modern political identity.



By modern political reality, I meant that foreigners generally talk of Indian food or music or dress, even though the actual item may come from Pakistan or Bangladesh, etc. Most foreigners lump south Asian culture into one bucket, generically referred to as 'Indian'.



Pagla Dashu said:


> Using today's diversity as a basis to identify an ancient culture, community or even a region is a ridiculous proposition.



The claim is based on geography and historical artifacts. Genetics is only used to refute claims of mass population shifts.



Pagla Dashu said:


> The Westerners, i.e western historians, do bother and to go to great lengths to make the distinction of the current regions so that it is easier for lazy readers such as you and me to get an idea of the region they are talking about. But whenever they have to refer to the ancient region that is currently occupied by Pakistan, they invariably use the term 'ancient India which is currently Pakistan', or words to that effect, and not 'ancient Pakistan'. That term is bad history.



Foreign scholars use the phrase 'ancient India' in deference to its use in historical texts which, as I have indicated, was sloppy wording by people throughout the ages. Certainly there were brief periods when these lands were united under common rule, but they were exactly that -- brief periods. For most of its history, the lands comprising modern Pakistan were not ruled by Gangetic rulers.



jade1982 said:


> Sadly logic wont work in Historyevidence do. The seals discovered during the excavations, statuary and pottery, ruins of numerous Indus Valley cities, clearly points towards Aryan invasion theory. This has lead the indigenous IVC people to migrate south.



Certainly there were waves of migration/invasion from the north and the west, but the invasions did not completely replace the populations. They merely blended in and interbred. Some IVC Dravidians surely fled to the east and south as refugees, but it is illogical to suggest that they all fled, leaving the ruins to the invading Aryans. As others, including Indians, have pointed out, North Indians and Pakistanis are essentially very similar genetically. If there was such a dramatic population replacement, Pakistanis would be very different from most Indians.



Pagla Dashu said:


> IVC is a shared history of South Asia. Indians, Pakistanis, Nepalis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans all have claims to it. No body has exclusive claim to IVC.



It's a matter of degree. The further away you go from the core cities of Harappa, Taxila and Mohenjo-daro, the less relevance IVC has to these cultures. Taking your own argument in reverse, the Dravidian refugees from Aryan invasions would form a miniscule percentage of the already established, indigenous population. Modern day Tamil Nadu laying claikm to IVC would be like USA laying claim to ancient Greek heritage because of a few thousand Greek-American migrants.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jade

Pagla Dashu said:


> If we do consider that IVC residents were direct ancestors of the Dravidians, then where does it leave all other Indians, forget Pakistanis.
> 
> Perhaps history is not that linear.



70% of Indian are of Indo Aryan ethnicity. 

Indo-Aryan peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
South Asian ethnic groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Jade

Developereo said:


> Certainly there were waves of migration/invasion from the north and the west, but the invasions did not completely replace the populations. They merely blended in and interbred. Some IVC Dravidians surely fled to the east and south as refugees, but it is illogical to suggest that they all fled, leaving the ruins to the invading Aryans. As others, including Indians, have pointed out, North Indians and Pakistanis are essentially very similar genetically. If there was such a dramatic population replacement, Pakistanis would be very different from most Indians.



It is like saying every one is African, after all genetic code of all inhabitants of this world can be traced to Africa


----------



## Developereo

jade1982 said:


> It is like saying every one is African, after all genetic code of all inhabitants of this world can be traced to Africa



Not really. Take two groups:

Group A: An African, a European, a Chinese, an Indian, a Latino, an Eskimo, and a Pacific Islander.

Group B: Five Pakistanis and five North Indians.

Most people would be able to correctly classify the people in group A, but would have a hard time telling people apart in group B.


----------



## Jade

Developereo said:


> Not really. Take two groups:
> 
> Group A: An African, a European, a Chinese, an Indian, a Latino, an Eskimo, and a Pacific Islander.
> 
> Group B: Five Pakistanis and five North Indians.
> 
> Most people would be able to correctly classify the people in group A, but would have a hard time telling people apart in group B.




The first is a result of 100's of years of segregation and geography. The second is not the same...wait for another 200 years you can easily identify a Pakistani from an Indian

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pagla Dashu

Developereo said:


> By modern political reality, I meant that foreigners generally talk of Indian food or music or dress, even though the actual item may come from Pakistan or Bangladesh, etc. Most foreigners lump south Asian culture into one bucket, generically referred to as 'Indian'.


That is a legitimate grouse you have. I have no bones to pick. 


> The claim is based on geography and historical artifacts. Genetics is only used to refute claims of mass population shifts.


Genetics cant refute, neither can it confirm with utmost certainty, any claims of mass population shifts. What it can do is point in a general direction i.e. give an indication, of the origin of a group of people or may be the history of admixture. The science of genetics is many lightyears away from being able to establish with reasonable accuracy, how they ended up today in a certain geographical location from where their ancestors were located, thousands of years ago. We can only speculate. 

And no, the claim that IVC is exclusive to Pakistan is not based on geography. It is a political claim. Pakistan is the political identity of the region that Pakistan occupies today. Its geographical identity is ancient India.


> Foreign scholars use the phrase 'ancient India' in deference to its use in historical texts which, as I have indicated, was sloppy wording by people throughout the ages. Certainly there were brief periods when these lands were united under common rule, but they were exactly that -- brief periods. For most of its history, the lands comprising modern Pakistan were not ruled by Gangetic rulers.


A few posts back I commented on this. Anyway, India has existed even couple of thousand years ago - not as a homogeneous _political _entity but as a geographical entity which later assumed this geo-political identity that it is today. That the region east of Indus had a distinctive geographical identity is attested by several foreign scholars who visited this region during those times, as part of any conquest or on purely scholarly pursuit. This geographical identity, 'India', was latter borrowed to create a political identity once the foreign invaders decided to set shop in this region.

What Im saying is that _ancient_ India is not a _political_ identity but a __geographical__ identity. So it is irrelevant if Gangetic rulers ever ruled the region that is Pakistan today.

Calling scholars sloppy is probably not a wise thing to do, given our own credentials.


> It's a matter of degree. The further away you go from the core cities of Harappa, Taxila and Mohenjo-daro, the less relevance IVC has to these cultures. Taking your own argument in reverse, the Dravidian refugees from Aryan invasions would form a miniscule percentage of the already established, indigenous population. Modern day Tamil Nadu laying claikm to IVC would be like USA laying claim to ancient Greek heritage because of a few thousand Greek-American migrants.


The analogy is red herring. USA was/is formed through migration, which is pretty recent, India wasnt. Aryan migration in India happened so long ago that it is impossible to scientifically identify these Aryan migrants as separate group. A Mexican-American migrant cant lay claim to Greek heritage by being co-citizens with the Greek emigrants, but a Bihari, for example, from India can claim his IVC heritage by being descendants of largely the same stock as the Tamils are. This is how a Pakistani can claim heritage, not because a segment of ruins of IVC are in Pakistan. 

Whether IVC culture fades away and finally appears to disappear as one moves to the east, south or south east, is irrelevant. Culture is not static. It evolves with time. But the vestiges do remain as undeniable link to the past. The problem is with the basis of apportion of history. If it is the history of peoples we are talking, then it should ideally be based on cultural heritage. If it is the history of land we are talking, then it is of course geography. History, however, is generally the history of peoples, not of land. Pakistan, in any case, cant claim exclusivity to IVC on the basis of any of the two.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pagla Dashu

jade1982 said:


> 70% of Indian are of Indo Aryan ethnicity.
> 
> Indo-Aryan peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> South Asian ethnic groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That doesn't really answer my question. Can these 70% Indo-Aryan ancestors claim IVC as part of their heritage?


----------



## Jade

Pagla Dashu said:


> That doesn't really answer my question. Can these 70&#37; Indo-Aryan ancestors claim IVC as part of their heritage?



It is hard to answer you question&#8230;All people on this earth can be traced to a small group lived thousands of years of ago in Africa - at least that is what geneticists claim. If that is true than, yes, Indo-Aryan can claim IVC as part of their heritage. Anyway as history has witnessed a lot of interbreeding, the meanings of Indo Aryan and Dravidian have lost meaning in today&#8217;s India


----------



## Developereo

Pagla Dashu said:


> That is a legitimate grouse you have. I have no bones to pick.



It's not a grouse but an illustration of how foreigners lump all of south Asia as one group, even though there are distinct political entities. It is central to my argument that foreigners tend to be sloppy in their references to 'India', and such references should be taken with a grain of salt. The same sloppiness has existed throughout history. In fact, more so, because global communication and awareness was less in the past.

So, when an ancient historian talks about ancient 'India', what they mean is the region around the Indus river and possibly further south east. 'Indus' river is the operative word here.



Pagla Dashu said:


> Genetics can&#8217;t refute, neither can it confirm with utmost certainty, any &#8216;claims of mass population shifts&#8217;.



But genetics can refute claims of populations being completely different. You don't even need genetics; simply eyeblling will tell you.



Pagla Dashu said:


> And no, the claim that IVC is exclusive to Pakistan is not based on geography. It is a political claim.



Nobody is claiming that IVC is exclusively Pakistani. Modern borders are irrelevant in ancient history. The only claim is one of gradually decreasing relevance with distance -- a perfectly reasonable claim.



Pagla Dashu said:


> &#8216;Pakistan&#8217; is the political identity of the region that Pakistan occupies today. Its geographical identity is &#8216;ancient India&#8217;.



Once again, let's keep in mind the foreign confusion about the word 'India'. Ancient indigenous texts usually refer to the region is Bharat. It is only confused foreigners who refer to the whole region as the region of the Indus, i.e. India.



Pagla Dashu said:


> A few posts back I commented on this. Anyway, India has existed even couple of thousand years ago - not as a homogeneous _political _entity but as a geographical entity which later assumed this geo-political identity that it is today. That the region east of Indus had a distinctive geographical identity is attested by several foreign scholars who visited this region during those times, as part of any conquest or on purely scholarly pursuit. This geographical identity, 'India', was latter borrowed to create a political identity once the foreign invaders decided to set shop in this region.



Once again, it is Bharat that has existed indigenously. It is unfortunate that modern-day Bharat borrowed the terminology of confused foreigners to name itself.



Pagla Dashu said:


> Calling scholars &#8216;sloppy&#8217; is probably not a wise thing to do, given our own credentials.



India was the colloquial name for the region and, in the absence of a defining political entity, was as good as any other name. It was shorthand for 'the lands of the Indus and beyond'.



Pagla Dashu said:


> The analogy is red herring. USA was/is formed through migration, which is pretty recent, India wasn&#8217;t.



All lands are populated by migrants; it's only a matter of time span. The point is that a host culture cannot lay claim to the ancient cultural heritage of a small group of migrans/refugees.


----------



## Subramanian

All the muslims and christians of the sub continent have no right to claim the heritage and history of the ancient civilization.

The moment people converted from the hindu faith which impresses the value of god residing in ones own heart(aham brahmasmi) and the idea of worshipping mother nature and the indian country in itself and took up bookish religions whose gods reside in their prophets from arabia and israel,they give up claims to the heritage and history.

All the intelligentsia of the IVC would have either been slaughtered or moved southwards to keep their faith rather than convert to another religion.

So,pakistanis can feel proud of all the muslim military conquests but sorry,no inetellctual pursuits.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

Subramanian said:


> All the muslims and christians of the sub continent have no right to claim the heritage and history of the ancient civilization.
> 
> The moment people converted from the hindu faith which impresses the value of god residing in ones own heart(aham brahmasmi) and the idea of worshipping mother nature and the indian country in itself and took up bookish religions whose gods reside in their prophets from arabia and israel,they give up claims to the heritage and history.
> 
> All the intelligentsia of the IVC would have either been slaughtered or moved southwards to keep their faith rather than convert to another religion.
> 
> So,pakistanis can feel proud of all the muslim military conquests but sorry,no inetellctual pursuits.


Everybody has equal right..to claim..be it indian or pakistani, hindu, muslim, christian or atheist.
change of faith or partition of country is no reason to alienate anybody.


----------



## Hindustani

bhagathsingh said:


> Everybody has equal right..to claim..be it indian or pakistani, hindu, muslim, christian or atheist.
> change of faith or partition of country is no reason to alienate anybody.


 

People _do_ have the right to claim their history with or without conversion. 

However what pisses me off is when I see the name Muslim Rajput 
I find that the biggest oxymoron, as you're either a sect of Islam or a sect of Hinduism.. 
Rajputs are a Kshatriyas varna caste of Hinduism. If Muslims don't believe in the caste system, why do they call themselves something that's associated to that? 

It's like calling myself a Hindu Shia


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

Hindustani said:


> People _do_ have the right to claim their history with or without conversion.
> 
> However what pisses me off is when I see the name Muslim Rajput
> I find that the biggest oxymoron, as you're either a sect of Islam or a sect of Hinduism..
> Rajputs are a Kshatriyas varna caste of Hinduism. If Muslims don't believe in the caste system, why do they call themselves something that's associated to that?
> 
> It's like calling myself a Hindu Shia



I am hearing this for the first time. '' muslim rajputh''. 
i guess people still wants to hold it like indian christains retain cultural symbols, traditions, rituals, beliefs which they followed. Or like lower cast hindu converted to christian is still treated as lower class christian..even if he wish to change his statues.


----------



## jayron

bhagathsingh said:


> I am hearing this for the first time. '' muslim rajputh''.
> i guess people still wants to hold it like indian christains retain cultural symbols, traditions, rituals, beliefs which they followed. Or like lower cast hindu converted to christian is still treated as lower class christian..even if he wish to change his statues.



Hamid Gul is a proud Muslim Rajput  not kidding.


----------



## Hindustani

bhagathsingh said:


> I am hearing this for the first time. '' muslim rajputh''.
> i guess people still wants to hold it like indian christains retain cultural symbols, traditions, rituals, beliefs which they followed. Or like lower cast hindu converted to christian is still treated as lower class christian..even if he wish to change his statues.



Muslim Rajputs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still makes no sense to me.


----------



## LEGENDARY WARRIOR

Subramanian said:


> All the muslims and christians of the sub continent have no right to claim the heritage and history of the ancient civilization.
> 
> The moment people converted from the hindu faith which impresses the value of god residing in ones own heart(aham brahmasmi) and the idea of worshipping mother nature and the indian country in itself and took up *bookish religions whose gods reside in their prophets from arabia and israel,they give up claims to the heritage and history.*
> 
> All the intelligentsia of the IVC would have either been slaughtered or moved southwards to keep their faith rather than convert to another religion.
> 
> So,pakistanis can feel proud of all the muslim military conquests but sorry,no inetellctual pursuits.




This thread was just about a number zero and now I dont know where it is going.

and Subramanian, you can comment on the culture and heritage but please dont comment on someone's religion if you dont know about it.



Subramanian said:


> bookish religions



I dont know why you used this word because you have religious books too. . 



Subramanian said:


> whose gods reside in their prophets



this is a misconception, because this is what differentiates Muslims from Christians and Jews. We follow the teachings of our Prophet but we dont consider him our God. Our God is ALLAH and you call Him EESHWAR. .


----------



## LaBong

Developereo said:


> Irrelevant.
> 
> As has been said, there is a world of difference between modern Greeks and ancient Greece, or modern Egyptians and ancient Egypt. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with geographical heritage. You guys are hung up on the word ancient 'Pakistani'. As others have pointed out, pick another word, call them ancient IVC or whatever, to soothe the knee-jerk aversion to the word 'Pakistani'.
> 
> And, like I said, people of Gujarat also have right to that heritage.



Like I said, the whole point of calling them ancient Pakistani is to somehow make them distinguished from Indians. I have no problem with modern days Pakistanis having claim on IVC, but that doesn't invalidate modern Indians claim on the same as well. Pre-1947 history is shared by Indians and Pakistanis. 

There was no man made border before 47, but there was cultural and ethnic border between Iranian groups and Indic groups, both of which make up the present day Pakistan populace. The iranian groups of Pakistan have no/very less claim on IVC, Taxila, Gandhar etc etc


----------



## LaBong

> But genetics can refute claims of populations being completely different. You don't even need genetics; simply eyeblling will tell you.



Actually strictly genetically speaking, the population of today's India and today's Pakistan(except Iranian groups) have no or ignorable difference between them genetically. _Eyeblling _has no relevance in genetics.


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

@jayron and hindustani..
thanks for the info.rajput were very brave and proud people so it's natural they want to retain their cast name. 
imo we should leave it to them..let them retain their cast names which they are proud of..let them be happy..Not a big deal.


----------



## UnitedPak

Abir said:


> Like I said, the whole point of calling them ancient Pakistani is to somehow make them distinguished from Indians. I have no problem with modern days Pakistanis having claim on IVC, but that doesn't invalidate modern Indians claim on the same as well. Pre-1947 history is shared by Indians and Pakistanis.
> 
> There was no man made border before 47, but there was cultural and ethnic border between Iranian groups and Indic groups, both of which make up the present day Pakistan populace. The iranian groups of Pakistan have no/very less claim on IVC, Taxila, Gandhar etc etc



British Indian borders were man made. In fact they had to conquer 600 territories to create their Indian empire. Your theory of a united India once again ignores the countless of languages, cultures and people that are in the subcontinent.

The "Iranic border" claim is also ignorant. There is less difference between a Pashtun and a Punjabi than there is between a Punjabi and a Tamil or Assamese. There are many culture and language borders in the subcontinent, but you are simply promoting one to justify your Ancient Indian nation. Not to mention you are promoting yet another migration theory for Pashtuns to claim their history.


----------



## LaBong

UnitedPak said:


> British Indian borders were man made. In fact they had to conquer 600 territories to create their Indian empire. Your theory of a united India once again ignores the countless of languages, cultures and people that are in the subcontinent.



And how people living in those territories were different than each other? And why you're comparing the culture and languages of today's India and Pakistan with that of IVC? Makes no sense, does it? With all the differences indic languages have it has been proven without any doubt that all of the north-indic languages have a common source, which, yet again as the countless times I had to point it out, is totally different from that of Pashto and Kahsmir. 



> The "Iranic border" claim is also ignorant. There is less difference between a Pashtun and a Punjabi than there is between a Punjabi and a Tamil or Assamese. There are many culture and language borders in the subcontinent, but you are simply promoting one to justify your Ancient Indian nation. Not to mention you are promoting yet another migration theory for Pashtuns to claim their history.



Not sure why you keep adding the mass-migration theory to my arsenal when I have no wish to use it at all. Without and certain genetic marks of IVC people, and proofs of mass-migration and lack thereof, we have to stick to what we have in hand. That is the linguistic and cultural evidence. There's no cultural and linguistic resemblance of what was followed in IVC and Takshashila with Afghans. Period.


----------



## UnitedPak

Abir said:


> Not sure why you keep adding the mass-migration theory to my arsenal when I have no wish to use it at all. Without and certain genetic marks of IVC people, and proofs of mass-migration and lack thereof, we have to stick to what we have in hand. That is the linguistic and cultural evidence. There's no cultural and linguistic resemblance of what was followed in IVC and Takshashila with Afghans. Period.



How can you talk about cultural and linguistic resemblance when the IVC language has never been deciphered and little is known about their culture? P&#257;&#7751;ini of Gandhara defined classical Sanskrit as we know it, so what "linguistic resemblance" are you talking about?

The arrival of Islam no doubt affected the culture, but the people of the region have always remained the same.


----------



## LaBong

UnitedPak said:


> How can you talk about cultural and linguistic resemblance when the IVC language has never been deciphered and little is known about their culture? P&#257;&#7751;ini of Gandhara defined classical Sanskrit as we know it, so what "linguistic resemblance" are you talking about?
> 
> The arrival of Islam no doubt affected the culture, but the people of the region have always remained the same.



Not only Panini of Gandhara defined classical Sanskrit but it has been proven that Vedic Sanskrit also originated from some part of North-West India/Pakistan. Now think about the time span between Rig Veda(2200-1600 BCE) and Classical Sanskrit( 600 BCE), that's almost 1000 years of history, also consider the fact that University of Takshashila was renowned for teaching Vedas. Afghans couldn't have just forgot about all that legacy one fine day and started speaking a language which has no relation with Sanskrit. 

And now consider all north-Indic languages, all of them originated from a single source. It's either Sanskrit-Magadhi Prakrit-Bengali or Sanskrit-Sauraseni Prakrit-Hindi/Urdu/Punjabi, but nevertheless all of them trace back to single and exclusive root. 

The Indians have a claim on that root, which the Iranic groups don't have. They have their part of history related to that geographical region as well, and nobody preventing them to claim the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jade

UnitedPak said:


> How can you talk about cultural and linguistic resemblance when the IVC language has never been deciphered and little is known about their culture? P&#257;&#7751;ini of Gandhara defined classical Sanskrit as we know it, so what "linguistic resemblance" are you talking about?
> 
> *The arrival of Islam no doubt affected the culture, but the people of the region have always remained the same*.


 
Any credible links? or just your opinion?


----------



## Subramanian

bhagathsingh said:


> Everybody has equal right..to claim..be it indian or pakistani, hindu, muslim, christian or atheist.
> change of faith or partition of country is no reason to alienate anybody.



Not at all,it is not a matter of faith but to word it correctly the moment you follow a bookish religion,you lose all the claims.You dont have to be a conventional theistic hindu worshipping rama and krishna but you have to respect this land,culture,history and the self righteousness it gives you in your heart.


----------



## Subramanian

UnitedPak said:


> British Indian borders were man made. In fact they had to conquer 600 territories to create their Indian empire. Your theory of a united India once again ignores the countless of languages, cultures and people that are in the subcontinent.
> 
> The "Iranic border" claim is also ignorant. There is less difference between a Pashtun and a Punjabi than there is between a Punjabi and a Tamil or Assamese. There are many culture and language borders in the subcontinent, but you are simply promoting one to justify your Ancient Indian nation. Not to mention you are promoting yet another migration theory for Pashtuns to claim their history.



The cultural connection was always there man,thats what makes this nation called bharat/india.Even today it is our cultural connect that unites us,honestly speaking the government and the dominion and the republic are the weakest planks for our unity,the strongest comes from the integrated culture and language.

Brits have conquered many lands and redrawn many maps but the maps just disintegrated once they left but this one did not.Thats the point.


----------



## Subramanian

bhagathsingh said:


> @jayron and hindustani..
> thanks for the info.rajput were very brave and proud people so it's natural they want to retain their cast name.
> imo we should leave it to them..let them retain their cast names which they are proud of..let them be happy..Not a big deal.



Thats bullshit.

If you want to keep your caste and its honour,then dont convert.Islam calls everyone equal and if you becoming muslim atleast respect that fact rather than starting another caste system.

This way you dont respect the muslim or the caste(jatt,gujjar,rajput whatever)


----------



## Subramanian

SANABIL MIRZA said:


> This thread was just about a number zero and now I dont know where it is going.
> 
> and Subramanian, you can comment on the culture and heritage but please dont comment on someone's religion if you dont know about it.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know why you used this word because you have religious books too. .
> 
> 
> 
> this is a misconception, because this is what differentiates Muslims from Christians and Jews. We follow the teachings of our Prophet but we dont consider him our God. Our God is ALLAH and you call Him EESHWAR. .



We have religious books but there is no zabardasti to follow any of them to the line and the point.

The only rules,i have is what i make for myself.My self righteousness is my empowerment and i am my own god.I am responsible for my actions and my conscience is the witness for their justice.

fine,i agree with that difference between christians,jews and muslims.

Our god is not eashwar,eashwar or shiva is a metaphysical concept of destruction.Of how people have to die to be reborn again not in the literal sense but in a metaphysical sense.How to become something else,the present has to go or die.

Like i said again,aham brahmasmi(i am god).Thats the essence of hinduism and there are people who disagree with this too and they are also hindu and there are those who are east interested in all this and they are also hindu.


----------



## sensenreason

The one proof that Pakistan might have invented the number zero is their politicians love for it...ie there lack of achievements.


----------



## Rafi

sensenreason said:


> The one proof that Pakistan might have invented the number zero is their politicians love for it...ie there lack of achievements.



And indian politicians achievements have been less than zero, what is your point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yeti

Im afriad the Zero was not made in Pakistan


YouTube - THE STORY OF INDIA | Excerpt from Episode 4 | PBS

"We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made!"

Albert Einstein


----------



## jayron

Subramanian said:


> Thats bullshit.
> 
> If you want to keep your caste and its honour,then dont convert.Islam calls everyone equal and if you becoming muslim atleast respect that fact rather than starting another caste system.
> 
> This way you dont respect the muslim or the caste(jatt,gujjar,rajput whatever)



you cannot be so rigid. Any religion gets mixed with the local culture when adopted in that land. Like Islam in Indonesia, Buddhism in China, Christianity in India, Hinduism in Bali etc. 
And frankly speaking, taking pride in one's caste is kind of cheap in my opinion.


----------



## Rafi

I still stick to my main point, the modern indian state the successor of bharat has no connection to the Indus Valley or its civilization. 

Attempts to call the IVC dravidian are a fallacy, IVC's language has not been discovered, but we do know that the people surrounding their great cities are there descendants. 

As to Islam in Ancient Pakistan, this was achieved through a gradual process but peacefully, the shrines of the Great Sufi Humanists are still popular, because of the peoples gratitude for giving them access to the 1 God. 

A Pakistani Jatt


----------



## Rafi

Yeti said:


> Im afriad the Zero was not made in Pakistan
> 
> 
> YouTube - THE STORY OF INDIA | Excerpt from Episode 4 | PBS
> 
> "We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made!"
> 
> Albert Einstein



He means the people of the Indus, he does not mean bharat, which is modern indias successor.


----------



## Yeti

Rafi said:


> I still stick to my main point, the modern indian state the successor of bharat has no connection to the Indus Valley or its civilization.
> 
> Attempts to call the IVC dravidian are a fallacy, IVC's language has not been discovered, but we do know that the people surrounding their great cities are there descendants.
> 
> As to Islam in Ancient Pakistan, this was achieved through a gradual process but peacefully, the shrines of the Great Sufi Humanists are still popular, because of the peoples gratitude for giving them access to the 1 God.
> 
> A Pakistani Jatt





You do know the Indus valley civilisation has parts both in modern day Pakistan and India? like states such as Gujarat so how can you say India or Bharat has no connection?

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------




Rafi said:


> He means the people of the Indus, he does not mean bharat, which is modern indias successor.



Umm no hes talking about the Gupta's and he said India not Pakistan


----------



## Rafi




----------



## Yeti

"India was the mother of our race and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages. She was the mother of our philosophy, mother through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics, mother through Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity, mother through village communities of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all." 

Will Durant

Obama flattered them by recalling India's 
historic achievements in science, philosophy and the invention of the digit "zero". whoohhhhh


----------



## Rafi

Yeti said:


> You do know the Indus valley civilisation has parts both in modern day Pakistan and India? like states such as Gujarat so how can you say India or Bharat has no connection?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Umm no hes talking about the Gupta's and he said India not Pakistan



There are two distinct realities, which in fact are civilizations, there is the Indus ie Ancient Pakistan, and their is bharat - and the achievements of those belong to their geographic boundaries. 

The fact is the monument of Ancient Egypt belong to Egypt, and not to Sudan, even though at some point it was part of the Egyptian empire. 

Our right to *our* land, is infinite -

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Yeti said:


> "India was the mother of our race and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages. She was the mother of our philosophy, mother through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics, mother through Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity, mother through village communities of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all."
> 
> Will Durant
> 
> Obama flattered them by recalling India's
> historic achievements in science, philosophy and the invention of the digit "zero". whoohhhhh



Hahaha and you need a Yank to tell you, your self worth.


----------



## Yeti

But the Indus Valley falls under modern day Pakistan and India lol


----------



## Rafi




----------



## Yeti

Rafi said:


> Hahaha and you need a Yank to tell you, your self worth.





No but you think Indus is only in Pakistan or you made Zero 


Signs of desperation stealing other peoples inventions and passing them as your own.


----------



## Yeti

Lothal in Gujarat


----------



## Rafi




----------



## Rafi

Yeti said:


> Lothal in Gujarat



The main cities and monuments are in Pakistan, guess why the Roman Empire is named after Rome, even though their empire was spread, at most it was just a copy, and the least it was not part of the IVC.


----------



## Rafi

Rafi said:


>



Now look at this - it is not a set of small walls, or huts, this is Mohenjodaro a massive sophisticated city with 10's of thousands of inhabitants - in fact the first city in the world, part of Ancient Pakistan


----------



## Yeti

Lothal (Gujarati: &#2738;&#2763;&#2725;&#2738; lo&#721;t&#810;&#688;&#601;l)* is one of the most prominent cities of the ancient Indus valley civilization*. Located in Bh&#257;l region of the modern state of Gujar&#257;t and dating from 2400 BCE, it is one of India's most important archaeological sites that date from that era. Discovered in 1954, Lothal was excavated from February 13, 1955 to May 19, 1960 by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

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


----------



## Rafi

Look at the level of sophistication, our Ancient Pakistani ancestors - must have had a very good understanding of engineering to build such monuments.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yeti

lol i give up


----------



## Rafi

Yeti said:


> Lothal (Gujarati: &#2738;&#2763;&#2725;&#2738; lo&#721;t&#810;&#688;&#601;l)* is one of the most prominent cities of the ancient Indus valley civilization*. Located in Bh&#257;l region of the modern state of Gujar&#257;t and dating from 2400 BCE, it is one of India's most important archaeological sites that date from that era. Discovered in 1954, Lothal was excavated from February 13, 1955 to May 19, 1960 by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
> 
> *Lothal's dockthe world's earliest known*connected the city to an ancient course of the Sabarmati river on the trade route between Harappan cities in Sindh and the peninsula of Saurashtra when the surrounding Kutch desert of today was a part of the Arabian Sea. It was a vital and thriving trade centre in ancient times, with its trade of beads, gems and valuable ornaments reaching the far corners of West Asia and Africa. Lothal's people were responsible for the earliest-known portrayals of realism in art and sculpture, telling some of the most well-known fables of today. Its scientists used a shell compass and divided the horizon and sky into 812 whole parts, possibly pioneering the study of stars and advanced navigation2000 years before the Greeks. The techniques and tools they pioneered for bead-making and in metallurgy have stood the test of time for over 4000 years.



It was not a main site, it was relatively small, the main cities of the IVC are along the river Indus, that is why it is called the IVC.


----------



## Rafi

Yeti said:


> lol i give up



My friend, what I do - is for love of my people  - not for hatred for yours - live long and prosper as Mr Spook would say

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yeti

lol u missing parts of Indus in Gujarat let me show u the real map


----------



## Rafi

Rafi said:


>



Our heritage


----------



## Rafi

My indian friend those outposts have not been verified as belonging to IVC - they are mainly built of stone - whereas IVC uses bricks, that are still built in Pakistan - to the exact same recipe.


----------



## Rafi

See different from bharat based on ganges.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LAKHNAVI

Rafi said:


> Look at the level of sophistication, our Ancient Pakistani ancestors - must have had a very good understanding of engineering to build such monuments.



you will be absolutly correct if you just replace '' Ancient Pakistani ancestors '' our HINDU ANCESTORS.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## riju78

y does pakistan navy call its warship tippu sultan??? is he ancient pakistani too?? or is there another tippu sultan in pakistan who we dont know about?? just curious

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Capt.Popeye

riju78 said:


> y does pakistan navy call its warship tippu sultan??? is he ancient pakistani too?? or is there another tippu sultan in pakistan who we dont know about?? just curious



Did Tipu Sultan migrate from Srirangapatnam to Islamabad?
Now this is getting really confusing. 
just curious.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## riju78

Capt.Popeye said:


> Did Tipu Sultan migrate from Srirangapatnam to Islamabad?
> Now this is getting really confusing.
> just curious.



maybe rafi can give us a photo of tipu in islamabad... or srirangapatanam was part of ancient pakistan too.. too confused yaar

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## simplelogic

LOLZ its like Americans calming the History of Native Americans(Red Indians)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Subramanian

jayron said:


> you cannot be so rigid. Any religion gets mixed with the local culture when adopted in that land. Like Islam in Indonesia, Buddhism in China, Christianity in India, Hinduism in Bali etc.
> And frankly speaking, taking pride in one's caste is kind of cheap in my opinion.



It is not a matter of whether taking pride in your caste is cheap or not.Bookish religions are supposed to have stern rules which have to be followed to depth regardless of where they are followed.Flexible religions dont have to be.

Religion gets mixed with the local culture,please.According to me,if you have strict rules by the book,you follow them strictly,else keep it flexible,you cannot show two faces here.

And whats wrong in taking pride in one's caste.i believe all that is good about me is a direct result of my ancestors and their beliefs.And their caste also played a role in it.


----------



## Subramanian

Rafi said:


> I still stick to my main point, the modern indian state the successor of bharat has no connection to the Indus Valley or its civilization.
> 
> Attempts to call the IVC dravidian are a fallacy, IVC's language has not been discovered, but we do know that the people surrounding their great cities are there descendants.
> 
> As to Islam in Ancient Pakistan, this was achieved through a gradual process but peacefully, the shrines of the Great Sufi Humanists are still popular, because of the peoples gratitude for giving them access to the 1 God.
> 
> A Pakistani Jatt



Dont bullshit us bro.

Muslims have no right over the subcontinent's history and especially the one which happened before the islamic conquest.

So the islamic conquest was peaceful?Please,i am sure you wont be able to say the same thing looking into the mirror.

I wont make a judgement on the sufi saints but all the violent history of the subcontinent and the animosity of that the north indian people towards muslims dont seem to justify your sentiment.

You are a Pakistani Jatt and you are an Oxymoron.


----------



## Subramanian

Rafi said:


> He means the people of the Indus, he does not mean bharat, which is modern indias successor.



I ll put it across to you straight,the intelligentsia(the brahmins) would never ever convert to islam.If they do,they cease to be brahmins.

Got it?


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Do not forget the dried up *Sarasvati river *.











Many of the major sites was near this river too.

These three rivers helped form the* Indo-Gangetic *plains that was rip for creation of civilization. Similar to the Nile river plains, or the plains near the Yellow River in China..


----------



## Rafi

Ancient Pakistans trade with the world.


----------



## Rafi

Ancient Pakistans trade with Ancient China


----------



## Rafi




----------



## Rafi

Rafi said:


> Ancient Pakistans trade with Ancient China



Their is no other city on the scale of Mohenjadaro or Harrapa in the IVC it proves that this was a specifically Ancient Pakistani Civilization


----------



## grace

Rafi said:


> *Ancient Pakistans* trade with the world.



i had to do this....


----------



## Rafi

grace said:


> i had to do this....



Thanks for posting that map dude, shows that Ancient Pakistan had a fairly large trade with the known civilizations of the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ammyy

Rafi said:


> Ancient Pakistans trade with the world.





Rafi said:


> Thanks for posting that map dude, shows that Ancient Pakistan had a fairly large trade with the known civilizations of the time.



Its trade map of ancient Iraq .......... their is nothing like ancient Pakistan 
*
What a lie * 
link *
Trade*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ammyy

Rafi said:


> Ancient Pakistans trade with Ancient China



Middle part of map is edited even a small kid can identify that (image that put in middle of the map)

And BTW this ancient Pakistan theory start by rupeenews 

Here is the link 

Pakistani Civilization Rupee News


----------



## Ammyy

rupeenews quoted that indus vally is nothing but ancient pakistan 







This is one of the lothal seals of Indus vally and in first seal you can clearly see swastika (Swastika - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## black_magic pk

pakistan has the most ancient heritage, proud of being a pakistani


----------



## Ammyy

Culture of indus vally in related to Hindus and not to any one else 

Ancient Scripts: Indus Script 


I really dnt know from were idea of this ancient Pakistan came.

Before 1947 Pakistan and India both belongs to same country 

Well we can say that number zero invented in ancient indus vally but ancient Pakistan


----------



## WAR-rior

black_magic pk said:


> pakistan has the most ancient heritage, proud of being a pakistani



congrats ! whatever makes u happy ..... 

still i feel bad for those hindu sindhis and punjabis who migrated to india in large numbers.....

they are robbed of this ancestrial claim even if they still worship lord shiva just like IVC ppl used to.......

but claim is of those ppl who are influenced by some alien race and the claim is JUST because it was an advanced civilization.

otherwise no one in pakistan dares to care bout its nonislamic heritage. nor can u see this in their names.

i wonder, if IVC wasnt a worldfamous civilization, wud pakistani have cared to own it ?

wud they have cared bout a shiva worshipping hindu civilization if it wasnt a famous one?


----------



## Developereo

Subramanian said:


> I ll put it across to you straight,the intelligentsia(the brahmins) would never ever convert to islam.If they do,they cease to be brahmins.
> 
> Got it?



What we get is that you don't like Pakistanis, you don't like Muslims and you don't even like lower caste Hindus. Pretty sad!


Anyway, it is ironic to see the supposedly religion-obsessed Pakistanis embracing our non-Islamic past, and the supposedly secular Indians obsessed with Hinduism.

Shows everyone's true colors....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hindustani

Developereo said:


> What we get is that you don't like Pakistanis, you don't like Muslims and you don't even like lower caste Hindus. Pretty sad!
> 
> 
> Anyway, it is ironic to see the supposedly religion-obsessed Pakistanis embracing our non-Islamic past, and the supposedly secular Indians obsessed with Hinduism.
> 
> Shows everyone's true colors....



Remember India is a population with 1.5 billion people.. not everyone believes in secularism. 

Besides don't make false assumptions because of your inferiority complex.


----------



## Rafi

The IVC were not hindus, no temples or figurines have been found, this is another attempt by modern indians to try to steal our glorious history. 

Is bharat so bankrupt of historical significance that they have to try to steal another peoples heritage. 






*This is our Heritage*


----------



## Yeti

Seals have been found at Mohenjo-daro depicting a figure standing on its head, and another sitting cross-legged in what some call a yoga-like pose (see image, the so-called Pashupati, below).

Some Indus valley seals show swastikas which are found in later religions and mythologies, especially in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. The earliest evidence for elements of Hinduism are present before and during the early Harappan period. Phallic symbols resembling the Hindu Siva lingam have been found in the Harappan remains.


Wrong again  and you do not have the monopoly on Indus valley civilisation


----------



## Ammyy

Rafi said:


> The IVC were not hindus, no temples or figurines have been found, this is another attempt by modern indians to try to steal our glorious history.
> 
> Is bharat so bankrupt of historical significance that they have to try to steal another peoples heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This is our Heritage*



Just show me one thing that related to islam in hadappa or indus vally 

If you want i can show thousands of things that relate to hindu darma

And one more thing we dnt need to steal any ones history 

Just ask this things to your archeological department they will tell the truth


----------



## Rafi

Developereo said:


> What we get is that you don't like Pakistanis, you don't like Muslims and you don't even like lower caste Hindus. Pretty sad!
> 
> 
> Anyway, it is ironic to see the supposedly religion-obsessed Pakistanis embracing our non-Islamic past, and the supposedly secular Indians obsessed with Hinduism.
> 
> Shows everyone's true colors....



 Exactly my sentiments brother, some indians have to convince themselves that IVC is theirs because it is part of their ideology, they feel a inferiority complex, when they realise that their arch rival has had a five thousand year old legacy. 

We had the first known planned urban area in the world, we invented mathematical firsts, we had trade and contact with world civilisations - such as Ancient Mesopotamia and Ancient Persia - Greece and Egypt, while bharat was a back water.


----------



## Rafi

DRDO said:


> Just show me one thing that related to islam in hadappa or indus vally
> 
> If you want i can show thousands of things that relate to hindu darma
> 
> And one more thing we dnt need to steal any ones history
> 
> Just ask this things to your archeological department they will tell the truth



So what!!!  Modern Iranians are Muslim, but the Ancient Persians are their Ancestors, Modern Greeks are Christian, but the Ancient Hellenic Civilisations is theirs, Modern Egyptians are Muslim, but they built the Pyramids.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

DRDO said:


> Just show me one thing that related to islam in hadappa or indus vally
> 
> If you want i can show thousands of things that relate to hindu darma
> 
> And one more thing we dnt need to steal any ones history
> 
> Just ask this things to your archeological department they will tell the truth



Just an attempt by some indians to steal the history of another peoples heritage


----------



## Ammyy

Rafi said:


> Just an attempt by some indians to steal the history of another peoples heritage



Buddy this thread is still alive cause its on PDF 

Dnt tell thing like this outside otherwise people laugh on you.

you cant proof this mighty claim  but we can

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

Pakistani scientists and people are convincing the world, to accept all the Indus history as exclusive Pakistani history


----------



## Rafi

Makes one proud of our Ancient Pakistani Ancestors

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi




----------



## Rafi




----------



## Rafi

*Pakicetids or Pakicetidae are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya&#8212;40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.*[1]
As Cetacea, Pakicetidae precede the whales and dolphins in transition from land. Because their fossils were found near bodies of water, they are presumed to have spent part of their life in water.


----------



## Ammyy

Rafi said:


> Makes one proud of our Ancient Pakistani Ancestors



No words for this edited picture (every thing present in picture proof this)......... 

Yar no problem and best of luck 

Just show me single International survey that show Indus Vally in ancient Pakistan(I know their is nothing like this)

Indus Vally`s geographical postion is now divided in India and Pakistan ....


----------



## Rafi

Rafi said:


> *Pakicetids or Pakicetidae are a carnivorous mammal family of the suborder Archaeoceti which lived during the Early Eocene to Middle Eocene (55.8 mya40.4 mya) in Pakistan and existed for approximately 15.4 million years.*[1]
> As Cetacea, Pakicetidae precede the whales and dolphins in transition from land. Because their fossils were found near bodies of water, they are presumed to have spent part of their life in water.



When this fossil was discovered, Pakistani Scientists successfully launched a campaign to have this creature named as being from Pakistan. Some indian intellectuals attempted to have it named after india, as they argued that Ancient Pakistan did not exist.


----------



## Rafi

drdo only 2 sites are true cities Harrapa and Mohenjadaro - the rest of the sites are still not confirmed as being part of IVC - in fact many of the indian sites that claim to be IVC are very dubious, that is why all the main research is taking place in Pakistan 

What is firmly established to a high degree is the people of the IVC were not Hindu, they buried their dead, ate beef, and no temple complexes have been found in their beautiful planned cities.


----------



## Rafi

In fact no sites on the scale of Mohenjadaro and Harrapa have been discovered anywhere else. Pakistan Zindabad


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Rafi said:


> What is firmly established to a high degree is the people of the IVC were *not Hindu*, they buried their dead, ate beef, and no temple complexes have been found in their beautiful planned cities.



Tells us alot about how much you know/cherish your heritage.


By bringing religion here you are only asserting our point about the significance of 2 nation theory for Pakistanis and the phrase _ancient Pakistan _ being anachronism.


----------



## Rafi

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


----------



## Ammyy

Rafi said:


> In fact no sites on the scale of Mohenjadaro and Harrapa have been discovered anywhere else. Pakistan Zindabad



Sirji please provide us any source to proof your claim

Please not edited pictures


----------



## Rafi

Sadda Virsa


----------



## rockstarIN

Congrats everybody, this flamewar is reaching 500 posts..


----------



## Rafi

Bombensturm said:


> Tells us alot about how much you know/cherish your heritage.
> 
> 
> By bringing religion here you are only asserting our point about the significance of 2 nation theory for Pakistanis and the phrase _ancient Pakistan _ being anachronism.



My dear b, just stating a fact - IVC was not Hindu, all the peoples of Pakistani whatever faith own our history and culture


----------



## Rafi

7000 &#8211; 3300 B.C -Mehrgarh Culture
*Mehrgarh was an ancient settlement in Pakistan and is one of the most important sites in archaeology for the study of the earliest Neolithic settlements in that region. The remains are located in Balochistan, Pakistan, on the Kachi plain near the Bolan Pass, to the west of the Indus River valley and between the present-day cities of Quetta, Kalat and Sibi.*

---------- Post added at 09:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------

*Mehrgarh is sometimes cited as the earliest known farming settlement in South Asia, based on archaeological excavations from 1974 (Jarrige et al). The earliest evidence of settlement dates from 7000 BCE. It is also cited for the earliest evidence of pottery in South Asia. Archaeologists divide the occupation at the site into several periods.
The chalcolithic people of Mehrgarh also had contacts with northern Afghanistan, northeastern Iran and even with the southern part of central Asia*


----------



## Rafi

3000 &#8211; 1300 B.C -Indus Valley
Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300&#8211;1300 BC, flowered 2600&#8211;1900 BC), abbreviated IVC, *was an ancient riverine civilization that flourished in the Indus river valley in Pakistan*. Another name for this civilization is the Harappan Civilization, after the first excavated city of Harappa.


----------



## Ammyy

Rafi said:


> 7000  3300 B.C -Mehrgarh Culture
> *Mehrgarh was an ancient settlement in Pakistan and is one of the most important sites in archaeology for the study of the earliest Neolithic settlements in that region. The remains are located in Balochistan, Pakistan, on the Kachi plain near the Bolan Pass, to the west of the Indus River valley and between the present-day cities of Quetta, Kalat and Sibi.*
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------
> 
> *Mehrgarh is sometimes cited as the earliest known farming settlement in South Asia, based on archaeological excavations from 1974 (Jarrige et al). The earliest evidence of settlement dates from 7000 BCE. It is also cited for the earliest evidence of pottery in South Asia. Archaeologists divide the occupation at the site into several periods.
> The chalcolithic people of Mehrgarh also had contacts with northern Afghanistan, northeastern Iran and even with the southern part of central Asia*



Please post the source from which you quote this


----------



## Rafi

PakHub- Reclaiming Pakistans Identity

We are a web based organisation working to reclaim Ancient Pakistans distinct identity and heritage. The Pakistani identity has been wrongfully hijacked by surrounding regions and countries- especially India, for nationalist purposes; An identity which belongs to the people of Pakistan, not the people of India.
Significant progress has been made in spreading awareness.


----------



## Rafi

History of Ancient Pakistan

*This is an educational site for people who wish to know more about Pakistan&#8217;s Ancient History. While Pakistan gained independence in 1947, the people of Pakistan inhabited the land for thousands of years and like most civilisations in the world, Pakistan has been known by different names throughout history. We aim to provide information about Pakistan from Ancient times to more recent times. The Empires which were created by the Pakistani people Pakistani Ancestors who made their mark on the world. And the events the Pakistani people have been through for the past 9000... *


----------



## Veeru

Rafi said:


> drdo only 2 sites are true cities Harrapa and Mohenjadaro - the rest of the sites are still not confirmed as being part of IVC - in fact many of the indian sites that claim to be IVC are very dubious, that is why all the main research is taking place in Pakistan
> 
> What is firmly established to a high degree is the people of the IVC were not Hindu, they buried their dead, ate beef, and no temple complexes have been found in their beautiful planned cities.



*Plz, don't make fun of ur self. Talk only if you know what ur talking.*

1.) Who told you that Hindu don't bury their dead??????? If there is a child death in any Hindu family that child's body will be burred in the earth or cremated in a river. Also in many sects they bury their dead.

2.) In IVC people used to worship Lord Shiva.






Can u recognize the above from IVC?????? that's a Nandi of Lord Shiva.

The "horned god" and phallic worship of the Indus valley civilization may have been a prototype of Shiva worship or Shaivism.

Several pottery figurines suggest that female deities had been worshipped.

Religion in Indus Valley Civilization

These "mother goddesses" appear to have been objects of

worship for the common people, while the horned god was apparently favored by the priests and upper classes.

Indus River Valley Civilizations

*Some Indus valley seals show swastikas which are found in later religions and mythologies, especially in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.* The earliest evidence for elements of Hinduism are present before and during the early Harappan period.[54][55] *Phallic symbols resembling the Hindu Siva lingam have been found in the Harappan remains.*

Many Indus valley seals show animals. *One famous seal shows a figure seated in a posture reminiscent of the Lotus position and surrounded by animals was named after Pashupati (lord of cattle), an epithet of Shiva and Rudra.*

Indus Valley Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyde

Listen guyz...with all due respect to peoples of both nations.... I have no idea how you guyz like to interperate stuff.... but all I understand is our Quaid-e-Azam gave a statement before the partition. That is

*Quaid-e-Azam speech on Two-Nation theory




Hindu India & Muslim India must be seperated because the two nations are entirely distinct and different and in some matters an animosity to each other. We differ in our History, Culture, Language, Architecture, Music, Laws, Jurisprudence, Calendar and our entire social fabric and Code of Life.

Quaid-e-Azam (extracted from the video posted below)

Click to expand...

*





====================

So we were the Muslim Indians before the partition now whatever it is the world recognize it as Indian 0....just like India won the Gold Medal in Hockey at Olympics in 1928, 1932, 1936... Now geographically there could be many players playing hockey from the Today's Pakistan during those days of pre-partition... but still It will be written as the Indian team won since we were technically all from the same nation...

Its a simple logic so is it so hard to digest?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

The people of the IVC are not Hindu, thousands of beef bones have been found, that show signs of human consumption. The cow is a holy animal for Hindus, in fact in modern india, many states have a ban on the killing of cows.


----------



## Ammyy

Zaki said:


> Listen guyz...with all due respect to peoples of both nations.... I have no idea how you guyz like to interperate stuff.... but all I understand is our Quaid-e-Azam gave a statement before the partition. That is
> ====================
> Its a simple logic so is it so hard to digest?



*Well you quote this *


> Hindu India & Muslim India must be seperated because the two ntions are entirely distinct and different and in some matters an animosity to each other. We differ in our History, Culture, Language, Architecture, Music, Laws, Jurisprudence, Calendar and our entire social fabric and Code of Life.
> 
> Quaid-e-Azam (extracted from the video posted below)



*So just show me what similarity in your culture and harappa culture *
*
And now read post #506 *

Indus vally`s geography now divided b/w India and Pakistan but culture ... you know that


----------



## Rafi

Pakistan existed 5000 years ago as the &#8220;Indus Valley Civilization.&#8221; A historical and tectonic divide existed thousands of years ago. The Indus Valley Civilization was on the banks of the Indus. The Genetic Valley Civilization is on the banks of the Ganges.


----------



## Rafi

DRDO said:


> *Well you quote this *
> 
> 
> *So just show me what similarity in your culture and harappa culture *
> *
> And now read post #506 *
> 
> Indus vally`s geography now divided b/w India and Pakistan but culture ... you know that



The two definative IVC sites are Harrapa and Mohenjadaro - there is nothing on the scale and significance anywhere else, proves that this civilisation was based on the Indus and therefore is Ancient Pakistan


----------



## Rafi

This is our heritage guys, learn to live with it, and bharati heritage is exclusively hindustani


----------



## Rafi

&#8220;Bharat&#8221; is the official and constitutional name of the country. &#8220;India&#8221; was never a country. It was a conglomeration of languages, tribes, states, provinces, East India Company (Company Bahadur) owned poppy fields and British owned lands. The more than 500 states and many countries including Iraq, Somalia, Aden, Burma and others formed the British &#8220;Indian&#8221; Empire. After 1947 when the British were leaving the states on the West banded together to form Pakistan and the ones in the Gangetic Civilization banded together to form &#8220;Bharat&#8221; (Constitutional name of &#8220;India.&#8221


----------



## Ammyy

Rafi said:


> The two definative IVC sites are Harrapa and Mohenjadaro - there is nothing on the scale and significance anywhere else, proves that this civilisation was based on the Indus and therefore is Ancient Pakistan





Instant of proving source you just 

Hence proved its ancient Pakistan 
now no comment unless any credible source posted


----------



## Rafi

The main ones being, Harappa and Mohenjodaro. The Indus Valley history should be referred to as Ancient Pakistani. Any history which took place in what is now Pakistan should be known as Ancient Pakistani history, since it belongs to the people of Pakistan.


----------



## Veeru

Rafi said:


> The people of the IVC are not Hindu, thousands of beef bones have been found, that show signs of human consumption. The cow is a holy animal for Hindus, in fact in modern india, many states have a ban on the killing of cows.



First of all i again remind you that don't jump to any conclusion and don't talk if you have no knowledge of subject.

1.) There are some sects that eat beef in Hindus.

2.) *Don't jump to conclude on the basis of few bones because in digging historical areas you can find dinosaur bones that doesn't means that people used to eat dinosaurs.* 

3.) You can't deny that the IVC people have seal and other evidance to show that they respect cow/ox then only a fool can say that one will eat what they respect or worship.


----------



## Rafi

DRDO said:


> Instant of proving source you just
> 
> Hence proved its ancient Pakistan
> now no comment unless any credible source posted



There is no site in india of the scale of Harrapa and Mohenjadaro, also the other sites are still not proven to be IVC - that is why international scientists are coming to Pakistan


----------



## Rafi

Veeru said:


> First of all i again remind you that don't jump to any conclusion and don't talk if you have no knowledge of subject.
> 
> 1.) There are some sects that eat beef in Hindus.
> 
> 2.) *Don't jump to conclude on the basis of few bones because in digging historical areas you can find dinosaur bones that doesn't means that people used to eat dinosaurs.*
> 
> 3.) You can't deny that the IVC people have seal and other evidance to show that they respect cow/ox then only a fool can say that one will eat what they respect or worship.



Your argument holds no weight, to the vast majority of Hindu's the cow is a sacred animal, and the Indus Valley people were eating beef like it was going out of fashion, *thousands* of bones have been found that have signs of human consumption.


----------



## Rafi

What is more important, Ancient Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections &#8212;&#8212; cultural, commercial as well as political &#8212;- with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley.


----------



## Veeru

Following are the news of Dinosaurs bones found in India from BBC and National Geographic News *it doesn't mean Indians used to eat Dinosaurs.* 








*India's Gujarat state is home to one of the world's largest collections of dinosaur remains. *

BBC News - The dinosaur wonders of India's Jurassic Park

New Dinosaur Species Found in India

'Anaconda' meets 'Jurassic Park': Fossil snake from India fed on hatchling dinosaurs


----------



## Rafi

As pointed out by more than one writer, the five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that its independence had been a rule while its subservience to or attachment with India an exception. &#8220;Throughout most of the recorded history the north-west (i.e. Pakistan) has normally been either independent or incorporated in an empire whose centre lay further in the west. The occasions when it has been governed from a centre further east (India) have been the exception rather than the rule


----------



## Hyde

Rafi said:


> The people of the IVC are not Hindu, thousands of beef bones have been found, that show signs of human consumption. The cow is a holy animal for Hindus, in fact in modern india, many states have a ban on the killing of cows.



Yaar Rafi,

There is no denial of the heritage we got after the partition. I was reading your posts and you were trying to prove the heritage and 5000 year old history of Pakistan. Obviously the Indus valley existed, the old cities such as Lahore, Multan and Peshawar were there. Everything was there before the partition and that does not mean our heritage is lost after the partition. Obviously we can prove our 5000 years old history from this part of the subcontinent just like Indian claims about their heritage.

But the question is... anything that was invented during an era of a nation is usually regarded to the same era. Otherwise before the two nation theory and the British Raj/Empire there were hundreds of Raja's and Maharajas living in India...first they were Muslims and before them there were Hindus of course. But do you think a device that was invented during Haider Ali's (father of Tipu Sultan) era can be regarded as the invention of Krishna Raja? (the predecessor of Haider Ali) since both the kings/emperrors ruled over the same Indian land?

Obviously by historical records it will always say that the particular device was invented during the reign of Haider Ali's as he was the king of mysore those days. Now same rule must be applied here too.... when the number 0 was invented there was no concept of Pakistan.

It was either a separate specific kingdom of those days where this concept of Number 0 was born (since there were too many kingdoms in ancient india) or in easy terms we can call it Ancient India. Those days when the number 0 was invented... there was no concept of Today's Pakistan. It was either the Kingdom in which this 0 was invented or it becomes part of the History of India. So how can we claim something that was not created before 

I am not taking side of Indians but it seems illogical to me

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------

